Analysis later.
Author: Jimmy Akin
Jimmy was born in Texas, grew up nominally Protestant, but at age 20 experienced a profound conversion to Christ. Planning on becoming a Protestant seminary professor, he started an intensive study of the Bible. But the more he immersed himself in Scripture the more he found to support the Catholic faith, and in 1992 he entered the Catholic Church. His conversion story, "A Triumph and a Tragedy," is published in Surprised by Truth. Besides being an author, Jimmy is the Senior Apologist at Catholic Answers, a contributing editor to Catholic Answers Magazine, and a weekly guest on "Catholic Answers Live." View all posts by Jimmy Akin
There is nothing new in the document. I posted on this already and stated that the media is already spinning it to make the evil Catholic Church look even worse.
just printed it off for something to read this morning, i saw something about it on msnbc or some site, so i figured youd have a link. haha
I’m glad the CDF published this document. It shows that there is a real difference between the Roman Catholic Church and the Orthodox Churches. As an Orthodox Christian, I sometimes get tired of hearing some of my Catholic brethren claim that our faith is identical and that the RC Church thinks that there is nothing defective in my Church and faith, therefore, we are just being stubborn by not being in communion with Rome, since we wouldn’t have to change any of our beliefs. This is simply not true.
Each of us (RC or Orthodox) thinks that his own Church is the true Church of Christ and the other is not. I respect this honesty.
Great Document!
Shock Horror headlines:
“Church of Christ subsists in the Catholic Church” – claims Vatican.
“Bible true” – claims evangelical pastor.
“Quran true” – claims mullah.
“Scientific method: best way to investigate empirical phenomena” – claims scientist.
The AP has the best scare headline so far:
Pope: Other Christians not true churches
ABC/AFP/Reuters: “Vatican hits ‘wounded’ Christian churches”
I predict that this is the first of many clarifications to come concerning the correct interpretation of the teachings of the Council. The goal is to clarify just what the issues might be that now separate SSPX and others from full communion with the Church in the hopes that a reconciliation can be effected.
At first, I thought “Other Christians not true Churches” was just ungrammatical. But perhaps, given private interpretation and differing understandings of “Church” among Protestants, it’s rather accurate.
So would a proper term for people who go to a Lutheran Church be “Lutheran community”?
Hartmeister: Yes, unless they’re Swedish.
Joe S.: Don’t get too excited. The document says that Union with Rome is the issue, and doesn’t mention any other difficulties. The Catholic Church still views the theology of the Eastern and Oriental Orthodox Churches in general as non-problematic, and encourages the Catholic Churches which correspond to the Eastern and Oriental Orthodox Churches to embrace their common traditions.
There’s a real seperation, but from the Catholic side it is not understood as a seperation of Faith per se (and couldn’t be, since the Catholic Communion contains the same traditions in its particular Churches if not as a whole).
Peace and God bless!
Here comes MSNBC with their dramatic headline:
Pope: Other denominations not true churches
Benedict issues statement asserting that Jesus established ‘only one church’
I think the following Yahoo/AP article summed it up pretty well:
Pope: Other Christians not true churches
Later, PMSNBC will be doing a 3-part series titled: “Water Is Wet!”
Is the cafeteria part of the church?
Mark Shea summarised it thus:
“There’s a real seperation, but from the Catholic side it is not understood as a seperation of Faith per se (and couldn’t be, since the Catholic Communion contains the same traditions in its particular Churches if not as a whole).”
DM: Great point!!!
Sorry I didn’t notice this Slave of Mary did not post his handle.
As reported today in Reuters
http://www.reuters.com/article/worldNews/idUSL1048495520070710
Bishop Wolfgang Huber, head of the Protestant umbrella group Evangelical Church in Germany (EKD), said the new Vatican document effectively downgraded Protestant churches and would make ecumenical relations more difficult. Continued…
Huber said the new pronouncement repeated the “offensive statements” of the 2000 document and was a “missed opportunity” to patch up relations with Protestants.
“The hope for a change in the ecumenical situation has been pushed further away by the document published today,” he said.
The Pope is now two for two!
Clearly defining what is a church and not a church, and his defense of traditionalism and the church
God bless him
ABC/AFP/Reuters: “Vatican hits ‘wounded’ Christian churches”
Let’s burn the liberals to the stake.
Our popey baby rules!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Some Day blurted out this disastrous attempt at logic:
“God hates Evil, and Protestants are Evil, thus God hates Protestants.”
No, Protestants are not “Evil.”
Note the capital “E” that Some Day used, identifying Protestants as the very personification of evil, the very locus and origin of all that is contrary to God. Some Day has demonised and dehumanised Protestants — all the easier to speak of their being converted into ashes, I suppose.
Contrary to the false, un-Catholic doctrine that Some Day espouses, Protestants are neither evil nor Evil. Protestants are human persons, and the human person is intrinsically good, because the human person is created by God who cannot make anything evil.
It is not Protestants who are evil. Rather, it is their erroneous beliefs that are evil.
Therefore God does not hate Protestants, any more than He hates anyone who He has created.
Some Day should take his Manichaean heresy back to wherever it is he found it.
Or perhaps he would like this syllogism:
God hates evil. It is evil to be a non-Catholic. Some Day believes some human persons are evil. Therefore Some Day is not a Catholic. Therefore God hates Some Day.
Doesn’t feel too nice being on the receiving end of God’s wrath, eh, Some Day?
Some Day:
How can you utter such things?
The worse I can see Protestants being are in heresy (though this might better apply to the Reformers than to later generations who might not know any better), but evil?
This is too extreme — even for me.
That was the vanilla of the vanilla (if I may coin my own phrase) of documents and yet the media acts like the CDF condemned Protestants to Hell. I guess that just shows how much the Church needed to reaffirm it’s doctrine.
The document probably upset Catholics on both the theological extreme left and extreme right, which means it’s probably right on. It seems getting out of San Francisco has done Cardinal Levada some good.
And lastly, on Joe S.’s comment: Each of us (RC or Orthodox) thinks that his own Church is the true Church of Christ and the other is not. I respect this honesty.
I couldn’t agree with you more. If only the Christian Communities would issue statements explaining why they are the one true church we could get on with some real ecumenism.
Protestants are not in communion. That does not make them evil. Such comment reveals the ignorance and hatred of its author.
I’m betting Some Day was joking. You’re pulling our legs, right, Some Day?
Shock headline: “Catholic Church Espouses Catholic Beliefs”
[fictional now…but give it time]
John,
A serious question, meant in all honesty to be received charitably. You seem to be happy with the latest curial document on the Church.
In the past, you have proclaimed your extreme displeasure (I think that puts it mildly) over Vatican II’s use of “subsists in” rather than “is” in Lumen Gentium. Were you satisfied with this explanation of that language? And I generally mean satisfied in the sense that LG did not effect a change in Catholic doctrine on the Church, rather than satisfied that it was the best choice of language to express the doctrine.
Esquire =^)
I was being a bit extreme, all in good humor.
Thoug being protestant is grave evil.
But the adherants are not as guilty as the founders and “pastors”.
I would apply that logic to the founders and those who obstinately hate the Catholic Church, because that goes to other extremes that are worthy of condemnation.
I was with some members of my community in habit and some Jehova’s Witness came with a face of hate, but a satanical hate, seriously hating the habit and all it represents, cursing the Pope, Mary and the Holy Eucharist. Now that is not just a bit wrong, that is something to make any good Catholic indignant.
I felt like Elias at that momment. And then some idiot, who is his own pope, discussing things against Our Lady and then at the end saying we Catholics laugh at the Bible.
That is not what turnin the cheek means. They insulted something greater than ourselves and that is not innocent ignorance, that is a rejection of Truth in a radical way, and that deserves punishement here on Earth.
Esquire,
I sincerely hope you receive an answer to your question.
Take care and God bless,
Inocencio
J+M+J
I am a former anti-catholic, seminarian, fundie, pastor, baptist, etc.I am disturbed by “Some Day”‘s callous consigning of my former compatriots to Dam*ation for their inculcated & instinctive prejudice against the Church.
Parsing “Some Day”‘s invective, I grant SomeDay’s general accuracy regarding definitions. I cannot challenge his experiences, since I was guilty of many such sins.
But I do challenge:
his words: “idiot” I recommend to you Matthew 5:22
his spirit: I urge you to meditate on Luke 9:53-56 especially verse 55,56
The Divine Mercy of the Sacred Heart of Jesus is absent from your words here. It should not be this way.
I understand your hurt better than you might imagine, but mutual scorn, condemnations and excommunications exclude the command to call all to repentance.
I meet regularly with some of my old compatriots (the ones who haven’t written me off completely), so I get the chance to experience it afresh weekly.
You might also wish to research the concept of “Disorder” and “Disordered” in Catholic Moral Theology for more considered arguments than “lesser good” equals “evil”… therefore…
Papal Primacy proceeds from the following three claims for Apostolic Succession, all of which are demonstrably false:
(1)Peter was the first to preach the gospel in Rome;
(2)Peter founded the Roman Church;
(3) As a result of his residence in Rome, Peter passed on his primacy to his successors the Popes, as Bishops of Rome.
Amongst the “Fathers of the Church” the Greeks far outnumber the Latins, and antedate them considerably.
The only intellectual leaders of any consequence in the Roman Church up to 400 CE –Hippolytus and Novatian – were both anti-popes. The true fathers of Latin Christendom came from Carthage, not Rome. Far from Rome being the “mother church” she was herself the offspring of the mating of the Greek fathers with the Carthaginian form of Latin Christianity.
The Roman Church may lay claim to have had a continual line of “popes,” but the indisputable testimony of history is that in the formative phases of Christianity (50-350 CE) there is not a single Roman Father.
As regarding the primacy of the Bishop of Rome, all ecumenical Councils before 900 AD were held in the Greek East and all were convened by the Emperor from Constantinople. At these Councils, where the ‘Nature of God’ was defined and determined for all generations, Latin bishops were numerically insignificant and made an insignificant contribution. For example, out of a total attendance of 318 at the Council of Nicea, the Latins could boast of only 7 representatives.
No prelate, priest or church in the East ever entertained any Roman claim to pre-dominance, and it was rejected by every bishop in the West until the “barbarians” destroyed the empire and Rome alone could maintain a bishop of any importance.
WorldNet Daily has a poll on this article. Surf on over theere and support B 16
The URL is:
http://www.worldnetdaily.com/polls/
God bless,
Glenn
My wife just reminded me that
God Loves
God is Love
so just read 1st John since I am passing out reading requirements.
But I don’t give the exam.
That is up to Someone Else.
Wayne,
The least you can challange is “my spirit”.
Now I can say that is sentimentalism to disagree with attachments to protestant friends. You need to be a radical Catholic to the point of if your mother becoming a protestant, you would cease to live with her, but only care for here and visit.
My spirit if it has errors, it is in being impetous and maybe a bit of self-love in responding with fire.
But in no way is the doctrine or spirit wrong.
To say that would denounce tons of saints who devoted their lives to fighting the errors of heresy in the Inquisition.
Now, I certainly wish their conversions, esspecially those who left due to the errors on this side of the Tiber. Like I’ve said before, if you don’t hate evil, than your love of Good is timid and ends in trechery.
Vynette,
And the schismatics can be added to the lists of people that need some dire correction.
Russia has too many splendors to remain schismatic.
I can’t wait to see papal keys on the Kremelin.
Greece as well.
