quote:

---

Originally posted by Anglican_Brat:
Is the fact that we don't actually know if anyone has gone into heaven an obstacle to celebrating Saints?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by IngoB:
Only a Protestant could be silly enough to doubt that the Mother of God is in heaven...

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by IngoB:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Anglican_Brat:
Is the fact that we don't actually know if anyone has gone into heaven an obstacle to celebrating Saints?

---

That's a fact? Says who? The whole business of having two miracles to your name before you can become a saint is intended as checking for confirmation from God. Furthermore, canonisation is an exercise of papal infallibility; hence saints canonised by the pope are Divinely guaranteed. Before the Church had worked out the procedure, there was a lot of messiness. You may want to be a bit cautious about some of the early saints. But that definitely does not include the BVM who is the Queen of Heaven. Only a Protestant could be silly enough to doubt that the Mother of God is in heaven...

---

But you have said it 'the church worked out the procedure'.

But let's be a little gentler with the silly pejorative comments okay and looking down your nose on those 'other' Christians, even if you think God will damn them for being outside your denomination. (Which is abomination.)

Let's try a less exclusivist understanding. The church has held out the examples particular exemplary lives as guidance to us, and in modern analogy, like modern sports figures, retired their jerseys or sweaters. God will decide the specifics of their lives, with them, personally, as none of us have access to anyone else's full life story, so it doesn't matter.
 

---

Posted by IngoB (# 8700) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by HughWillRidmee:
Whilst I understand that the official position lumps all non-RCCs together as excluded from heaven I don't suppose that means you think that we non-believers (or Hindus, Jains, Jedi etc. come to that) are just another variety of Protestant.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by no prophet:
But you have said it 'the church worked out the procedure'.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by no prophet:
But let's be a little gentler with the silly pejorative comments okay and looking down your nose on those 'other' Christians, even if you think God will damn them for being outside your denomination.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Anglican_Brat:
Last night I had a conversation with a more Protestant friend of mine. He said that he objected to Saints' Days because we don't know whether anyone actually has gone into heaven. He said "Even we don't know if Mary has gone into heaven or not."

Is the fact that we don't actually know if anyone has gone into heaven an obstacle to celebrating Saints?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by IngoB:
And simply lay off the BVM, OK?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by IngoB:

quote:

---

Originally posted by no prophet:
But let's be a little gentler with the silly pejorative comments okay and looking down your nose on those 'other' Christians, even if you think God will damn them for being outside your denomination.

---

Who was talking about people being damned for being outside of my denomination? It sure wasn't me.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by mousethief:

quote:

---

Originally posted by IngoB:

quote:

---

Originally posted by no prophet:
But let's be a little gentler with the silly pejorative comments okay and looking down your nose on those 'other' Christians, even if you think God will damn them for being outside your denomination.

---

Who was talking about people being damned for being outside of my denomination? It sure wasn't me.

---

Who missed the point here? It sure was you.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Kaplan Corday:
The latter is believed to be, according to the Penguin Dictionary Of Saints, “a powerful intercessor for those in desperate straits” – such as those trying to find a shred of biblical justification for the existence and veneration of a class of super-Christians called “saints”, when the NT quite clearly uses the word “saints” to refer to all believers.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by HughWillRidmee:
Whilst I understand that the official position lumps all non-RCCs together as excluded from heaven I don't suppose that means you think that we non-believers (or Hindus, Jains, Jedi etc. come to that) are just another variety of Protestant. I am therefore delighted to read that you have realised that atheists are not silly when we doubt that anyone is in heaven.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Mark Betts:

quote:

---

Originally posted by HughWillRidmee:
Whilst I understand that the official position lumps all non-RCCs together as excluded from heaven I don't suppose that means you think that we non-believers (or Hindus, Jains, Jedi etc. come to that) are just another variety of Protestant. I am therefore delighted to read that you have realised that atheists are not silly when we doubt that anyone is in heaven.

---

The official position is that non-RCCs are outside of THE CHURCH - likewise with Orthodox - it has never meant excluded from heaven. Similarly, those who are part of the Church are not necessarily bound for heaven, because we are all judged as individuals - according to our works.

I challenge any Protestant to argue that the Bible doesn't say that.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Anselmina:
Good old, IngoB! The warm, respectful embrace of Catholic Ecumenism, eh?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Anselmina:
I have to admit I've only read what has been posted on this thread so far, so maybe your command to No Prophet is based on something else, but I can't see where he's been laying into her.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Anselmina:
Anyway, why should anyone 'lay off' Mary? Or question whatever credentials particular Churches may choose to assign to her? Did you take the copyright out on her, or something?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Anselmina:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Anglican_Brat:
Last night I had a conversation with a more Protestant friend of mine. He said that he objected to Saints' Days because we don't know whether anyone actually has gone into heaven. He said "Even we don't know if Mary has gone into heaven or not."

Is the fact that we don't actually know if anyone has gone into heaven an obstacle to celebrating Saints?

---

Did your friend have any reasons why he should think any of the saints, including, Mary weren't in heaven? Or putting it another way, why does he think his 'not knowing' a thing should exclude the whole pantheon of would-be saints from the heavenly kingdom? I have no eye-witness knowledge that any of my dead Christian acquaintances are in heaven; but why should that be construed in such a way that I can't in faith assume they are there?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Mudfrog:


I would, of course, as a Protestant, say quite firmly that in All Saints day we don't just celebrate the lives of the BIG stained-glass saints, we also remember with thanks those saints who were known personally to us - a minister, a sunday school teacher, a member of the congregation - who encouraged us in our faith.

All Saints Day is a great way of celebrating the saving grace of God who has given eternal life to all who trust in Christ and made us all into his saints.

---

I bow to the Mudfrog.

The Catholic church's practice of naming saints doesn't bother me so long as they are suggested as examples -- I like the sports Hall-of-fame analogy upthread, but I've always disliked the idea of anyone from Mary, Mother of God to my own mother having to spend eternity listening to our earthly concerns. May they all rest in peace.
 

---

Posted by Trudy Scrumptious (# 5647) on :
 
I don't think Mary is in Heaven or in Hell -- I think she is most likely asleep in the grave awaiting resurrection with the rest of the righteous dead (although as Scripture suggests a few individuals have been given exceptional special resurrection or direct access to heaven without dying, it also wouldn't trouble my faith to find she were in that category). Assuming that if I don't think she's in Heaven she must be burning in hell is the usual reductionist binary thinking that results from assuming everyone shares your presuppositions.
 

---

Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on :
 
Bizarre as it may sound, how this sort of thing has been explained to me by RCs isn't a million miles from what Mudfrog has said - although in different terminology and from a different direction/frame of reference of course.

As far as I understand it, the veneration of BIG stained-glass Saints in no way excludes the grateful remembrance of small 's' ones or people who, by their godly example, have influenced us - be they parents, grandparents, Sunday school teachers or the bloke next door ...

Surely it's both/and not either/or ...



But perhaps that's a very Anglican thing of me to say ...
 

---

Posted by Mama Thomas (# 10170) on :
 
I've encouraged convents and others to get to k ow the saints and to have a personal relationship with them. Read their bios, pray for them and ask their prayers, remember them on their days. Of course they are in heaven, though without the fullness of the resurrection, so they are still awaiting the Consummation with us. Didn't Jesus say that he would never cast away those who came to him? Doesn't Luke say Elizabeth says Mary is highly favoured or full of grace? And Zechariah, and Elizabeth, and John and a few more?

Who can condemn these people to hell? Also, isn't what is bound on earth bound in heaven, so if these heroes are declared to be with God, what good would it do to say they re not. I have heard a Proddie minister declare some people to be burning in hell, viz. Presidents Wilson, FDR, Kennedy, Johnson and he hopes soon, Obama, but intend to think right wing nuts are unhinged theologically as we'll as politically.
 

---

Posted by Anselmina (# 3032) on :
 
IngoB, I have no idea what you're like in real life. But posting on the Ship you come across to me as someone who cannot even begin to engage with anyone who is not you.

Your big challenge in life, it seems, is to realize that a lot of people disagree with you, no matter how right you think you are; and sniping and bitching at them is not a reasonable response. If you find yourself unable to respond usefully and respectfully, to robust challenges about peculiar aspects of your church belief, maybe you're in the wrong place, on a discussion board?

As for that challenge, I still can't see, by the way, where anyone apart from the quoted Protestant in the OP even suggested Mary was not in heaven, let alone burning in hell. (You see, again, not everyone has your belief in your idea of hell.) If you really think anyone here has called 'your' mother a whore then do the intelligent thing and take it to Hell.

It's good, important, to have the input of Roman Catholics and others on this thread, and what they think about what one particular Protestant said to Anglican Brat - but for some of us it's not really all about you, you know? It's nice of you to share your viewpoint, but most of us are perfectly capable of understanding your perspective without your slagging us off for not sharing it with you.
 

---

Posted by IngoB (# 8700) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Trudy Scrumptious:
I don't think Mary is in Heaven or in Hell -- I think she is most likely asleep in the grave awaiting resurrection with the rest of the righteous dead (although as Scripture suggests a few individuals have been given exceptional special resurrection or direct access to heaven without dying, it also wouldn't trouble my faith to find she were in that category). Assuming that if I don't think she's in Heaven she must be burning in hell is the usual reductionist binary thinking that results from assuming everyone shares your presuppositions.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Gamaliel:
As far as I understand it, the veneration of BIG stained-glass Saints in no way excludes the grateful remembrance of small 's' ones or people who, by their godly example, have influenced us - be they parents, grandparents, Sunday school teachers or the bloke next door ...

Surely it's both/and not either/or ... But perhaps that's a very Anglican thing of me to say ...

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by IngoB:
While the idea of people "asleep in their graves" till the resurrection is another heresy, it is not a particularly relevant one for the question at hand.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Anselmina:
If you find yourself unable to respond usefully and respectfully, to robust challenges about peculiar aspects of your church belief, maybe you're in the wrong place, on a discussion board?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Anselmina:
As for that challenge, I still can't see, by the way, where anyone apart from the quoted Protestant in the OP even suggested Mary was not in heaven, let alone burning in hell.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Anselmina:
If you really think anyone here has called 'your' mother a whore then do the intelligent thing and take it to Hell.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Anselmina:
It's good, important, to have the input of Roman Catholics and others on this thread, and what they think about what one particular Protestant said to Anglican Brat - but for some of us it's not really all about you, you know?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Mark Betts:
The official position is that non-RCCs are outside of THE CHURCH...

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by IngoB:
While the idea of people "asleep in their graves" till the resurrection is another heresy, it is not a particularly relevant one for the question at hand. Precisely by taking this on your terms, I arrive at my "binary" distinction. If this is what you say about Mary, then as far as I am concerned you are saying that Mary is in heaven. For you Mary is a Saint, as are the other righteous "dead". You are mistaken about her time of arrival, not about her destination.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by IngoB:

And you clearly do not understand the RC position on the population of heaven.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Evensong:
< tangent > Why is saying people are asleep until the final resurrection heresy? It is entirely biblical. ... < end tangent >

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Albertus:
Awaiting entry into Heaven = is in Heaven? Ingo, you don't by any chance work in customer services for a railway company, do you?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by no prophet:

quote:

---

Originally posted by IngoB:
And you clearly do not understand the RC position on the population of heaven.

---

Disagreement does not merit your suggestion of misunderstanding. Stop it please. Neither silly nor lacking in knowledge thank you very much. You're turning this into a issue of attitude.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by no prophet:
There are some parts of the world where RC, Lutherans, Anglicans, and others work very closely together, share chaplaincies, church buildings, church suppers, summer camps and church schools, potlucks, retreat centres, and we actually work at being more inclusive of each other. This old fashioned holier than thou stuff has got to go.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by no prophet:
You should know that disagreement within the RC church is constant and healthy. ... The unity is expressed by common faith and cup.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by IngoB:

The statement you quote was in response to HughWillRidmee, who AFAIK is an atheist (not a Protestant), and who claimed "Whilst I understand that the official position lumps all non-RCCs together as excluded from heaven...". That's simply a falsehood, and my response was both reasonable and restrained. Now, I'm going to continue calling spades spades, and if that hurts your precious feelings, then that is just too bad.

---

quote:

---

First, I do not use "heresy" to indicate something that is beyond the pale of all Christian belief. I use the word in its original sense. For me anything contrary to RC dogma is heresy, and this is contrary to RC dogma

---

quote:

---

RC dogma is not based on the bible alone, but also on tradition, and the idea that anything can be proven or disproven from scripture by force of reasonable argument alone is a Protestant delusion which I do not share.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by HughWillRidmee:
Logic circuit not working too well recently? You are totally wrong about my statement being a falsehood; you’d have been right had you said that my understanding was wrong – but you didn’t did you?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by HughWillRidmee:
I don’t suppose you agree with Wikipedia but it says ...

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by HughWillRidmee:
original as in “as redefined some time ago”?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by HughWillRidmee:
Tradition as a justification for anything (RCC, Protestant, Muslim, Scientific or Atheist) is silly; it can’t always have been tradition can it?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by IngoB:
That presumably means that sometime soon you will shut up about me, and I would highly appreciate that.

---

You don't say.

Well, I would appreciate it if you could stop slagging off Protestants in such a snide and arrogant way (not that I imagine for a moment that'll happen). But as this is a public forum I think you should have the freedom to slag people off, as long as those who disagree with you have the freedom to call you on that.
 

---

Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on :
 
InGoB, even if my name were Pope Benedict XVI and my address No. 1 Papal Chambers, The Vatican, Vatican City and I were the most ultramontane of Ultramontane Roman Catholics who had ever lived, I would still think you were a prat ...

I hope that still lies within the bounds of Purgatorial debate. If it isn't I would happily take it up in Hell only I doubt it'd do any good.

Leopards don't change their spots and prats remain prats on whatever board they appear.
 

---

Posted by IngoB (# 8700) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Anselmina:
Well, I would appreciate it if you could stop slagging off Protestants in such a snide and arrogant way (not that I imagine for a moment that'll happen).

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Gamaliel:
I hope that still lies within the bounds of Purgatorial debate.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Trisagion:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Mark Betts:
The official position is that non-RCCs are outside of THE CHURCH...

---

No it isn't. The official position is that all the baptised are, in some way, inside THE CHURCH.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by IngoB:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Anselmina:
[qb]Well, I would appreciate it if you could stop slagging off Protestants in such a snide and arrogant way (not that I imagine for a moment that'll happen).

