Please help refute this....Sola scripture vs Roman Catholicism

[Anna Scott]

Originally Posted by Farsight001

You're blatantly avoiding the questions asked of you and the points made against your arguments. If you're going to be so intentionally dodgy and weasily, then don't bother posting at all. This is a discussion forum. You DISCUSS. Join in the discussion or stop wasting our time.

Farsight001,

highrigger1 hasn't answered questions asked of him on my thread either (Did Jesus have brothers and sisters? Link: http://forums.catholic.com/showthread.php?t=661761).

Anna

[Nicea325]

[quote=highrigger1;9220023]

Originally Posted by Nicea325

Nicea,

The myth that Peter was a bishop of Rome started in the third century. Irenaeus did not say Peter was a bishop of Rome. He does seem to indicate Peter appointed Linus however. Both are myths. The myths going around were slightly different but myths nevertheless.



Hard to say but I have a theory.

1 Clement says that Peter and Paul founded the church at Rome. This of course is known to be false but that was the myth the church at Rome believed. Clement mentioned nothing about Peter being a bishop because Clement himself was not a bishop. There was no bishop of Rome until mid second century. Remember that the Roman christians were wiped out by Nero about 40 years before. No doubt no one knew who really began that church but they did have memories of Peter and Paul being there.so they assumed they were founded by them. Nice theory that sounded good.

At the time of Irenaeus there were bishops list battles going on with the gnostics who had their own bishops lists to prove they were from the apostles and the orthodox were not. Naturally the orthodox churches were coming up with their own to refute the Gnostics. That was still going on in the time of Eusebius. Irenaeus had some of that from the church at Rome. It did not claim Peter was a bishop of Rome. This was added later in the third century. By that time they had bishops so they reconstructed the myth that the first Bishop of Rome was Peter. They had forgotten that there was no bishop of Rome til mid-second century. It was all retrospective as professional historians explain. Remember there was no ordinations or official successions until about that time so they presumed that occured before.when it did not. When they had no name, any name would do. Sometimes the lists were simply a list of names. This is all explained by Andrew Louth in his research into the bishops lists of Rome and elsewhere.

Makes sense to me. Peace, JohnR

NO highrigger1! You made it VERY CLEAR it was a THIRD CENTURY INVENTION and now you are changing your position. There you again with the notorious: MYTHS & LEGENDS.

Do you know how weak that argument is against the current Tradition? So according to your argument it would mean between Jesus death and Ascension a MYTH was INVENTED (which you have not provided a single shred of evidence of its origins) up until the 3rd century? Wow! Amazing that for over 200 YEARS everyone was clueless and no one knew an iota about Peter and his bishopric? Truly an amazing and bizarre event of Christian history.


BTW: Care to show us of the "other" ancient and orthodox Tradition which challenged the current Christian Tradition?

[CopticChristian]

Originally Posted by highrigger1

stew,

Notice that Brown does not say Peter was a bishop of Rome or Antioc. He in other places says not. He says Peter was MORE and in the meaning he gives I agree. He was much more than a bishop anywhere anytime. And the churches have a great memory of him.

Of course I use him to buttress my arguments but I think fairly. I am happy to discuss anything Brown teaches. He is the dean of experts in my opinion. I appreciate him very much. I am glad you are reading him. Catholics all should read him. That would save a lot of aruments Protestants also should read him. That would also save a lot of arguments.

Peace, JohnR

High,

I commend you for embracing the Catholic Faith. I surely could not embrace anything that Joseph Smith wrote even if he agreed with me unless I embrace all that he wrote about and believed. What kind of intellectual honesty would that be. This would be like taking the writings of Paul and denying Peter...for you say I am from Cephus and you from Aquilla...what nonsense. Now that you are on board as a dissenting Catholic...just think of the Pope as a Pastor. You have to have a pastor don't you?

Welcome....It is all or nothing when it comes to citing beliefs you know....

[highrigger1]

Do you know how weak that argument is against the current Tradition? So according to your argument it would mean between Jesus death and Ascension a MYTH was INVENTED (which you have not provided a single shred of evidence of its origins) up until the 3rd century? Wow! Amazing that for over 200 YEARS everyone was clueless and no one knew an iota about Peter and his bishopric? Truly an amazing and bizarre event of Christian history.