In fact, everyone who does not adhere to the One True Religion, worshiping God in the Holy Eucharist, honoring Mary, Mother of the Lord King of Hosts and the Pope, Vicar of Christ are enemies of God and in some way shape or form be ridded of this world.
The Roman Church may lay claim to have had a continual line of “popes,” but the indisputable testimony of history is that in the formative phases of Christianity (50-350 CE) there is not a single Roman Father.
vynette:
Jesus promised in Matt 16 that he would give the keys to Peter; he promised the keys of the kingdom to Peter and the context of Matt 16 makes plain that there would be successors of Peter
What is key here is understanding that first of all, we’re talking about the successor of Peter as the Bishop of Rome. He is the one to whom the keys of the kingdom is communicated and the way that that happens, we see in the Book of Acts Chapter 1 when Judas died, it was Peter who made the rules for how this would happen — basically, under the guidance of the Holy Spirit, where Peter (if you look at Acts Chapter 1 right around verses 19, 20 and 21) even quotes Psalm 69 and Psalm 109 and he puts those two verses together and he says we’ve got to choose a replacement for Judas and then they did so.
In other words, Peter makes the rules as far as how we’re going to go about electing bishops in the future, the successors of the Apostles. But, that was put into place before Peter dies, obviously, so he could have successors and we have a 1st Century testament to this in St. Clement of Rome who in Par 44 of his work called the Epistle to the Corinthians – this is Pope Clement, the 3rd Successor of St. Peter, who is also mentioned in the New Testament, by the way – he tells us, if I could remember, I don’t have it in front of me but I think I can get it almost – he says, “The Apostles knew through perfect foreknowledge that strife would arise amongst the Office of Bishop. Therefore, they made arrangements that other approved men should succeed to their ministry so that after they have died, other approved men could succeed to their ministry.”
vynette:
There, you have the idea of Apostolic succession; not only in the Scriptures in Rom 10:14, for example, and Acts 1:20, but historically we see St. Clement of Rome talking about it. We see in fact lists of the Bishop of Rome that go all the way back. For example, St. Irenaeus of Lyon – I think it’s book 3 chapter 3, as I recall, of his work called Against Heresies – he lists the Bishops of Rome all the way back to Peter; from the Bishop of Rome from the time that he was alive in about 177 AD.
We have various lists from different historians like Eusebius of Caesara; we have St. Augustine; we have others who give us the lists of the Bishops of Rome all the way back to St. Peter.
Re-affirmed! We are not as other men are. And certainly not as other women!
I have some questions regarding the discussion between Some Day and Catholic Wayne.
It’s clear from the Gospels that we must pray for our enemies. It’s also seems to me from the Psalms that some people are indeed our enemies/evil and that it’s proper to pray to God to that they will receive the punishment they deserve. So how do we determine the difference between those who oppose us because of ignorance and those who are truly our enemies (obviously there’s no hard, fast rule, but what are some guidelines)? And can you legitimately pray both that God will punish your enemy and at the same time pray for your enemy’s conversion? If not, and these are mutually exclusive, how do we reconcile the Psalms (sometimes called the Gospel of the Holy Spirit) with the Gospels about Jesus?
Wasn’t the Pope just stating the (theologically) obvious? Assuming the Church is actually the body of Christ in the world, it is indefectible as He is. Other churches simply do not possess the same teaching authority, and the Vatican is the pre-eminent Christian teaching authority in the world.
Edward Norman wrote about this in his “Authority in the Anglican Communion”, a lecture he gave in 1998, where he concluded that basically the Church of England was not the heir to this tradition. (Norman himself became a Catholic in 2004).
http://justus.anglican.org/resources/misc/norman98.html
Brian,
It all depends on one’s intent. Why is one praying to God for the punishment of one’s enemies? Is it so that God’s greater glory may be established? That is what David had in mind. Think about punishment within the Church. What purpose does excommunication serve? It punishes the offender by excluding them from the community, but for the greater purpose of drawing them (and others) authentically back into the community.
If your intent is to see your perceived enemy burn in hell, you are probably safest not praying for their punishment. (Except to the extent that you recognize your real enemy to be Satan, whose proper abode is hell, and who you may legitimately desire to remain there.) But as for who, specifically — other than Satan — is your true enemy, I think you are safest leaving that ultimate judgment to God.
You are always safe praying for the conversion of your enemies. And I believe that you may at the same time pray that your true enemies be punished, if you recognize the harmony (paradoxical though it may seem) between those two positions and legitimately seek to serve God’s greater glory, leaving it up to Him to determine who your true enemies are.
To answer your other question, I’m not sure it’s ever necessary to actually try to determine whether someone is simply ignorant or truly your enemy (to a point). If you have taken care to be charitable with someone (often we don’t get past that first step), have calmly and dispassionately tried to reason with that person, and the other person refuses to listen, act reasonably, or act charitably in return, there is a point at which you are best to simply walk away (shake the dust off your feet, so to speak), and leave that person in God’s hands with your prayers.
Sorry for the rambling answer. Hope it helps anyway.
Thanks Esquire, good answer.
Esquire posted with an Esau snicker as always!!):
“In the past, you have proclaimed your extreme displeasure (I think that puts it mildly) over Vatican II’s use of “subsists in” rather than “is” in Lumen Gentium. Were you satisfied with this explanation of that language? And I generally mean satisfied in the sense that LG did not effect a change in Catholic doctrine on the Church, rather than satisfied that it was the best choice of language to express the doctrine”
Esquire-Cant you see the holy father has come full circle since the days he helped draft LG? He has come to realize that he actually may have been in error or even misled by his friends of that time like Rahner and Kung whom he no longer associates with?
And you are not correct in that LG did change catholic teachings on this subject, or at least made them more vague and muddy or else why would there have been an outcry to this day over the language? You can read this anyway you want to, but the Council of Florence, which you and Esau deny, was clear and concise on this subject and LG and the Decree on Ecumenism made it vague as it pertains to the salvation of non Catholics, and lets leave baptism of desire for another discussion
So all the Holy father is correcting this vague teaching and making it clear that these Protestants, whom Esau was once one of and now hopefully fully converted to Catholicism, that those that espouse these errors are indeed “wounded” as the outcry from the Protestants is loud and clear to this Vatican document, or else they would have embraced the document as they so whole heartedly along with every other non Catholic religion so openly embrace Vatican II (Jimmy-I am not on a hobby horse as this was thrown to me and I am responding!!)
As Reuters reported:
“The document, issued by Benedict’s successor in doctrinal matters, Cardinal William Levada, aimed to correct what it called “erroneous or ambiguous” interpretations of the Second Vatican Council, which took place from 1962 to 1965.
Church modernizers interpreted the Council as a break from the past while conservatives, like Benedict, see it in continuity with 2,000 years of Catholic tradition.
The document said the Council’s opening to other faiths recognized there were “many elements of sanctification and truth” in other Christian denominations, but stressed only Catholicism had all the elements to be Christ’s Church fully.”
Deo Gratias B16!!
Esquire,
good point. Whatever punishment we pray upon our enemies, it is clearly not eternal damnation. Perhaps a fitting prayer is sufficient punishment for them to mend their wicked ways?
In any event it’s very important to recognize that many of our “enemies” are not aware of their situation, and the utmost compassion is called for.
God bless,
Matt
John,
Just to clarify. On what grounds do you claim that I deny the Council of Florence?
It seems that you are not willing to afford me the same charity I afforded you, but are rashly ascribing positions that you simply assume I must hold.
For the record, I willingly accept and submit to all legitimate Ecumenical Councils of the Church.
But the real clarification I would like is with respect to this latest curial document. It seems that you are saying that it is, in effect, a lie, because it says that Vatican II did not change any doctrine on the Church, but rather “developed, deepened and more fully explained it.” You claim that is a lie because what is really going on is that Pope Benedict has realized the errors of Vatican II and therefore the errors of his former ways, and that now, even though he says these nice things about Vatican II, he doesn’t really mean them.
I am quite certain I must have misstated your position somehow, but I have attempted to accurately restate it to the best of my ability. I would therefore welcome any corrections you would like to make so that we can get a true picture of your position. But if you do agree that I have accurately restated your position, how can you be happy with Pope Benedict lying about what he believes and believed?
(And for what it is worth, I absolutely agree — and think Jimmy would as well — that your response to these questions is not any type of “hobby horse” on your part. I think they are legitimate questions raised by the document itself, and I am simply curious to know if the document has caused you to rethink any of your previously stated opinions.)
Esquire,
LG and the Decree on Ecumenism made it vague as it pertains to the salvation of non Catholics, and lets leave baptism of desire for another discussion
So all the Holy father is correcting this vague teaching and making it clear that these Protestants
I think ultimately this is John’s main point. Frankly, if it were not true, there would be no need for this document. In all honesty, the various interpretations of this statement in LG has resulted in much confusion.
Is there any problem with such a textual criticism of a Church document even if it’s authoritative? I don’t think so.
Now, it’s clear that some of the authors of the Vatican II documents had different ideas than the Church teaching (including perhaps, Fr. Ratzinger, certainly Frs. Rahner and Kung), and may have intentioned the vagueness, that does not make the document “wrong” as such, but it may suggest imprudence. We as Catholics are free to believe that such a document was imprudent, and free to believe that Fr. Ratzinger may have been in error in the way that he participated in it, as long as we are respectful, which i think John has been today. I don’t believe we are free as Catholics to believe that the Vatican II documents are doctrinally in error.
God Bless,
Matt
Esquire
I am being very charitable but feel you and Esau have been trying to bait me
I think the document released by the Vatican is quite clear and my opinion means little
God bless our Pope
Matt,
I question whether John is being “respectful,” as you say, when he flatly accuses me (without any basis) of denying Ecumenical Councils. Nor is that “very charitable” as John describes himself.
Now I would submit that both you and John have described this document very differently than it describes itself.
Stated succinctly, Pope Benedict has stated that Lumen Gentium clarified and deepened the doctrine on the Church. John (apparently with your agreement) has maintained that Pope Benedict doesn’t really mean that. In numerous past entries, John has vociferously (to the extent that term can accurately be used to characterize a blog posting) maintained that LG in general and the “subsists in” language in particular effected an actual change in the doctrine on the Church.
I repeat. I was genuinely curious to know whether John accepted Pope Benedict at his word that the “subsists in” language did not effect any change in the doctrine on the Church. It seems clearly as though he does not, but does “accept” that Pope Benedict has “seen the light” and now recognizes the erroneous nature of the language used in the Vatican II texts. That position, I would submit, cannot be reconciled with the actual text of the latest curial document.
In closing, there is a large difference, I would submit, between correcting a vague teaching and correcting erroneous opinions about what the actual teaching is. John has always agreed with the erroneous opinions about what LG actually teaches, and quite astonishingly does not realize that it is his erroneous opinion that is being corrected in this curial document (not Pope Benedict’s).
For what it is worth, I agree in principle with what you have said may legitimately be believed about the imprudence of an authoritative text. I have, in fact, never argued that point with John. And it in reality has very little, if anything, to do with my questions above or John’s answers.
I would also submit that I have overused the phrase “I would submit.” Makes for quite tiresome reading.
Oh well.
but the Council of Florence, which you and Esau deny
When did I ever deny an ecumenical council???
Again, with the lying and deception.
How very traditional Catholic, indeed!
Matt,
Please tell me that you do not share the same heretical opinions as John regarding the Second Vatican Council?