---

Can you imagine many Catholics or Orthodox that would say "Even we don't know if Mary has gone into heaven or not"?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Martin PC not & Ship's Biohazard:
So whither Muslims? Buddhists? Jews? Hindus? Sikhs? Neanderthals? The aborted?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Mudfrog:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Martin PC not & Ship's Biohazard:
So whither Muslims? Buddhists? Jews? Hindus? Sikhs? Neanderthals? The aborted?

---

Will the judge of all the earth not do right?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by no prophet:
IngoB's profane and pretentious defensiveness makes this rather difficult to discuss. There are parts of the world outside his little bubble where myths and old ideas have adapted necessarily to actually care about people. Where Mary is less important than fellow human beings who are suffering today. When their towns used to have 1500 people and now have 300, with next towns unincorporated and almost disappeared, and the town where things are actually going as they did 40 years is 300 km away, where the temperatures in winter go to -40°C and in summer to +40, where people actually greet their neighbours and pitch in to help them when there's a need. ...

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by no Martin PC not & Ship's Biohazard:
So whither Muslims? Buddhists? Jews? Hindus? Sikhs? Neanderthals? The aborted?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Jade Constable:
That would be the honest response, surely? None of us KNOW, even if we believe it. It's a matter of faith and not fact.

---

Yeah, this really is all about epistemology. Not.
 

---

Posted by Martin PC not & Ship's Biohazard (# 368) on :
 
WOL - what are YOU on IngoB ?
 

---

Posted by IngoB (# 8700) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Martin PC not & Ship's Biohazard:
WOL - what are YOU on IngoB ?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Gamaliel:
I think that some of us benighted Protestants here, InGoB, including Mudfrog and myself, have stated that we find the suggestion by the Protestant cited in the OP to be somewhat foolish. Sure, I wouldn't expect any self-respecting RC or Orthodox believer to be unsure whether the Virgin Mary is in heaven - but then I don't know any Protestants who would doubt that she is either.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Gamaliel:
I think you'd embarrass me if I were an RC, IngoB.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by IngoB:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Gamaliel:
[qb]I think that some of us benighted Protestants here, InGoB, including Mudfrog and myself, have stated that we find the suggestion by the Protestant cited in the OP to be somewhat foolish. Sure, I wouldn't expect any self-respecting RC or Orthodox believer to be unsure whether the Virgin Mary is in heaven - but then I don't know any Protestants who would doubt that she is either.

---

Do you want some kind of certificate of Marian enlightenment from me, or something? Now the deal is simply this: benighted Catholics are talking out of their arses about many, many issues of Catholic faith. But not about the BVM. That's not doctrine. That's visceral. The old ladies arranging the flowers will spank you if you mess with her. It's not done. In a way it's even closer to the bone than Christ. Jesus is God, He's a big boy, He can handle Himself. Mary is not. She's a pregnant girl. She is a desperate mum. She gets this whole salvation business dumped on her and deals. She's us. Mess with her, mess with us.

Point being, it really could only be a Protestant who trash talks Mary. It's just not there in Catholicism. It would be like kicking puppies or clobbering baby seals. It cannot be done. And I'm not even particularly devoted to the BVM. Still, it makes my skin crawl.

And mind you, I say this on the day where a Catholic priest basically preached "non serviam" ("I will not serve") at me. From the pulpit, he told Catholics to repudiate the idea of service to God as contrary to this papal year of faith. I'm still stunned. My esteem of average Catholic spirituality is so low, you couldn't squeeze a prayer card under it. Still, with a dozen millstones around our necks, we Catholics always have a "Hail Mary" on our lips. And it may just save us at the hour of our death, you never know...

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by IngoB:
Sure, where some time ago is latest the 2nd century AD, with Irenaeus' Against Heresies (as you could have found out by actually reading the Wikipedia page that you linked to). That's old enough for me to establish the proper use of this word in the Christian context.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by HughWillRidmee:
Tradition as a justification for anything (RCC, Protestant, Muslim, Scientific or Atheist) is silly; it can’t always have been tradition can it?Indeed. RC tradition is primarily based on what Jesus Christ taught the apostles, and secondarily on the prior revelation of God to the chosen people, which had multiple times of origin.

---

quote:

---

This tradition is not magic

---

quote:

---

it is Divine.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Jade Constable:
That would be the honest response, surely? None of us KNOW, even if we believe it. It's a matter of faith and not fact.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by IngoB:
I do not use "heresy" to indicate something that is beyond the pale of all Christian belief.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by bib:
Although I believe there are and will be saints, I have never understood why it seems to be the Roman Catholic church that declares people to be saints. I can think of many people from the protestant faiths who were/are worthy of being declared saints. This is not meant to be an attack on the RCs, just a puzzled question. After all, many protestant churches are given saints' names, albeit ones from biblical times. Should we be acknowledging that people such as Martin Luther, John Wesley, Desmond Tutu (just examples, the list is endless)are saints.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Gamaliel:
I would still think you were a prat ...

I hope that still lies within the bounds of Purgatorial debate. If it isn't I would happily take it up in Hell only I doubt it'd do any good.

Leopards don't change their spots and prats remain prats on whatever board they appear.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Jade Constable:
Also re Tutu, even RCs wouldn't canonise a living person...

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Latchkey Kid:
In my tradition "saints" is just an alternative term for "Christians" following, I think, Paul's mode of address to churches in several of his letters, and equivalent to Peter's use of "all who treasure the same faith as ourselves" in his 2nd letter.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by sebby:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Latchkey Kid:
In my tradition "saints" is just an alternative term for "Christians" following, I think, Paul's mode of address to churches in several of his letters, and equivalent to Peter's use of "all who treasure the same faith as ourselves" in his 2nd letter.

---

The 'communion of saints' is a statement about the nature of the church. We are members of the Christian fellowship, undivided by death.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by IngoB:
Furthermore, canonisation is an exercise of papal infallibility; hence saints canonised by the pope are Divinely guaranteed. Before the Church had worked out the procedure, there was a lot of messiness. You may want to be a bit cautious about some of the early saints.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by sebby:
If we can ask Aunt Maude on her way to church to 'say one for me', so we might also be able to ask Aunt Cecily who has 'died' to say one as well; they are both members of the Christian fellowship through baptism, undivided by death in the Ark of Christ's Church.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Latchkey Kid:

quote:

---

Originally posted by sebby:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Latchkey Kid:
In my tradition "saints" is just an alternative term for "Christians" following, I think, Paul's mode of address to churches in several of his letters, and equivalent to Peter's use of "all who treasure the same faith as ourselves" in his 2nd letter.

---

The 'communion of saints' is a statement about the nature of the church. We are members of the Christian fellowship, undivided by death.

---

That's fine, but Paul was writing to the saints who were alive, not the ones who had died.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Hawk:

quote:

---

Originally posted by IngoB:
Furthermore, canonisation is an exercise of papal infallibility; hence saints canonised by the pope are Divinely guaranteed. Before the Church had worked out the procedure, there was a lot of messiness. You may want to be a bit cautious about some of the early saints.

---

I find this interesting. IngoB, you recognise that the Church (by which you mean your particular branch of the church - the RCC) has historically been flawed in its procedure for recognising saints. I didn't know this recognistion was available to a Catholic, since dogma is dogma. I thought if the RCC says a saint is a saint, then you are duty bound to accept that without question, or hand in your membership card.

How therefore can you post the above without critisicing RCC Authority. And please could you explain at which point the Authority of the Church to recognise saints stopped being dodgy and became Absolute Truth.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Hawk:
I find this interesting. IngoB, you recognise that the Church (by which you mean your particular branch of the church - the RCC) has historically been flawed in its procedure for recognising saints. I didn't know this recognistion was available to a Catholic, since dogma is dogma. I thought if the RCC says a saint is a saint, then you are duty bound to accept that without question, or hand in your membership card. How therefore can you post the above without critisicing RCC Authority. And please could you explain at which point the Authority of the Church to recognise saints stopped being dodgy and became Absolute Truth.

---

quote:

---

What happened? Were these guys chucked out of heaven because the Pope decided they weren't a saint any more?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Mudfrog:
This is very interesting, not least becasue I read only today that some saints were 'demoted' in 1969 - causing a furore among the faithful. What happened? Were these guys chucked out of heaven because the Pope decided they weren't a saint any more?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Hawk:

quote:

---

Originally posted by IngoB:
Furthermore, canonisation is an exercise of papal infallibility; hence saints canonised by the pope are Divinely guaranteed. Before the Church had worked out the procedure, there was a lot of messiness. You may want to be a bit cautious about some of the early saints.

---

I find this interesting. IngoB, you recognise that the Church (by which you mean your particular branch of the church - the RCC) has historically been flawed in its procedure for recognising saints. I didn't know this recognistion was available to a Catholic, since dogma is dogma. I thought if the RCC says a saint is a saint, then you are duty bound to accept that without question, or hand in your membership card.

How therefore can you post the above without critisicing RCC Authority. And please could you explain at which point the Authority of the Church to recognise saints stopped being dodgy and became Absolute Truth.

quote:

---

Originally posted by sebby:
If we can ask Aunt Maude on her way to church to 'say one for me', so we might also be able to ask Aunt Cecily who has 'died' to say one as well; they are both members of the Christian fellowship through baptism, undivided by death in the Ark of Christ's Church.

---

The difference is that Maude is still alive, therefore her prayers will be listened to whether she is saved or not. Once dead, the requests and prayers of those who died unsaved will not be heeded by God. Therefore to ask Maude to pray for us does not rest on our certainty of her salvation, whereas asking Cecily does.

It is this 'certainty' that Protestants baulk at, since we can never know another person's heart. It would be great if everyone who said to Jesus 'Lord, Lord', was his redeemed disciple, but Jesus tells us they are not all saved.

It would be great if going to Church and professing you're a Christian to your friends saved you. Then we would indeed know for a certainty who was going to heaven and who wasn't. But people lie, and intelligent men of faith and discernment are often decieved. Only God is omniscient, and only God knows for sure. To seek to not just assume, but decree who is and who isn't in heaven is to take that right and authority from him and claim it for our own. We are not God, and we should not presume to be.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Latchkey Kid:

quote:

---

Originally posted by sebby:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Latchkey Kid:
In my tradition "saints" is just an alternative term for "Christians" following, I think, Paul's mode of address to churches in several of his letters, and equivalent to Peter's use of "all who treasure the same faith as ourselves" in his 2nd letter.

---

The 'communion of saints' is a statement about the nature of the church. We are members of the Christian fellowship, undivided by death.

---

That's fine, but Paul was writing to the saints who were alive, not the ones who had died.

---

Indeed he was. But he was aware that part of the living church was beyond the grave. Hence the necessity to write to the Church at Corinth about the resurrection.

The first problem the apostolic wrtiers had to encounter was that Christians died before Christ had returned.
 

---

Posted by Latchkey Kid (# 12444) on :
 
We'll have to watch it. Or we'll find ourselves in violent agreement .
 

---

Posted by sebby (# 15147) on :
 

 

---

Posted by Hawk (# 14289) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by sebby:
Salvation is God's gift through Christ. It is better not to presume on one's salvation; it is a gift.

It would be very tempting if one was Divine to turn the tables on those who presume;

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Hawk:

quote:

---

Originally posted by sebby:
Salvation is God's gift through Christ. It is better not to presume on one's salvation; it is a gift.

It would be very tempting if one was Divine to turn the tables on those who presume;

---

I think it is safe for us to presume on our own salvation. That is the uniqueness of the Christian faith, that we have been given a sure certainty that if we genuinely believe in the redeeming power of Christ, and follow him, then God promises us eternal life. It is a promise of God, and a presumption based on God's promise is safe.

What we cannot presume on is the beliefs of other people, since we can only ever know what they say they believe, not what they do believe.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Evensong:

quote:

---

Originally posted by IngoB:
While the idea of people "asleep in their graves" till the resurrection is another heresy, it is not a particularly relevant one for the question at hand.

---

< tangent > Why is saying people are asleep until the final resurrection heresy? It is entirely biblical.

Jesus was the first fruit. Nothing about Mary in heaven in the bible. I don't see why she should be. < end tangent >

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by sebby:
Presumption is never a very attractive characteristic.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by IngoB:

quote:

---

Originally posted by no prophet:
There are some parts of the world where RC, Lutherans, Anglicans, and others work very closely together, share chaplaincies, church buildings, church suppers, summer camps and church schools, potlucks, retreat centres, and we actually work at being more inclusive of each other. This old fashioned holier than thou stuff has got to go.

---

By all means, do celebrate that newfangled less holy than you with your like-minded Lutheran, Anglican and even RC inclusivists. You richly deserve each other.

---

quote:

---

Now the deal is simply this: benighted Catholics are talking out of their arses about many, many issues of Catholic faith. But not about the BVM. That's not doctrine. That's visceral. The old ladies arranging the flowers will spank you if you mess with her. It's not done. In a way it's even closer to the bone than Christ. Jesus is God, He's a big boy, He can handle Himself. Mary is not. She's a pregnant girl. She is a desperate mum. She gets this whole salvation business dumped on her and deals. She's us. Mess with her, mess with us.

---

Happy All Saints Day to you.

Next: Boy, you learn something new on the Ship every day. Gautama Siddhartha/Josaphat is a saint. How cool is that!

Lastly: I understand how irritated you are by the Prot dogpile, IngoB, but snidely saying "they deserve each other" is also IMO over the top. Funny thing is that I could also say "they deserve each other" as a positive. If I worked in one of those rather ecumenical settings, I would never expect the RCs to give up their beliefs. I'd hope that we would all rub together as well as we could and gain some understanding. Not to mention that we should ask, in the words of St. Philip Neri, "WELL! when shall we have a mind to begin to do good?"
 

---

Posted by IngoB (# 8700) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by malik3000:
Yet your "you richly deserve each other statement" betrays a real unmerited animus toward ecumenical sharing activities per se. Why the contempt?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by malik3000:
In this Board, people are by definition coming from varying perspectives, which will disagree with each other, and people will think that what some others posts is incorrect from their perspective. Actually if this were not the case, what would be the point of discussion?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by malik3000:
Choosing a "red-flag" term like "heresy" for views disagreeing with yours is not condusive to true civil debate of ideas. Neither is calling "delusional" or "slanderous" views in disagreement with views you are defending. And certainly telling people to shut up is not. Your "you deserve each other" comment which I quoted above indicates something other than a desire for a respectful debate of ideas.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by malik3000:
Let it be noted that i am not making any ad hominem comments on what kind of person IngB may or not be. I am commenting strictly on the contents of comments posted on this thread.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by IngoB:

quote:

---

Originally posted by malik3000:
Yet your "you richly deserve each other statement" betrays a real unmerited animus toward ecumenical sharing activities per se. Why the contempt?

