Question for my fellow catholic brothers (sisters)

[Felch]

Originally posted by The diplomat
Because the NT was not written by Catholics. The Roman Catholic Church did not exist yet.

That doesn't explain how it would disprove the theology. I think you may be underestimating the rigorous logic applied to Catholic doctrine.

[Zkribbler]

From Wikipedia:

Ignatius of Antioch
A letter written by Ignatius to Christians in Smyrna [2] around 106 is the earliest surviving witness to the use of the term Catholic Church (Letter to the Smyrnaeans, 8). By Catholic Church Ignatius designated the Christian Church in its universal aspect, excluding heretics, such as those who disavow "the Eucharist to be the flesh of our Saviour Jesus Christ, which suffered for our sins, and which the Father, of His goodness, raised up again" (Smyrnaeans, 7). He called such people "beasts in the shape of men, whom you must not only not receive, but, if it be possible, not even meet with" (Smyrnaeans, 4). The term is also used in the Martyrdom of Polycarp in 155 and in the Muratorian fragment, about 177.

This does not conform with my memory of Gibbon's Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire. IIRC, the Roman Catholic Church broke with the Byzantine's Eastern Orthodox Church. When a huge Orthodox Army showed up in Italy looking to kick the Catholic Church's butt, a Latin Cross appeared in the sky, and the Catholics were so heartened by this, they trounced the Orthodox Army.

[Ben Kenobi]

This does not conform with my memory of Gibbon's Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire. IIRC, the Roman Catholic Church broke with the Byzantine's Eastern Orthodox Church.

You need to do your reading Zkribbler. The Great Schism didn't occur until 1054, well after the events you are talking about.

When a huge Orthodox Army showed up in Italy looking to kick the Catholic Church's butt, a Latin Cross appeared in the sky, and the Catholics were so heartened by this, they trounced the Orthodox Army.

Umm, no.

Diocletian was the first emperor to retire voluntarily. He retired in 305 AD, along with Maximian in the west. His retirement triggered 20 years of civil war in the empire, due to the new system dividing the empire.

Diocletian divided the empire into four, an Emperor, an Augustus in the East and the West, and a Caesar in the East and the West.

Diocletian was succeeded as Emperor by Galerius who appointed Severus and Maximin to replace Diocletian and Maximian. They formed the Tetrarchy along with Constantius, Constantine's father.

In 306, Constantius died, and appointed his son as Augustus in the West. Galerius blocked this appointment, making Severus Augustus in the West, and Constantine Caesar in the West.

Also in 306, Maxentius, the former son of Maximian revolted against Galerius proclaiming himself Emperor. Maximian succeeded in unseating Severus. By 308, Galerius managed to crush Maximian, and reappointed Severus as Augustus in the West over Constantine.

In 310 Maxentius revolted once more attempting to unseat Constantine. Constantine crushed the revolt, and Maximian, his father committed suicied. In 311, Emperor Galerius died, and the entire empire was destabilized.

Licinius, Constantine, Maxentius and Maximinus all vied for the title of Emperor.

In 312, Maxentius went to war again against Constantine. Constantine won victories in northern Italy, moving south towards Rome. By October 12, 312, Constantine records the vision where Christ appeared to him as a cross in the sky, while beseiging Rome. On October 29, 312, Constantine entered Rome and proclaimed himself Emperor.

[The diplomat]

Originally posted by Felch
That doesn't explain how it would disprove the theology. I think you may be underestimating the rigorous logic applied to Catholic doctrine.

Many important Catholic doctrines are either not found in the NT or are clearly contradicted by the NT, like purgatory, papal authority, indulgences, praying to Mary and dead saints.

[Ben Kenobi]

Are you going to answer my question Diplomat?

When was the first bible published?

[Nikolai]

Originally posted by Ben Kenobi


Oh ok. So who was the first pope then?

I don't know. Not any of the bishops before the pope became the pope, so to speak. The Catholic church grew slowly into what it is today, in the beginning after the apostles, the Church had no higher hierarchy as it has in nearly all churches today. It took a while before the patriarchates around the med grew to prominence and even longer before the pope became the sole head of the church. But I believe you knew this already?

[Nikolai]

Originally posted by Ben Kenobi
Are you going to answer my question Diplomat?

