Death over Life wrote:

I was able to get to a couple more of Mark’s quotes.

Mark wrote:

Time and time again Peter is shown as the leader of the Apostles, and speaks on behalf of the Apostles.

Unless what is shown below are the examples, what examples are there? I actually remembered in a few places (don’t know the exact location) but Paul actually had to constantly correct Peter on a few theological basis, and if Paul is correcting the leader of the Apostles constantly, wouldn’t that make Paul higher than Peter and the rest? If so, wouldn’t this make Paul the Pope, or rather, a Co-Pope? If both were in Rome and died there, why was 1 chosen instead of both? Makes no sense, that 1 would be highly favored than the other when both were equal.

Hi, these are good points to which I'd like to respond.

Though I am mixed about the effectiveness of trying to draw purely Biblical defenses of the link of Peter to the primacy of Popes, I would point out that the role of Paul really does not undermine this. The teaching of primacy is NOT that the Pope is impeccable (i..e without sin--Popes can go to Hell) but that their teaching is infallaible, WHEN they speak from the posiiton of the chair of Peter (ex cathedra) on the aprt of the whole church. Popes can hold errant theological conceptions, and be corrected, etc., provided these ideas are not advanced by them in an ex cathedra manner. In any case, bear in mind that while Paul corected Peter, he actually did so by holding Peter accountable to Peter's own teaching! Peter himself, after having the vision, had held to the view that the Gentiles could be accepted apart from adherence to hte Jewish dietary regulations, and then he started to cowardly backstep due to pressure from the Judaizers. In essence, then, Pau lis actually upholding Peter's TEACHING while criticizing Peter's behavior!

Also, Paul makes himself out to be equal to other Apostles, not above them. We see numerous instances when Paul acts as though it is importnat that his ministry be recognized by others, even though he takes his authority to come directly from Christ. But he talks, for instance, of going up to Jerusalem to share with those who were pillars (Peter among them) "in case his preaching had been in vain." Also, he is even received into the faith by Ananias, by the laying on of hands and baptism. We are not sure what Ananias' "credentials" were, but at least one tradition (e.g. the Chronicle Paschale) lists him as a proto-bishop in the church of Damascus. Anyway, while his laying on of hands does not constitute a clear cut case of ordination (it seems to be oriented toward healing, and does significantly precede baptisms), there still is nevertheless some notion of sanction or reception tied in with it. He certainly is not operating as a spiritual lone ranger, apart from any kind of accountability to hte rest of the Church, or other leaders. It seems safest to say that while Paul does not see his authority as deriving from them, he does nevertheless acknowledge that the legitimacy of recognizing this authority rests in his being acknowledged by others whose rightful authority he himself recognizes. They are not in authority OVER him, but they do have authority to be needed for recognizing his equality with them, it seems. And we neve rhave to ask what would happen if they hadn't, because the Holy Spirit made sure that they did, since his authority really did come directly from Christ. But this recognition by them also seems critical to how the Spirit operated, for the sake of providing assurance and unty in the Church.

graybeardheadbanger

graybeardheadbanger wrote:

Hi, guys. You discovered the topic to get me back to interacting.

Alright! I’m really glad to see you again posting! Even if I disagree with your’ views at times, you always post wise, thought provoking and intelligent posts that definitely is worth looking into and pondering on.

graybeardheadbanger wrote:

I only read the first half of the answers, but here's how I'd approach it--and keep in mind that I looked at this subject quite a bit during my journey toward Eastern Catholicism.

How far have you read into? I ask, because I would really like to know what you have to say on how there was no co-papacy or anything of the sort in Rome, since for sure Paul was in Rome, but only Peter got the Pope title. It also brings up though, with 12-13 Apostles, if the role of Papacy needed to be prevalent in Church, what happened to the other 11-12 and how come they did not get to be a Pope? Or did they, but the church was taken away by something or some one? For me, it doesn’t really make any sense with a favoritism on 1 Apostle, yet the others and Paul were equal to Peter, occasionally with Paul showing theological superiority to Peter at times, who became Pope. Forgive me for not having the scriptures to back it up, but I remembered reading or hearing something on Paul correcting Peter at times when they were together.

graybeardheadbanger wrote:

First, I don't really like focusing on the papacy per se, as I see it as being a more particular concept from within the more general idea of apostolic succession. AS is the view held by ALL ancient churches (Orthodox, Copts, Catholics, Assyrian Church of the East, etc.) that holds that church leaders are to be ordained by bishops in historical lineage to the Apostles, or those who are ordained by them. I personally think the scriptural and historical support for both these ideas is sufficiently strong--and the arguments for resisting them, IMO, insufficient. I might agree that one cannot make an absolute demonstration of this idea, but it is far and away the most defensible position, IMO.