---

Because the RCC is holier than any combination of Lutherans, Anglicans and for that matter Orthodox. It is the Church, not a church. I have no (serious) problems with sharing facilities, even churches, where a clear need arises. (In fact, my favourite place of worship near my home town is shared by Catholics and Lutherans.) I have no (serious) problem with occasional joined activities. Certainly not with charitable ones, but also not with recreational ones. But I do have a serious problem with the attitude that all denominations are the same before the Lord.

The Anglicans, Protestants and even the Orthodox churches are in various ways heretic and schismatic, and the Lord does not smile on their breaking the unity of the Church, however much He may appreciate the individual and organisational holiness that certainly can be found in these churches. And yes, I am fully aware that Anglicans, Protestants and Orthodox have their own opinions about who broke up that unity of the Church, and how. And I think they are plain wrong.

Now, as long as these fundamentals remain clear, in theory but also in practice, I'm OK with ecumenism. ....

---

Oh Ingo, you really are a one-off (I hope).
 

---

Posted by Latchkey Kid (# 12444) on :
 
Heresy is a social construct and its use and misuse have caused travesties of the Gospel.
 

---

Posted by IngoB (# 8700) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Lyda*Rose:
Lastly: I understand how irritated you are by the Prot dogpile, IngoB, but snidely saying "they deserve each other" is also IMO over the top. Funny thing is that I could also say "they deserve each other" as a positive.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Latchkey Kid:
Heresy is a social construct and its use and misuse have caused travesties of the Gospel.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Latchkey Kid:
"Heresy" has been reified. "Travesty" is just a noun used as an adjective.

---

Er, no--it's a noun used as a noun.

The value of "heresy" is that it at least has a theological meaning; reified or not, there is denotative content. Speaking of something as a travesty, on the other hand, communicates mostly that you disapprove of it.
 

---

Posted by Latchkey Kid (# 12444) on :
 
Take it to another thread if you want to continue. (See above)
 

---

Posted by IngoB (# 8700) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by malik3000:
But i also realize that people who i think are heretics and schismatics might disagree and may in fact think i am a heretic or schismatic.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by malik3000:
But i don't think this debate terrain is necessarily a place for that adversarial approach.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by malik3000:
Those of your comments with which i chose to deal were the ones which i felt were overly polemical and adversarial.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by malik3000:
Finally, admitting i am not the most knowledgeable about a lot of online messaging conventions, what does <crickets> mean?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by IngoB:

quote:

---

Originally posted by malik3000:
Yet your "you richly deserve each other statement" betrays a real unmerited animus toward ecumenical sharing activities per se. Why the contempt?

---

Because the RCC is holier than any combination of Lutherans, Anglicans and for that matter Orthodox. It is the Church, not a church. I have no (serious) problems with sharing facilities, even churches, where a clear need arises. (In fact, my favourite place of worship near my home town is shared by Catholics and Lutherans.) I have no (serious) problem with occasional joined activities. Certainly not with charitable ones, but also not with recreational ones. But I do have a serious problem with the attitude that all denominations are the same before the Lord.

The Anglicans, Protestants and even the Orthodox churches are in various ways heretic and schismatic, and the Lord does not smile on their breaking the unity of the Church, however much He may appreciate the individual and organisational holiness that certainly can be found in these churches. And yes, I am fully aware that Anglicans, Protestants and Orthodox have their own opinions about who broke up that unity of the Church, and how. And I think they are plain wrong.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by IngoB:
The Anglicans, Protestants and even the Orthodox churches are in various ways heretic and schismatic, and the Lord does not smile on their breaking the unity of the Church,

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Anselmina:
This is hilarious. Only you, IngoB, could reply to a query explaining your contempt of others, by saying it's because you're holier than them!

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Anselmina:
And the kicker is you claim that it is your Church that gives you the authority to believe this to be true.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Anselmina:
However, I do wish there could be a little consistency in these infallible doctrinal pronouncements. A while ago (on another thread) I made a comment about Anglicans being considered heretics by the RCs only to be corrected by a prominent RC poster and told that that was definitely not the case! This really ought to be clarified: I might want to have a t-shirt made up...

---

• Therefore, if anyone says that blessed Peter the apostle was not appointed by Christ the lord as prince of all the apostles and visible head of the whole Church militant; or that it was a primacy of honor only and not one of true and proper jurisdiction that he directly and immediately received from our lord Jesus Christ himself: let him be anathema.
• Therefore, if anyone says that it is not by the institution of Christ the lord himself (that is to say, by divine law) that blessed Peter should have perpetual successors in the primacy over the whole Church; or that the Roman Pontiff is not the successor of blessed Peter in this primacy: let him be anathema.
• So, then, if anyone says that the Roman Pontiff has merely an office of supervision and guidance, and not the full and supreme power of jurisdiction over the whole Church, and this not only in matters of faith and morals, but also in those which concern the discipline and government of the Church dispersed throughout the whole world; or that he has only the principal part, but not the absolute fullness, of this supreme power; or that this power of his is not ordinary and immediate both over all and each of the Churches and over all and each of the pastors and faithful: let him be anathema.
• Therefore, faithfully adhering to the tradition received from the beginning of the Christian faith, to the glory of God our savior, for the exaltation of the Catholic religion and for the salvation of the Christian people, with the approval of the Sacred Council, we teach and define as a divinely revealed dogma that when the Roman Pontiff speaks EX CATHEDRA, that is, when, in the exercise of his office as shepherd and teacher of all Christians, in virtue of his supreme apostolic authority, he defines a doctrine concerning faith or morals to be held by the whole Church, he possesses, by the divine assistance promised to him in blessed Peter, that infallibility which the divine Redeemer willed his Church to enjoy in defining doctrine concerning faith or morals. Therefore, such definitions of the Roman Pontiff are of themselves, and not by the consent of the Church, irreformable. So then, should anyone, which God forbid, have the temerity to reject this definition of ours: let him be anathema.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Komensky:
What, then, are we to make of saints who never existed, or those who could allegedly levitate or even fly? On the one hand I don't have a problem accepting some as genuine and others as fakes, but it seems that the Church has left that decision to me--or does Rome maintain that some saints could really levitate or fly?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Anselmina:
Thanks for your reply, IngoB. While I have great respect for the Roman Catholic Church, I am naturally relieved - and delighted - to have my Protestant/reformed catholic credentials (albeit negatively) affirmed!

---

Me too. If anything could affirm me in my evangelical Protestantism, then Vatican I does the job nicely! Luther had his flaws, but I'm glad that he did what he did when he did.

(I am also happy to serve under the ministry of a 'heretic' ... my divorced and remarried vicar.)

I am sure all branches of the Church will have a lot to answer for to the Lord on the Great Day ... including the Roman Catholic Church.

Getting back to the OP ...

quote:

---

Originally posted by Anglican_Brat:
Last night I had a conversation with a more Protestant friend of mine. He said that he objected to Saints' Days because we don't know whether anyone actually has gone into heaven. He said "Even we don't know if Mary has gone into heaven or not."

---

Is this friend a Hyper-Calvinist, I wonder? No self-respecting evangelical I know would ever question Mary's salvation. I may not call her the BVM but she's Mary, Miriam, the wonderful young Jewish teenager whose obedience and submission to God ensured our Saviour's conception and birth. Of COURSE she's in heaven.

As for sainthood, we are all saints in the redeemed community of the Messiah. The New Testament makes that clear. We are not saints because of our own merits but because He chose us, called us, and made us His own. We are made holy only through Him.

I'm a strong believer in the 'priesthood of all believers', thanks to my Nonconformist roots. But I'm not at all averse to the tradition of honouring saints! I love people like St. Francis (who doesn't love him ) and so on. I also love the great Celtic missionaries of the 7th century. I admire and love these great men and women ... without losing the sight of the biblical truth that I, even I, am a saint. As absurd as that is.
 

---

Posted by Komensky (# 8675) on :
 
IngoB, I appreciate this answer. Nevertheless, let's take an example. The myth of St Jan of Nepomuk (being martyred for keeping the confessional secrets of the queen) was debunked by the 1760s only a few decades after Nepomuk was canonised (1729). The 'miracle' of the preserved tongue was later put to scientific test and it turned out to be decayed brain tissue. There's no harm in the church admitting that the confessional story was invented in the fifteenth century and at the same time admitting that they were not trying to trick anyone, but just got it wrong--is there?

K.
 

---

Posted by Albertus (# 13356) on :
 
@your post upthread on Vatican I, IngoB, is there also a bit which says:

AND if anyone dare suggest that all this infallibility malarkey was cooked up by an ageing Pio Nono who was seriously pissed off at losing his temporal power and decided to try to strike back in the only way open to him; AND if he has the further impertinence to point out that a lot of the Bishops at the Council had tactfully left before the doctrine of infallibility came up and of those who were there about 1/3 either opposed or did not actively support the doctrine; let him be ANATHEMA
 

---

Posted by IngoB (# 8700) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Komensky:
IngoB, I appreciate this answer. Nevertheless, let's take an example. The myth of St Jan of Nepomuk (being martyred for keeping the confessional secrets of the queen) was debunked by the 1760s only a few decades after Nepomuk was canonised (1729). The 'miracle' of the preserved tongue was later put to scientific test and it turned out to be decayed brain tissue. There's no harm in the church admitting that the confessional story was invented in the fifteenth century and at the same time admitting that they were not trying to trick anyone, but just got it wrong--is there?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by IngoB:
by virtue of being a process (i.e., taking time) it provides more opportunity for God to insert his guidance.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Kaplan Corday:
Perhaps it is sufficient to merely oberve that it is hardly surprising to find a crap theology accompanying a crap ecclesiology and hagiology.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Komensky:
Still rather strange to me. The 'person' of Nepomuk that was canonised in 1729 never existed, but was rather a conflation of two different people mixed together with outright invention. This is only a controversial issue in certain RC circles. I think it's fine to have a figure represent the sanctity of the confessional--even if it that figure is fictional--but it seems odd to me to try to undo history. I could certainly agree that God can work through such things, but surely the truth is better, no?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Komensky:
What about the flying and levitating saints? Do you (IngoB or others) believe that they could actually fly?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by The Rhythm Methodist:
At the risk of being tangential (not to mention, heretical) I was grateful to IngoB for his snippets from Vatican 1: they were a heartening affirmation of my Protestant faith.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by The Rhythm Methodist:
And so we have this line of Popes

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Kaplan Corday:
[QUOTE]Originally posted by The Rhythm Methodist:
[qb] And so we have this line of Popes

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Kaplan Corday:
Including the unfortunate Honorius I (625-638) who was posthumously anathematised for Monotheletism by the sixth ecumenical council. The NIDCC article on him notes that: "This anathema has created difficulties for the supporters of papal infallibility". Well, yes.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Emendator Liturgia:
Cardinal James Gibbons, the second American to be raised to the cardinalate, attended Vatican 1. There’s a wonderful account that on his return from the Council (1869-70), on being asked if he really thought the Pope was absolutely infallible, he replied, “Well, he called me ‘Cardinal Gaboons.’" Cardinal Gibbons had remained for all of the council and he had voted in favour of the resolution.

I have been told by Catholic theologians that the Second Vatican Council affirmed that the Catholic laity function as the mystical body of Christ and are as immune from error (the laity as a whole) as is the Pope (with the Pope’s infallibility restricted to matters of faith and morals and ex cathedra pronouncements. During the course of the last three popes it seems as if every pronouncement has been given the force of infallibility, whereas from my reading of the history of the church at the time of Vatican 1, there was a Curial assurance that such pronouncements would be the exception rather than the rule.

Has the whole idea of magisterium been reconsidered and aligned with style and intent more usual with, say, Council of Trent period?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Alogon:
Thank you, Gamaliel. I should have written this yesterday, on the Feast of All Saints. Squabbling so heatedly over who gets to be called a saint, especially on this day, is unseemly and ungrateful. I see three schools of thought: (1) The Roman Catholic process, very formalized and (the number of people whom it has declared to be saints notwithstanding) very cautious; (2) The less formalized process of other liturgical churches; (3) Those who question the appellation "saint" altogether.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by sebby:
...but there are others...

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by sebby:

The popular understanding of saint is clearly that of 'hero' of the faith.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Mudfrog:

quote:

---

Originally posted by sebby:

The popular understanding of saint is clearly that of 'hero' of the faith.

---

Maybe we should therefore insist on the Biblical definition so that we're all singing from the same song sheet.

The word Paul used was hagios - which meant holy: consecrated, devoted, separate and different.
A saint therefore, in Biblical usage, is someone who is different because he is devoted, consecrated to Jesus Christ. All believers are this. We are all saints in this life if we are devoted to Christ and his service.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Alogon:
I see three schools of thought: (1) The Roman Catholic process, very formalized and (the number of people whom it has declared to be saints notwithstanding) very cautious; (2) The less formalized process of other liturgical churches; (3) Those who question the appellation "saint" altogether.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by IngoB:
Papal infallibility is not some kind of personal attribute of the pope.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Alogon:
He turned up his nose at this: "You think that that a choirmaster can be Christlike?"

---

Good point. We all need to become carpenters. Or perhaps fishermen. Or at the very least tentmakers. But carpenters would be best.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Mudfrog:
You missed (4) out: those who believe, as the New Testament clearly teaches, that all believers in Christ, every one of the redeemed, every member of the Body of Christ is a saint. We are all together called saints.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Mudfrog:
Not made so after centuries of death by the bishop of Rome, but called to be saints in this life by the will of God.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Gamaliel:


If we say that, say, St David of Wales was a Saint it in no way detracts from the saintly, godly and lovely Mrs Sian Jones of Somewhere-Up-The-Rhondda being classed as a 'saint' in category 4.