When was the first bible published?

Noone really knows. As you know, the canonization of the NT was a long process. I'd guess you try to hint to the Vulgate from the 400s, but it wasn't the first published Bible AFAIK.

[Ben Kenobi]

I don't know.

Then why can you say for sure that Peter was not the Pope?

Not any of the bishops before the pope became the pope, so to speak.

So it should be simple. One of the bishops had to call himself the pope. Which one? There's a whole list.

The Catholic church grew slowly into what it is today, in the beginning after the apostles, the Church had no higher hierarchy as it has in nearly all churches today.

'nearly all churches'? You mean all 'protestant churches'?

Half of all protestant churches don't even believe in the concept of ecclesiastical territories, or even Bishops. You need to clarify what you mean.

Today, there is no consensus on how the church ought to be ordered. If you believe that Apostle Peter was the first Bishop of Rome, then that means there was a specific heirarchy very early on in the life of the church.

It took a while before the patriarchates around the med grew to prominence and even longer before the pope became the sole head of the church. But I believe you knew this already?

I'm not sure you do. Peter was given authority over the other Apostles, by Christ himself. Peter, as you acknowledge was Bishop of Rome. Ergo, the office of the pope was instituted in Rome upon his appointment as Bishop of Rome.

It is true that there were other patriarchs, representing significant Christian communities, Eusebius records 4 besides Rome at the start of the 4th century, Alexandria, Antioch, Jerusalem and Constantinople. This in no way negates the primacy of the See of Peter in Rome.

[Ben Kenobi]

Noone really knows. As you know, the canonization of the NT was a long process. I'd guess you try to hint to the Vulgate from the 400s, but it wasn't the first published Bible AFAIK.

Then what was?

Pope Damasus in 382 commissioned the Vulgate which St. Jerome compiled. He didn't finish until 405.

The answer, is yes, the Vulgate.

So unless you believe that St. Jerome was a secret Protestant, he compiled the bible, that everyone else has come to rely upon.

I really don't understand Sola Scriptura. If you are basing your bible on St. Jerome, then you are accepting the authority of the Catholic church.

[Nikolai]

Originally posted by Ben Kenobi


Then why can you say for sure that Peter was not the Pope?

He was the first bishop of Rome. I did some checking, turns out the first bishop of Rome to call himself pope, was Boniface III in 607:

The Bishop of Rome is the bishop of the Holy See, more often referred to in the Catholic tradition as the Pope. The first Bishop of Rome to bear the title of "Pope" was Boniface III in 607, the first to assume the title of "Universal Bishop" by decree of Emperor Phocas. Earlier Bishops of Rome are customarily extended the title Pope as a courtesy, except in strict historical discourse.

'nearly all churches'? You mean all 'protestant churches'?

Half of all protestant churches don't even believe in the concept of ecclesiastical territories, or even Bishops. You need to clarify what you mean.

Today, there is no consensus on how the church ought to be ordered. If you believe that Apostle Peter was the first Bishop of Rome, then that means there was a specific heirarchy very early on in the life of the church.

Most churches, and then I mean churches as in the Catholic Church, the different Protestant churches, the Orthodox churches and so on, have a highly developed form of hierarchy. Not all of them, which were why I wrote that. But in the early history of the church, each Christian community was bonded much more loosely than today or say 400 AD. The Pope was in the beginning no more powerful than the other "grand bishops", like the patriarchs of Alexandria, or Constantinople for example. But look, I'm not here to squabble with you, just so you don't misunderstand that.

I'm not sure you do. Peter was given authority over the other Apostles, by Christ himself. Peter, as you acknowledge was Bishop of Rome. Ergo, the office of the pope was instituted in Rome upon his appointment as Bishop of Rome.

It is true that there were other patriarchs, representing significant Christian communities, Eusebius records 4 besides Rome at the start of the 4th century, Alexandria, Antioch, Jerusalem and Constantinople. This in no way negates the primacy of the See of Peter in Rome.

Well, this is one place you as a Catholic and I as a Protestant disagree. We don't see the authority given to Peter as something that automatically is inherited by others.

[Ben Kenobi]

He was the first bishop of Rome. I did some checking, turns out the first bishop of Rome to call himself pope, was Boniface III in 607.

