It isn’t an ad hominem. You yourself stated it.
On this forum.
It isn’t an ad hominem. You yourself stated it.
Since you don’t see it, I’ll block quote it so you can’t miss it.
Objectively - if that’s not an ad hominem, then you simply don’t know what they are. I can even tell you the type of ad hominem it is, if you’d like.
But, again, I don’t particularly care. What I DO care about…
So if Rome lacks universal jurisdiction, how does Irenaeus’ identification of Rome as Arbiter work? Was he wrong? Writing non-sense?
Was it a lie meant to undermine a small offshoot of Anglicanism that would organize 1800 years later?
Objectively, repeating what you said about yourself is not ad hominem.
Why does an arbiter have to necessarily have universal jurisdiction?
Irenaeus can be right and not be defending a later position.
More proof that it wasn’t ad hominem.
What opinions, what interpretations?
I quoted scripture, and gave the context, AND the Greek word emphasized & highlighted in that scripture, and the definition of that Greek word from the Greek lectionary… Jesus validates Peter is the greatest and leader among THEM, (the apostles) ergo the Church as well. Their argument is over.
The context says, If I didn’t believe that, I would be following Satan NOT Jesus.
That’s your choice. You are continuing to argue a point that Jesus solved.
As I’ve said before, I disagree.
It can’t be argued with any success, to negate what Jesus already solved with the apostle’s argument over who is greatest among THEM. Jesus said it is Peter. Argument over. Anyone who keeps that argument going after Jesus settled it, Jesus identifies who the cause of that ongoing argument is by such a person. It’s Satan. https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Luke+22%3A24-32&version=RSVCE
I never said I wasn’t ecumenical. As a matter of fact, I consider myself quite ecumenical - especially as it pertains to the Orthodox.
I just also enjoy debate.
It’s not an either/or situation, Jon. It’s a both/and for most everyone.
So again, cease with the ad hominems, ok?
An arbiter without jurisdiction over the arbitration is non-functioning and nonsensical.
Which makes universal jurisdiction a 2nd century attribute of the Roman Church. Pretty early, given that that it was almost the 2nd century before the NT was even finished.
QED as above.
Good Afternoon Fellows, and Peace of Our Lord be with you. Emily and I are in agreement on the “Luther Bashing”, it isn’t necessary. Initially, Luther did not revolt because of the misuse of indulgences and simony, that came later. Many priests and bishops also wanted this stopped, and called for reform. Luther wanted The New Testament re-interpreted and called for a Counsel to do this. We are also aware that Luther not only excluded seven books from the Old Testament, but, in his first translation, he left seven books out of The Canon of the NEW Testament as well, because these books did not support his beliefs concerning Justification, Purgatory, or Prayers for the Dead. The other thing to keep in mind, this was the Age of Enlightenment, and many Nationalists were against the Power of the Church and sided with Luther. So, that being said, this Catholic stands with Luther on "Reform concerning Simony and the abuse of Indulgences. I am against everything else that he railed against. God Bless. We are; Jim and Emily…
Nonsense. Arbitration often takes place in a setting where people submit voluntarily to the decision. That’s not the case here.
In fact, Nicaea canon six uses the language of equal standing.
Let the ancient customs in Egypt, Libya and Pentapolis prevail, that the Bishop of Alexandria have jurisdiction in all these, since the like is customary for the Bishop of Rome also. Likewise in Antioch and the other provinces, let the Churches retain their privileges. And this is to be universally understood, that if any one be made bishop without the consent of the Metropolitan, the great Synod has declared that such a man ought not to be a bishop. If, however, two or three bishops shall from natural love of contradiction, oppose the common suffrage of the rest, it being reasonable and in accordance with the ecclesiastical law, then let the choice of the majority prevail.
Nicaea doesn’t see it that way. Neither do the other patriarchs. This is the issue. And it is a far bigger issue that the Anglican Province in America, and twice as long ago as the Reformation.
So I’ll be ecumenical. If Rome and the EO can resolve the issue, I’ll be in RCIA the next day.
Given the ecclesial context - especially in the way Irenaeus presents it - I’ll consider this demurral and subsequent retreat to Nicaea as a hostile but over-obvious concession.
I just fail to see where Nicaea makes a liar of Irenaeus - as your argument requires. All you really have here is an argument from absence. “See? They don’t confirm Rome as Arbiter of last resort here!”
Well, Jon, they also don’t confirm that David was Solomon’s dad. So I guess that’s up for question too?
(that’s the problem with that type of argument).
As far as Rome’s role as arbiter, Nicaea is actually silent. And where it doesn’t speak, you don’t get to speak for it.