But with this being said though, we have AS of Peter, what of the rest? It is something of Papacy and AS I don’t understand, which is in essence of what I spoke above of. If Peter were the only Apostle, there wouldn’t be such a problem, but all the Apostles went all of their ways to different areas preaching, some never interacting with each other, but it is only the Church in Rome that has Papacy. With this being said though, if the Theology here is correct, there should be 12-13 Popes right now, not 1. Yes, the Church wasn’t purely 1 Church like many reveal it as, but it was far more unionized than what we have today, and yet there is only the Catholic Church’s History for this.

graybeardheadbanger wrote:

Now, the papacy is a bit different. Catholics hold to the valid AS of these other traditions (not always vice versa0< BUT they hold that communion with Bishop of Rome is normative. Although people want simple text-proofing, I think this is a failed way of going about things, as I ultmately don't find sola scriptura plausible, though I would agree that all teaching cannot contradict scripture. Thoug htere are many details here, the gist is that the canon of what we understand as the scripture (which even then differs between different traditions) is determined by processes outside of scripture--historically, through church councils, beginning in the 4th century, (and local councils at that) comprised of bishops in AS.
There is a sense in which the Bible is the Book of the Church--one who understands the church as secondary to scripture is fundamentally ahistorical and misguided, IMO. Bible was one way WITHIN the apostolic church that true teaching was preserved, and theological matters (including quesitoons about what books should be part of the Bible!) were hashed out. Even Protestants had to apply an extra-scriptural standard for determining scripture, though one can find measures very close to Sola scriptura (though ones which fit the ancient churches as well, IMO).

Sola scriptora is an interesting subject at hand. With all honesty, the more I read scriptures, the more I think it is more valuable to go Sola scriptora than go to the church and here’s why. What you are speaking of is very valid, but the Historical Churches got to live and experience Christ. We haven’t had that since Christ ascended to Heaven, and over 1,900 years for sure have passed since then. So, with well over 1,900 years passed, let’s be honest, the only Truth to have stayed throughout all of that without change are 66 of the Books of the Bible. Yes, even the Proper ordering of the scriptures were changed, and yes, there were add-ons and forgeries added within the time-frame, but overall, it was the only Truth that never Truly changed. Yes, there were things such as AS and Papacy that were throughout most of History as well, but outside of History, it never really was spoken about with the Apostles or Christ or any of the sort. As you said, the scriptures can hint at it, but never thoroughly outspoken on it unlike other Theological views (salvation for example).

Why I speak of this time-frame, is because in nowaday’s world, we have so much and so little from so many people, that the only way to figure out the Truth is reading the scriptures alone, lest you become pre-indoctrinated. Why Sola scriptora is important, is it does destroy if somebody were to pre-indoctrinate you with pre-conceived agendas while using the Bible to justify it. At times though, the best way to find out the correct Doctrine, is rather than looking at it from a Christian perspective, is to look at it from a critic, or skeptic’s position.

graybeardheadbanger wrote:

So, the real question is, for those accepting AS, how important is union with the Bishop of Rome? This ishow the question should really be asked.

This depends. On unity as the Body of Christ, it is extremely important. On theological points however, I tend to rather be separated in Truth than united in error, but that does not reject unionizing with the rest of the Body. Why that quote is because, if you unite with differing views, unless like right now where we can discuss civilly, there will tend to be confrontations, especially on a subject where both views can’t be right.

graybeardheadbanger wrote:

I'd say scripture itself does not really address this, ALTHOUGH one can go back and see allusions to it, perhaps, if one already buys into the idea. But the notion of some kind of primacy for the bishop of Rome goes back quite early in Church history, and does not contradict anything in scripture (which is different than saying is clearly supported by scripture, BTW). Undeniably, papal primacy as it came to be defined in 1870 in Vatican I is not found in the earliest church, but I'd say hints in this direction are. However, Catholic teaching recognizes the sacraments of all AS churches even ifn they do not accept the dogma of papal primacy. It IS odd, in a sense, that a central dogma which in itself is independent of the sacraments
distingishes one traditions from others. There is something perplexing about the Cahtolic notion that other churches can have all the sacraments, but still be "lacking" because they do not recognize papal primacy. It is almost as if the "fullness" of the faith is based on a non-sacramental doctrine, which seems troubling in that the church itself is defined through baptism and Eucharist. The Catholic church, however, recognizes this tension--and once again, the proof that papal primacy may not be as central to Cahtolics as Protestants and others imagine it to be is that it is still acknowledged that other churches in AS are genuinely churches through the Eucharist (non AS grups are technically considered "ecclesial communities" rather than churches, as they are not regarded as having a full-fledged Eucharist by which the Body of Christ--the church--is defined and located--but they generally don't take themselves to have such anyway, so this shouldn't bother them! Keep in mind though that their baptism ARE recognized--these subjects are complex, though cogent, IMO).