Among many others here, Esquire and Inocencio have expertly demonstrated time and again with much corroborating evidence such as several Church documents and the historic teachings of past councils that the documents of the Second Vatican Council do uphold Traditional Church teaching and, as any valid council, hold doctrines free of error.
As then Cardinal Ratzinger effectively put it:
Whoever denies Vatican II denies the authority that upholds all other councils, namely the Pope and the council of bishops.
Furthermore, if you were to read John’s comments regarding his gloss on the teachings of the Second Vatican Council, it would be made clearly evident that he had not read at all its 16 documents — only perhaps those few excerpts he has obtained about them from schismatic sources.
Esau,
Towards the end of the first century, an upsurge of factionalism in the congregation at Corinth caused a divisiveness and resentment that resulted in widespread embarrassment to other Christian congregations. The Roman congregation wrote a letter, which bore the name of Clemens, to the Corinthian congregation pleading that they settle their differences and reminding them that the essence of the teachings of Jesus was love and humility. There are absolutely no grounds for identifying him with the Clement of Philippians 4:3.
The Catholic Church would have us believe that:
(1) Clement was the fourth Pope to inherit a universal primacy as Bishop of Rome;
(2) From his position of primacy in Rome, he wrote an authoritative letter to Corinth with instructions that they do certain things;
(3)Because of his primacy and the “tone of authority” of his instruction, the Corinthians acquiesced to his directions.
If Clement’s letter is read fully, we will see that the real situation was more like this:
(1) Clement put his name to a letter, “From the congregation of God at Rome to the congregation of God at Corinth;”
(2) We know nothing of Clement except what is told in the letter;
(3) He is not named as head of the church in Rome;
(4)Clement makes his appeal to the Corinthians on the values of self-abasement, humility and love, as did Jesus in his sermons;
(5)The churches are a figure of derision by all and sundry because of the widely known dissension in Corinth;
(6)The letter refers to both Peter and Paul twice and to Apollos once;
(7) It differentiates between the ministries of Peter and Paul in a way that precludes Peter was ever in Rome, in a similar way that Paul’s letters do.
(8) Nowhere does Clement assert the primacy of Rome over other churches.
(9) Many times it refers to “Jesus Christ the High Priest by whom our gifts are offered,” and nowhere is Jesus considered to be God;
(10) Jesus is always presented as a man of God.
Only a determinedly preconceived motive could possibly see in Clement’s letter proof of Peter’s residence and death in Rome and the supremacy of the Roman Church over Corinth asserted.
But for the letter which bears his name, the world would know nothing of Clement. If one cares to consult the Roman Catholic Encyclopaedia and its list of the first ten popes, one might be surprised by the lack of information. They are little more than fanciful constructions.
Vynette,
Just what sources are you actually getting this
from?
It seems you have not consulted the full works of/or even engaged in a comprehensive study of Patrology.
Again, you neglected the list of Roman Pontiffs provided by St. Irenaeus of Lyon of the 1st Century as well as the lists given by Eusebius of Caesara or even St. Augustine.
vynette: Try reading the Early Church Fathers. (Ireneaus would be a good place to start).They list the popes from Peter down to their own days. They identify Clement as the third successor of Peter.
In his letter to the Corinthians, Pope Clement commands them.
“…nowhere is Jesus considered to be God.” You have to do extremely selective reading to come to that conclusion.
Speaking of “a determinedly preconceived motive…”
Well, there you have it vynette. You’ve pretty much taken all the wind out of our sales. Jimmy, what say you just shut her down, as we’re all just obviously kidding ourselves with all of this popish nonsense?
“Therefore you shall write two little books and send one to Clement….Clement shall then send it to the cities abroad, because that is his duty.”-Hermas, “The Shepherd”, AD 140
“…the succession 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 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.” Irenaeus, “Against Heresies”, AD 180
“In the time of Clement, no small dissension having arisen among the brethren in Corinth, the Church in Rome sent a very strong letter to the Corinthians, exhorting them to peace and renewing their faith.” Irenaeus, “Against Heresies” AD 180
“…the Church of Rome, where Clement was ordained by Peter.” Tertullian, “The Demurrer Against the Heretics”, AD 200
Of couse, a full demonstration of the falsity of Apostolic Succession through Peter would take a much more lengthy discussion that that allowable on a comments thread. However, the evidence is available to all interested parties from reliable sources such as the Roman Catholic Encyclopaedia and other authoritative works all bearing an Imprimatur and Nihili Obstat.
Just to give one example. An authoritative Roman Catholic textbook, “A Popular History of the Catholic Church” by the acclaimed Church historian Msgr. Philip Hughes, has this to say on the subject of Peter’s residence in Rome:
“…The precise date at which the Roman Church was founded we do not know, nor the date at which St. Peter first went to Rome. But it is universally the tradition of this primitive Christianity that St. Peter ruled the Roman Church and that at Rome he gave his life for Christ in the persecution of Nero.” (p14)
Hughes goes on:
“…About the origins of Christianity in Rome we know nothing. It is already a flourishing church in 56 AD when St. Paul refers to it. Three years later he arrived in Rome himself, a prisoner, for the hearing of his appeal to Caesar.” (p17)
“…St. Peter first appeared there apparently some three years later, about the time St. Paul, acquitted, had left the city.” (p18)
Contrast these statements, taking particular note of the words ‘know nothing,”tradition’and ‘apparently’ with the following excerpt from the Roman Catholic Encylopaedia article “Peter.”
“It is an indisputably established historical fact that St. Peter laboured in Rome during the last portion of his life, and there ended his earthly course in martyrdom. As to the duration of his Apostolic activity in the Roman Capital, the continuity or otherwise of his residence there, the details and success of his labours, and the chronology of his arrival and death, all these questions are uncertain, and can be solved only on hypotheses more or less well-founded.
“The essential fact is that Peter died at Rome: this constitutes the historical foundation of the claim of the Bishops of Rome to the Apostolic Primacy of Peter. St.Peter’s residence and death in Rome are established beyond contention as historical facts by a series of distinct testimonies.”
The above article is certainly illuminating: although it assures us that Peter’s sojourn in Rome is “an indisputably established historical fact,” it cannot say when Peter arrived, how long he was there, what he did there, who he worked with there, or when he died there.
Regarding Clement – From the Catholic Encyclopaedia article “Apostolic Succession” we find that “Of the life and death of St.Clement nothing is known…”
And from another Catholic Encyclopaedia article “Pope” we learn that:
“…Thus, at the very commencement of church history, before the last survivor of the Apostles had passed away, we find a Bishop of Rome, himself a disciple of St. Peter, intervening in the affairs of another Church and claiming to settle the matter by a decision spoken under the influence of the Holy Spirit. Such a fact admits of one explanation alone. It is that in the days when the Apostolic teaching was yet fresh in men’s minds the universal Church recognized in the Bishop of Rome the office of supreme head.”
So while the apostle John is still alive, the Roman Catholic authorities would have us believe that Clement, whom the Roman Catholic church claims is the third Pope after Peter, was asserting his universal authority over the church of Corinth from Rome. Reflect a little on this…
There is no doubt that the Roman church has derived immense propaganda benefits from its situation in a city that gave its name to an empire. But Rome was the capital of the Empire only until 330 CE, when the new capital was set up at Constantinople in the East. Ravenna was the seat of government and capital of Italy from 404 CE until the middle of the eighth century. (Constantinople remained the capital of the empire until 1453 when it fell to the Ottoman Turks. It was from Constantinople, and not until the sixth century, that the emperor Justinian nominated the bishop of Rome as having ecclesiastical pre-eminence).
The apostle Paul was responsible for taking Christianity to Rome. Amongst the Greek speaking community of Jews who lived in the foreign settlement outside the walled city, he founded his “congregation of the regeneration”. There is no evidence that Peter assisted him in this work. The tradition that Peter founded the Roman church was unknown in Rome in 100 CE. A century later, however, the tradition was firmly established.
I see that vynette will simply ignore inconvenient facts, like the ones I quoted. Such a one is not interested in the truth. Indeed, such a one is the enemy of the truth, due to having “a determinedly preconceived motive”.
“So while the apostle John is still alive, the Roman Catholic authorities would have us believe that Clement, whom the Roman Catholic Church claims is the third pope after Peter, was asserting his universal authority over the church of Corinth from Rome.”
Because he was and he did, as my quotes from the Fathers show. Don’t you feel silly posting that *after* my quotes from Irenaeus and Tertullian?
“The apostle Paul was responsible for taking Christianity to Rome.” Evidence? There was already a Christian community there when he wrote his letter to the Romans about the year 57, and there is nothing in the Bible (or any non-Biblical source that I know of) to say that Paul was in Rome before the year 60.
“There is no evidence that Peter assisted him in his work.The tradition that Peter founded the Roman church was unknown in Rome in 100CE(sic).”
“She who is at Babylon, who is likewise chosen, sends you greeting; and so does my son Mark.” First Letter of ST. PETER, chapter 5, verse 13. “Babylon” was a code-word the early Christians used to refer to Rome. St. John does the same in Revelation.
Hey, maybe Peter didn’t know where he was! After all, he didn’t have vynette to tell him that he wasn’t in Rome!
Just skimmed and what jumped out at me was that vynette is trying to use Roman Catholic sources to disprove Roman Catholicism.
Does anyone else thinks that’s a bit odd?
Mary Kay,
it is absolutely, I was going to point out to vynette, that if the Catholic Church was a deceiver, and so powerful as to hide the deceit, surely she would have suppressed the documents vynette claims prove it to be so from her very own approved encyclopedia.
God Bless,
Matt
vynette, did I miss something? I saw nothing in all your posted snippets that does the least damage to Roman Catholic claims of Apostolic (Petrine) succession (or anything else).
There is no evidence at all – secular or sacred – to support your idea that Paul first carried the faith to Rome.
Even if someone DID “beat” Peter to Rome with the gospel, so what? That makes no dent whatsoever in Petrine succession, or in the constant tradition that Peter was bishop of Rome and was martyred there.
Was Paul promised the “keys to the kingdom”? Was Paul the “rock” upon which Jesus said He would build His Church?
“Who got there first?” simply has no bearing on the discussion.
When I said: “The apostle Paul was responsible for taking Christianity to Rome” I meant that Paul, as opposed to Peter, was the one who personally preached the gospel in Rome. Of course, Rome already had an established Chistian community, “…all over the world they tell of your faith” (Rom. 1:8), but the New Testament is silent about who founded it, and when.
Paul had long cherished a wish to preach the gospel in Rome (Rom.1:10, 15:23) and received his instruction to do so in a night vision (Acts 23:11). Paul’s Roman citizenship by birth gave him the right of appeal directly to Caesar in any dispute over which he felt aggrieved. It was precisely because governors Felix and then Festus would not make a decision after two years of “open captivity” that Paul appealed to Caesar (Acts 25:12).
When Paul eventually arrived in Rome some time after 60 AD, it was to have his appeal heard by Caesar. He is the only apostle recorded in the New Testament as having travelled west of Greece. Paul was greatly heartened when a group of Christian converts came to meet him as he approached the outskirts of Rome (Acts 18:15).
Paul was placed under “house arrest” for about two years while awaiting trial. During this period, visitors freely came and went and Paul wrote and received many letters (Acts 28:15-31). After he had settled in a house for which he paid, Paul requested a meeting with the leaders of the Jewish community apparently to discover their attitude towards him. The leaders assured him they knew nothing to his discredit as they had not heard from Judea. They expressed a wish to know more about Paul’s “sect” as it was spoken ill of everywhere (Acts 28:21) so a meeting was arranged at which an exchange of views would take place. At no time was Peter, the apostle to the Jews, ever mentioned.
