homepage
  roll on christmas  
click here to find out more about ship of fools click here to sign up for the ship of fools newsletter click here to support ship of fools
community the mystery worshipper gadgets for god caption competition foolishness features ship stuff
discussion boards live chat cafe avatars frequently-asked questions the ten commandments gallery private boards register for the boards
 
Ship of Fools


Post new thread  Post a reply
My profile login | | Directory | Search | FAQs | Board home
   - Printer-friendly view Next oldest thread   Next newest thread
» Ship of Fools   » Ship's Locker   » Limbo   » Purgatory: We don't actually know,,,KNOW. Saints (Page 5)

 - Email this page to a friend or enemy.  
Pages in this thread: 1  2  3  4  5 
 
Source: (consider it) Thread: Purgatory: We don't actually know,,,KNOW. Saints
Gamaliel
Shipmate
# 812

 - Posted      Profile for Gamaliel   Author's homepage   Email Gamaliel   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
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 - [Biased] 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.

--------------------
Let us with a gladsome mind
Praise the Lord for He is kind.

http://philthebard.blogspot.com

Posts: 15997 | From: Cheshire, UK | Registered: Jul 2001  |  IP: Logged
Triple Tiara

Ship's Papabile
# 9556

 - Posted      Profile for Triple Tiara   Author's homepage     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
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".

--------------------
I'm a Roman. You may call me Caligula.

Posts: 5905 | From: London, England | Registered: May 2005  |  IP: Logged
Triple Tiara

Ship's Papabile
# 9556

 - Posted      Profile for Triple Tiara   Author's homepage     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
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 - [Biased] 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 [Big Grin] )

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.

--------------------
I'm a Roman. You may call me Caligula.

Posts: 5905 | From: London, England | Registered: May 2005  |  IP: Logged
Gamaliel
Shipmate
# 812

 - Posted      Profile for Gamaliel   Author's homepage   Email Gamaliel   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
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 ... [Paranoid]

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 ...

[Biased]

--------------------
Let us with a gladsome mind
Praise the Lord for He is kind.

http://philthebard.blogspot.com

Posts: 15997 | From: Cheshire, UK | Registered: Jul 2001  |  IP: Logged
IngoB

Sentire cum Ecclesia
# 8700

 - Posted      Profile for IngoB   Email IngoB   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
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.

Well, nice. Then by your standards there is no compelling evidence for anything Christian. Because Christianity is not physics, it relies fundamentally on believing the faith that is transmitted to us. Just burn your bible right now, for it sure isn't compelling evidence for or against anything either. It is merely a written record of what Christians at the time believed, or were led to believe.

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.

Your whining about evidence is starting to get annoying, in particular since you never present any. Do you really believe that it is an accident of history that Christ came at the maximum intersection of Jewish faith, Greek culture and Roman power? Do you really believe that the faith could have spread other than by taking over the Roman empire? If so, then fair enough, you are not guilty of blasphemy. And even in her darkest times the Church never burned anybody for not being the sharpest knife in the drawer.

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

Not at all. That the Pius XII could have acted better against the Nazis is true, but frankly, that is true of practically anybody of influence in Europe at the time. He did however do quite a lot, see here, here, and here. About the most negative view that can be held honestly is here. And while that point of view is highly critical, it acknowledges the good things this pope has clearly also done. As for the idea that the peasants were bled white by Rome with "indulgence scams", that is most clearly exaggeration, just as I said. First, the peasants were bled white by many people, and "indulgence scams" hardly topped the list of problems peasants had. They didn't help, obviously, but they hardly determined single-handedly the socio-economic standing of peasants. Second, Rome did move against "indulgence scams" long before the reformation, see here, under "Abuses". Also for example Cardinal Ximenes forbade the preaching of the indulgence for alms in Spain in 1513. It is true though that Pope Leo X and the indulgence for St Peter's in 1517 were hardly flawless. So, this is exaggeration.

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.