I really like this quote up above. It goes back to what I said earlier, very wise posts that make you think!

About the scriptures though, and Church history, this is still what I don’t understand. We already know that the NT was written between around 50-100 a.d. The Church history of Catholicism/Orthodox etc. is (I’m saying supposedly only as a skeptic) around 30-40 a.d. Now, if the Papacy does pre-date the NT scriptures, as it does, how was something as important as this not addressed in the said scriptures that came later? In addition to that, the 1st Pope, Peter, had 2 books that were written either by Him, or an apprentice close to Him and He over looked, and yet, never hinted at this position or authority 1 time. As I was revealing in the rebuttal to Mark’s scriptures and verses, all Peter really ever did, was preach the Gospel, just like any other Apostle, and not show any form of the views for Papacy at all. As some say (not I specifically, but some comments I have read on various other internet sites by other users), it almost gives them the vibe that Peter was not a Catholic at all in terms of His’ beliefs, but rather, was more like that of how the Protestants would portray the Apostles etc. It really doesn’t seem to make sense though, since Paul really did hammer in at times how church should be ran, and being written and coming AFTER the Papacy et al were already sanctified, doesn’t it seem really fishy that it’s absence in scriptures is highly noticeable? Even then, the lack of definitive proof either? The most being just very subtle hints.

(Don’t forget, this is lacking the early church fathers and members as well. This is intentional because as I’ve spoken on, the authors of most of the NT were either the Apostles or those who were very close to the Apostles, and the Apostles were hand-picked by Christ Himself as opposed to being picked by another individual human, who more or less, could have had a fishy agenda or view. As I say, I view being hand-picked by Christ to be far more superior imo than being hand-picked by a church, or denomination etc.)

graybeardheadbanger wrote:

My own way of understanding these thigns is to say that union with hte bishop of Rome does not define the faith, and is not central to it in the way the sacraments, and in particular, the Eucharist, are. However, I think there are justifiable reasons for saying that this union IS normative, proper, important, etc. And, I think Christendom suffers from the loss of this communion--though it must be properly understood. Many Catholic apologist magnify it to someting beyond what the teaching itself requires--as I said, the fact that Catholicism itself still takes the unity through the Eucharist to be central in a way that the recogniton of the papacy is not should already tell us something. But I'll come back to the details of my defense of the papacy later.

graybeardheadbanger

I await your’ details! This portion of the quote I heavily agree on as well. Last I recall, doesn’t the Papacy play an important role in Eucharist as well? At least with Catholics?

Anyways, with all that being said, I am heavily honored and privileged that you have come back to posting again! I hope that you stay, especially since most of the great theologians of all the Christian internet forums seem to be leaving. Once again, thank you for taking the time to post! I look forward to your’ next post!

Okay, per Death to Life's questions, I'll try to clarify some of my earlier statements. This also touches on some points raised by others as well.

To the ancient Christian churches, it is true that the Gospel can be spread by any believer. The importance of church leadership,m however, deals mainly with the consecration of the Eucharist. There is some debate as to whether non-ordained clergy may have been able to consecrate it in the early church (e.g. the Didache seems to allow this for the prophets, though it has been pointed out that prophets and presbyters/priests are not mutually exclusive categories), but there are some allusions to this in Scripture, and Ignatius of Antioch is very clear by about 110 AD that Eucharist must occur under a bishop. Ignatius's views must be taken very seriously, as he was a leader in the first-called Christian community, and it is almost certain he lived in the time of some of the Apostles, some of whom spent time in Antioch. In addition, we know that he knew Polycarp, and he were from Irenaeus in Against the Heretics (around 170 AD) that what Irenaeus teaches he learned from Polycarp, and Polycarp learned these as a young man from the Apostle John, as well as others who walked with Christ. In other words, Polycarp is taken to represent the teaching of John (who was in Antioch, and probably not much older than Ignatius), and Polycarp was favorably acquainted with Ignatius. So, Ignatius' words on such matters must be taken quite seriously. But we'll come back to these points later.....

Specifically, the Cahtolic teaching on Apostolic Succession (AS) is that any church who has bishops ordained in aline of ordination going back to the Apostles has all sacraments, most notably Eucharist. The offices of bishop and priest/prsbyter may have been conjoined early on, but they arose as separate orders early in the 2nd century (more later). So, the Cahtolics maintain tha these other ancient churches have a valid Eucharist, as well as the sacraments of confirmaiton and confession. The sacraments of baptism and marriage are not held to require a bishop or priest.