On his second visit to Rome some years later, again on trial, Paul said: “…only Luke is here with me…all forsook me” (2 Tim 4:11-16). He asks Timothy to come to him and to bring Mark with him.
If, as Roman Catholic tradition encourages, Peter was nearby, why didn’t Paul on either of his two visits to Rome, make some reference to him? If Peter had established the Roman Church, why no recognition of this by Paul or the Chistian congregation in Rome? If it was Peter’s mission to take the gospel to the Jews, why did the Jewish leaders of Rome have no knowledge of Peter?
In Paul’s letters to and from Rome – Romans, Ephesians, Colossians, Phillipians, Hebrews? and 2 Timothy – he mentions numerous friends and helpers; in Romans alone almost 30.
Proponents of the “Peter in Rome” tradition often assert that he is not mentioned by Paul because of some residual animosity between the pair. Paul had some years earlier in Antioch strongly disagreed with Peter, as he also had with Mark and his uncle Barnabas. Yet Paul asked Timothy to seek out Mark, who had been with Peter in Babylon, and bring him to Rome. These men occasionally expressed sharp disagreements, but where the spreading of the Gospel of Jesus of Nazareth was concerned, they buried personal differences and spoke with one voice. In fact wrangling within congregations was often a major topic of concern for them.
In the Roman setting, no mention is ever made of Peter by any person, whether directly or indirectly, for the simple reason that Peter was never there.
Mary Kay and Matt,
It may be a “bit odd” to use Catholic sources to disprove Catholic claims but the fact is that these documents can be checked and re-checked by all and sundry, if they have the will.
bill912,
No, I don’t feel silly at all. Any quotes by fathers such as Irenaeus and Tertullian are based on later tradition only – they have no basis in historical fact – and were usually raised in the context of battles against unorthodox/heretic/gnostic doctrines.
As for Clement, the third? or fourth?supposed “Bishop of Rome,” scholars have pointed out that it would not have been possible to appoint anyone as the “Bishop” of Rome because, at the time of Clement’s letter (circa 100 AD) such a hierarchical structure did not yet exist either in Rome or in Corinth. A full discussion can be found in the Catholic Encyclopaedia article “Bishop” which begins with the words: “The historical origin of the episcopate is much controverted: very diverse hypotheses have been proposed to explain the texts of the inspired writings and of the Apostolic Fathers relating to the primitive ecclesiastical hierarchy…”
The alacrity with which the Roman Catholic authorities assert the figurative use of “Babylon for Rome” in 1 Pet. 5:13 suddenly, and amusingly, disappears when it comes to the Book of Revelation where commentaries and footnotes bend over backwards to confine the same figurative use to pagan Imperial Rome only, or to evil cities generally.
Tim J
As you rightly said, it is a constant tradition that Peter was Bishop of Rome and was martyred there. But I have already pointed out that this tradition was unknown until circa 170-180 AD.
vynette reaffirmed my 7/7/07 6:30PM post. Thank you.
Tim J
I agree with your 9:06 post
Peter was promised the keys and Rome was never even mentioned in any of the 4 Gospels as being important as far as I can recall from my readings
Whether Peter or Paul got there first is interesting of course, as I have spent time in Rome and visited the roads traveled by Paul, and Paul did do a better job of documenting his travels and it is much thanks to him that the church is where it is as he basically converted the pagan world-but I dont see the connection one is trying to make above
In the Roman setting, no mention is ever made of Peter by any person, whether directly or indirectly, for the simple reason that Peter was never there.
vynette:
How can you come to this foredrawn conclusion all based on your evidently lacking, not to mention, careless study of this subject matter?
Talk about a “determinedly preconceived motive”!
I hope you are not so careless with research in your professional life as you are here.
Just a word of advice, your reasoning is quite fallacious in that the assumed absence of the evidence does not actually prove your conclusion.
The Fact that you are IGNORANT of such evidence does not prove your unwarranted conclusion.
” …this tradition was unknown until circa 170-180 AD.”
That is not a statement you can back up with any evidence. You can’t infer that since Paul doesn’t mention him, Peter was never in Rome. That is just incredibly sloppy thinkin’. I mean, I know you WANT to believe that, and so you sift everything through that filter, but a dispassionate look at the evidence will not support your statements.
“Any quotes by fathers such as Irenaeus and Tertullian are based on later tradition only – they have no basis in historical fact”. So, when the evidence fails to support your forgone conclusion, you dismiss it out of hand? How convenient for you.
I know… I used to believe the same things.
Various ad hominem statements – sloppy thinking etc – have been used to dismiss my arguments. But surely assertions to the contrary, without any evidence whatsoever could be similarly described.
If any commenter here can provide some “dispassionate” evidence that Peter was ever in Rome based on something more substantial than post 170 AD traditions of the fathers, please do so.
Even the fathers had differing opinions concerning the “rock” of Matt 16:18. For some the “rock” was Peter; others thought that the “rock” was Jesus; yet others that the “rock” was the profession of faith.
Cite one early Church Father who stated that the Rock was other than Peter. Show us the quote.
As for “something more substantial”, I quoted St. Peter’s own letter stating that he was in Rome. Vynette chose to ignore this inconvenient fact, proving me right in what I posted yesterday.
I’m done.
vynette,
On the off chance that you’re actually interested in discussing the question, Peter, Christ and the profession of faith as the rock are not mutually exclusive.
Let’s start with Christ. He is THE rock, no question. But Christianity is both a mediated and a participatory religion, and Christ freely gives Himself to others, in many and various ways. To Peter, he clearly gave a participation in his “Rock-ness,” not for Peter’s sake, but for the sake of the flock Peter was to shepherd.
Peter is not the Rock to the exclusion of Christ, he is the Rock because Christ is the Rock and chose to have Peter participate in His Rock-ness.
With respect to the profession of faith, it is not an abstract profession of faith. It is Peter’s profession of faith. You can’t separate the profession of faith from Peter any more than you can separate Peter from Christ.
bill912,
There were many, of course, but all the papist conspirators in the second century destroyed their work, and all of the hard drives have since been wiped clean.
Sloppy thinking indeed.
Sorry, Esquire. Being the square that I am, I have a lot of trouble accepting circular reasoning. But you’re right, of course. Mea culpa.
Various ad hominem statements
Uhhh, excuse me, but what I mentioned here:
“The Fact that you are IGNORANT of such evidence does not prove your unwarranted conclusion.”
…was actually not an ad hominem but points out what’s called the fallacy of ignorance, which I dearly hope you are acquainted with given your background.
The fallacy of ignorance is exactly what I mentioned; that is, just because you are IGNORANT of the evidence doesn’t actually prove your position.
vynette,
Rather than sidestep bill912, why don’t you answer the question?
With respect to 1 Peter 5:13, where the author says he was “at Babylon” do you believe that “Babylon” refers to:
(a) Babylon,
(b) Rome,
(c) Some other place, or
(d) No place.
I know that you might think it is sloppy of me not to offer another alternative, such as “none of the above” but I have thought it through as hard as I can, and I think those four options cover the waterfront.
Of course, it is also possible that you believe that St. Peter did not write Peter’s first letter, or perhaps that it was not that Peter who wrote it. Or maybe you think St. Peter was just lying when he said he was “at Babylon.” In that event, you could freely choose (b) and still have no evidence that St. Peter was ever in Rome. Or even at Rome.
But assuming that you believe St. Peter really is the author, and that he was not lying, I am just curious where you think he was when he said he was “at Babylon” (since that is obviously “no evidence” to you that he was in Rome).
Not to open another can of worms, vynette, but since we’re on 1 Peter 5:13 anyway, when St. Peter refers to “my son Mark,” do you think he was referring to:
(a) his biological son named Mark;
(b) his spiritual son named Mark;
(c) his daughter Mary;
(d) none of the above.
On the off chance that your answer is (b), do you think it would have been okay for Mark to refer to Peter as “father”? Just curious. Doesn’t prove anything, I know.
Just skimmed and what jumped out at me was that vynette is trying to use Roman Catholic sources to disprove Roman Catholicism.
Does anyone else thinks that’s a bit odd?
It’s admirable. Just as you should argue with a fundamentalist from the Bible alone, because it is a source your opponent accepts, and so you argue from the same premises.
Mary,
I was thinking the same thing.
What was “odd” to me, though, was how she refers to Roman Catholic texts and persons as “authoritative” or “acclaimed,” as if we should trust her judgment about them.
It was posted by Esau in his response to vynette, whom by the way I do not agree with:
“The Fact that you are IGNORANT of such evidence does not prove your unwarranted conclusion.”
AND
“The fallacy of ignorance is exactly what I mentioned; that is, just because you are IGNORANT of the evidence doesn’t actually prove your position.”
Do you always need to bash people and use names such as “Ignorant” and such other condescending words when you are having a discussion?
And aside from that Esay, please admit it Esau, as you yourself have never known or even been to a Traditional Mass but seem to have so much hatred for it, as you are instead a die hard liberal bent on the destruction of our church and this past week has been torture for you!!!
The following proves your lies:
On July 9 at 7:22PM on Commentary on Summorum Pontificum thread you posted:
“I have found some Trads rather elitist.
Pseudomodo:
I can certainly understand this.
The first time I attended the Indult Mass, there were those folks who were indeed snobs.
Yet, when I observed the reverence and beauty of the Traditional Latin Mass when celebrated, I could care less of the Snobs that were there. I wasn’t there for them. I was there for the Lord.
When the priest who celebrated the Mass retired, I ended up attending the Novus Ordo. Although, admittedly, there were hardly any such snobs as those I found at the Traditional Roman Mass, I did find some liberals whose behaviour were just as despicable.”
You are calling “Trads” elitist, like you are not the most nasty elite person calling people “Ignorant” at the drop of a hat and all other names, and lying about attending an Indult!!
Then on the same thread at 5:40PM you posted, while admitting earlier you had only been to (1) Indult mass, but now saying that due to the “retirement” of the Indult priest you started attending the Novus Ordo!!!:
“Some Day,
About the Professional musicians, when I attended the Indult way back when it was offered, there were those there that donated their talent and time to the Church.
It was some of the most heavenly, most sacred music I’ve heard by far for a Sunday Mass. Yet, though these were actually professionals, they didn’t even give a thought of monetary compensation.
Though, when I had to start attending the Novus Ordo because the Indult priest retired, I heard some of the most awful music there was.
In the latter situation, those musicians should’ve paid me to listen to their crap!”
Gee-Do you have to use the word “crap” Esau????
You are just such a contributing source of information!
And aside from that Esay, please admit it Esau, as you yourself have never known or even been to a Traditional Mass but seem to have so much hatred for it, as you are instead a die hard liberal bent on the destruction of our church and this past week has been torture for you!!!
John, John, John. Stop it. It’s not becoming (or respectful or charitable, for that matter).
Esquire
I am tired of the nonsense and name calling
It should stop-dont you agree???
He calls “traditionals” snobs and then calls vynette whom I have never seen post before “Ignorant” time and time?
Charity Charity Charity
as you yourself have never known or even been to a Traditional Mass but seem to have so much hatred for it, as you are instead a die hard liberal bent on the destruction of our church and this past week has been torture for you!!!