This is plain bullshit, possibly from ignorance of how the Church actually works. The RCC has one of the flattest and thinnest organisational structures imaginable. There are about 1.3 billion Catholics in the world, but only something like 5,100 bishops. That this works at all is a bit of a miracle. Mostly it depends on the Catholic principle of subsidiarity, suggesting that things ought to be handled by the smallest, lowest, or least centralized authority capable of addressing that matter effectively. In particular, this means that questions of Church governance and discipline are largely devolved to bishops and their national conferences. And it is there where all the problems did occur, largely with local bishops and to some extent with national bishop conferences dragging their feet. Rome has consistently pushed them to address this topic, ever since it started to appear on the radar, and eventually grabbed some control over the processes because that was not working. But the idea that Rome has been in direct control and hence responsibility is just wrong. That's not how the RCC works.

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.

And of course considered by what the RCC and the papacy actually are, the popes are on average well within range of St Peter's failings. That you get all sorts of bad stuff in two millennia of supra-national and finally global history is hardly a surprise. But it is just nonsense to compile a list of the worst problems, assign that to one imaginary person called "pope" and then say that this person really is a lot worse than St Peter. There were sinners and there were saints on the papal chair, but on average they and the Church they have led did decently, if one considers the monumental expansion of the Church fairly.

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.

First, this is simply nonsense. Nobody is claiming that St Peter is being reborn as the popes. RCs are not Tibetan Buddhists with their Dalai Lama. It is the office, not the man, which is being perpetuated. Clearly, there are better and worse examples of people filling an office, say that of the American President. George W. Bush is not an argument against the US presidency. (OK, he does come close, but I trust you get the point.) As for the St Peter vs. the Inquisition, maybe you should read Acts 5 sometime? (And perhaps inform yourself better on the Inquisition.)

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.

Actually, nothing of that sort has been shown. In particular, you have shown nothing. So far I have shown and shown, whereas you just happily keep asserting whatever comes into your head. I'm looking forward to the comprehensively argued and fully evidenced discussion of the papacy that will soon be springing from your feather. Admittedly, by your exacting standards we can expect this to be at least a major article on the subject, if not a book. But I'm sure the brilliance of the argument that you will advance some time soon will motivate us to read through the meticulous research that you will present.

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.

How sad. You really should donate this account to some Methodist drummer.

--------------------
They’ll have me whipp’d for speaking true; thou’lt have me whipp’d for lying; and sometimes I am whipp’d for holding my peace. - The Fool in King Lear

Posts: 12010 | From: Gone fishing | Registered: Oct 2004  |  IP: Logged
Gamaliel
Shipmate
# 812

 - Posted      Profile for Gamaliel   Author's homepage   Email Gamaliel   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
Ok, Triple Tiara, the West accepted the Donation as a forgery before those naughty and contentious Greeks did ...

Fair do's ...

I s'pose a Protestant could, if so inclined, declare a plague on both your houses. 'Nur-na nur na-nah, you both got it wro-on-g ..'

I won't because I'm a nice guy and because I'm fuzzy that way.

To be fair to Rome, whilst I find that all Churches (and churches) can be guilty of casuistry, Rome can certainly big up to its mistakes and will acknowledge its failings. Even IngoB here is accepting that there have been abuses and failings - it's not as if the RCs try to air-brush these things out.

I'm a sure a lot of people would feel happier and less 'got at' in RC settings than they would in certain hyper-restrictive Protestant sects - although I'm certainly not suggesting that anyone here - including The Rhythm Methodist who isn't a Methodist - falls into that category.

I'd certainly prefer people to go to RC churches than to some forms of independent Protestant groups - such as the 'health-wealth' end of the charismatic spectrum or intensely conversative fundamentalist groups.

--------------------
Let us with a gladsome mind
Praise the Lord for He is kind.

http://philthebard.blogspot.com

Posts: 15997 | From: Cheshire, UK | Registered: Jul 2001  |  IP: Logged
leo
Shipmate
# 1458

 - Posted      Profile for leo   Author's homepage   Email leo   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
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".

Indeed!!!!