As a separate issue, I think the Patriarch of Russia would never let that happen.
An event that brings over the entire EO in one move couldn’t happen for temporal reasons. Kirill enjoys the power too much.
Except that Nicaea doesn’t call him a liar. That’s you trying to make Irenaeus fit your post Schism view. He could not have known the controversy of papal supremacy that would "develop " hundreds of years later.
Well, that’s in scripture, so…
I don’t think Rome is immune from the same issue of power.
I trust you will never have to suffer such a punishment! Perhaps you can just be confirmed without so much “preparation”?
Thank you. That’s rather my point.
Which makes his thusly uninfluenced testimony identifying Rome as the arbiter all the more weighty.
Verily, for anyone who would claim that the Roman seat is merely an “equal”, his testimony leaps across 1850 years of history to smash such a silliness.
If you’re comparing Francis to Kirill, when you are woefully under-read on Kirill.
“Putin wearing an Orthodox Cross” wouldn’t be terribly far from the mark.
It’s like I said, he can’t confirm the latter day “development” of papal supremacy because it didn’t exist then. Canon 6 tells us that the EO understanding of primacy is more like what the Fathers would have known.
I’m comparing the offices. Does Krill claim universal jurisdiction over all of the Church on Earth?
An interesting article about the movement of the Catholic Church regarding Luther, missed by some Catholic apologists. It also levels some well-deserved criticism at confessional Lutherans for their lack of response in kind.
Thanks. I do read most of the Luther-related threads here at C.A., I think there are probably a number of people that lurk around without commenting.
Just 2 corrections were needed
There aren’t any decent Church historians - Catholic or otherwise - who deny the development of papal supremacy.
But the writings of the Ante-Nicene fathers show the Roman seat as having a greater role than simply the first that gets the plate at a church-wide buffet.
We have Irenaeus identifying Rome as the great arbiter (which logically demands universal jurisdiction in order to be a cogent claim) but he’s not the only one that identifies the unique authority of Rome before Nicaea.
Thus your views on Roman egalitarianism simply required a deliberate, willful ignorance of the Ante-Nicene fathers that good scholarship simply cannot share in good faith. And I say that as charitably as I can. Really I do.
On the whole, Jon, “primus inter pares” is nonsensical. A “primus” who is primus in some way you do not share is thusly not your “pares”. It’s a contradiction.
No, it doesn’t. You just want it to.
It shows that the concept of supremacy wasn’t as developed at that point - as other councils also indicate the progressive development of the Church’s power structure (a la the rise of Constantinople). Essentially, the canon identifies that ancient archbishop equivalents can appoint subordinate bishops without interference from others of similar rank (like Rome). That’s it.
In no way does it mention or negate Rome’s role over doctrine in the wider Church or its universal jurisdiction to affect this role.
Who does? The pope just claims jurisdiction over the Catholic Church…
Kirill claims jurisdiction over almost 2/3 of the Orthodox on the planet.
As such, I do see some irony. Presently, In a lot of ways, Moscow is to Constantinople what Constantinople was to Rome in previous centuries.
With all due considerations to Luther and the children of the Reformation, Catholic Popes in medieval times did outshine Kirill in such areas for centuries. Luther’s Pope was anything but humble, which seemed to contribute to the problems.
Although I would refrain from ever bashing the dead Martin Luther personally. Because Luther is excommunicated, Luther’s teachings are fair game to scrutiny, bashing, judgement by anyone.
Same for any other Catholic in history who refused to repent and return to the Catholic fold, the excommunicated are released from the protection of the Catholic Church, to succumb to secular and or evil powers and principalities within their powers.
Luther is no different, who has left the protection of the Catholic Church by his own recognizance, leaving himself, subject to any and all evil powers and principalities. That said, the excommunicated should not be harmed personally by Catholic members.
It serves no purpose to bash Luther personally. Although Luther’s excommunicated teachings are fair game to any and all secular powers.
This may be, but “bashing” does not seem to support productive dialogue. I find it hurtful when “bible Christians” and certain Reformed Christians come on here and “bash” the Teachings of the Church. I do not find it beneficial to apologetics or to heal the wounds of the Church. It is possible to discuss theological differences without becoming insulting. Anyone who has read the correspondence around Luther and Church officials can easily see how his hyperbole/attitude caused the situation to spiral downward. Although there is less in writing from Pope Leo, it is very likely that he mirrored some of Luther’s profane expressions in his own responses to the man. It is just pouring lighter fluid on the fire, and that does not make the banquet of unity toward which we all strive taste any better.