Hi nicea,

No. Those things are in the bible. I accept the bible. Must not have known since they did not mention it before then.

NO highrigger1! You made it VERY CLEAR it was a THIRD CENTURY INVENTION and now you are changing your position. There you again with the notorious: MYTHS & LEGENDS.

True. Not a changed position.

BTW: Care to show us of the "other" ancient and orthodox Tradition which challenged the current Christian Tradition?

Dont know what you are talking about. Frankly I think the so called tradition that Peter was a bishop of Rome is fading. Many Catholics who know history know that is not true. So current tradition is changing I would say. The Catholic church does not teach it formally anymore.

Peace, JohR

[highrigger1]

Well, then you better let your expert tell the Patriarch of Antioch...who enjoys succession from the that Apostle.

pab,

Happy to tell him. Laying on of hands was not ordination. Do you want expert opinion on this. I can provide.


:

confused: Paul was ordained at Antioch before going on his first missionary journey....Paul says "entrust to faithful men".....so do you think Paul would not pass on how to entrust those faithful men? And how to choose them...by ordination?

Dont be confused. It is simple. Paul was not ordained and ordained no one. Ordination is not in the nt. Laying on of hands is not ordination. Maybe it is today but not then.
He trusted others to pass on what he taught and he provided his letters. He did not need to ordain anyone. He had no clue what that would be anyway since it was installed as a practice in the third century.

42:4 Preaching, therefore, through the countries and cities, they appointed their firstfruits to be bishops and deacons over such as should believe, after they had proved them in the Spirit.

Looks like you missed 42.4..."they appointed" ...why does ordination have to be mentioned? The apostles ordained...and they passed on this to their successors...on to today in the CC

.

appointing someone to do something is not ordination.

Who say Clement was not a bishop? Seems you are lacking in history...you should read other sources...those objective ones who do not have a gripe against the CC.

Historians say that. Do you want to see it? I can provide. Why dont you read 1 Clement. He certainly never says he is a bishop, dont you agree?

Looks like your translation is by an anti-catholic site

Not hardly. I do not use such. I want only the truth. Commonly I find the Catholic websites are the ones to add words and phrases to distort ancient documnets and scripture. I see it all the time and have to always check what comes from it.

Here is the one I use. http://www.ccel.org/ccel/schaff/anf01.toc.html

Peace, JohnR

[highrigger1]

Originally Posted by CopticChristian

John,

I like Raymond Brown. I am not a fan of the Catholic Encyclopedia or any Encylopedia however here it is concise for the topic.

http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/01641a.htm

Notice that website does not refute me. It says Peter was in Rome but does NOT say he was a bishop. It does not tell the full story like Brown does but one can see it does not refute him. It sort of passes on from any subject that would upset Catholics.

That shows me that their church is still not open to them. It seems to hide the full facts that Peter was not a bishop of Rome or anywhere.

I would not trust that website for the full explanation of anything.

Peace, JohnR

[suzyq_psu]

Originally Posted by highrigger1

suzy,

For you I will provide TWO more.

^ Brown, Raymond E. and Meier, John P. (1983). Antioch and Rome: New
Testament Cradles of Christianity. Paulist Press. p. 98. "As for
Peter, we have no knowledge at all of when he came to Rome and what
he did there before he was martyred. Certainly he was not the
original missionary who brought Christianity to Rome (and
therefore not the founder of the church of Rome in that sense).
There is no serious proof that he was the bishop (or local
ecclesiastical officer) of the Roman church--a claim not made till
the third century. Most likely he did not spend any majortime at Rome
before 58 when Paul wrote to the Romans, and so it may have been
only in the 60s and relatively shortly before his martyrdom that
Peter came to the capital."

Of course there are more I can provide but dont you think five is enough to get the idea across? Its hard to deal with denial. Peace, JohnR

Sorry but that's only one more. I already said Brown.

I am not in denial, just asked a question.