--------------------
My Jewish-positive lectionary blog is at http://recognisingjewishrootsinthelectionary.wordpress.com/
My reviews at http://layreadersbookreviews.wordpress.com

Posts: 23198 | From: Bristol | Registered: Oct 2001  |  IP: Logged
Kaplan Corday
Shipmate
# 16119

 - Posted      Profile for Kaplan Corday         Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Lyda*Rose:
Yeah! Go kill someone!

Preferably a unitarian.
Posts: 3355 | Registered: Jan 2011  |  IP: Logged
Hawk

Semi-social raptor
# 14289

 - Posted      Profile for Hawk   Author's homepage   Email Hawk   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
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.

No he doesn't though. Not once. Those later additions to Cyprian's treatise that mention the seat of Peter are just that - later additions. Someone has revised an early Church father's work to record what, in their view, he should have said if only he'd been thinking straight at the time.

Such additions though work both against the thrust of Cyprian's argument, and his beliefs expounded in other writings - as I've shown above.

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

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.

Sorry for looking at the texts in context - should I have just added words to them like you guys?

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

[Confused] 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.

--------------------
“We are to find God in what we know, not in what we don't know." Dietrich Bonhoeffer

See my blog for 'interesting' thoughts

Posts: 1739 | From: Oxford, UK | Registered: Nov 2008  |  IP: Logged
Alogon
Cabin boy emeritus
# 5513

 - Posted      Profile for Alogon   Email Alogon   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
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 [Biased] ). 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 ]

--------------------
Patriarchy (n.): A belief in original sin unaccompanied by a belief in God.

Posts: 7808 | From: West Chester PA | Registered: Feb 2004  |  IP: Logged
Lyda*Rose

Ship's broken porthole
# 4544

 - Posted      Profile for Lyda*Rose   Email Lyda*Rose   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
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! [Overused]

--------------------
"Dear God, whose name I do not know - thank you for my life. I forgot how BIG... thank you. Thank you for my life." ~from Joe Vs the Volcano

Posts: 21377 | From: CA | Registered: May 2003  |  IP: Logged
Triple Tiara

Ship's Papabile
# 9556

 - Posted      Profile for Triple Tiara   Author's homepage     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
Just a minute Lyda [Biased]

quote:
Originally posted by Hawk:
[Confused] 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.

Erm, no you haven't. What you have done is attempt to explain away what the Fathers say.

But you produce some new Fathers, so let's have a closer look. First Jerome. The passage you quote is part of an arcane dispute concerning the hierarchical ranking of deacons and priests, and someone having used as an argument what was done in Rome. Jerome argues that there is one Church, and if deacons in Rome are taking a higher place than they should, then they are wrong. This is nothing to do with Primacy. But let Jerome speak for himself on the matter of Primacy:

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.

Next you introduce the famous "Universal Bishop" (a translation of the Greek "Ecumenical Patriarch") controversy between Pope Gregory and John the Faster. The title in Greek probably sounded less astounding than it did in Latin, or translated into English as "Universal Bishop" and Gregory is probably over-reacting. I mean, people today would raise objections if we referred to the Bishop of Constantinople as Universal Bishop rather than Ecumenical Patriarch. (Incidentally, the title has never been used by any Bishop of Rome).

Actually, you get the point of Gregory's Letter quite wrong. The Patriarch's all had Provincial authority over other bishops. John the Faster went even further and tried to exercise authority over the Patriarch of Antioch. Pope Gregory writes to remind him that it is the prerogative of Rome, not Constantinople, to judge other bishops. There is no doubt in Pope Gregory's mind that he has that authority himself: he is challenging the Bishop of Constantinople for assuming such a role and along the way such an inflated title. Lest you doubt Pope Gregory's position, let him speak for himself. Passages such as these are usually suppressed by those who latch onto the "Universal Bishop" paragraph:

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);



--------------------
I'm a Roman. You may call me Caligula.

Posts: 5905 | From: London, England | Registered: May 2005  |  IP: Logged
Kaplan Corday
Shipmate
# 16119

 - Posted      Profile for Kaplan Corday         Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
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.


Non sequitur.

Its cohesion, longevity, consistency and functionality tell us nothing about the validity of its beliefs, particularly its foundation myth.