This is the bit I don't get.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by sebby:
As previously posted, with regard to the BVM whom one might regard as already in heaven:

Take heed all ye who look on here
As ye are now, so once I were
As I am now so shall ye be
So be prepared to follow me.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by The Rhythm Methodist:
The truth is, that the princely status later conferred upon Peter has no tenable support from scripture. There is no suggestion he saw himself in this role, nor that his contemporaries viewed him like that. Nor for that matter, is there any hint that this office - even if it existed - would continue in perpetuity, nor that it would pass to the Bishops of Rome.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by The Rhythm Methodist:
That being the case, it would seem there is a choice to be made: either the RCC is in receipt of some divine revelation, which - for whatever reason, God initially withheld - or their understanding of the Petrine office is a contrivance....for which it would not be too difficult to ascribe a motivation.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by IngoB:

quote:

---

Originally posted by The Rhythm Methodist:
The truth is, that the princely status later conferred upon Peter has no tenable support from scripture. There is no suggestion he saw himself in this role, nor that his contemporaries viewed him like that. Nor for that matter, is there any hint that this office - even if it existed - would continue in perpetuity, nor that it would pass to the Bishops of Rome.

---

Surely you are joking! Here are 50 NT arguments for the papacy.

---

They are certainly arguments for Peter's primacy, which I, as an Anglican, accept.

I don't think they are arguments for the papacy as currently exercised.
 

---

Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on :
 
Ok, thanks Mudfrog, you have clarified your position and I don't disagree, nor, I submit, would many more sacramentally inclined Christians - although they might put it in different terms to the way you've expressed it.

I think the issue of a 'two-tier' approach is a pertinent one and can certainly understand how an RC/Orthodox or High Anglican view of Sainthood (with a capital S) could lead to that kind of conclusion or perception. I'm not sure that it necessarily follows, though. In my experience, certain hyper-Pentecostals and charismatics (but by no means all) are more prone to a two-tier approach by making distinctions between those who have been 'baptised in the Holy Spirit' (in their terms) and those who they believe not to have been.

I can certainly see the point about having a deeper knowledge/affinity with the putative Mrs Jones from Up The Valleys than with St David. Sure. That said, I've certainly met Orthodox Christians and RCs who say they have a particular affinity with this or that Saint from history and wax all lyrical about them - some even in a rather existential sense ...

On one level, I don't have an issue at all with that and it's not dissimilar, say, to a Protestant saying that they have a particular affinity with John Wesley or with George Fox or with Booth or whoever else because they've been impressed by their example or their writings. In the same way people who may appreciate Dickens or Keats or Shakespeare or one of the great composers, Beethoven or Mozart or Bach, will talk about them quite fondly as if they have come to 'know' them through their writings or their music.

I think it can get into dodgy territory, undoubtedly - but at the same time I think there can be a Protestant over-reaction the other way. But then, that's probably a very Anglican thing of me to say ...


 

---

Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on :
 
Meanwhile, I thought that the issue of Papal Supremacy and so on was continuing on the thread about 'Schismatics', not this one about the Saints and saints ...

I can see the relevance of it, though, in RC terms as the Papacy has a role in canonisation - whereas in Orthodoxy it seems to be more of a 'bottom-up' thing with the heirarchy simply confirming or recognising something that has developed at a popular level.

But I'm sure IngoB will have an answer to that one, too.
 

---

Posted by The Rhythm Methodist (# 17064) on :
 
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by The Rhythm Methodist:

The truth is, that the princely status later conferred upon Peter has no tenable support from scripture. There is no suggestion he saw himself in this role, nor that his contemporaries viewed him like that. Nor for that matter, is there any hint that this office - even if it existed - would continue in perpetuity, nor that it would pass to the Bishops of Rome.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
To which IngoB replied:

Surely you are joking! Here are 50 NT arguments for the papacy.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Alas, no. These are not 50 NT arguments for the papacy.

In point of fact, they say nothing about the papacy whatsover, unless it is to highlight the profound differences between Peter, and those who have claimed to be his successors.

The first three refer to the RCC's understanding of Matthew 16. Even if we were to allow this questionable perspective (including Peter's supposed mandate to excommunicate, and to impose penances)the statement that "Thus, St. Peter and the popes are given the authority to determine the rules for doctrine and life..." cannot be the logical conclusion: That interpretation of Matthew would perhaps permit Peter some claim to that power, but it says nothing about popes at all.

The other 47 "arguments for the papacy" are, frankly, even more absurd. They list various remarkable attributes of Peter, some of the unique things he did, and a number of his interactions with Jesus. Clearly, he occupied a special place, even among the esteemed company in which he moved. Leaving aside the omission of any of Peter's less uplifting activities, these 47 points paint a picture of a man in whom God worked mightily.

But not one of those points does anything at all to legitimize the papacy.

For example, what does casting himself into the sea, healing the lame man - or his shadow working miracles - tell us about the papacy? Nothing, unless it is that those who claim to succeed him have not picked up his mantle. What relevance does Peter being the first to call for a replacement for Judas,leading the charge to the empty tomb, or being the first to receive gentiles have, to establishing the office of Pope?

50 NT arguments for the papacy, and all we really have evidentially, is that Peter was a special guy....and perhaps the conviction that those who claim to have inherited his role, could hardly be less like him.

The only thing approaching an argument for the papacy on this link, actually appears after this list of Peter's attributes:"In conclusion, it strains credulity to think that God would present St. Peter with such prominence in the Bible, without some meaning and import for later Christian history; in particular, Church government. The papacy is the most plausible (we believe actual) fulfillment of this."

In reality, it "strains credulity" to present a list of Peter's activities and attributes - many of which could not or have not been emulated by popes - and claim that somehow these things argue for the papacy. If anything, the reverse is true.

I will not retaliate by dismissing IngoB's post as "bullsh*t", but it seems to me that he should perhaps brush-up on what constitutes a valid argument.
 

---

Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on :
 
@Mudfrog ... thinking about the 'become what we are thing' ... which, I agree, is a very wonderful and profound way of looking at all of this ...

I quite agree. What I'm less sure about is how the 'become what you are' thing is somehow incompatible with the four categories of Saint or saint that have been identified further upthread.

It's been explained to me by both RCs and Orthodox that Sainthood isn't so much an issue of someone 'earning' the right to be at a particular level but an encouragement to the rest of us ... ie. if it is possible for some to attain, by grace, a degree of sanctity - or to have 'arrived' as you put it - then it means that there is hope for the rest of us.

In some respects it's not a million miles from the sort of thing you as a Wesleyan and a Salvationist might claim for 'entire sanctification' - only pitched in different terms.

One could equally argue that the Wesleyan view of 'entire sanctification' creates a two-tier view of salvation and sanctification - with super-saints who have apparently 'arrived' and so on.

Now, I'm not claiming that, of course.

But if you're entitled to your Wesleyan views of sanctification then surely the RCs and other more sacramentally inclined Christians are entitled to their particular 'take' on Sainthood.

Can you see what I'm driving at?
 

---

Posted by Triple Tiara (# 9556) on :
 
@ Rhythm Methodist

What a static view of the Christian Church you have: there was the Bible and then there is us, and somehow the two are not connected. Huh?

The role of Peter is the role of his successor. I can never fathom how people object so vehemently to the principle established by the Lord himself - in appointing someone to lead his disciples. But then Peter dies and poof! that commission ends and the Church is leaderless and rudderless. Huh?

And it seems to me you are imagining the word Prince to mean something like Prince Charming in Disneyworld. The word is a translation of the latin Princeps, meaning first, chief, leader. Do you dispute that role to Peter?

[ 03. November 2012, 17:03: Message edited by: Triple Tiara ]
 

---

Posted by Triple Tiara (# 9556) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by leo:
They are certainly arguments for Peter's primacy, which I, as an Anglican, accept.

I don't think they are arguments for the papacy as currently exercised.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Triple Tiara:
@ Rhythm Methodist

What a static view of the Christian Church you have: there was the Bible and then there is us, and somehow the two are not connected. Huh?

The role of Peter is the role of his successor. I can never fathom how people object so vehemently to the principle established by the Lord himself - in appointing someone to lead his disciples. But then Peter dies and poof! that commission ends and the Church is leaderless and rudderless. Huh?

And it seems to me you are imagining the word Prince to mean something like Prince Charming in Disneyworld. The word is a translation of the latin Princeps, meaning first, chief, leader. Do you dispute that role to Peter?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Gamaliel:


But I'm sure IngoB will have an answer to that one, too.

---

Oh probably.

 

---

Posted by Mudfrog (# 8116) on :
 
I'd like to know why, if Peter was so important, it was actually James who led the early church in that first generation.
 

---

Posted by Triple Tiara (# 9556) on :
 
@ Rhythm Methodist

Not really. I don't think any RCs go about imagining St Peter as a Prince Valiant or Black Prince or the like. I'm pretty sure most would simply understand Prince of the Apostles as leader of the Apostles. At any rate, I have yet to encounter a Catholic who imagines St Peter as such a "prince". I think, rather, that there is consonance within the Catholic Church but a misapplication by some - usually outside the Catholic Church.

Now as to the popes assuming the primacy for themselves - did they? Or did they simply succeed to the leadership role which Peter had? In Rome that succession is pretty clear: after Peter came Linus, then Cletus then Clement. Clement wrote a rather beautiful letter to the Corinthians. There is no indication that the Corinthians responded "Who does he think he is?!?!" This was not some concocted succession but one in deed and in fact.

The role most certainly changed, and continues to change. In our own time we have seen the emergence of travelling Popes, going to countries to do as the Lord commanded Peter: to strengthen his brothers (and indeed sisters). There is no argument that the Papal Court as it now exists is what Peter had - but the leadership role as Chief among the Disciples remains. How you lead with 12 and with 1 billion will obviously be rather different.

[ 03. November 2012, 19:18: Message edited by: Triple Tiara ]
 

---

Posted by John Holding (# 158) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Mudfrog:
I'd like to know why, if Peter was so important, it was actually James who led the early church in that first generation.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Triple Tiara:
@ Rhythm Methodist


Now as to the popes assuming the primacy for themselves - did they? Or did they simply succeed to the leadership role which Peter had? In Rome that succession is pretty clear: after Peter came Linus, then Cletus then Clement. Clement wrote a rather beautiful letter to the Corinthians. There is no indication that the Corinthians responded "Who does he think he is?!?!" This was not some concocted succession but one in deed and in fact.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by John Holding:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Mudfrog:
I'd like to know why, if Peter was so important, it was actually James who led the early church in that first generation.

---

James certainly (if you accept tradition and non-canonical writings) led the church in Jerusalem until his death. That tradition and those writings suggest he was succeeded by other relatives of Jesus (not any of the apostles), until the fall of that city.

There is no evidence that his leadership extended beyond Jerusalem and its vicinity -- much less that he exercised leadership, much less authority, in any other part of the ancient world.

Those who accept Petrine primacy (leaving aside the question of succession) are at least appealing to Holy Scripture, a position that should appeal to you.

John

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Mudfrog:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Gamaliel:


But I'm sure IngoB will have an answer to that one, too.

---

Oh probably.

---

Well, we can't just have you and Rhythm Methodist getting your oars in without any response
 

---

Posted by IngoB (# 8700) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Gamaliel:
I can see the relevance of it, though, in RC terms as the Papacy has a role in canonisation - whereas in Orthodoxy it seems to be more of a 'bottom-up' thing with the heirarchy simply confirming or recognising something that has developed at a popular level. But I'm sure IngoB will have an answer to that one, too.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by The Rhythm Methodist:
Alas, no. These are not 50 NT arguments for the papacy.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by The Rhythm Methodist:
In reality, it "strains credulity" to present a list of Peter's activities and attributes - many of which could not or have not been emulated by popes - and claim that somehow these things argue for the papacy. If anything, the reverse is true.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by The Rhythm Methodist:
I will not retaliate by dismissing IngoB's post as "bullsh*t", but it seems to me that he should perhaps brush-up on what constitutes a valid argument.

---

And could I not dismiss the dogma of the Trinity as bullshit, given that it is nowhere stated explicitly in scripture? What would remain of all your faith if I took the blowtorch of unrelenting skepticism to all your "arguments from scripture"? Not a whole lot, I reckon. This is just measuring with two standards. For you the freedom to interpret scripture, for us the burden of proof.

Anyway, I'm rather saddened by your unreasonable aggression. I really wanted to like you, simply because you have such a brilliant username... Please tell me that you are a drummer.
 

---

Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on :
 
In part, IngoB, I would suggest that 'unreasonable aggression' on the part of other posters, such as our rhythmical Methodist friend, is triggered, to an extent, by your posting style and dogmatism.

I've noticed that Triple Tiara isn't attracting the same amount of flak and he's essentially backing you up.

As a Protestant, I will hold up my hands and admit to a certain knee-jerk reaction against any claims of Papal Supremacy. It's hard-wired into our DNA. We wouldn't be Protestants if it wasn't.

On a mild and very ecumenical day, I would concede that I COULD envisage a role for the Papacy along the lines that the RCs would claim - but the thing that seems to militate against it, in my view, isn't so much the recalcitrance and obstinacy of the Protestants and the Orthodox (although that is clearly a factor) but the way that the Papacy itself has behaved over the centuries.

You can hardly blame The Rhythm Methodist or various Orthodox posters and Anglicans and what-have-you for being a tad suspicious of the Papacy. Look how it has behaved!

If all the Popes had behaved impeccably and everything had been sweetness and light then I don't think the rest of us would be implacable and suspicious of anything that comes out of the Vatican.

That said, I don't think the RCs can 'win' ... they are damned if they do and damned if they don't as it were. I've heard Orthodox people rail against Vatican II even though it doesn't have anything to do with them ... and equally I've heard Protestants laud and applaud it even though, strictly speaking, it wasn't really any of their business either ...

I think the rest of us would be rather more open to Papal claims if embarrassing aspects like Infallibility and dogmas such as the Assumption an d Immaculate Conception of Mary weren't bandied about unilaterally and made binding upon the faithful.

I've overcome Protestant sectarian hostility towards Rome to the point where I hold her in a great deal of respect and regard individual RC laity and religious that I've met over the years to be some of the finest Christians I've encountered.

And yet ... and yet ...
 

---

Posted by Doublethink (# 1984) on :
 
I would suggest an assumption of good faith on the part of any given poster, and a bit of basic courtesy, would go along way to raising the tone of many a purgatory thread - this one included.
 

---

Posted by The Rhythm Methodist (# 17064) on :
 
@ IngoB

I should preface my remarks with an apology. Whilst I can't personally see anything in my post which I would identify as 'unreasonable aggression', I am sorry that I have nonetheless caused offence.

It seems I must further be a disappointment to you, as my limited abilities do not include playing any instruments - percussive or otherwise.