Thank you for more of your lies, John.
Actually, I have been celebrating.
By the way, a Traditional priest I know can attest to the fact that I am, in fact, a staunch advocate of the Traditional Mass (as my past comments on this blog clearly do corroborate, which you, again, purposely neglect and, furthermore, distort); however,I am one who DOES NOT advocate Protestantism disguised as Catholicism like you clearly do!
Do you always need to bash people and use names such as “Ignorant”
My using the word “ignorant” in that context wasn’t name-calling; it was a description of the fact that “she did not know” of such evidence.
In fact, the words I used were ones that came from a textbook that describes all sorts of fallacies such as the one I described in my subject comments.
You are calling “Trads” elitist
What a despicable attempt to try to make Traditionalists hate me.
You are making it appear that I was calling ALL TRADS elitists when clearly, in my comments, I was referring to select people from my Indult Church who were actually snobs. Unlike you, I don’t generalize folks, as you have done with Protestants and ex-Protestants, calling folks like Scott Hahn and other Protestants converts such horrible names because they were once Protestant and, therefore, they are evil regardless of their faithful conversion to the Catholic Faith.
Gee-Do you have to use the word “crap” Esau????
So, indeed, you are a “wolf in sheep’s clothing” as you like to call others here. You actually LOVE Rock-n-Roll, Hippie Novus Ordo Mass Music!
Also, crap is better than the word you used to call me several times, as I can recall — remember when your posts to me wherein you referred to me as an A _ _ HOLE?
By the way, in all actuality, I have a contingent of traditional priests, two cardinals and a bishop who can attest to my character that I am, in fact, a Traditionalist myself. Just because I am not a Rad Trad like you doesn’t make me any less of a Traditionalist.
Why would I be any less a Traditionalist?
Just because I am somebody who believes in and faithfully adheres to Pre-Vatican II catechism that was passed down to me where I know, in fact, and faithfully acknowledge the Authority of the Vicar of Christ and the Authority given to him by Christ as Successor of Peter and not by folks who purposely disregard a 2000 year old traditional Catholic teaching (not to mention, scriptural) about Petrine Authority, and even goes to the extent of calling a VALID Successor of Peter an Apostate and even excommunicates him?
At any rate, the opinions of somebody who covers the Seat of Peter with viscious insults, lies and mere calumny and, in addition, declares him an Apostate is one I could care less about.
The only thing I do care about is the error you’re spreading regarding Traditional Catholic Teaching.
In that sense, you are more harmful than all the liberals and heretics combined together!
while admitting earlier you had only been to (1) Indult mass, but now saying that due to the “retirement” of the Indult priest you started attending the Novus Ordo!!!:
Amazing!
I had written dozens of posts in the past to you where I made it clear that I used to attend the Indult Mass and that I only stopped attending when the priest who celebrated it retired.
I even provided links in my past posts to a website where people interested in attending the Indult Mass can refer to in order that they may see if one is available in their area.
I guess Inocencio was right all along about somebody’s reading comprehension.
Like I said, some of the extreme conservative Catholic groups to whom I used to pray with were big into being their own Pope.
This, perhaps, may be said of Rad Trads and Schismatics.
However, this cannot be said of those attending Catholic churches that celebrate approved Traditional Latin Masses and are loyal to our Holy Father.
The parish I used to attend in the past was such a church until the priest that had celebrated the Traditional Latin Masses then retired. It was so beautiful.
That’s why though the church was several miles away from where I used to live, it was such a joy to attend it and fully experience this truly pious, reverential celebration of the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass as it was celebrated in the past.
For those interested in attending such Catholic churches, please see the following website:
Home:
http://www.ecclesiadei.org
Mass Listings:
http://www.ecclesiadei.org/masses.cfm
Information:
http://www.ecclesiadei.org/Information.htm
Posted by: Esau | Jan 26, 2007 9:00:05 AM
JOHN:
GOD BLESS YOU for not! Certainly, God has given you the grace to continue in the Church in spite of these apparent trials of faith.
I have attended the Tridentine rite when it was possible for me to do so at a very distant parish until the priest there retired and so I can see why you find such tremendous beauty in it, and why you might hold such a strong opinion for it.
I just am very nervous having my children exposed to these teachings today as they are so different that that of my parents or even myself who was born right at the end of the council
Also, I can see from my own perspective why you might fear such an imminent departure from the authentic teachings of the Catholic Faith by many of the Faithful with all the abuses that are out there these days stemming from rogue clergy who, more times than not, might submit (better yet, ‘surrender’) to the “popularity vote” rather than submit themselves to the actual Truths of the Catholic Faith!
But, at the same time, there are decent, faithful clergy out there as well. Like anything, there is both the good and the bad and so it is with individuals, and so you can’t assume the worst of all clergy.
Now, I’m not asking you to trust them and I don’t think anybody is asking you to trust them in terms of whether or not their going to be perfect in this regard. Because there are always human beings in these positions who are not yet “glorified”, there are always going to be mistakes made and that’s something that has to be taken into account.
Now, if the question is can you trust the bishops apart from their individual human failings then the answer to that is yes you can.
The reason for that is because it is not them that you are trusting; it is Jesus who you are trusting.
Jesus is the One who established the Church and who gave the Church leaders.
It’s very clear in Scripture. He did not simply establish us a Church that’s everybody with no leaders. He very clearly established a hierarchy.
This is something that’s stressed repeatedly in the New Testament and we’re told in the New Testament to obey those who are over us in the Lord.
Consequently, it’s not individual people that we’re trusting when we consider the overall structure of Catholicism. It’s Christ that we’re trusting because He is the One who established it. It’s His promises that back it up.
In individual cases, yeah, sure, individuals will sin. They will mess things up, including occupants of high ecclesiastical office.
But, if you look at the individuals who mess up, it will deprive you of the assurance that Christ meant you to have by establishing the leaders of the Church in the first place. You cannot allow individuals to obscure your vision of what Christ intended for the Church including you as a member of the Church.
Posted by: Esau | Nov 7, 2006 9:34:31 AM
John,
I agree that there is no call for name calling and nonsense. I hope you will agree that I have not called you any names. Nor, to my knowledge, have I ever accused you of anything that you would disagree with. You have falsely accused me several times (stating that I deny ecumenical councils being the latest), and I hope in the spirit of charity you will now stop.
For what it is worth, my earlier questions to you were not an attempt to bait you. I thought (perhaps foolishly) that Pope Benedict’s explanation regarding the continuity of thought between the Church’s traditional doctrine of the Church and Lumen Gentium might have caused you to rethink your position.
Some Day:My spirit if it has errors, it is in being impetous and maybe a bit of self-love in responding with fire.
You embrace those faults as if they were virtues. That is evil. Evil within you.
But in no way is the doctrine
Incomplete and blinded.
or spirit wrong.
Perhaps your implementation is incomplete because of your cherished sin.
You are called to be an Erasmus, a Francis, an Anthony.
Not a condemning Judge
Now, I certainly wish their conversions,
Do more than wish. be holy humble. and suffer in prayer for their souls.
Like I’ve said before, if you don’t hate evil, than your love of Good is timid and ends in trechery. You cannot define, measure your love of Good by how much you hate evil. that is Satan’s deception. A complete Love of Good is always sufficient, for God is Good, and He is infinite.
The first thing I challenge is “your spirit”
Since you obviously haven’t considered the passages, I’ll post them for you.
Matthew 5:22But I say to you, that whosoever is angry with his brother, shall be in danger of the judgment. And whosoever shall say to his brother, Raca, shall be in danger of the council. And whosoever shall say, Thou Fool, shall be in danger of hell fire.
Luke 9:53-56 especially verse 55,56
48And said to them: Whosoever shall receive this child in my name, receiveth me; and whosoever shall receive me, receiveth him that sent me. For he that is the lesser among you all, he is the greater.
49And John, answering, said: Master, we saw a certain man casting out devils in thy name, and we forbade him, because he followeth not with us.
50And Jesus said to him: Forbid him not; for he that is not against you, is for you.
51And it came to pass, when the days of his assumption were accomplishing, that he steadfastly set his face to go to Jerusalem.
52And he sent messengers before his face; and going, they entered into a city of the Samaritans, to prepare for him.
53And they received him not, because his face was of one going to Jerusalem.
54And when his disciples James and John had seen this, they said: Lord, wilt thou that we command fire to come down from heaven, and consume them?
55And turning, he rebuked them, saying: You know not of what spirit you are.
56The Son of man came not to destroy souls, but to save. And they went into another town.
Some more points:
Charity is not sentimentalism.
Hating evil should also include the evil within your own soul. Think about this: might your lack of Compassion for the enemies of the Cross make you their favorite antagonist because you do not care to communicate the fulness of Christ to them. You fulfill their caricature, resonate with their hate, and you do not bless those who curse you. They are in Grave sin. Weep for them in prayer, asking for God’s mercy on them.
Everyone will be judged for clinging onto the evils within them, and for the resulting tragic loss of souls.
Also, remember that Matthew 7:22,23 applies to more than protestant preachers: 22Many will say to me in that day: Lord, Lord, have not we prophesied in thy name, and cast out devils in thy name, and done many miracles in thy name? 23And then will I profess unto them, I never knew you: depart from me, you that work iniquity.
You have likely been scandalized by wishy-washy Catholicism. The natural behavior that reacts to scandal is always not of God and is evil. Rather,God calls us to prayer and holiness and loving, humble sacrificial intercession for all the souls involved.
You…WE are called to a strong heroic Catholicism that suffers for the lost and implores God for His saving mercy upon those who so gravely sin against Him. You… WE are called to be a Stephen and a Paul and a Silas.
Wayne
Esquire
I apologize if I made an accusation at you that may have not been true but I am just being extra careful not to get into discussions that can get into name calling with one particular person whom I just defend myself and do not instigate such, as well as “hobby horsing”, though I do think one has to discuss these 16 documents if one is going to discuss the church, but I shall do so carefully and with charity
We are all allowed to disagree even with the Pope to some extend or else why would there be forums such as this, but to start calling people Idiots and Ignorant, Rad Trads, etc-it just leads to no where and then the entire threads get into a name calling match
Esquire,
Re: “…What was “odd” to me, though, was how she refers to Roman Catholic texts and persons as “authoritative” or “acclaimed,” as if we should trust her judgment about them.”
It is not my judgement, it it the judgement of the Roman Catholic Church that the Catholic works I have quoted are “authoritative” and “acclaimed”. As I have already said, these works all bear an Imprimatur and Nihil Obstat, meaning that the Church officially regards them as “free from error.”
Re: “my son Mark”. I don’t offer opinions unless I can adduce supporting evidence. We have no way of knowing whether “my son Mark” is the biological or “spiritual” son of Peter so speculation is pointless.
Re: “Rather than sidestep bill912, why don’t you answer the question?”
Very well then –
After the crucifixion, Peter’s whereabouts are stated in the Bible to be:
Palestine (Acts Chs. 8-12)
Syria (Gal. 2)
Babylon (1 Pet. 5:13)
Centuries before Jesus was born, the nations of Israel and Judah had both been defeated in war and much of their populations deported to the East: Israel by the Assyrians circa 700 BC and Judah by the Babylonians circa 600 BC. Many Jews did not return from Babylonian exile and their descendants were still there at the time of Jesus. For example, Hillel, the great Jewish sage of Herod’s day, was a Babylonian by birth and Philo (“Legatio ad Cajum,” § 36) recorded that a large number of Jews were still resident in Babylonia. [It is important to note that Babel, (Babylon) was the name of a city as well as the province between the Euphrates and the Tigris where they most closely met.]