Posts: 3355 | Registered: Jan 2011  |  IP: Logged
Triple Tiara

Ship's Papabile
# 9556

 - Posted      Profile for Triple Tiara   Author's homepage     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
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.

--------------------
I'm a Roman. You may call me Caligula.

Posts: 5905 | From: London, England | Registered: May 2005  |  IP: Logged
Lyda*Rose

Ship's broken porthole
# 4544

 - Posted      Profile for Lyda*Rose   Email Lyda*Rose   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
Okay, Father TT. It's obvious I should be doing some reading of my own, all the way through. [Smile]

--------------------
"Dear God, whose name I do not know - thank you for my life. I forgot how BIG... thank you. Thank you for my life." ~from Joe Vs the Volcano

Posts: 21377 | From: CA | Registered: May 2003  |  IP: Logged
Kaplan Corday
Shipmate
# 16119

 - Posted      Profile for Kaplan Corday         Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
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:
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.
The objection is to designating some believers as capital-S saints and withholding the title from others.

The NT nowhere uses the word saint to refer to an individual or a special class of believers.

It is invariably usd in the plural to refer to the whole body of the redeemed.

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.

Posts: 3355 | Registered: Jan 2011  |  IP: Logged
Gamaliel
Shipmate
# 812

 - Posted      Profile for Gamaliel   Author's homepage   Email Gamaliel   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
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 - [Biased] 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 ... [Razz]

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 ... [Biased]

--------------------
Let us with a gladsome mind
Praise the Lord for He is kind.

http://philthebard.blogspot.com

Posts: 15997 | From: Cheshire, UK | Registered: Jul 2001  |  IP: Logged
tclune
Shipmate
# 7959

 - Posted      Profile for tclune   Email tclune   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Gamaliel:
So the Catholic Encyclopaedia is suspect simply because it is 'Catholic', eh?

On this topic, of course it is. Would you consider the Pope a disinterested source on the authority of the Pope? There is nothing wrong with quoting a biased source if your interest is in establishing what the argument of the RCC is. But, if the intent is to establish whether the RCC argument holds water, it would be just plain strange to count the RCC sources as authoritative on the matter.

--Tom Clune

[ 06. November 2012, 12:46: Message edited by: tclune ]

--------------------
This space left blank intentionally.

Posts: 8013 | From: Western MA | Registered: Jul 2004  |  IP: Logged
Triple Tiara

Ship's Papabile
# 9556

 - Posted      Profile for Triple Tiara   Author's homepage     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
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.

--------------------
I'm a Roman. You may call me Caligula.

Posts: 5905 | From: London, England | Registered: May 2005  |  IP: Logged
Hawk

Semi-social raptor
# 14289

 - Posted      Profile for Hawk   Author's homepage   Email Hawk   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
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' ...

Er, yeah. Obviously.

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.

The site is interesting, and quotes some reputable scholars, each of which agrees that Cyprian was arguing against papal supremacy. I don't agree with the scholars or the site just because it's protestant though - not sure why you think I would. I find the evidence presented for Cyprian being the author of both versions to be very sparse, and based largely on conjecture rather than evidence. But nevertheless, even if you accept their argument, it supports Cyprian's anti-petrinist views, as elaborated in the quotes I posted of his other writings.

Regarding Jerome and Gregory, I concede defeat on them (I did think it strange that a pope would be writing against papal supremacy). Looks like I backed the wrong horses. A point to you. I do think Gregory is a massive hypocrite though - to argue that no bishop should be allowed to claim universal jursidiction with one hand, while grasping such universality tightly with the other.

Cyprian is definitely an example of anti-petrinist views, and there are others. The debate was fierce in the early centuries. I will do some more research when I have time and find some choice sources to illustrate the debate.