I'd just like to respond to those issues raised.
-------------------------------------------------


Originally posted by The Rhythm Methodist:
Alas, no. These are not 50 NT arguments for the papacy.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
You replied

They are, at a similar level to most other arguments about scripture. Proof-texting can be done by Catholics just as much as by Protestants. But I didn't give you just those anyhow. I gave you links to a second collection, to a nice discussion in the Catholic Encyclopedia, and to Karl Adam's beautiful chapter on the topic.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I think we'll have to disagree about that. There is no sense in which a collection of biblical references to Peter can ever be an "argument for the papacy" - they tell us only about Peter himself, and offer absolutely no support for anyone's claim to be his successor. They may highlight the profound differences between Peter and the popes, but cannot possibly otherwise speak to the legitimacy of the claim to his mantle.

I would also entirely disagree that they are arguments for the papacy "at a similar level to most other arguments about scripture". Up until now, I have never come across an argument about scripture which relied on such a method. No argument is actually presented, unless it is that baseless assumption at the end of the list, which effectively and unsupportably claims that (somehow) Peter's attributes mean the popes are his successors.

I confess I have not yet read your other links, though I will on your recommendation. Quite frankly, I was rather appalled that those 50 points were presented as arguments for the papacy, and rashly assumed the rest would be of the same standard.
-------------------------------------------------
quote:

By the standards of the signs and wonders of the apostolic age, what Christianity would be judged sufficient today? Yours? Hardly.

-------------------------------------------------
You have me at a disadvantage, sir - you are obviously privvy to far more information about my walk with God, than I am of yours. Until I am further enlightened, I shall continue to assume what I did before - that you have unwavering faith, and an enviable confidence in your church.

-------------------------------------------------

Originally posted by The Rhythm Methodist:
I will not retaliate by dismissing IngoB's post as "bullsh*t", but it seems to me that he should perhaps brush-up on what constitutes a valid argument.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
quote from IngoB

And could I not dismiss the dogma of the Trinity as bullshit, given that it is nowhere stated explicitly in scripture? What would remain of all your faith if I took the blowtorch of unrelenting skepticism to all your "arguments from scripture"? Not a whole lot, I reckon. This is just measuring with two standards. For you the freedom to interpret scripture, for us the burden of proof.
-------------------------------------------------
You are quite correct in saying that the Trinity is nowhere stated explicitly in scripture. It is a doctrine based on a large number of passages which many feel lead inexorably to a conclusion regarding the nature of God. That is a world away from those 50 NT arguments for the papacy, which only lead inexorably to conclusions about Peter.

There are no double standards here, because you are not trying to interpret scripture - which you should feel entirely free to do. You are trying to legitimise a specific form of church government by a specific group of people (popes). As the bible nowhere even hints that the Bishop of Rome (and his successors)should be the ultimate authority for the worldwide church, it can hardly be a matter of scriptural interpretation. It is merely a claim, and yes, it is a claim for which - in the absence of scriptural support - the claimant must shoulder the burden of proof.
 

---

Posted by Triple Tiara (# 9556) on :
 
But again you are engaged in a disconnect, Rhythm. What you are doing is the classic jump from your own now back to the Scriptures, as if there were nothing in-between. It's not as if the idea of the Bishop of Rome as Successor of Peter has suddenly been invented and we have gone scrabbling for texts to prove it. Rather this has been the continuous belief of the Church. It's there in the Canons of the Great Councils of the first millennium, it's there in the writings of the Fathers. It's not some late development. It even predates the Chalcedonian definition!

As a snippet, take one of the earliest references, St. Ignatius of Antioch (died 108), who speaks of Rome "which presides in charity". St. Irenaeus (d 202): "For with this Church (Rome), by reason of its pre-eminence, the whole Church must necessarily be in accord". St Cyprian of Carthage (d.258): “He says to him again after the resurrection, “Feed my sheep.” It is on him that He builds His Church, and to him that He entrusts the sheep to feed. And although He assigns a similar power to all the Apostles, “Receive the Holy Spirit. If you forgive any man his sins, they shall be forgiven him; if you retain any man’s sins, they shall be retained.” - yet, in order that the oneness might be unmistakable, He established by His own authority a source for that oneness having its origin in one man alone.”
“A primacy is given to Peter, and it is thus made clear that there is but one Church and one Chair.”
“If a man does not hold to this oneness of Peter, does he imagine that he still holds the truth? If he deserts the Chair of Peter upon whom the Church was built, has he still confidence that he is in the Church?”
“Now this oneness we must hold firmly and insist on—especially we who are bishops and exercise authority in the Church—so as to demonstrate that the episcopal power is one and undivided too. Let none mislead the brethren with a lie, let none corrupt the true content of the faith by a faithless perversion of the truth.”

The Early Church held this as a simple matter of fact. So the Fathers at Chalcedon in 451 would acclaim, in response to the Pope's Letter, "Peter has spoken through Leo".

I would suggest, in company with the Fathers, that it is those who are not in union with the See of Peter who need to explain themselves, not those who are.
 

---

Posted by IngoB (# 8700) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by The Rhythm Methodist:
There is no sense in which a collection of biblical references to Peter can ever be an "argument for the papacy" - they tell us only about Peter himself, and offer absolutely no support for anyone's claim to be his successor. They may highlight the profound differences between Peter and the popes, but cannot possibly otherwise speak to the legitimacy of the claim to his mantle.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by The Rhythm Methodist:
Up until now, I have never come across an argument about scripture which relied on such a method.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by The Rhythm Methodist:
I was rather appalled that those 50 points were presented as arguments for the papacy, and rashly assumed the rest would be of the same standard.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by The Rhythm Methodist:
You have me at a disadvantage, sir - you are obviously privvy to far more information about my walk with God, than I am of yours. Until I am further enlightened, I shall continue to assume what I did before - that you have unwavering faith, and an enviable confidence in your church.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by The Rhythm Methodist:
You are quite correct in saying that the Trinity is nowhere stated explicitly in scripture. It is a doctrine based on a large number of passages which many feel lead inexorably to a conclusion regarding the nature of God. That is a world away from those 50 NT arguments for the papacy, which only lead inexorably to conclusions about Peter.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by The Rhythm Methodist:
There are no double standards here, because you are not trying to interpret scripture - which you should feel entirely free to do. You are trying to legitimise a specific form of church government by a specific group of people (popes).

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by The Rhythm Methodist:
As the bible nowhere even hints that the Bishop of Rome (and his successors)should be the ultimate authority for the worldwide church, it can hardly be a matter of scriptural interpretation.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Triple Tiara:
But then Peter dies and poof! that commission ends and the Church is leaderless and rudderless. Huh?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by IngoB:
One cannot undermine the authority of people by virtue of the authority of a text, if that text has in practice acquired its authority precisely through the authority of those people. The Church hierarchy must have been imbued with Divine authority at least until the canon of the NT was established in its main features. And that was long after the last "original apostles" had died and the office of the papacy was clearly established. You can of course make claims that this hierarchy later got corrupted etc. But the NT did not in fact drop from heaven as a finished book, nor were its final parts guaranteed automatic acceptance by the faithful due to their inspired sources, but rather it was discussed, compiled and promulgated by this very Church hierarchy over a considerable length of time. In practical terms, this selection and popularisation was as important as the initial writing, as is obvious from the many writings that did not make the cut.

---

Your understanding of the compilation of the NT canon reminds me of Dan Brown.

The process took place slowly and organically over centuries under the direction of the Holy Spirit, and involved many churches and many congregations.

There is not the slightest evidence that it was directed or co-ordinated by the Roman church and its putative “popes”, and there were not even conciliar rulings prior to the Western councils of Rome (382) and Carthage (397), which only confirmed the twenty-seven books in the 367 Paschal Letter from Athanasius in the East.

As for interpreting the NT, it is probably safe for a Roman Catholic to follow Augustine, who taught the basic hermeneutical and exegetical principle of the“analogy of faith” (even if he did not apply it consistently himself) whereby any understanding of the meaning of a scriptural statement must not be inconsistent with the rest of the Bible.

To understand the words of the Lord to Peter as an appointment to a hierarchical leadership of the church, to be enjoyed by his successors, is completely unsupported by the rest of the NT.
 

---

Posted by Triple Tiara (# 9556) on :
 
And yet that was how it was understood by those who immediately followed after .....

How interesting that you know more about it than those who were there at the time. All things come to a halt at the end of Acts (which ends BEFORE the martyrdom of Peter and Paul) until you, Kaplan Corday, come along to give the correct interpretation.

Sorry, I prefer to cast my lot with Ignatius, Irenaeus and Cyprian.
 

---

Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on :
 
From what I've read of the sub-apostolic Fathers, then it certainly does appear that Clement of Rome and the others did ascribe significance and authority to the Roman See - but whether that validates the Papacy as it subsequently emerged (particularly around the time of Charlemagne which is when, from an Eastern perspective at least, things seem to have begun to go awry).

I wouldn't dispute that Rome had a significant and often decisive role to play in the early Councils - 'Peter has spoken through Leo' and so forth. And history indicates that some of the Eastern Patriarchs could easily have hived off into Arianism, Nestorianism and other heresies. Athanasius and the Alexandrians seem to have been decisive in preventing that.

In theory, at least, I wouldn't have a problem with accepting the Papacy as some kind of 'Primus inter Pares' - rather like the role the Archbishop of Canterbury plays (or attempts to play ) in the Anglican communion or the Ecumenical Patriarch within canonical Orthodoxy.

I also fully accept that Rome has a case when highlighting the Caesaropapism that has so often bedevilled the Eastern Churches. We see echoes of Byzantium in the way the Russian Patriarchs behave to this day, I would submit.

I might be wrong, but I suspect what's happened is that the Latin West, as it so often has done, has 'over-egged' things. In the same way that Roman Catholicism has, arguably, overly-egged the philosophical and existential arguments for the 'real presence' in the eucharist - to the extent that it has developed all manner of wierd and wonderful speculations about 'accidents' and so on on and so forth - I would suggest that it has developed an over-realised sense of its own importance and role in terms of the Papacy.

That doesn't let the rest of us off the hook in terms of bolshieness, rebelliousness and often flagrant jockeyings for position - such as the power-plays among Patriarchs and among Protestant pastors - or those who see themselves as effectively their own Pope ...

And yet ... and yet ...

You must surely accept, Triple Tiara, that from our (ie. non-Roman) perspectives, the Papacy can look pretty scarey. We don't have to be an Ian Paisley or some ranting xenophobic monk on Mount Athos to entertain some understandable suspicions of the See of Peter.

That said, I would fully accept that the RC Church has often bent over backwards to apologise for anti-Semitism and other past misdemeanours. I would also accept that the official pronouncements on who might ultimately be saved are far more generous than those entertained by the more restrictive and anally-retentive of conservative Protestants.

Ultimately, though, I get the impression that the Catholic position can be summed up as, 'Well, it just IS, right, so get used to it and submit to the Papacy warts and all ...'
 

---

Posted by Mudfrog (# 8116) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Triple Tiara:
And yet that was how it was understood by those who immediately followed after .....

Sorry, I prefer to cast my lot with Ignatius, Irenaeus and Cyprian.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Triple Tiara:

quote:

---

Originally posted by leo:
They are certainly arguments for Peter's primacy, which I, as an Anglican, accept.

I don't think they are arguments for the papacy as currently exercised.

---

Ah, running with the foxes and hunting with the hounds. "I accept the Primacy of Peter but I don't like Peter".

---

quote:

---

Why would we want to place as much trust in the third generation of believers when, according to Revelation, the church had so easily become corrupted:

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Anglican_Brat:

quote:

---

Why would we want to place as much trust in the third generation of believers when, according to Revelation, the church had so easily become corrupted:

---

You mean that third generation of believers that canonized the very Bible you are holding?

---

And therein lies another can of wiggly worms !
 

---

Posted by Triple Tiara (# 9556) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Gamaliel:

In theory, at least, I wouldn't have a problem with accepting the Papacy as some kind of 'Primus inter Pares' - rather like the role the Archbishop of Canterbury plays (or attempts to play ) in the Anglican communion or the Ecumenical Patriarch within canonical Orthodoxy.

---

Which was never the Tradition. The idea of a primate without authority is a peculiar one and certainly not one found in the first millennium. It is an ex post facto solution produced by those who had separated, and a very late development.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Gamaliel:
You must surely accept, Triple Tiara, that from our (ie. non-Roman) perspectives, the Papacy can look pretty scarey. We don't have to be an Ian Paisley or some ranting xenophobic monk on Mount Athos to entertain some understandable suspicions of the See of Peter.

---

Certainly. There are many within the Catholic Church who don't like it when the Holy See acts decisively - witness the outcry over the National Conference of Women Religious, or in Ireland (our dear friend on these boards, Ronald Binge is an example - I hope I am not misrepresenting him). I remember someone on here saying "Rome is a long way from Australia". Yet in all those cases it's when people drift very far from the norm and are then called to heel. Rome becomes the whipping boy for their gripes. The rest of us don't find the Pope and Rome scary at all. Did you watch any of the coverage when he visited the UK? Well that's how we experience the Papacy: strengthening the local Church for its witness as part of the Universal Church. I don't think you would need to worry too much about the Papacy

quote:

---

Originally posted by Mudfrog:
Why would we want to place as much trust in the third generation of believers when, according to Revelation, the church had so easily become corrupted:

---

Until you came along and gave us the pure version? I think not. And I note Rome is not included on your Litany.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Mudfrog:

I see no reason to assume that everything any of the early church fathers began to do and to teach was perfectly founded in Scripture - the Church is not infallible, the Papacy, the councils, the Traditions of the Church are not fallible for the simple reason that the church in the New Testament was not fallible! Even Paul was writing, as pastor not Pope(!) to bring them back to the Gospel once received.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Mudfrog:


All teaching must be clearly found and sourced in the Bible - otherwise, as Paul stated, we will move away from the Gospel that was given to us. It happened under the church fathers and I see no reason to elevate them and align them with the Apostles in the truth and authority of their teaching - especially when much of it was suspect.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by leo:
Nowhere did I say that i didn't 'like' Peter, he was all too human, like the rest of us.

As for the current pope, I am drawn to much of what he has said and written.

I look forward to his future role in a reunited Western Church; a church where all the different strands of a currently fragmented catholicism are drawn together again. That will involve all the churches admitting that they are currently incomplete, including the Church of Rome.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Triple Tiara:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Mudfrog:

I see no reason to assume that everything any of the early church fathers began to do and to teach was perfectly founded in Scripture - the Church is not infallible, the Papacy, the councils, the Traditions of the Church are not fallible for the simple reason that the church in the New Testament was not fallible! Even Paul was writing, as pastor not Pope(!) to bring them back to the Gospel once received.