So, given that the identification of a body as a "church" has literally to do with its having the Body of Christ through the Eucharist, it would follow that all AS churches, including those no longer in union with rome (Orthodox, Copts, etc.) are full-fledged churches. In addition, the Eucharist (along with baptism) is what is typically taken to be the identifying mark of the Church par excellence (bearing in mind that Eucharist requires AS on this view--so the presence of AS bishops also bears the mark ofr the church, which Irenaeus strongly suggests). Groups need not be in union with rOME TO have AS, and hence the sacraments.

Despite these facts, the Cahtolics also hold to papal primacy as a dogma (right to jurisdictional intervention, and infallaiblity when speaking ex cathedra on matters of faith and morals). Thus, one who does not hold to papal primacy is in some sense a heretic or schismatic (though these terms can be applied invarious ways) --they are taken to not adhere to a central teaching of the Cahtolic faith. YET, they also bear the church-marks of AS and Eucharist. I personally think this creates a fascinating puzzle of sorts, and understandably strikes certain other AS` groups (like the Orthodox) as a bit contradictory--if AS and Eucharist mark the church, why the necessity of another dogma like papal primacy? Does this almost put papal primacy on par with Eucharist and baptism?

I would say "no," precisely because these ARE needed for membership in the Church (in the truest sense of the word "church," BUT communion with Rome is not per se--though the latter is proper/normative/central in some sense. There is much work to be done still in sorting all this out, and Cathlic theologians, including ythe last 2 popes themselves, have been very open to trying to sort throguh all the possible implications of this. In short, it seems that communion with the bishop of Rome IS central in some sense, BUT not in the SAME sense as baptism, AS, and Eucharist. What does this mean?

My own way of working through all htis is tentative. I have some reservations on my position, thanks in part to highly insightful work by the Methodist theologian William Abraham, who is reticent to thinkl of theology developing as an epistemology, which is essentially the direction mythinking goes in this area. I would say something like, the Eucharist and AS mark the church, but the papacy clarifies all that is contained in this mark. To hte point, not all AS churches agree in all matters of doctrine. For example, the Cahtolics and Orthodox accept that Christ is two natures (human and divine) conjoined by one divine person (the Logos), whereas the non-Chalcedonian Copts, Armenians, etc. have had atrributed to them, hte view that Christ is one divine-human nature, rather than two. These seem like minor points, but potentially have serious theological ramifications. But how does one resolve such disputes between AS churches? Traditionally, disputes were resolved by church councils, just as is modelled in Jerusalem in Actsw. But what if there is not unanimity of opinion? the Scripture always describes unanimity, but what if it doesn't occur? The papacy provides a possible solution this--where AS churches dispute what is orthodox, the matter can be resolved by an appeal to Rome. Rome is regarded as having been gifted in discerning the truth of these matters. Still, its intervention is taken to be primarily in terms of resolving such disputes--typically, churches are to fend for themselves, under their own bishops, etc. If AS churches still disagree, it is not denied that they still bear the marks of the Church, as they have Euchariswt, etc.-HOWEVER, the fulness of their doctrinal witness of Chirst is impeded (the Christ re-presented in the Eucharist) is limited because there is not the means of clarifying particular quesitons regarding how to understand Jesus, etc. Another way to put it is, when brothers disagree, they need a big brother to provide guidance and point the way. This seems to be the best way to understand the Popes role, more thna as a king lording authority over everyone else. My own view is that many Cahtolics tend to think of the papacy in overly pyramid-like terms, and this is encouraged by the language of Vaticvan I itself which describes the Pope as a "head" (however, it is also made clear that CHRIST is te head--the Catholic church does not take the Pope to take the place of Christ, but rather to represent Christ in a special way). I understand what is meant by the "head" metaphor, but I do think it lends itself to distrotion and exaggeration. Pyramid conceptions ar eoverly simplistic and misleading, IMO--retaining the dignity of the bishops office for other bishops is important, and vatican I to a point, and II very clearly, indicate this.