[stewstew03]

Originally Posted by highrigger1

... I want only the truth.

Then you must recognize, as truth, the following principle:

What one exegete takes as definite can only be called into question by other exegetes. (Joseph Cardinal Ratzinger)

[Nicea325]

Quote:Nicea325
BTW: Care to show us of the "other" ancient and orthodox Tradition which challenged the current Christian Tradition?

highrigger1:

Dont know what you are talking about. Frankly I think the so called tradition that Peter was a bishop of Rome is fading. Many Catholics who know history know that is not true. So current tradition is changing I would say. The Catholic church does not teach it formally anymore.

Peace, JohR

BINGO! If highrigger1 does not know what I meant by "other" ancient and orthodox Tradition which challenged the current CC Tradition way back,then it is self-evident his/her position is a NOVETLY!

Yep! The same rhetoric: The Catholic church does not teach it formally anymore.

Nothing but an OPINION! I work for the CC and I have yet to READ one document declaring such a position!

[pablope]

[quote]

Originally Posted by highrigger1

pab,

Happy to tell him. Laying on of hands was not ordination. Do you want expert opinion on this. I can provide.

So far, you have just kept recirculating your so called experts...and in one post by someone...he pointed out how you prooftexted.....ignored other parts of the book you are citing that goes against what you are citing.

Begs the question...you seem to have come here hoping to convince people here of your belief..you have not succeeded so far...well.....you have succeded indeed, in the other direction.

Dont be confused. It is simple. Paul was not ordained and ordained no one. Ordination is not in the nt. Laying on of hands is not ordination. Maybe it is today but not then.
He trusted others to pass on what he taught and he provided his letters. He did not need to ordain anyone. He had no clue what that would be anyway since it was installed as a practice in the third century.

You can believe what you want...it will not change a thing...laying of hands is called ordination, whether you like it or not....as the passage in Acts 13 very well states....Paul and Barnabas were laid hands on...."ordained".

And where is your proof it was instituted in the 3rd century? Opinion again? You will not get far with it.

Paul is the proof it was practiced early...even going to the OT, with the laying of hands of Joshua by Moses. So Peter and the Apostles certainly knew...and Paul, being a pharisee, certainly knew of the laying of hands.
.

appointing someone to do something is not ordination.




Historians say that. Do you want to see it? I can provide.

You can provide it...but they are not convincing.

Why dont you read 1 Clement. He certainly never says he is a bishop, dont you agree?

I have read Clement1....several times...I can sense the authority of which he writes....with humility and love, traits of a bishop...as opposed to your style of snide remarks.

Looks like your translation is by an anti-catholic site

Not hardly. I do not use such. I want only the truth. Commonly I find the Catholic websites are the ones to add words and phrases to distort ancient documnets and scripture. I see it all the time and have to always check what comes from it.

Here is the one I use. http://www.ccel.org/ccel/schaff/anf01.toc.html

Peace, JohnR

Well, here is your contradiction again....and false accusation....you use a Catholic website...and then say you do not trust them? Then why use them in the first place?

What would a catholic site gain by adding words? Or is it, you believe anti-catholic sites more...and when you see a difference, you immediate conclusion is the Catholic site added/changed words....which seems this is what you are predisposed to do so.

It is quite evident.

[PeterJohn]

Originally Posted by highrigger1

Notice that website does not refute me. It says Peter was in Rome but does NOT say he was a bishop. It does not tell the full story like Brown does but one can see it does not refute him. It sort of passes on from any subject that would upset Catholics.

That shows me that their church is still not open to them. It seems to hide the full facts that Peter was not a bishop of Rome or anywhere.

I would not trust that website for the full explanation of anything.

Peace, JohnR

If Peter was in Rome, he was the rule of Rome.

[stewstew03]

Originally Posted by highrigger1

Notice that website does not refute me. It says Peter was in Rome but does NOT say he was a bishop. It does not tell the full story like Brown does but one can see it does not refute him...

Rigger1, you're projecting your anachronistic understanding of the term "bishop" onto us, as Catholics.

We understand that St. Peter was not called "the Pope" or "Bishop Peter." I haven't seen anyone make that claim on this thread.