---

Well you made a delicious error there, but I know it's not what you meant. But I am rather intrigued by the notion that the Church Fathers should have done and taught only things "perfectly founded in Scripture". What Scriptures would those be? The notion of a New Testament Canon of Scripture is something which comes much later. Heck, the very first Council to actually define the NT Canon was Trent! I'm afraid the Islamic approach to the Bible, the emphasis on "the Book", is a Reformation thing. I think Jesus would have been perfectly capable of leaving a Book if he wanted to. Instead he left a Church, with a leader he himself appointed.

---

Embarrassed by my mistake; glad you knew what I meant. oh dear


As for the things perfectly founded in Scripture, well obviously the Old Testament - which is why the anti-semitism of the early church is so shocking and regrettable.

Secondly, the Scriptures of the New Testament include as 'Pope' Peter expressly wrote, Paul's own letters! And as Paul himself roundly castigated the Galatians for teaching and believing any other Gospel to the one he himself taught, it seems Paul himself thought that his words, apart from a few sentences of personal opinion, were the words of God.

"Bear in mind that our Lord's patience means salvation, just as our dear brother Paul also wrote to you with the wisdom that God gave him. He writes the same way in all his letters, speaking in them of these matters. His letters contain some things that are hard to understand, which ignorant and unstable people distort, as they do the other Scriptures, to their own destruction.

2 Peter 3 v 15,16

As for Trent being the first time the NT canon was completed - LOL. Wikipedia which, although talking about the Council of Trent and its decision on the canon for Catholics, nevertheless says this:

quote:

---

In his Easter letter of 367, Athanasius, Bishop of Alexandria, gave a list of the books that would become the twenty-seven-book NT canon,[10] and he used the word "canonized" (kanonizomena) in regards to them.[11] The first council that accepted the present canon of the New Testament may have been the Synod of Hippo Regius in North Africa (AD 393); the acts of this council, however, are lost. A brief summary of the acts was read at and accepted by the Councils of Carthage in 397 and 419.[12] These councils were under the authority of St. Augustine, who regarded the canon as already closed.

---

quote:

---

When the Canon was established in the fourth century, most of the books in our New testament were universally acknowledged by the Christian community. Those about which some reservation was expressed were included or excluded on the basis of three guidelines: authentic books were to be of apostolic origin, conform to the accepted rule of faith, and be commonly used by the churches. By this careful process, guided by the Holy Spirit, Christians reached a consensus about the books regarded as Scripture. The authority of Scripture was not given by the Church; it was recognised and affirmed.

---

 

---

Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on :
 
I'll be controversial here, whilst I agree with Mudfrog that by the fourth century the canon of the NT was almost universally accepted as it currently stands - give or take a few books that the Protestants tore out in the 16th century - it's a bit of a hermeneutical jump from that to assert that the Apostles Paul, Peter and the others would somehow have recognised later developments - including 16th century Protestant ones - as entirely cognate with the gospel as they understood it.

I'm sure the Apostle Paul would have been completely baffled if a Tardis had taken him to the Council of Trent or to Dort, Augsburg or Westminster or whereever else ... including the committee sessions of the Salvation Army.

The issues Paul was addressing in Romans and Corinthians, Galatians and Ephesians were of a different order to those that were exercising the minds of Luther and Calvin and the Counter-Reformers on the Catholic side.

I remain stolidly Trinitarian and am increasingly interested in Patristics, but I suspect that Peter and Paul and the others would have been baffled to some extent by aspects of Nicea and Chalcedon too ... the agenda had moved on by that stage.

The difficulty I have with Mudfrog's view that things got all compromised and fell ever so quickly away during the sub-apostolic period is that it implies that the Lord wasn't continuing to guide and lead his Church and was happy to let the rot set in until [insert your name of your chosen Reformer or revivalist here] came along to sort everything out.

I don't think it's quite so simple as that.

Besides, there's a bewildering array of Biblical selectivity going on in apparently 'sola scriptura' outfits.

So, perhaps it's a very Anglican thing to say, I'm pretty torn to be honest. I can see grounds for the Catholic and Orthodox and High Anglican (and other 'high') contentions for a 'high' view of the teaching authority of the Church and the sense of a received and handed down tradition. At the same time, I have a very 'high' view of the scriptures, but despair when I see them bandied about to justify sectarian or marginal positions rather than 'that believed everywhere and by all.'

This puts me in a cleft stick.

All ways round.
 

---

Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on :
 
Looking back upthread, Mudfrog, I think what Triple Tiara actually said was that Trent was the first Council that actually 'defined' the Canon. I don't think Nicea and Chalcedon and the other early Councils made any hard and fast definition on what constituted the Canon - mainly, I suspect, that what constitutes the Canon (as we now have it) was largely a matter of agreement by that time (give a take a few of the Deuterocanonical books as I've said).

No, Nicea and Chalcedon etc were attempting to settle Christological and Trinitarian questions that had arisen in response to heresies. So they didn't meet to decide the canon or 'define' it in any way as that wasn't the issue in question.

Rome has tended to define and codify things - it's a very Latin trait and part of her charm - as well as a source of irritation to the rest of us at times ...


So in 'defining' the canon at Trent, the Roman Catholic Church was probably dotting a few 'i's and crossing a few 't's and taking the opportunity to define some issues it felt were under threat due to the rise of Protestantism - which was by that time chucking out some of the books the RCs would have considered kosher and canonical (or at least deutero-canonical). I'm guessing, but I suspect that's what they were doing and what Triple Tiara is referring to.

The whole Me-and-My-Bible thing hadn't been an issue up until that point. It's only become one since the Reformation and the widespread dissemination of the scriptures with the invention of the printing press etc. Whilst I would welcome that development, I would concede that it has had its downsides ... such as the proliferation of all manner of marginal groups such as the JWs and Mormons and also idiosyncratic and individualistic interpretations among groups we'd consider more mainstream.
 

---

Posted by Nick Tamen (# 15164) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Gamaliel:
I'll be controversial here, whilst I agree with Mudfrog that by the fourth century the canon of the NT was almost universally accepted as it currently stands - give or take a few books that the Protestants tore out in the 16th century . . . .

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Triple Tiara:

quote:

---

Originally posted by leo:
Nowhere did I say that i didn't 'like' Peter, he was all too human, like the rest of us.

As for the current pope, I am drawn to much of what he has said and written.

I look forward to his future role in a reunited Western Church; a church where all the different strands of a currently fragmented catholicism are drawn together again. That will involve all the churches admitting that they are currently incomplete, including the Church of Rome.

---

You miss the point - you say you accept the Petrine Primacy of the Bishop of Rome but you don't like the way it is exercised. But I wouldn't hold my breath if I were you - the Pope isn't going to become an Anglican anytime soon. It's one of those deceptions some Anglicans inflict on themselves. Just be honest and say "despite knowing where the primacy is I don't want to be part of it". Pretending to yourself that the papacy is going to morph into a Canterbury style primacy is just silly.

---

The God of surprises had something up his sleeve when they elected John 23 and the 2nd Vatican Council was called.

Oh, and Hans Kung is not an Anglican yet seems to say the same as me - or, rather, I say the same as him.

[ 04. November 2012, 18:51: Message edited by: leo ]
 

---

Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on :
 
Fair call, Nick, I meant the OT and inter-testamental books not the NT.

I was posting in a hurry, never a good idea.

But the point I was trying (badly) to make was that there was broad consensus on the NT canon by the fourth century and that if it is true that Trent was the first big Council (capital C) as opposed to Synod or so forth, that defined it in a codified and battened down form, then all Trent was doing was rubber-stamping something that had already been broadly agreed for centuries and in all quarters.
 

---

Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on :
 
Which, of course, begs the question, if one is a Roman Catholic, as to why the rest of us don't necessarily accept all the other decrees and so on ratified at Trent.

I s'pose the short answer would be, 'Because it was Trent and didn't include us ... '

To which the RCs would reply, 'Well, who walked away, you or us?'

That's what I mean about being in a cleft stick.

On the one hand I find the approach adopted by Kaplan, Mudfrog and The Rhythm Methodist to be untenable because it essentially goes like this:

First century church - all marvellous.
2nd century - it all goes downhill very fast until ...
Darn-tantara-tantaraaahhhh!!!
I come along (or at least the tradition that I represent) comes along and starts putting things on the right track again.

I'm caricaturing, of course, but for Kaplan this'll be the Brethren of the early 19th century, taking their cue from earlier reform movements, conveniently disregarding the loopy-doopy dispensationalist nonsense that bedogged that movement until (if Kaplan is to be believed) very recently.

In Mudfrog's case it'll all have started getting better with Luther and then better still with Wesley until ... yooo-hooo let's bang a tambourine - General Booth marches forth with his Salvation lassies and a big bass drum ...

I hasten to add that I have nothing but the greatest respect for individual Brethren and Salvationists ... just as I have for individual RCs, Anglicans, Baptists, Methodists, Orthodox, Pentecostals and whatever else ...

But I find Rome rather scarey and the alternatives don't fill me with massive enthusiasm either. So that leaves me in a cleft stick ...
 

---

Posted by IngoB (# 8700) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Kaplan Corday:
The process took place slowly and organically over centuries under the direction of the Holy Spirit, and involved many churches and many congregations. There is not the slightest evidence that it was directed or co-ordinated by the Roman church and its putative “popes”, and there were not even conciliar rulings prior to the Western councils of Rome (382) and Carthage (397), which only confirmed the twenty-seven books in the 367 Paschal Letter from Athanasius in the East.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Kaplan Corday:
To understand the words of the Lord to Peter as an appointment to a hierarchical leadership of the church, to be enjoyed by his successors, is completely unsupported by the rest of the NT.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by The Rhythm Methodist:
That the Catholic church relies heavily on its own understanding of Matthew 16, for its assessment of Peter’s calling. What, precisely, Christ meant with regard to ‘the keys of the kingdom’, ‘binding and loosing’, the ‘rock’, etc., has been the subject of scholastic debate for years….and the RCC position is merely one possibility among others.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by The Rhythm Methodist:
Little or no emphasis is placed on the broader picture of Peter’s life, which may have helped determine more about the man and the ministry: for example, his fallibility; his designation as apostle to the Jews, the reference to “fellow elders” which would seem to contradict his supremacy in a hierarchical church, and the rebuke from Paul. It is a selective picture, based largely on a few words of Christ – the exact meaning of which are debatable.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by The Rhythm Methodist:
I have no problem with that principle, although there is nothing in scripture to suggest that Peter’s ministry would have been specifically one of these – even if we should allow the RCC understanding of it.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by The Rhythm Methodist:
A significant part of Peter’s biblically-recorded ministry featured what might be described as ‘signs and wonders’. As you have noted, such things have been largely or entirely absent in the papacy. If we say that these manifestations died out at the end of the apostolic age, then we also say that a significant part of Peter’s ministry is now redundant….with perhaps some implications for continuation. If not, then we have to wonder why those who claim his inheritance have consistently failed to replicate this portion of his work.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by The Rhythm Methodist:
There is no compelling evidence, however, that it was specifically God’s plan that Rome should dominate, or that there should be a papacy, or that said papacy in any way represented the ministry of Peter. There is no compelling evidence whatsoever.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by The Rhythm Methodist:
But I want to close with some thoughts about this continuation of Peter’s ministry, as it is represented in the Catholic Church. Please, imagine for a moment what church history would have looked like, if Peter himself had been running it, for close to 2,000 years. Now think about what it actually does look like….think about the fruit of nearly 2,000 years of Roman and papal dominance. Think about the bloodshed, the brutality – or the betrayal of the Jews during and after the holocaust. Think about the peasantry who were bled white by the indulgences scam, while Rome built its palace. Think about the abuse of countless, nameless children….and there are any number of other things you could think about. Now ask yourself this: is any of this what a genuine continuation of Peter’s ministry would ever look like?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by The Rhythm Methodist:
That you have failed to make a case scripturally for the papacy is self-evident.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by The Rhythm Methodist:
But in actual fact, the papacy had already failed a test which is equally important: the one that says, “by their fruits you shall know them”. Peter, at times, was a buffoon. At other times, he was weak – even cowardly. After Pentecost, he was a different animal – but even then, his fallibility was apparent. Now place him as head of the Catholic church, during any of those shameful episodes I have just mentioned. For all his faults, would he really have presided over that? Would he ever allow such indecent outrages, to be perpetrated in the name of God? I think he would have rather died!

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by The Rhythm Methodist:
So please don’t tell me that these popes are the legitimate successors to Peter, or that they are carrying on his work. They are not.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by The Rhythm Methodist:
Not all popes have been evil, selfish or cruel - but if you fondly imagine the papacy is a continual representation of the attributes and ministry of Peter (which appears to be the claim) - then I pity you. "By their fruits you shall know them" precludes that possibility.

---

Well, the RCC is undeniably the organisation that has brought most benefit to mankind by any measure: two millennia of continuous work in charity and education are sufficient to mention there, never mind such minor things as conserving the knowledge of the ancients, spawning modern agriculture practices all across Europe, inventing and spreading universities, etc. But anyway, since St Peter wasn't exactly a consistent overachiever, you really have no point there.
 

---

Posted by Anglican_Brat (# 12349) on :
 
The weakest argument is that an appeal to papal primacy is not the same as an appeal to papal infallibility.

One can argue that the Bishop of Rome should be senior bishop of the catholic church and should have a leadership role in chairing the entire assembly of bishops and keeping order. This doesn't mean that the Pope is infallible.

Though some might not be impressed that in my imagined reunited Christendom, the Pope would basically be what the ABC is in the Anglican Communion.
 

---

Posted by Kaplan Corday (# 16119) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by IngoB:
this was the hierarchy of a Catholic (universal) Church under Rome. The precise details of this "under" can be debated

---

quote:

---

Rome featured mostly as backdrop rather than as the clear lead, it was not a "bottom up" process and it was not independent from the Church hierarchy (which was not independent from Rome)

---

quote:

---

This was not some kind of Protestant paradise, in which the common faithful, led by the Holy Spirit, democratically voted on their favourite texts.

---

quote:

---

Nope. It is a straightforward interpretation of scripture confirmed most strongly by history.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Gamaliel:
I hasten to add that I have nothing but the greatest respect for individual Brethren and Salvationists ... just as I have for individual RCs, Anglicans, Baptists, Methodists, Orthodox, Pentecostals and whatever else ...