In any case, what is the basis for holding to this kind of primacy? As I said, one can perhaps see it in Scripture, but I'm not sure how clear-cut it is. It seems pretty clear Peter yields a special role--BUT there is still the huge quesiton of how much one can draw a one-to-one line between Peter and the Bishop of Rome. Olias and some others may have simplified this a bit--for example, there are Orhtodox theologans who hold that Peter's keys are extended to all bishops, AND Cyprian's reference to the "chair of peter" is KNOWN to be applied not specifically to the Bishop of Rome--whose authority Cyprian himself sometimes resisted, mockingly referring to him as Pontificus Maximus--though He DID die in communion with Rome--but t the authority, once again, of all bishops. At the same time, I think some of the other hostorical references do indicate a special leadershiop role on the part of Rome--how far one can take this toward Vatican I primacy is a more complicated matter. BUT, I do think the historical record is sufficiently clear to indicate the communion with Rome has always been considered normative, and that there is at least nothing in Scripture to rule such an idea out, and perhaps even indicare it, though not, I think, demonstrate. The idea that papal primacy is clearly taught in Scripture is, I htin, exaggerateds--though I certainly don't find the notion contrary to Scriptutre, eithert, and it is more spportable to the extent that one can draw a correlation of peter to Rome specifically,. Howeve,r I htink the best arguments for this are historical, and not Biblical (though once again, they are not disallowed by Scripture either). I'll say more later.

Please feel free to ask for any more clarificaitons, etc. graybeardheadbanger

Death over Life wrote:

How far have you read into? I ask, because I would really like to know what you have to say on how there was no co-papacy or anything of the sort in Rome, since for sure Paul was in Rome, but only Peter got the Pope title. It also brings up though, with 12-13 Apostles, if the role of Papacy needed to be prevalent in Church, what happened to the other 11-12 and how come they did not get to be a Pope? Or did they, but the church was taken away by something or some one? For me, it doesn’t really make any sense with a favoritism on 1 Apostle, yet the others and Paul were equal to Peter, occasionally with Paul showing theological superiority to Peter at times, who became Pope. Forgive me for not having the scriptures to back it up, but I remembered reading or hearing something on Paul correcting Peter at times when they were together.

I THINK these have been answered in the last couple of posts by me. I can clarify more if needed.

Quote :

About the scriptures though, and Church history, this is still what I don’t understand. We already know that the NT was written between around 50-100 a.d. The Church history of Catholicism/Orthodox etc. is (I’m saying supposedly only as a skeptic) around 30-40 a.d. Now, if the Papacy does pre-date the NT scriptures, as it does, how was something as important as this not addressed in the said scriptures that came later? In addition to that, the 1st Pope, Peter, had 2 books that were written either by Him, or an apprentice close to Him and He over looked, and yet, never hinted at this position or authority 1 time. As I was revealing in the rebuttal to Mark’s scriptures and verses, all Peter really ever did, was preach the Gospel, just like any other Apostle, and not show any form of the views for Papacy at all. As some say (not I specifically, but some comments I have read on various other internet sites by other users), it almost gives them the vibe that Peter was not a Catholic at all in terms of His’ beliefs, but rather, was more like that of how the Protestants would portray the Apostles etc. It really doesn’t seem to make sense though, since Paul really did hammer in at times how church should be ran, and being written and coming AFTER the Papacy et al were already sanctified, doesn’t it seem really fishy that it’s absence in scriptures is highly noticeable? Even then, the lack of definitive proof either? The most being just very subtle hints.

(Don’t forget, this is lacking the early church fathers and members as well. This is intentional because as I’ve spoken on, the authors of most of the NT were either the Apostles or those who were very close to the Apostles, and the Apostles were hand-picked by Christ Himself as opposed to being picked by another individual human, who more or less, could have had a fishy agenda or view. As I say, I view being hand-picked by Christ to be far more superior imo than being hand-picked by a church, or denomination etc.)

Some of this would require a bigger answer. I don't necessarily think of the Bible as having been intended to be THE main instruciton manual for believers, etc. The earliest church, I htink, saw the gospel as being preserved in the Church itself, and this was identified through AS. scripture was critical, and at the heart of beleif and worship, BUT it was embodied within the church. Thus, the earliest church saw the truth as being preserved within the whole life of the church itself, and did not see itself as being "set up according to the Bible.' Its organizaiton, etc. was in process as the NT itself was in the process of being written ,dsitributed, etc. It was not a ready-made rule book which church's sought to follow--rahter, they sought to follow what was passed on as the teachings of the church, as sanctioned by the Apostles. scripture is but one way of getting at this. It is not clear by any means that the Apostles saw the scriptures as the ONLY way of preserving the terachings. Indeed, nothing in scripture itself declares this, although we do have scriptures indicating that what is taught therein is the truth, etc.

In any case, I'd say we DO actually see pretty clear indications in Paul, and elsewhere, of how the organizaiton of the Church was going. Paul tells Timothy to neglect not the gift that pAUL has placed in himn through his hands, and clearly he is conveying leadership authority to Timothy. (He also refers to other elders laying hands on Timothy--reconciling these two images allows for various interpretations wjhich I won't get into here). Amnd, he tells Timothy not to lay hands on others lightly--this suggest that he sees Timothy as having the ability to pass on what Paul has passed on to him. (IN Acts, we are also told in the Simon the Magician story that the Holy Spirit is passed on through the Apostles hands, htough this seems to point more to confirmaiton than ordinaiton--though both could be involved). Hebrews mentions teachings regarding the laying on of hands (along with baptism, repentance, vetc.) to be among the most basic--the author almost acts annoyed that such basic points sitll need to be discussed rather than passing on to more advanced topics!