We do, however, understand St. Peter to have apostolic primacy and we believe what is written in Sacred Scripture - specifically the Gospel of Matthew.

Historians such as Brown (and others) unanimously conclude that Peter served as a representative figure of Christian disciplieship. Apart from historical evidence, Holy Scripture supports their view that Peter is given special attention among the apostles. Peter is given the keys to the kingdom of heaven (from Jesus, no less), and called the "rock" on which Christ's Church will be built (see Matt. 16:18-19). Furthermore, Peter's confession is singled out and he is called "blessed" for having received revelation from the Father. And apart from Peter's role in salvation (the power to bind and loose), we can also see (and historians recognize) Peter's role in resolving problems for the post-Easter church (Matt 17:24-27).

Finally, Brown and his protestant colleagues note in Peter in the New Testament, that there is a "Petrine trajectory" that manifests in Scripture (and in the early Church). This "trajectory" describes Peter's image in the early Church as pastor, missionary, martyr, confessor of the faith, receiver of special revelation, and guardian of the faith (read: bishop). No other apostle, including Paul, is regarded with such high esteem as Peter. Indeed, in 2 Peter we see Peter interpreting Pauline tradition. (See 2 Peter 3:15-16).

Rigger, if you have read Brown (I'm somewhat skeptical) you will note that he is in no way discounting Peter's role in the early Church. He acknowledges, as many Catholics do, that Peter was not referred to as Pope Peter, or Bishop of Rome. But the nomenclature, or lack thereof, does not empty the blessed apostle of his authority.

[pablope]

Originally Posted by highrigger1

pab,


Looks like your translation is by an anti-catholic site

Not hardly. I do not use such. I want only the truth. Commonly I find the Catholic websites are the ones to add words and phrases to distort ancient documnets and scripture. I see it all the time and have to always check what comes from it.

Here is the one I use. http://www.ccel.org/ccel/schaff/anf01.toc.html

Peace, JohnR

Well...I just checked your source...it is not a neutral site....it is an anti-catholic website...and what you are saying in the bolded above is not true.

here is what they say.......Writings in the library for the most part represent orthodox Christianity as understood by mainstream Protestant, Catholic and Orthodox Christians, with greater emphases on Reformed and Protestant writings.

The CCEL also seeks to provide educational and scholarly opportunities for interested faculty members and students of Calvin College.

They have a calvinist bent.

This then just shows their bias....with emphasis on what they believe to be orthodox.....they are not objective....so their translations are slanted...and cannot be trusted.

[David Castlen]

Originally Posted by pablope

Well...I just checked your source...it is not a neutral site....it is an anti-catholic website...and what you are saying in the bolded above is not true.

here is what they say.......Writings in the library for the most part represent orthodox Christianity as understood by mainstream Protestant, Catholic and Orthodox Christians, with greater emphases on Reformed and Protestant writings.

The CCEL also seeks to provide educational and scholarly opportunities for interested faculty members and students of Calvin College.

They have a calvinist bent.

This then just shows their bias....with emphasis on what they believe to be orthodox.....they are not objective....so their translations are slanted...and cannot be trusted.

Excellent answer but a person convince against their will is of the same opinion still.

[PeterJohn]

Originally Posted by pablope

Well...I just checked your source...it is not a neutral site....it is an anti-catholic website...and what you are saying in the bolded above is not true.

here is what they say.......Writings in the library for the most part represent orthodox Christianity as understood by mainstream Protestant, Catholic and Orthodox Christians, with greater emphases on Reformed and Protestant writings.

The CCEL also seeks to provide educational and scholarly opportunities for interested faculty members and students of Calvin College.

They have a calvinist bent.

This then just shows their bias....with emphasis on what they believe to be orthodox.....they are not objective....so their translations are slanted...and cannot be trusted.

I saw the calvin college and immediately disregarded his sources. Anti Catholics try feverishly to discredit catholisim because they must in order to justify their own improper use of the biblical interpritations and heretical stance outside Our Lords Holy Church Just as atheists try feverishly to disprove Christianity in order to justify their disbelifes.