But I find Rome rather scarey and the alternatives don't fill me with massive enthusiasm either. So that leaves me in a cleft stick ...

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Kaplan Corday:

Do you intend maintaining this theological/ecclesiastical dithering for the rest of your life?

Be a man.

Take a stand.

Don’t be an indecisive bloody Hamlet forever.

---

I think Gamaliel will understand that this is an invitation to be a follower, even though it is couched in the language of "being a man", as though he isn't one already.

He would go down some places on Fowler's stages of faith by doing this.
 

---

Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on :
 
Well, genetically speaking ... I had a willy the last time I looked ...



I don't like the way Kaplan has couched his challenge but I'm not offended by it, nor will I take him to Hell over it. I can get on my own nerves at times, so it's hardly surprising that I'm going to do the same to other people.

And yes, guilty as charged, I can be subject to ecclesiastical dithering. But it's a process, isn't it? It goes in stages, Fowler's or otherwise.

I won't rehearse where I've come from - I've aired that often enough on these Boards. But anyone who has had any experience of being a relatively broad thinker within any group that makes particular truth-claims about itself would understand that particular personality types and 'discursive' - rather than 'directive' - thinkers can experience problems in such settings.

I s'pose that's what makes the Anglicans attractive - at least in theory.

I am genuinely in a cleft stick, though, and I make no apologies for that. I'm just about tolerating our local evangelical Anglican parish and I feel myself, in terms of 'spirituality' and so on, going further up the candle. But then that causes all manner of further problems - which Kaplan would surely be able to appreciate.

It ain't an easy position to be in.

Sure, if I took a plunge in one direction or another it would probably bring some kind of hiatus and sense of relief ... but I'm not sure how long that would last. I've come across a bloke online recently (not here) who was a starry-eyed convert to Orthodoxy not so long back but who has now returned to the Anglican fold and telling everyone about it in order to reinforce his decision ...

I don't want to be an ecclesiastical yo-yo.

And then I've got - confession time coming - someone I respect suggesting that I even ought to consider ministry or ordination ...


Which clearly wouldn't be a good idea for someone who is bobbing about ecclesiastically speaking.

So yes, I'm in an ecclesiastical mess always round.

What's your solution Kaplan? Shut up and put up or jump from the frying pan into something that may prove to be the fire?

If that's irritating then I apologise. But it's where I'm at.

Here I stand (or wobble ), I can do no other ...
 

---

Posted by hatless (# 3365) on :
 
It seems to me there's little that's attractive about any settled theology. You only have to read this thread to see how the more well-developed a position someone holds, the less able they are to converse well with anyone else, showing the respect and self-awareness that are crucial for useful interactions. Theological confidence leads to a combative style; perhaps it feels more important to defend the valued theology than to risk being open to the other person.

But not only do I find tentative, even insecure people, more congenial, I actually think it's only when we're in that mode that we have much chance of being aware of God. Indeed, the systems of theology with which it is tempting to wrap ourselves often look more like a defence against God than an aid to faith.
 

---

Posted by IngoB (# 8700) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Gamaliel:
I don't want to be an ecclesiastical yo-yo.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Triple Tiara:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Gamaliel:
In theory, at least, I wouldn't have a problem with accepting the Papacy as some kind of 'Primus inter Pares' - rather like the role the Archbishop of Canterbury plays (or attempts to play ) in the Anglican communion or the Ecumenical Patriarch within canonical Orthodoxy.

---

Which was never the Tradition. The idea of a primate without authority is a peculiar one and certainly not one found in the first millennium. It is an ex post facto solution produced by those who had separated, and a very late development.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Triple Tiara:
St. Ignatius of Antioch (died 108), who speaks of Rome "which presides in charity".

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Triple Tiara:
St. Irenaeus (d 202): "For with this Church (Rome), by reason of its pre-eminence, the whole Church must necessarily be in accord".

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Triple Tiara:
St Cyprian of Carthage (d.258): “He says to him again after the resurrection, “Feed my sheep.” It is on him that He builds His Church, and to him that He entrusts the sheep to feed. And although He assigns a similar power to all the Apostles, “Receive the Holy Spirit. If you forgive any man his sins, they shall be forgiven him; if you retain any man’s sins, they shall be retained.” - yet, in order that the oneness might be unmistakable, He established by His own authority a source for that oneness having its origin in one man alone.”

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Triple Tiara:
“A primacy is given to Peter, and it is thus made clear that there is but one Church and one Chair.”
“If a man does not hold to this oneness of Peter, does he imagine that he still holds the truth? If he deserts the Chair of Peter upon whom the Church was built, has he still confidence that he is in the Church?”

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Triple Tiara:
So the Fathers at Chalcedon in 451 would acclaim, in response to the Pope's Letter, "Peter has spoken through Leo".

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Triple Tiara:
The Early Church held this as a simple matter of fact.

---

The early church certainly didn’t hold this as a simple matter of fact!

St Jerome wrote in his epistle 146 “It is not the case that there is one church at Rome and another in all the world beside. Gaul and Britain, Africa and Persia, India and the East worship one Christ and observe one rule of truth. If you ask for authority, the world outweighs its capital. Wherever there is a bishop, whether it be at Rome or… Constantinople… his dignity is one and his priesthood is one. All alike are successors of the apostles”

And even Pope Gregory the Great wrote against John of Constantinople, when he tried to claim supremacy over the other bishops by calling himself ‘Oecumenical Bishop’. Pope Gregory wrote a letter denouncing this attitude in terms which made it clear that no bishop should seek to claim any title or authority that placed him over another bishop. I’d encourage you to read the whole epistle but a selected quote is:

“Certainly Peter, the first of the apostles, himself a member of the holy and universal Church, Paul, Andrew, John,—what were they but heads of particular communities? And yet all were members under one Head. And (to bind all together in a short girth of speech) the saints before the law, the saints under the law, the saints under grace, all these making up the Lord’s Body, were constituted as members of the Church, and not one of them has wished himself to be called universal.”

He follows by saying:

“Was it not the case, as your Fraternity knows, that the prelates of [Rome] had the honour offered them of being called universal by the venerable Council of Chalcedon. But yet not one of them has ever wished to be called by such a title, or seized upon this ill-advised name, lest if, in virtue of the rank of the pontificate, he took to himself the glory of singularity, he might seem to have denied it to all his brethren.”

Therefore we can clearly see, if we take the writings of the early church fathers beyond the selected out-of-context quotes and special translations of the RCC, that there was no consensus in the early church that Rome was the supreme authority over the others. In fact, there are numerous examples of Saints, Patriarchs, and even a Pope explicitly refuting such an understanding.
 

---

Posted by Hawk (# 14289) on :
 
Apologies - in the above I have written Ignatius when I meant Irenaeus - please excuse the typos.
 

---

Posted by Fr Weber (# 13472) on :
 
"In the sermon i have just preached, whenever I
said Aristotle, I meant St. Paul."

--Rev W.A. Spooner
 

---

Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on :
 
The 'blasphemy' charge seems to have been bandied about in both directions. Kaplan accused IngoB of it and now IngoB has accused the Rhythm Methodist of it.

Neither accusation holds water in my view, I don't think either IngoB nor the unrhythmic non-Methodist are being guilty of blasphemy - it's just a case of 'over-egged' and strident language building up on both sides ... which is how splits and schisms end up, of course, which each side anathematising the other.

Incidentally, I think Hawk has laid out a good case for the Orthodox position on these matters, which I'm not sure is something he'd have set out to do intentionally. The Orthodox view, of course, is that the catholicity and authority resides in the collegiality of bishops. Consequently, they wouldn't recognise some of the orders and offices and so on that Hawk would ...

For my own part, I'd have a more Papally inclined view if it wasn't for the fraudalent 'Donation of Constantine' and some of the other scams pulled off by the Papacy down the years. I think the Rhythm Methodist - who must assuredly be a Catholic if he is using the rhythm method - is 'over-egging' things in the opposite direction.

I can't see how the Papacy can be blamed for the child abuse scandal in the RC Church, but I can certainly see how certain bishops were to blame for blind-eyes and cover-ups. I would suggest that there were systemic failings, but equally I'd suggest that there were systemic failings in other directions in other churches and denominations - there are things that come with the territory, as it were, in all traditions, perhaps not as grave or serious as this instance, of course, but the RCs aren't unique in having such scandals in their midst and they are trying to sort it out.
 

---

Posted by Triple Tiara (# 9556) on :
 
Actually Hawk I dispute nothing you have said about the importance of each local Church and the authority of its bishop. This is both the ancient and the current position of the Catholic Church. Each bishop is a successor of the Apostles. There is no contradiction whatsoever between asserting that as well as the Primacy of Rome. What Cyprian refers to, for example, is the diffused nature of the Church being held together through its unity with Rome. That's still how it is.

However, I am always aghast at the way those who dispute the Petrine Primacy and authority of the Roman See have to strain at the texts to interpret away this Primacy. There are endless references to the Roman Primacy and not one which disputes it from the Fathers. Why is that? Why the need to interpret away the Primacy? (rhetorical question)

As far as the Cyprian quotation is concerned - heheh well spotted. You can read about it here in the paragraph entitled "Church Unity".
 

---

Posted by Triple Tiara (# 9556) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Gamaliel:

For my own part, I'd have a more Papally inclined view if it wasn't for the fraudalent 'Donation of Constantine' and some of the other scams pulled off by the Papacy down the years. I think the Rhythm Methodist - who must assuredly be a Catholic if he is using the rhythm method - is 'over-egging' things in the opposite direction.

---

How many Catholics do you know who use the Donation of Constantine as an argument? It's usually used by those contending
against Rome - in the way you have done, tut tut (and you were doing sooooo well until then )

In fact it was used more by the Constantinopolitans in order to claim for the Bishop of "New" Rome the privileges of "Old" Rome.

Article full of details in the Catholic Encyclopedia.
 

---

Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on :
 
I haven't got time to look up the Catholic Encyclopaedia link at the moment, Triple Tiara, but I will read it and get the Roman perspective.

I will try to avoid my standard fall-back position, which I once voiced, jokingly to an RC priest, which was 'any home but Rome ...'

To which he replied, 'No, no, don't say that ...'

We got on really well, by the way.

You've worried me by telling me I was doing so well up to press ...

I can see that I am going to have to adopt a Paisley voice ('It ...is ... an abomination!!') or else grow a big beard and rant against the perfidious West like some kind of Athonite on speed ...


 

---

Posted by IngoB (# 8700) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by The Rhythm Methodist:
The fact that Christians at the time believed – or were led to believe – that the papacy was continuing the ministry of Peter, does not make it the case – nor does it represent compelling evidence that it was the case.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by The Rhythm Methodist:
Blasphemy, eh? I do hope all those people who were tortured to death for it by the Catholic Church were convicted on better evidence than you have just presented for me bordering on it.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by The Rhythm Methodist:
Your first two rebuttals are clear examples of historical revisionism.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by The Rhythm Methodist:
The third is a transparent attempt to remove ultimate responsibility for abuse, from the shoulders of those who have ultimate responsibility for your church. A succession of your supreme leaders (and how long a succession, we can only guess) have allowed that abuse to continue. We cannot pretend that none of them knew anything about it, can we? Nor can we pretend that popes are not ultimately accountable for the safety of the flock.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by The Rhythm Methodist:
But alas, I wasn’t comparing the papacy with secular figures, I was comparing it with the man who it claims to have succeeded.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by The Rhythm Methodist:
I was saying that – for all his faults – Peter would never have perpetrated or permitted the atrocities visited upon others, which have been presided over by various popes. I might be wrong. It may be that (for example) Peter would have delighted in convening The Inquisition, or that he would have been happy for it to continue.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by The Rhythm Methodist:
Actually, I’m minded to finally concede that claim, rather than dispute it further. It has been shown to be nothing more than a titular affectation – of little scriptural merit, and even less relevance to the character and ministry of Peter.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by The Rhythm Methodist:
but it’s probably no worse than me calling myself “The Rhythm Methodist” – when I’m totally unmusical, and not even a Methodist.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Hawk:
[QUOTE]Originally posted by Triple Tiara:
So the Fathers at Chalcedon in 451 would acclaim, in response to the Pope's Letter, "Peter has spoken through Leo".

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Lyda*Rose:
Yeah! Go kill someone!

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Triple Tiara:
What Cyprian refers to, for example, is the diffused nature of the Church being held together through its unity with Rome.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Triple Tiara:
However, I am always aghast at the way those who dispute the Petrine Primacy and authority of the Roman See have to strain at the texts to interpret away this Primacy.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Triple Tiara:
There are endless references to the Roman Primacy and not one which disputes it from the Fathers.

---

Er...what? You have produced no references to the Roman Primacy and I have produced multiple refutations of it from the early fathers. What an odd thing for you to say.
 

---

Posted by Alogon (# 5513) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Mudfrog:
You missed (4) out: those who believe, as the New Testament clearly teaches, that all believers in Christ, every one of the redeemed, every member of the Body of Christ is a saint. We are all together called saints. Not made so after centuries of death by the bishop of Rome, but called to be saints in this life by the will of God.

---

I'm aware that some say "once saved always saved." My apologies for not mentioning this, except that I don't understand how a school claiming every believer as a saint could object to calling one believer a saint-- as some do, hence this thread.

Somehow, though, I suspect that if you heard "Saint Jim Jones," "Saint David Koresh," or maybe even "Saint Jerry Falwell," you would find a no-true-Scotsman way to object to bestowing the honorific on that person-- perhaps along the lines of "he couldn't be a true believer, because his beliefs were so different from mine."

In addition to a few personal role models, I'm prepared to extend it to a few personages who are unlikely ever to be canonized by Rome, when many people agree that they are outstanding examples of what the church wants to produce. For instance, I've admired Albert Schweitzer since childhood for various reasons (among them, sermons that were pithy but so short that his parishioners wished for them to be longer ). C.S. Lewis is another likely candidate for his writings and lectures, even if a fuss-budget can point to a quirk or two in his personal life (as one can also do with Saint Jerome, who is yet an official saint on account of similar strengths).

Ingo will agree, I think, that even the Roman Catholic church's list of saints is not exhaustive, in that no one would ever join that list had not someone (and probably quite a few people) believed strongly enough in the person's sanctity to pray fervently to (or thourhg) him or her, and found that prayer miraculously answered. The status, therefore, is not conferred so much as recognized.