Nope.

And our Apostles knew through our Lord Jesus Christ that there would be strife over the name of the office of bishop. For this cause therefore, having received complete foreknowledge, they appointed the aforesaid persons, and afterwards they have given a law, so that, if these should fall asleep, other approved men should succeed to their ministration.

This is from St. Clement in his Epistle to the Corinthians.

http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/04012c.htm

It is clear that Rome is looked to as the authority at the time, and that the succession passes from Peter onwards.

But in the early history of the church, each Christian community was bonded much more loosely than today
or say 400 AD.

Again, that all depends on your perspective. They had bishops early on, so for some Christians, the heirarchy would be much more rigid back then than it is now.

The Pope was in the beginning no more powerful than the other "grand bishops", like the patriarchs of Alexandria, or Constantinople for example. But look, I'm not here to squabble with you, just so you don't misunderstand that.

Well, that's a mite impossible considering that in the first century Constantinople didn't even exist.

Well, this is one place you as a Catholic and I as a Protestant disagree. We don't see the authority given to Peter as something that automatically is inherited by others.

St. Clement disagrees. The succession was established by his time, prior to the end of the first century. Of course a protestant would reject it because it gets in the way of the revolution, but that interpretation of apostolic succession was the basis as to how the early church was run.

[The diplomat]

Originally posted by Ben Kenobi
Are you going to answer my question Diplomat?

When was the first bible published?

How is this relevant? We know the NT was written between 50 and 100 AD, long before the Catholic Church was around. What matters is what the apostles actually wrote. The teachings of purgatory, indulgences etc were created by the Catholic Church and did not originate with the teachings of the Apostles.

You say that you do not understand Sola Scriptura. It is quite simple. The Word of God is the ultimate authority. How can the words of the Pope who is a mere man be made equal to God's word? It is impossible.

2 Tim 3:16-17
16All Scripture is God-breathed and is useful for teaching, rebuking, correcting and training in righteousness, 17so that the man of God may be thoroughly equipped for every good work.

The Apostle Paul makes it clear that the Word of God teaches the Christian what we need to know and thoroughly equips us.

[Ben Kenobi]

How is this relevant? We know the NT was written between 50 and 100 AD, long before the Catholic Church was around.

First off, when did the Catholic church begin?

Secondly, how do you define the New Testament? Which documents were included and why? That is why it was relevant. You hold up a book, and yet you do not acknowledge who made the book that you hold up.

Sure you can give a list of the Canon, but the problem with that is that the Canon was established by Rome.

What matters is what the apostles actually wrote.

They wrote many things which are not included in the Bible. How did the Church decide which ones should be included, and which should not?

The teachings of purgatory, indulgences etc were created by the Catholic Church and did not originate with the teachings of the Apostles.

Are you even aware of what the Church teaches wrt to purgatory and indulgences? I'm not sure you do. Why don't you give it a shot, and I'll show you what the catechism actually says.

You say that you do not understand Sola Scriptura. It is quite simple. The Word of God is the ultimate authority. How can the words of the Pope who is a mere man be made equal to God's word? It is impossible.

Yet the Word of God says this, just a sentence earlier.

2 Timothy 3:14-15

But as for you, continue in what you have learned and have firmly believed, knowing from whom you learned it, and how from childhood you have been acquainted with the sacred writings which are able to instruct you for salvation through faith in Christ Jesus

Who did he learn it from? The Apostles. This is why tradition is important. Scripture is important, but scripture and tradition are equally important.

The Apostle Paul makes it clear that the Word of God teaches the Christian what we need to know and thoroughly equips us.

Yes, but you omitted the portion by which he says it is not the ONLY way in which we learn the Word of God.

Earlier, Paul says:

1 Cor 11:2

I commend you because you remember me in everything and maintain the traditions even as I have delivered them to you

Thus the traditions are essential in maintaining the Word of God.

[Dr Strangelove]

Uh, wasn't C.S Lewis actaully an Anglican?

[Jon Miller]

I like CS Lewis

Ben, you are either ignorant of (likely) or refusing to acknowledge the power struggles between the different major bishops in alexandria, constinople, rome, and other places.

JM