As well as the Jews of Babylon, Josephus, a contemporary of both Peter and Paul, recorded that “…the ten tribes are beyond the Euphrates even till now, and are an immense multitude and not to be estimated by numbers…: (Ant. XI V 2).
So, east of Jerusalem there was a substantial number of both Jews and Israelites who had never heard the gospel of Jesus of Nazareth. Peter, being an apostle to the circumcised (Jews), had every reason to travel EAST with the “good news” to the dispersed brethren of both Israel and Judah while Paul, as the apostle to the Gentiles, travelled WEST to Greece, Asia Minor and Rome.
The Roman Catholic Church lays claim to Peter’s presence in Rome on a single biblical reference in 1 Pet. 5:13: “She who is in Babylon, chosen together with you, sends you greetings, and so does my son, Mark.”
1 Pet.5:13 is the ONLY biblical “proof” text that the Roman Catholic Church can adduce in support of their claim.
Official Roman Catholic publications proclaim with one voice that when Peter made reference to his physical location in “Babylon,” it was in fact a cryptic reference to the city of Rome. It is inferred that Peter did so in order to avoid the possibility of bringing down persecution upon the local congregation in Rome. The Catholic Commentary on the Holy Scriptures states that Peter wrote his first letter in the period between Paul’s first and second captivity in Rome, i.e. between 62 and 64 AD, yet Nero’s persecution did not begin until August 64 AD so why the necessity for secrecy? Paul openly referred to Rome in his letters to and from that city.
In contrast, the author of the Book of Revelation does use cryptic language to draw an analogy between the destroyer of the first Temple (Babylon) and the destroyer of the second Temple (Rome), which he names as Babylon the Great, obviously because there was a reason to be cautious at the time of writing.
vynette,
Neither the nihil obstat nor the imprimatur stand for “authoritative” or “acclaimed.” For your benefit, the Church generally regards as “authoritative” texts which are issued by the Magisterium. General rule of thumb, most texts you will find on the official Vatican website are authoritative to at least some extent.
As for “acclaim,” you might start with the writings of the saints that the Church has canonized.
As for answering the question, you put down a lot of words, but I couldn’t find anywhere an answer to the actual question. I’ll paraphrase it for you again.
What do you think Peter was referring to when he said that he was “at Babylon”?
(Hint: to answer that question, you won’t have to discuss at all what the Catholic Church teaches, or what Catholic commentaries — which you obviously don’t regard as authoritative — have to say.)
And for the record, the Catholic Church does not claim Peter was in Rome simply on the basis of Scripture texts, but on Tradition supported by the weight of the historical evidence.
John,
I accept your apology, and appreciate the olive branch. I agree that the Vatican II documents should be discussed (among others), and as I’ve said before, I don’t believe that you are being a “hobby horse” by doing so in the present context.
You are allowed to disagree with the Pope to some extent, I have very carefully attempted to lay out to what extent several times before. My initial engagement with you, many moons ago, was not over your disagreement with the Pope, it was over you calling him and Vatican II heretical, among other things, which I assume is part of the name-calling from which you will refrain.
Peace.
vynette,
May I make two suggestions.
First, please read the following explanation of Nihil Obstat and Imprimatur. It is very important to have a proper understanding of these terms.
Second, please understand that the Catechism of the Catholic Church is an authoritative source, declared by Pope John Paul II to be “a sure norm for teaching the faith”. If you would like to know what the Catholic Church actually believes and teaches that should be your primary source, even if you don’t agree with its teachings.
My only question for you is what authority do you give yourself to discard documentation and evidence that contradict your conclusion that Peter was not in Rome?
Take care and God bless,
Inocencio
J+M+J
Mark Shea has it right. “news flash: Pope is Catholic”
Why the uproar?
For the sake of reunification seeing the separated brethren as not only individually connected to the church, but in ecclesial communities, is step forward. Suppressed orders (Franciscans, Jesuits) have been brought back in before.
Mark Shea has it right. “news flash: Pope is Catholic”
Why the uproar?
For the sake of reunification seeing the separated brethren as not only individually connected to the church, but in ecclesial communities, is step forward. Suppressed orders (Franciscans, Jesuits) have been brought back in before.
As to the other Lutheran who posted, hey, it always was “The evangelical movement of the Augsburg Confession of the Catholic Church” not a separate Church as if Christ has more than one bride.
My initial engagement with you, many moons ago, was not over your disagreement with the Pope, it was over you calling him and Vatican II heretical, among other things, which I assume is part of the name-calling from which you will refrain.
Peace.
Esquire,
Very nicely handled!
God bless you!
John has resorted to name calling several times in past posts. To suddenly present himself on this thread as the epitome of charity is atrocious and misleading.
However, in the spirit of your charitable post above, I will not bring them up yet again.
Though I still cannot fathom how using the term “ignorant” is actually name-calling.
The author of the academic textbook that I referred to above actually used the same term when speaking about the fallacy of ignorance; that is, just because you are ignorant of the evidence doesn’t actually prove your point.
What an awful professor! I guess he was calling all those who were reading his books such detestable names!
Esau,
We have all had our moments, and it is no secret that I have in the past openly called for John to be banned from this site. But everyone can change their behavior, and from what I have seen John is making a decent attempt to dial back the rhetoric.
The points he makes from time to time are well worth discussing, and if he will do so calmly and rationally, I would welcome the opportunity to do so without unnecessary rhetoric from any side of the fence.
with one particular person whom I just defend myself and do not instigate such
John,
You know that this is a lie.
There are several of your past posts wherein you often attacked me in threads that had nothing to do with you, where even the conversations I and the other commenters were having had nothing to do with you.
I’m so tired of your lies and deception.
Just quit it.
*sigh*
Esquire,
I didn’t see your previous post as I was writing mine.
You’re a good man.
I can only pray that John actually lives up to your charitable view.
Esau,
Thanks. I understand.
God bless you for that post, catholicWayne. You said what I’ve been trying to communicate to Some Day better than I could.
Esau
Your uncharitable behavior directed not only towards me, but towards ANYONE who does not fall in line with your way of thinking is quite evident and you have already received one warning from Jimmy and should by now receive another, as you are in clear violation of DA RULZ #1!
1. People are welcome to disagree with me in the comments boxes as long as they are polite. I don’t mind disagreement. I do mind rudeness. (Be sure and see Rule 20 for how disagreement should be expressed in certain cases!) Rudeness towards others on the blog is also out of bounds
You come across so nasty and distasteful, call Traditionalists names while you yourself are so uncharitiable
The only possibly names used by myself towards you were in clear defense of myself, which I shall even try and refrain from as this is counterproductive, but I will keep a tally of how many times you do so to all here whenever possible and show Jimmy just how nasty a person you are and you can not forgive, move on, or change and for the life of me can not ever figure how you could be actually Catholic with those personality traits. It only goes to show that the liberals as yourself have so much more venom and pent up hatred in them than any trad or conservative and the same is played out clearly in the political arena as well
John,
I fail to see how asking others to stop calling you names can be reconciled with your apparent refusal to stop calling Esau names, or at least casting him in the worst possible light (uncharitable, rude, nasty, distasteful, liberal, “venom and pent up hatred”).
You have been extremely uncharitable in the past, and I am only one among many commenters here, but I am willing to look past that if you will refrain from doing it in the future. You appear unwilling, however, to offer the same concession to Esau.
You don’t have to like him or agree with him, but can we get past the nonsense?
Esquire posted:
John,
“I fail to see how asking others to stop calling you names can be reconciled with your apparent refusal to stop calling Esau names, or at least casting him in the worst possible light (uncharitable, rude, nasty, distasteful, liberal, “venom and pent up hatred”).”
Are you for real?
You have always been a tag team in the past with your nonsense trying to entrap and ensare me to get Jimmy to ban me so I take what you say with a grain of salt
John,
What part of my comment do you consider to be not real?
If you are going to insist that people stop calling you names (despite the fact that you have freely and repeatedly done so to others in the past), is it not “real” to expect you to afford others (despite the fact they have referred to you in ways you did not like in the past) the same courtesy?
I am not a tag team with Esau, and I don’t sanction all of his methods. I think that is clear from past posts.
I can assure you (whether you believe me or not is beyond my control) that I have no desire to entrap or ensnare you, and that if you behave civilly I will make no further appeals to have you banned.
I have asked Esau to tone it down with you, and I am asking you to tone it down with him, because it is frankly tiresome to see the two of you interact with each other, and it does not bear witness to what the discussion on a blog of this sort should be like.
I have pointed out Esau’s continued rants and name callings these past weeks, after Jimmy had given a warning not to do so
I have refrained from responding for the most part, except in charity these past weeks to his continued “rad trad” (which by the way I wear like a badge of honor as it is only due to rad trads we got this Moto) and other names and calling others “Ignorant”
If Jimmy wants the blog to disentegrate back down to the level it was a few weeks ago with nothing but thread after thread of name calling always started by the hot head Esau then that is his call. I will as taught always defend myself and not throw the first name as it is not in my character. Of course you are the same slant as Esau and as well are having a hard time probably these past weeks with the Holy father pushing forth the TLM and calling Protestant churchs “wounded” even more than that of the Orthodox!
Deo gratias as the TLM has now gotten world wide attention and those in my company who are not even Catholic are coming to me asking about it and want to sit in on one
This has been great
John,
You have thrown “the first name” (and the “last name”) at me several times.
And you are a terrible judge of character if you think that I am in the least bit disappointed with the Motu Propio, the accompanying letter, or the latest curial document. My only wish is that Pope Benedict would write faster, because I think he is a fantastic teacher.
Inocencio,
As well as The Catechism of the Catholic Church, Sacred Canon Law and de fide dogmas also bind all believing Catholics.
Canon 331
“The office uniquely committed by the Lord to Peter, the first of the Apostles, and to be transmitted to his successors, abides in the Bishop of the Church the Rome. He is the head of the College of Bishops, the Vicar of Christ and the Pastor of the universal Church here on earth. Consequently, by virtue of his office, he has supreme, full, immediate and universal ordinary power in the Church, and he can always freely exercise this power.”
The Dogmatic Constitution from Vatican I “Pastor Aeternus” 3:1-4
“And so, supported by the clear witness of Holy Scripture, and adhering to the manifest and explicit decrees both of our predecessors the Roman Pontiffs and of general councils, we promulgate anew the definition of the ecumenical Council of Florence, which MUST be believed by all faithful Christians, namely that the Apostolic See and the Roman Pontiff hold a world-wide primacy, and that the Roman Pontiff is the successor of blessed Peter, the prince of the apostles, true vicar of Christ, head of the whole Church and father and teacher of all Christian people.
“To him, in blessed Peter, full power has been given by our lord Jesus Christ to tend, rule and govern the universal Church. All this is to be found in the acts of the ecumenical councils and the sacred canons.
“…This is the teaching of the Catholic truth, and no one can depart from it without endangering his faith and salvation.”
Although Catholics believe that Peter established their church in Rome, they are actually under no obligation to do so. Catholics are simply required to believe the above. Of course, the obvious reason for this singular ommission is that there is no real evidence to support Peter’s ever being in Rome.
“My only question for you is what authority do you give yourself to discard documentation and evidence that contradict your conclusion that Peter was not in Rome?”