We also see Paul telling Titus that he has the mandate to pass on these teachings to other men, who in turn will be granted the authority to pass it on to others, etc. Paul sees himself as directing Titus, Titus directing others, and these others directing yet others. Acts 14 tells us that the Apostles went to every city, appointing leaders. We see this happening earlier in Acts in respect to Samaria as well. Paul himself seems to see his authority as coming direclty form Christ--yet even he acknowledges the need to have his role recognized by others, such as Ananias, and later those at Jerusalem. The Ananias case is particularly
intriguing. Acts 8 (if I remember correctly), in the Simon Magician story, tells us that although the appointee Phillip spread the Gospel and baptized, it was not until the Apostles came that those in Samaria received the Spirit. This points to something like the sacrament of "confirmation." Any believer can evangelize or even baptize, but certain roles are reserved for those in AS. HOWEVER, we are then told in Acts 9 that Paul receives the Spirit from the laying on off hands by Ananias (along wiht a healing). If 8 tells us that only the Apostles can rpovide the spirit in Samaria, but Ananias is able to do this in Damascus, what does this tell us? We cannot know for sure, BUT if we consider that Paul later clearly indicates that he an apostlle can pass on gifts through laying on hands (Titus and Timothy), AND if Ananias did this as well, then it seems reasonable to consider as a distinct possibility that Ananias may have possessed an Apostolic type authority, which presumably he would have had to reeived from one of the other Apostles. This connecting the dots is not demonstrative, but does seem to offer the interpretation most consistent with all the other facts that are presented. And remember, Orhtodox sources (not considered reliable by all scholars, however), like the Chronicle Paschale, do list Ananias a bishop of sorts in Damascus. The designation of "disciple" complicates this as well--in places, it seems disciples need not be construed as the equivalent of Apostles, or those with apostolic authority, but at other times they seem to be used almost synonymously. Ananias is a disciple (in fact, certain early historical lists try to claim that he was among the 70 appointed by Christ in addition to the 12 Apostles, but I don't think historians place much confidence in these reports--but at least there were tradiitons claiming this which surface 300-400 years into the church's existence. Where these ideas came from his hard, and likely impossible, to say).
But in any case, if only the apostles can pass on the Spirit, and Ananias does this for Paul, we do seem to see something approaching AS in respect to Ananias--though once again, I am NOT holding that Ananias is "ordaining" Paul--I used to lean this way in the past, but consider the view problematic now--though I do think it COULD be an undeveloped, not yet formalized move in this direction. But I think the idea of it being a confirmation, combined with a healing, is quite reasonable.

Beyond this, we see a reference to Clement in Phillippians 4 (named as a co-worker with Paul, whose name is written in the book of life!) has letters preserved. For a time, some Fathers even thought these should be [part of the NT, because of his mention by Paul! And what does Clem,ent tell us? In 1 Clement, he tells us around section 42 or 43 that the Apostles anticipated there would be a struggle for leadfership when they died, and so they made arrangements to begin appointing successors to their ministry. (Clement is a leder in Rome, BTW, in the 90s AD--some historical records list him as bishop, though there is debate as to hte point that Rome became led by a single bishop. But even if there was group of bishops, he would strill have bishopric authority). So, we have a friend of Paul, mentioned in scripture, who is telling us that rhApostles set up a process of succession! (These writings can be found on-line). And as I said, we have already seen Paul himself acting this way in I and II Timothy and Titus, etc.

This gives us AS. The special role of Rome requires additional, mostly historical, argument.
As this post has gotten long (surprise surprise) I WILL come back to these particular points in another post.

Enjoying it, graybeardheadbanger

I did read all of both posts btw. This is something I'm going to look over, and even then, I haven't read the Scriptures you pointed at directly atm. The main Bible book I'm familiar with is Matthew atm.

Some of the stuff on my last post, you did address, but just so happened you got your' post in before mine, so what was already answered has just been accidently asked again.

The one thing I do wish for more clarity on, we have the complete AS on Rome, but what happened to the tree of the rest? You did show the potential beginning trees for ones like Paul interestingly, but as with Peter's AS, there should still be something today, yet I don't think there is.