[ 05. November 2012, 22:34: Message edited by: Alogon ]
 

---

Posted by Lyda*Rose (# 4544) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Triple Tiara:
Actually Hawk I dispute nothing you have said about the importance of each local Church and the authority of its bishop. This is both the ancient and the current position of the Catholic Church. Each bishop is a successor of the Apostles. There is no contradiction whatsoever between asserting that as well as the Primacy of Rome. What Cyprian refers to, for example, is the diffused nature of the Church being held together through its unity with Rome. That's still how it is.

However, I am always aghast at the way those who dispute the Petrine Primacy and authority of the Roman See have to strain at the texts to interpret away this Primacy. There are endless references to the Roman Primacy and not one which disputes it from the Fathers. Why is that? Why the need to interpret away the Primacy? (rhetorical question)

As far as the Cyprian quotation is concerned - heheh well spotted. You can read about it here in the paragraph entitled "Church Unity".

---

Actually, I've got to say that Hawk provided more context and support for his arguments than most people who debate here. He's made me think that the Petrine primacy was a matter of gradual development rather than Holy Wisdom in a helmet sprung from the forehead of God in the first and second century, to mix mythologies. That doesn't mean that it wasn't the will of God as the RCs believe. Since the culmination was that Rome has hung together, has remained reasonably consistent in its outlook, and works pretty well for such an old monolith, it's not an outrageous belief as beliefs go.

But, Hawk, great post!
 

---

Posted by Triple Tiara (# 9556) on :
 
Just a minute Lyda

quote:

---

Originally posted by Hawk:
Er...what? You have produced no references to the Roman Primacy and I have produced multiple refutations of it from the early fathers. What an odd thing for you to say.

---

quote:

---

"Since the East, dashed against itself by the accustomed fury of its peoples, is tearing piecemeal the undivided tunic of Christ, woven from the top throughout, and foxes are destroying the vine of Christ, so that among the broken cisterns which have no water it is hard to know where is the sealed fountain and the garden enclosed, I have considered that I ought to consult the Chair of Peter and the faith praised by the mouth of the Apostle [Rom 1:8], asking now the food of my soul where of old I received the garment of Christ. Neither the vast expense of ocean nor all the breadth of land which separate us could preclude me from seeking the precious pearl. Wheresoever the body is, thither will the eagles be gathered together. Now that an evil progeny have dissipated their patrimony, with you alone is the inheritance of the Fathers preserved uncorrupt. There the fertile earth reproduces a hundredfold the purity of the seed of the Lord. Here the corn cast into the furrows degenerates into ryegrass and wild oats. It is now in the West that the sun of justice rises; whilst in the East, Lucifer, who fell, has set his seat above the stars. You are the light of the world, the salt of the earth. Here the vessels of clay or wood will be destroyed by the rod of iron and the fire everlasting.

"Therefore, though your greatness makes me fear, yet your kindness invites me. From the priest I ask the salvation of the victim; from the shepherd the safety of his sheep. Away with envy, away with all canvassing of the Roman power; it is but with the successor of the fisherman and the disciple of the Cross that I speak. Following none in the first place but Christ, I am in communion with your beatitude, that is, with the Chair of Peter. On that rock I know the Church is built. Whosoever shall eat the Lamb outside that house is profane. If any be not with Noah in the Ark, he shall perish beneath the sway of the deluge. And because for my sins I have migrated to this solitude, where Syria borders on the barbarians, and I cannot always at this great distance ask for the Holy One of the Lord from your holiness, therefore I follow here your colleagues the Egyptian confessors; and under these great ships my little vessel is unnoticed. Vitalis I know not, Meletius I reject; I know not Paulinus. Whoso gathereth not with thee scattereth; that is to say, whoso is not with Christ is of Antichrist.

---

quote:

---

"As to what they say of the Church of Constantinople, who doubts that it is subject to the Apostolic See? This is constantly owned by the most pious Emperor and by our brother and Bishop of that city." (Lib. ix., Ep. 12);

"If any fault is found among bishops, I know not any one who is not subject to it (the Apostolic See); but when no fault requires otherwise, all are equal according to the estimation of humility." (Lib. ix., Ep. 59)

For to all who know the Gospel it is apparent that by the Lord's voice the care of the whole Church was committed to the holy Apostle and Prince of all the Apostles, Peter. For to him it is said, Peter, do you love Me? Feed My sheep John 21:17. To him it is said, Behold Satan has desired to sift you as wheat; and I have prayed for you, Peter, that your faith fail not. And thou, when you are converted, strengthen your brethren Luke 22:31. To him it is said, You are Peter, and upon this rock I will build My Church, and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it. And I will give unto you the keys of the kingdom of heaven and whatsoever you shall bind an earth shall be bound also in heaven; and whatsoever you shall loose on earth shall be loosed also in heaven Matthew 16:18.

Lo, he received the keys of the heavenly kingdom, and power to bind and loose is given him, the care and principality of the whole Church is committed to him, and yet he is not called the universal apostle; while the most holy man, my fellow priest John, attempts to be called universal bishop. I am compelled to cry out and say, O tempora, O mores!(Lib. v., Ep. 20);

Now eight years ago, in the time of my predecessor of holy memory Pelagius, our brother and fellow bishop John in the city of Constantinople, seeking occasion from another cause, held a synod in which he attempted to call himself Universal Bishop. Which as soon as my said predecessor knew, he dispatched letters annulling by the authority of the holy apostle Peter the acts of the said synod; of which letters I have taken care to send copies to your Holiness.(Lib. y., Ep. 43);

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Lyda*Rose:
Since the culmination was that Rome has hung together, has remained reasonably consistent in its outlook, and works pretty well for such an old monolith, it's not an outrageous belief as beliefs go.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Hawk:
It's amusing that the RCC propagandapedia claims that the later interpolator was 'probably' Cyprian himself, despite any evidence for this. Wishful thinking much?

---

Since you dismiss the Catholic Encyclopaedia as the "RCC propagandapedia" let me refer you to a discussion on the two versions of Cyprian's Letter to bible.org, which has unimpeachable protestant credentials. You will note that it takes the line that Cyprian wrote both versions (marshalling several scholars) - and of course then takes the line that Cyprian could not possibly have meant the papacy. So it plays along with your conclusions about Cyprian's position, but not your dismissal of the passage from Cyprian. In fact, what it suggests is that the passage you dismiss was the earlier version of Cyprian's letter, which he later amplified.
 

---

Posted by Lyda*Rose (# 4544) on :
 
Okay, Father TT. It's obvious I should be doing some reading of my own, all the way through.
 

---

Posted by Kaplan Corday (# 16119) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Alogon:
I'm aware that some say "once saved always saved."

---

quote:

---

I don't understand how a school claiming every believer as a saint could object to calling one believer a saint-- as some do, hence this thread.

---

quote:

---

Somehow, though, I suspect that if you heard "Saint Jim Jones," "Saint David Koresh," or maybe even "Saint Jerry Falwell," you would find a no-true-Scotsman way to object to bestowing the honorific on that person-- perhaps along the lines of "he couldn't be a true believer, because his beliefs were so different from mine."

---

The problems to which you allude here are common to all Christian traditions, and are in no way specific to a particular view of hagiology.

Every tradition - Protestant, Catholic, Orthodox , whatever - has members who are an embarrassment to them, and from whom they are tempted to distance themselves by a "true Scotchman" mode of exclusion.

Every church leadership faces the challenge from time to time of having to exercise a form of excommunicatory discipline which involves making a decision as to whether one of their members was never a Christian, or has ceased to be a Christian, or is a Christian in a state of contumacious rebellion against its doctrine, morals or both.
 

---

Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on :
 
So the Catholic Encyclopaedia is suspect simply because it is 'Catholic', eh?

That makes it a propaganda vehicle ...

Well, Hawk, as much as admire your recent posts on this issue, I can't help but wonder whether you would accuse something called 'The Protestant Encyclopaedia' of being propagandist or 'The Orthodox Encyclopaedia' ...

The clue is in the title. It's the CATHOLIC Encyclopaedia, so it's going to have an RC take on things ... why would you expect otherwise?

I've dipped into the Catholic Encyclopaedia a few times and found it very interesting and edifying. As ever with any of these things I tend to find that the issues aren't as clear cut as propaganda on both sides would make out.

I would agree with Lyda that, rightly or wrongly, there's been a development in notions of Papal primacy - which is different to Papal supremacy, of course.

I know I can be irritatingly accommodating - and I'll go and machine-gun a few unitarians now just to keep Kaplan happy - but I suspect that this is one of these areas where an over-egging on Rome's part has led to an under-egging on the Protestant side. One could cite Marian devotion as another example. The Prots have reacted against an over-realised approach on the part of popular RC piety and, arguably, downplay Mary's role in the gospel narrative and the divine economy.

Sure, I'd run a mile if I heard terms like 'co-redemptrix' and so on, but it doesn't stop me holding Our Lady Theotokos in high honour.

It's the same with the Saints and with the Papacy issue. There's often a knee-jerk reaction on the Protestant side.

I hear Kaplan huffing and puffing and decrying the use of the word Saint (with a capital S) on the grounds that its unscriptural. I can understand why he does so, and would have done so myself at one time, but I've shifted ground ... oh dear, oh dearie, dearie me ...

I would certainly object to the Big S word if it could be demonstrated that its use means that the small s 'saint' version is thereby denigrated or rendered ineffectual. I don't see any real evidence that it has. I might be missing something but everyone I know who has a concept of Saints as well as saints has a fair bit of appreciation of both.

Heck, in the Orthodox Church people kiss each other in the services as well as the icons to express the fact that they themselves, as believers, are icons of Christ. What are we to say to them? That they should stop kissing the icons but continue to kiss one another because kissing icons isn't supported by a biblical text but 'greet one another with a holy kiss' is?

Sure, I do baulk at a lot of ultramontane Papisticall posterings and at eyebrow raising examples of both RC and Orthodox popular piety, but it strikes me as a rather wooden and strait-jacketed, arse-clenching form of faith to run around crying 'foul' whenever anyone comes up with anything that doesn't fit with one's own view of what's scripturally appropriate.

I s'pose that's why I'm becoming more 'Anglican' in some respects - scripture, reason and tradition - and more sacramental overall ... with an increasing interest in Patristics, tradition (small t and Big T) and so on.

Surely it's a both/and but either/or thing?

Yes, you can go off into extremes at each end and there'll be a continuum or spectrum along which we find ourselves at various times.

You might not like that and might be irritated by it and ask me to come down off the fence and kill someone.

I don't think I'll be coming to mow you down any time soon, though ... but you never know ...
 

---

Posted by tclune (# 7959) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Gamaliel:
So the Catholic Encyclopaedia is suspect simply because it is 'Catholic', eh?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Gamaliel:
So the Catholic Encyclopaedia is suspect simply because it is 'Catholic', eh?

That makes it a propaganda vehicle ...

Well, Hawk, as much as admire your recent posts on this issue, I can't help but wonder whether you would accuse something called 'The Protestant Encyclopaedia' of being propagandist or 'The Orthodox Encyclopaedia' ...

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Triple Tiara:
Have you actually followed what the dispute in question wrt the Catholic Encyclopaedia is?

For clarification, it's about the authenticity of a Patristic document. Hence my linking to a protestant sight which also agrees to the authenticity. It's not about an RC theological position per se.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Kaplan Corday:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Alogon:
I'm aware that some say "once saved always saved."

---

Of what conceivable relevance is this to a discussion of hagiology?

---

quote:

---

The objection is to designating some believers as capital-S saints and withholding the title from others

---

quote:

---

...Every tradition - Protestant, Catholic, Orthodox , whatever - has members who are an embarrassment to them, and from whom they are tempted to distance themselves by a "true Scotchman" mode of exclusion.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Kaplan Corday:
There was certainly a catholic church then, and there has been ever since, but to present the early church as a period of unquestioning subservience to the Roman church is sheer historical obscurantism.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Kaplan Corday:
"Backdrop" in this context is a weasel word. The fact is that there is very little evidence of Rome's involvement in the NT canon, or no more than any other church, which is curious if it really held the position of eminence at the time which you claim for it. It was in fact a bottom-up process, as churches and their leaders (not individuals) gradually worked out what was profitable for teaching, worship, doctrine etc. There is no evidence that they all looked to Rome to tell them.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Kaplan Corday:
If it was that straightforward you would have produced the incontrovertible evidence from the NT, but you have not because you cannot.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Kaplan Corday:
The objection is to designating some believers as capital-S saints and withholding the title from others.

---

Let's say I scrape through to heaven. Alleluia! Then for Catholics I am a saint. Does it follow that my life will have been as exemplary in Christian virtue and inspiring in Christian spirit as for example that of St Benedict? Hardly! So is there anything wrong with the Church proposing St Benedict, rather than a potential future St IngoB, to the Catholic faithful - as example of heroic sanctity to venerate and as intercessor in prayer? Heck, no. I would be thoroughly embarrassed by being canonized. It would be like handing a Nobel prize to someone for successfully tying their shoe laces.
 

---

Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on :
 
Kaplan is big enough and bad enough and bold enough to speak for himself, but it's well known that the evangelical Protestant objection to Big S Saints, or selective sainthood if you like, is based on some or all of the following:

- The idea that medieval Roman Catholicism had become very superstitious on this issue.

- More importantly, a desire to protect issues such as 'the priesthood of all believers' and not to have any kind of 'two-tier' system.

- A desire to protect the idea of 'salvation by grace through faith' - some of the ways in which the notion of Sainthood (Big S) has been expressed could be taken to imply 'salvation by works' or to move levels of sanctity beyond the reach of ordinary, everyday folks ...

Much as I can understand all of that, and would have used those arguments quite vigorously myself at one time, I think they do betray a certain binariness ... as if you can't have a Big S Saint and a small s saint at one and the same time.

Protestantism does have its own milder forms of hagiography, of course - read any of the more gushing biographies of important Protestant evangelical figures like Moody or Spurgeon and Hudson Taylor, CT Studd and so on and you'll see what I mean. It gets even more pronounced in Pentecostalism where hagiographies of figures like Smith Wigglesworth stretch the bounds of credulity to a mind-boggling extent. Admittedly, more recent Pentecostal histories and biographies have displayed far more candour and less triumphalism - the movement has 'come of age' to a certain extent.

But I digress ...

I suspect Kaplan's objections would be along those lines and also:

- Because it's 'not scriptural'.

- Because he can't hold the two notions together at the same time and so decides that one necessarily cancels out the other ...
 

---

© Ship of Fools 2016


UBB.classic^TM 6.5.0