As I have already said, if there is evidence and documentation pre-170 AD, then please present it.
Regarding the question of “authority,” Jesus was asked the same question by the religious leaders of his day. Jesus stated to Pilate that he was born to bear witness to the truth and I have taken on myself a similar commitment. This quest for truth needs no justification.
Esquire,
Babylon = city or province of Babylon, in Mesopotamia, modern-day Iraq.
Esquire posted:
“You have thrown “the first name” (and the “last name”) at me several times.
And you are a terrible judge of character ”
Please provide me with an example??
Or do we need to resort to “Esau” standards and cant we all move on
If I have been out of line I do apologize as the last I checked I am human and commit sins
I hope you feel the same way
God bless you and Esau as well as it is very exhausting the name calling business
Enjoy
I think my 7/11/07 6:30PM post has been thoroughly vindicated.
Good, because this Tom & Jerry fighting between Esau & John was frankly getting the way of this thread.
Of course, this thread mainly seems to be unfounded assertions by Vinaigrette there how if Catholics must believe something to be Catholic, it’s CLEARLY a mass conspiracy cover up. So maybe letting this thread die isn’t such a bad thing. Pointless to argue with a tinfoil hat wearer.
John,
Please provide me with an example??
Well, in this thread, for one.
And the “terrible judge of character” bit has to do with your stated assumptions — which are wrong — that I am somehow displeased with Pope Benedict. Perhaps if I had simply said you judged my character wrongly in this regard it would have been clearer.
Vynette, you reject the witness of the early Church because it destroys your hypothesis.
If we provided evidence from before AD 170, you would say it was tainted, or you would demand even older evidence… “Why isn’t there any record before AD 150? Hmmm?”
There is ample early evidence of Peter’s presence in Rome. He need not be the first to bring the gospel to Rome. He need not have established the first church in Rome. He did not have to be the most famous Christian in Rome.
None of these things has any bearing – at all – on whether Peter was the first Pope. Jesus made him the Shepherd over His flock. If Peter had been bishop of Brooklyn, we would be called Brooklyn Catholics. Rome only comes into it incidentally. It is not Rome that lends significance to the Papacy, but the Papacy that gives Rome it’s greatest significance.
You argue as if there were some requirement that the first Pope be bishop of Rome… there wasn’t. Peter could have established his seat anywhere.
The Papal Seat was passed on through the Episopacy of Rome BECAUSE that’s where Peter ended his ministry (and his life), not the other way around.
vynette,
I know where Babylon is, and I can now guess where you think Peter is saying he was in 1 Peter 5:13. One question that comes to mind is why are you having so much trouble answering the question directly? It’s not that difficult a question, and if you were really in a quest for the truth I would think that you would not be opposed to answering questions truthfully and directly.
As for your quest for the truth, there is probably no point in reminding you that the Church is the pillar and foundation of truth, is there?
vynette,
One other question, should you choose to answer it. Where do you believe that St. Paul died?
While we’re at it, vynette, I take it you dismiss Ignatius of Antioch, and his letter to the Romans at the beginning of the second century. Or would you accept that letter as “evidence”?
My professors in a very Reformed seminary taught us that history indicates that Peter was in Rome twice.
He didn’t start the church there, that would have been pilgrims in Jerusalem at Pentacost who were from Rome.
It doesn’t by itself deal with the issues of what the rock that the Church will be built on is, the man or the confession,it doesn’t deal with the growing claims of Roman superiority in the last couple hundred years of the first millenium, leading to the Great Schism, nor the dogmas developed since then by the Latin church.
But it does look like Peter really did visit Rome and later went back and was martyred.
Puzzled,
Let’s consider Typology here.
Look to the following where Christ had given authority to the Apostles and which later was passed on to their successors, the Bishops.
Matthew 18:17-18
17 And if he will not hear them: tell the church. And if he will not hear the church, let him be to thee as the heathen and publican.
18 Amen I say to you, whatsoever you shall bind upon earth, shall be bound also in heaven: and whatsoever you shall loose upon earth, shall be loosed also in heaven.
What’s particularly significant with Peter is that in Matthew 16:18, Peter was the ONLY one given the Keys of the Kingdom!
Mt 16:18:
18 And I say to thee: That thou art Peter; and upon this rock I will build my church, and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it.
What is the significance of this?
Let’s look at the passages in Isaiah:
Is:22:21: And I will clothe him with thy robe, and strengthen him with thy girdle, and I will commit thy government into his hand: and he shall be a father to the inhabitants of Jerusalem, and to the house of Judah.
Is:22:22: And the key of the house of David will I lay upon his shoulder; so he shall open, and none shall shut; and he shall shut, and none shall open.
Isaiah 22:22 is ‘KEY’ to the language and typology of the ‘Key’ that Peter received in Matthew 16:18!
Hence, Peter is Father (i.e., ‘Papa’ or ‘Pope) to the New Jerusalem, which is the Church — just as the Prime Minister in this Isaiah passage was chosen by God to have such authority on behalf of the King, so is Peter the Prime Minister chosen by Christ to have authority on behalf of his Kingship here on earth.
No other person was given the Keys of the Kingdom except Peter, the rock upon which Christ built his Church!
What is of great importance here is not WHERE the papacy was established but WHO the Successor of Peter was since it is he who carries on this same authority given to Peter by Christ Himself.
As the typology in the Isaiah passage concerning the Prime Minister tells us, amongst other scriptural passages, this office of Prime Minister doesn’t begin and end with the first Prime Minister, but it is an office where there is an order of succession, as we also see in Acts where we actually witness succession of the position formerly held by Judas.
And who exactly leads this act but Peter himself whereupon the others submit to him as leader of the Apostles.
catholicWayne,
With all due respect, you must realize that I did embrace my defects as qualities, that would be a doubly a sin, as it is scandalous as well.
Secondly, those passages must be interpreted correctly. It is an error to assume that those passages apply when defending a cause greater than yourself. Namely, Christ, the Cause of everything. Any injuries to oneself one must accept them with the greatest acts of humility. But when it comes to the God and His Church, your love for those redundate in hate for His enemies, open or veiled. Now as I said before, conversion is the first thing on the mind. God manifests His glory greater in mercy than in justice.
Yet, when mercy is not seeked, His justice is fierce.
And as we can be instruments of His mercy, than also His vengeance. More later.
Some Day:
“With all due respect” I don’t remember Jesus saying His teachings no longer applied if you’re defending a cause greater than yourself. In fact, I remember Him saying “Love your enemies and pray for those who persecute you.”
You may want to re-read catholicWayne’s excellent post before throwing more out yourself.
Esquire
As we were discussing “Babylon” in the context of 1 Peter 5:13, I thought I had made myself very clear. But, I’ll say it again. The
“Babylon” of 1 Peter 5:13 is either the city or the province of Babylon in Mesopotamia.
In the absence of any solid historical evidence, Paul’s death can only be a matter of conjecture or tradition.
Are the Ignatian Epistles, spurious or not, relevant to this discussion about Peter being in Rome?
Tim J
“The Papal Seat was passed on through the Episopacy of Rome BECAUSE that’s where Peter ended his ministry (and his life), not the other way around.”
I am simply arguing that Peter was never in Rome at any time. Where is the evidence that Peter ended his ministry (and his life) in Rome?
vynette,
So, included within your “no evidence” before 170 AD of Peter in Rome would be:
* the statement in Clements’ letter that Peter ended his life in the same location Paul ended his (presumably you would regard this as “no evidence” because, among other things, there is no “solid historical evidence” of where Paul died).
* the statement in Ignatius’ letter to the Romans (110 AD) that Peter had commanded the Romans (because you conveniently reserve the right to regard Ignatius’ letter as “spurious”).
You know, at some point, even if no single piece of evidence is compelling for you, when one takes a look at the quantum of evidence you have thrown into the “no evidence” heap, it starts to look like you might have an agenda. Just maybe.
vynette,
Two other questions for you. (I really don’t know the answers to them, but assume that you might.)
Other than 1 Peter 5:13, is there any other evidence that Peter was ever in Babylon?
Other than 1 Peter 5:13, is there any other NT reference to Babylon which you believe does not refer to Rome?
“I am simply arguing that Peter was never in Rome at any time. Where is the evidence that Peter ended his ministry (and his life) in Rome?”
No, you are not arguing it, you are just stating and re-stating it. Your assertion that Peter was “never” in Rome is based far more on conjecture than the assertion that he WAS there. There is at least SOME evidence (which your pre-formed conclusion forces you to reject) for that.
Let me put it this way… we have provided evidence that Peter WAS in Rome at some point, you provide some evidence – any – that proves he wasn’t.
How these Christians love one another!
Clever! I envy that profound a wit!
There is only one “proof” text from Clement’s letter in which the Roman Catholic Church finds evidence that Peter resided in Rome. Modern translations of the letter, such as that of Lightfoot below, divide it into 65 numbered chapters. The “proof” text in question is from Chapter 5:
“But, to pass from the examples of ancient days, let us come to those champions who lived nearest to our time. Let us set before us the noble examples which belong to our generation. By reason of jealousy and envy the greatest and most righteous pillars of the Church were persecuted, and contended even unto death. Let us set before our eyes the good Apostles. There was Peter who by reason of unrighteous jealousy endured not one but many labors, and thus having borne his testimony went to his appointed place of glory. By reason of jealousy and strife Paul by his example pointed out the prize of patient endurance. After that he had been seven times in bonds, had been driven into exile, had been stoned, had preached in the East and in the West, he won the noble renown which was the reward of his faith, having taught righteousness unto the whole world and having reached the farthest bounds of the West; and when he had borne his testimony before the rulers, so he departed from the world and went unto the holy place, having been found a notable pattern of patient endurance.”
The CE Apostolic Succession article introduces the idea that both Peter and Paul were martyred in Rome by manipulating and massaging the above text to somehow wrest out of the passage the words “They have suffered amongst us”:
“Earlier still is Clement of Rome writing to the Corinthians, probably in 96, certainly before the end of the first century. He cites Peter’s and Paul’s martyrdom as an example of the sad fruits of fanaticism and envy. They have suffered “amongst us” he says.”
In these words “They have suffered amongst us” the Roman Catholic Church finds evidence that Peter not only resided in Rome but that he and Paul were also martyred there. It is their ONLY supposed “proof” from Clement’s letter.
Okay, I admit I haven’t read every post on here so perhaps someone already mentioned this, but… I’ve noticed that what is most “contraversial” about this document (like “defect” refering to other Christian churches/communities) comes from quotes from the Vatican II documents. The Vatican seems to be doing what I’ve been recommending for years: READ the Vatican II documents and SEE FOR YOURSELF that the Church’s dogmas DO NOT CHANGE (but are only understood with greater depth)!
James, do you love your family? I’d imagine so. Do you always agree with everything they say? I’d imagine not.
In Christian love, we do not want others falling into error that could literally damn them. For the most part here you are seeing people arguing as civilly as possible. Frankly, most atheists I’ve met by now would have made some “witty” comment about fighting over make believe entities, insult people and belittle them, and believe they “won” something by it. Most of these people are doing quite a bit better than that.
It’s me who is the real jerk you have to worry about if you get annoying. 😉
vynette,
Can I interpret your silence on the questions to mean that you have no answers?
In other words, there is no other evidence that Peter was Babylon, and every other instance of “Babylon” used in the NT is believed to refer to Rome?