On the Peter/Paul ordeal, I agreed from the start though that Peter and Paul were equal, not one with higher authorities. I just still find it strange that if both's fates lied in Rome, how did Paul not get recognized as any sort of Pope, yet Peter was addressed for the historical claims?

There may be much more points to address, but I shall leave this atm. I'll need to go and re-read and research on the last 2 posts. I do apologize however for if it seems this is just going in circles btw.

Death over Life wrote:

I did read all of both posts btw. This is something I'm going to look over, and even then, I haven't read the Scriptures you pointed at directly atm. The main Bible book I'm familiar with is Matthew atm.

Some of the stuff on my last post, you did address, but just so happened you got your' post in before mine, so what was already answered has just been accidently asked again.

The one thing I do wish for more clarity on, we have the complete AS on Rome, but what happened to the tree of the rest? You did show the potential beginning trees for ones like Paul interestingly, but as with Peter's AS, there should still be something today, yet I don't think there is.

On the Peter/Paul ordeal, I agreed from the start though that Peter and Paul were equal, not one with higher authorities. I just still find it strange that if both's fates lied in Rome, how did Paul not get recognized as any sort of Pope, yet Peter was addressed for the historical claims?

There may be much more points to address, but I shall leave this atm. I'll need to go and re-read and research on the last 2 posts. I do apologize however for if it seems this is just going in circles btw.

Irenaeus tells us he could easily reproduce the lines of AS for all hte major churches, but he wil focus on Rome, as that is the one with whom all must be in agreement (an argument for the historical prominence of Rome, BTW). As for why would Peter be listed as a bishop of Rome, but not Paul--I'm not sure it completely matters in terms of primacy. The Roman bishopric could have primacy even if it wasn't a single bishop, though it does seem the Catholic church states the importance of it bieng a mono (one) episcopacy,. while bieng okay with plural bishops elsewhere (a siotuation htat appears to be replaced by monoepisocates across the board within a generaiton or two of the Apostles anyway). But in any case, the frquent lisitng of Peter as the first bishop of Rome would lead credence to the view that he held a role that Paul didn't==we have to remember we don't have many, or even most, hisotrical sources, so while we may not be able to determine what sources were critical in early historians making this claim, the mere fact that they make it is compelling (they do, BTW, occasionally disagree on the order of some later Popes, which could make a case for the less than full reliability of their order in general. But the names in general; at least agree, if not the order). BTW, Eusebius provides lists for the AS lines in other churches besides Rome--I'll dig around and find the reference.

Biblically, BTW, we get hints that Peter may have already been to Rome when Paul writes them. He speaks of why he had not written them, earlier (he did not want to build on another man's foundaiton, compare Romans 1:13 with 15:20 and what follows. Bear in mind that "foundation" imagery is used in Revelaiton and elsewhere to denote the work of the Apostles and the prophets.) In 2 Peter, I believe, Peter mentions to being in Babylon, hwich is understood by scholars to refer to Rome (the literal Babylon did not exist at this point). So, it seems pretty clear that Peter was at Rome for some period, at some point--many find the view that he was there for 20 or more years to be implausible (what some sources say), and this may well be true, but I don't see how this much matters. If he had been there prior to
Paul, then we can understand how Paul may have considered him to have some precedence there.
(Incidentally, the tomb of Peter shows to have pictures of the keys drawn above it from around 300 AD, which shows that at least Christians in Rome made the conneciton the Matthew verses earlier thaqn they are actually referenced in early Church writings--keeping in mind that most wriitings no longer exist. So, it may be that this connection goes back fairly early--though there is certainly time for some distortion over a couple hundred years. This is discussed in Fr. Stanley Jaki's book on the keys, btw--for those who don't know, Jaki was a first-rate philosopher of science, with PhDs in both physics and theology, but he branched out to many other topics in his research).

That may help some, graybeardheadbanger

Hi, I don't know if I have time to do this justice, but I'll see what I can do for now.

As I mentioned earlier, I personally find it more effective to begin by presenting the evidence for AS generally (not limited to the Bishop of Rome), and then moving on to address primacy. I think the evidence is very good that from quite early on in the post-NT period, Rome was recognized as being of special importance. This does not amount to outright primacy, but it at least creates evidence in its favor. I don't have time to look up all the references now (I think Olias gave some of them earlier), but I'll make general comments and look things up as time allows.

First, we see numerous instances of Popes intervening, apparently with recognized authority, in disputes within other churches. This does not mean that the bishops of those jurisdicitons did not have authority of their own, but Rome's interjection, while sometimes protested, seems to be at least somewhat accepted. In other places, the statements are stronger. For example, Irenaeus, in discussing AS in Against Heresies, states that he could give the AS lineage of all churches, but he will focus on
Rome, since it is the Church with which all must agree. Ignatius of Antioch, writing early 2nd centruy (died around 110 or 117 AD), writes a number of letters on his way to Rome to be martyred. In his letter to the Roman church, he reserves for it special language, stating that it is the Church which "presides in love."
"Presides," of course, is the root for "president."