--------------------
“We are to find God in what we know, not in what we don't know." Dietrich Bonhoeffer

See my blog for 'interesting' thoughts

Posts: 1739 | From: Oxford, UK | Registered: Nov 2008  |  IP: Logged
Alogon
Cabin boy emeritus
# 5513

 - Posted      Profile for Alogon   Email Alogon   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
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?
It is a statement as to who goes to heaven, which is the same status as the RCC implies by declaring someone a saint. And it has its defenders who confidently quote scripture (probably exclusively). But if you want to say that it is irrelevant, I will agree: I didn't mention it before.



quote:
The objection is to designating some believers as capital-S saints and withholding the title from others
The official list of capital-s saints is not considered exhaustive.


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.

So do you object to selective sainthood or not?

I am grateful to the church's tradition because the saints as heroes, success stories, and role models inspire the faithful and illustrate Christian ideals to the world. It has pastoral value. What is your positive case for the pastoral value of denying this tradition?

[ 06. November 2012, 15:36: Message edited by: Alogon ]

--------------------
Patriarchy (n.): A belief in original sin unaccompanied by a belief in God.

Posts: 7808 | From: West Chester PA | Registered: Feb 2004  |  IP: Logged
IngoB

Sentire cum Ecclesia
# 8700

 - Posted      Profile for IngoB   Email IngoB   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
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.

There never has been "unquestioning subservience" to Rome, other than perhaps as pipe dream of exasperated popes. From antiquity to this day, the pope is no ecclesiastical Stalin. If you want a real life example of what happens to the will of the pope, then read this exchange between a Canon Lawyer & Deacon and a Priest of the RCC. That is business as as usual in the RCC, and always has been, at all levels. "Ita vero, papa" (Latin for "yes, pope") is a much older game than "yes, prime minister", and the same game is played at every level of the hierarchy. And that there always has been plenty of more open dissent within the Church is also undeniable. From my current parish priest telling our neighbour, a divorced and remarried Catholic, that there is no problem with her receiving the Eucharist to Arius taking down much of the hierarchy in heresy, the Church was never in any kind of restful unity. So that we get such consistent support for the primacy of Rome in antiquity is an important fact, and is not diminished by some dissent here and lip service there. It has always been such.

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.

As mentioned, and ignored by you, the leaders you are talking about here are not from some random collection of churches. These are the churches in communion with Rome, this is hence the top brass of the Church. That they worked their way through these issues more chaotically and more slowly than later versions of the same Church is simply a matter of the inchoate Church structures and limited resources and communication means of antiquity. Nobody is claiming that shortly after Christ's resurrection the Vatican dropped form the heavens and deployed officials across the world... And in fact it was indeed a Roman synod under pope Damasus in 382 which basically decided the canon of the NT for good (following indeed largely Eastern scholarship and patriarchal decisions, as related to the synod in particular by St Jerome). This for example determined the later usage in Africa, where there was at first a lot of resistance to "Hebrews".

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.

Of course I have done that already. It just happens to be the case that there is no such thing as "incontrovertible evidence from the NT". Wherefore, Protestantism necessarily devolves into spiritual individualism.

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.

--------------------
They’ll have me whipp’d for speaking true; thou’lt have me whipp’d for lying; and sometimes I am whipp’d for holding my peace. - The Fool in King Lear

Posts: 12010 | From: Gone fishing | Registered: Oct 2004  |  IP: Logged
Gamaliel
Shipmate
# 812

 - Posted      Profile for Gamaliel   Author's homepage   Email Gamaliel   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
Kaplan is big enough and bad enough [Biased] 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 ... [Razz]

--------------------
Let us with a gladsome mind
Praise the Lord for He is kind.

http://philthebard.blogspot.com

Posts: 15997 | From: Cheshire, UK | Registered: Jul 2001  |  IP: Logged



Pages in this thread: 1  2  3  4  5 
 
Post new thread  Post a reply Close thread   Feature thread   Move thread   Delete thread Next oldest thread   Next newest thread
 - Printer-friendly view
Go to:

Contact us | Ship of Fools | Privacy statement

© Ship of Fools 2016

Powered by Infopop Corporation
UBB.classicTM 6.5.0

 
follow ship of fools on twitter
buy your ship of fools postcards
sip of fools mugs from your favourite nautical website
 
 
  ship of fools