You keep saying that we are using “proof texts” as if repetitively repeating it will make it true. In reality, what you are doing is taking a pile of evidence, examining one piece through a foggy filter, determining that as far as you can tell it is inconclusive, and then simply labeling it a “proof text.” What it is is another piece of corroborating evidence, that when considered in the context of all of the available evidence, leads one to the conclusion that the long-standing tradition of Peter having been in Rome is far more probable than the alternative you have offered, which is Babylon.
Yeah, especially since Babylon was nearly, if not completely, uninhabited by the First Century AD.
Good point bill912. Of course, maybe that’s why no one knew he was there.
Jarnor23:
In Christian love, we do not want others falling into error that could literally damn them.
This is precisely why I had taken issue with John’s comments.
I do wish to continue making the point that the notion John has been promoting on this blog (i.e., Catholics have the right to declare a valid Pope as Apostate) is indeed heretical and, in fact, defies the very core of traditional Catholic Teaching.
I do not want people who may not know the Catholic Faith well to mistake this heretical notion as part of the traditional teachings of the Catholic Church, which John has been disguising it as.
Esquire made some excellent comments on the thread “Commentary on Summorum Pontificum” regarding this and I shall leave it at that.
Esquire,
“Can I interpret your silence on the questions to mean that you have no answers?
In other words, there is no other evidence that Peter was Babylon, and every other instance of “Babylon” used in the NT is believed to refer to Rome?”
No, you cannot interpret it that way. You can interpet it as a refusal to be drawn away into a discussion of apocalytic genre literature which is a vastly different genre to that of an ordinary letter. Besides, you may take even more objection to any analysis of “Babylon the Great.”
As to Babylon being virtually uninhabited, that is simply not true as I have already demonstrated somewhere above. I also pointed out that Babel referred to a province as well as a city.
My 7/11/07 6:30PM post is proven correct again…and again…and again.
A determinedly preconceived motive. 😉
Hmmm,
Lots and lots of “answers” until someone asks a difficult question. Which, most likely, is “difficult” only because the “answer” is not satisfactory (i.e., does not support the pre-conceived agenda). So then, and only then, does the one who came swaggering in with all of the answers boldly proclaim that she refuses to be drawn into a discussion.
Figures.
Okay, if you all insist on my analysis of Revelation…
Interpretation of Revelation Chapters 12-18 hinges on the correct identification of two main opponents. These are:
(1) a woman arrayed with the sun, with the moon under her feet, and upon her head a crown of twelve stars;
(2) a harlot with ‘Bablyon the Great’ written on her forehead, carried by a scarlet-coloured beast.
This identification is not as complex as one might think. The woman ‘arrayed with the sun’ is the nation of Israel. In Genesis 37:9-10, the twelve tribes of Israel are described with exactly the same symbols. (Jews represent only 2 of these 12 tribes – the other 10 were not in Palestine when Revelation was written.)
The ‘scarlet beast’ of Revelation is what may be described as ‘Latinism’ – a state modelled in its constitution and administrative system upon the Imperial Latin State, with its own legal system and courts, and maintaining (until recently) its services, records and literature in the official language of the imperial model.(The Holy Roman Empire was a classic re-vivification of the Latin world-empire of the Caesars).
In Revelation Chapters 12-18, this ‘beast’ of Latinism is characterised as:
(a) an authoritarian mentality based on a master-slave relationship;
(b) with as many faces as are necessary to achieve its purpose;
(c) which always insists on the principle of compulsive power as the final (if not first) resort in religious and secular fields of life;
(d) relentlessly endeavouring to impose its own image on the world;
(e) subscribing traditionally to universal rule,
and the uniting of mankind in one world-embracing state;
(f) by whatever machinery is necessary,
be it the pagan state or the church state,
(g) and using as its instruments its military or religious leaders.
According to Revelation:
(1) the policy of the ‘beast’ is to oppose Israel and Israel’s Messiah;
(2) the ‘beast’ has an administrative arm;
(3) the adminstrative arm is described as a religious organisation and a ‘harlot’;
(4) this religious organisation has arrogated to itself the role properly belonging to 12-tribed Israel.
Judge for yourselves!
Vynette,
You have no idea what you’re talking about.
The woman actually regards the Doctrine of the Shekinah and the Theology of the Incarnation.
That is, the Ark of God that is no longer hidden, but displayed and actually opened.
Just who do you think is the Ark of God in the New Testament?
The Woman, radiant with sun, moon and stars, crying aloud in her birth-pangs — who do you think this is???
And when we see the Man-Child, when born, is carried up to God’s throne to shepherd the nations with the Messianic rod — obviously, this is Jesus Christ.
The woman — who do you think it is but the Virgin Mary!
In Genesis, God had said He would put emnity between the serpant and the Woman.
Genesis 3:15 And I will put enmity between thee and the woman, and between thy seed and her seed; it shall bruise thy head, and thou shalt bruise his heel.
Hence, in Revelation 12, you see the hatred of Lucifer not only for Christ but for Mary, the Woman. The devil seeks after the Woman because the woman is the source of the Incarnation of all this plan of God coming to pass.
Now, Vynette, who is the one here with a determinedly preconceived motive????
In Genesis, God had said He would put emnity between the serpant and the Woman.
Anything between you and Vynette?
Wow, Arnold!
I don’t know how I can recover from that — imagine that — instead of objectively refuting my comments which feature biblical scholarship from both Catholics and Protestants, you resorted to ad hominem attacks.
Why not try to attack my points which directly refutes Vynette’s comments rather than attacking me with your puerile gestures?
Esau, you should be dazzled by that kind of wit. Why, it’s only just below the average restroom wall scrawl!
vynette,
I asked you the following questions:
I chided you for refusing to answer those questions, at which point you responded with:
With all due respect, I did not ask for, much less insist on, any analysis of Revelation, nor does the “analysis” you provided answer my questions.
They are direct questions. If you have direct answers, it should be fairly easy to provide them.
Esquire,
I have learned that your apparently guileless questions are always designed to catch me out so that is why I am rather cautious and wonder what you have up your sleeve with this latest question.
“Other than 1 Peter 5:13, is there any other NT reference to Babylon which you believe does not refer to Rome?”
Matt. 1:11, 1:12, 1:17, Acts 7:43
vynette,
I have no desire to catch you out (and am not even sure what that means).
Each of the NT references you cite to “Babylon” where it actually means the location Babylon have to do with an historical mention of the Babylonian exile.
Based on that answer, would you agree with me that other than 1 Peter 5:13, every NT mention of “Babylon” as a then-present location refers to Rome?
And would you also agree with me that, other than 1 Peter 5:13, there is no other evidence that Peter was in Babylon? (If you would not agree with this, can you identify what other evidence there is that he was in Babylon.)
My point is very simple. 1 Peter 5:13 says Peter was in “Babylon.”
Every other time Babylon is used to describe a then-present-day location in the NT, it refers to Rome.
Combine that with the fact that there is a complete absence of any other evidence that Peter was ever in Babylon, and it becomes doubtful that Peter used “Babylon” to refer to Babylon.
If he was not in Babylon, he was most likely in Rome.
Esquire,
I apologise if I misconstrued your intent.
To your first question:
“Based on that answer, would you agree with me that other than 1 Peter 5:13, every NT mention of “Babylon” as a then-present location refers to Rome?” I would answer yes.
To your second question:
“And would you also agree with me that, other than 1 Peter 5:13, there is no other evidence that Peter was in Babylon? (If you would not agree with this, can you identify what other evidence there is that he was in Babylon.)” I would not agree.
Firstly, in the New Testament “Egypt” is also used both literally as a locality, and symbolically as a place of false religion.
Secondly, the Bible omits to mention such a momentous event as Peter’s presence in Rome. Its evidence points away from Rome in the opposite direction towards Mesopotamia and the Euphrates River, east of Jerusalem, where Peter had every reason to go and preach the gospel.
Thirdly, Peter and Paul each had a clear division of duties to which both were in agreement. (Romans, Galatians, 2nd Timothy, Acts.. It is stated very clearly: “For God who made Peter an apostle to the Jews also made me an apostle to the Gentiles. Recognising the favour bestowed on me, those pillars of our society James, Cephas and John accepted Barnabas and myself as partners and shook hands on it.” (Gal. 2:8)
The Catholic Encyclopaedia (Art. Peter) makes an interesting comment:
“Betweeen Peter and Paul there was no dogmatic difference in their conception of salvation for Jewish and Gentile Christians. The recognition of Paul as the Apostle of the Gentiles (Gal.2:1-9) was entirely sincere, and excludes all questions of a divergence of views. St. Peter and the other Apostles recognised the converts from paganism as Christian brothers on an equal footing; Jewish and Gentile Christians formed a single Kingdom of Christ. If therefore Peter devoted the preponderating portion of his apostolic activity to the Jews, this arose chiefly from practical considerations, and from the position of Israel as the Chosen People.”
Fourthly, this point of division of ministries to Jew and Gentile is reaffirmed by both Peter and Paul many times in their later writings; Rom. 11:13, 15:16-20, 1 Pet. 1.1. Paul always claimed his mission to the Gentiles to be directed by God and not a delegation from men; Acts 22:21, 23:11, 2 Tim 1:11. Equally, he denied several times that he built on other men’s foundations or works; 2 Cor. 10:15, Rom. 15:20.
In summary, Paul’s ministry was to the Gentiles; this ministry was given to him by God, not by men; this ministry was not built on another man’s works. Peter’s ministry was to the circumcised, the vast majority of whom were “beyond the Euphrates” according to Josephus.
So, I suppose we will just have to agree to disagree on this matter.
No really. Stop it.
vynette,
Thank you.
You said:
You say that you do not agree on this point, but then, as near as I can tell, you do not provide any evidence that Peter was in Babylon. You skip to the next point, and provide some reasons why you believe Peter was not in Rome. Do you agree or disagree that there is no evidence that Peter was in Babylon, apart from 1 Peter 5:13?
If I have misconstrued your explanation, and you believe that you have provided evidence that he was in Babylon (as opposed to evidence that he was not in Rome), can you clarify?
vynette,
Re-reading your answer, I guess you are saying that Peter ministered to the Jews, a majority of Jews were “beyond the Euphrates”, and Babylon is beyond the Euphrates. Is that correct?
Esquire,
I am saying that:
1. Peter ministered to those of the “circumcision.”
2. The “circumcision includes both Jews and Israelites, (the ten “lost” tribes).
3. The majority of the “circumcision” resided somewhere “beyond the Euphrates”.
4. “Babylon” in 1 Peter 5:13 refers to either the city (which in ancient times was situated right on the Euphrates) or to the province, which lay between the Euphrates on the west and the Tigris on the east.
vynette,
Thank you.
It seems to me that by any objective measure of the evidence, your case for Peter being in Babylon is much thinner than the case for Peter being in Rome, but as you suggest, we can just agree to disagree.
“Analysis later.”
I’m looking forward to it. In the meantime, I’ll have to make do with this analysis, which seems pretty accurate to me:
“We’re the One True Church, No Exceptions (And So Is the Orthodox Church)”
Jay D: Get yourself a dictionary. Then look up the definition of “analysis”.
“We’re the One True Church, No Exceptions (And So Is the Orthodox Church)” is not analysis?
Summary, then.
Sounds more like an emotional rant to me.
Sounds more like an emotional rant to me.
OK then. Now that you mention it, it does rather resemble an emotional rant. 😉