Moving ahead, we find references in the 4th century church historians Sozomen and Socrates (I believe perhaps taken from common sources, but I'm not sure) to a canon law at Nicea that recognizes that the decisions of ecumenical councils are not definitive until they are accepted by the Bishop of Rome, and that the Bishop of Rome can nullify the findings of councils. A difficulty is that we do not have original documents of Nicea, and what we do have does not mention these canons. (They are found in Arabic versions of Nicea, but these are not accepted as authentic--still, it shows that there were people who held to this position). But the point is, it is accepted by Sozomen and Socrates as established fact, and if you read their assessment of the Arians (heretics) reply concerning this alleged law, you will see that it is not disputed--the heretics try to downplay its significance, but seem to grant its existence. Bearing in mind that there are many ancient documents we do not have, it seems at least clear that within 100 years of Nicea, the first general council in the Church (325 AD), historians regarded it as a fact that Nicea had contained canons granting this authority to Rome. It seems easier for me to believe that these were there and were lost in later editions, than that the history was distorted and accepted as undisputed fact by 2 hisotrians 100 years or so later.

If one jumps ahead to the 5th century, you will find in the records of the Council of Ephesus and Chalcedon similar points. At Ephesus, the Eastern bishops ask the Roman legates to declare the Pope's opinion on the matters in question, so that they can make sure that their view is in agreement with his. They have formed a view already, but it still seemed essential to htem to make sure that they had not decided anything that was not corroborated by Rome. I will provide sections of these writings later.

beyond this, the council of Sardica (more on this later), which was a council that did not gain universal recognition in the Church, pronounced that Rome has a right to intervene in juridical matters of other churches. Now, if you read the records of Sardica, you will find that the council was not accepted by many in the East (htough by some), BUT htose who rejected it were what everyone today would consider heretics. They were protesting the decision of an earlier council to pronounce a certain bishop a heretic, and when the Pope did not renege the earlier declaration, they basically left Sardica and formed their own council. (They supported someone whose position essentially amounted to not accepting the full divinity of Christ, though it's been awhile since I reviewed the details). Beyond this, awhile later, the Greek church conducted a local council at Trullo, also called the Quintisext council. This council continuies to bge recognized as properly ecumenical by the Orthodos, but the Catholics did not acknowledge it--among other things, it seems to accord the Eastern patriarchs authority close, or equal, to that of the Bisho pof Rome, AND it denounces certain Latin practices in hte liturgy. HOWEVER,despite this, Trullo begins by reviewing and accepting the proceedings of Sardica! What this shows is that the Orthodox themselves, in the same document where they seem to downplay the authority of Rome, accept the very council which supports Rome's primacy! This is odd, but it is a fact nonetheless. And this council continues to be part of the Orhtodox tradition (I'[ve never come acorss an Orthodox response to this matter, but it would be interesting to read).

In essence, we have several instances by councils, historians, and earluy Fathers which use language, and make overt statements, as to special authority or at least leadership of Rome. BTW, Irenaeus himself went to an early Pope who tried to discipline certain churches in the East for not regularly celebrating Easter on a Sunday (some celebrated it so that it could fall on different days of the week, as Chrsitmas does now). Irenaeus defends these churches, as he says they have had this practice since their origin, and it was never disputed before. HOWEVER, he clearly pleads with the Pope to back down precisely because he seems to regard the Pope's decision on these Churches as binding. In other words, he is essentially saying, 'Look, we know if you condemn someone, it means they must be condemned--so please, I beg you, do not condemn them." One must also remember that Irenaeus himself had already acknowledged that this ios the Church with which all must agree. Clearly, then, he was not questioning Rome's right to pass such judgments. At the same time, this shows that papal primacy is not intended to ge exercised tyranically, and if Popes have done so, they err---people are free to disagree with popes, declare their positions wrong, etc. up to the point somehting is declared ex cathedra (basically),which is exceedingly rare. The Catholic view is that preicsely because ex cathedra carries so much weight, the Holy Spirit wants to make sure Popes get declarations right (remembering there have only been 2 clear cut declarations), and therefore, a full diaologue/debate before matters are declared with others in the Church is entirely appropriate, and even healthy. (BTW, in the Easter case, the Pope was concerned that pagans took the lack of unity among Christians about the resurrection day of their Lord as a cause for
assaulting the credibility of the faith--"this is the most important day for your religion, and you can't even agree on when it should be celebrated!") There may not be sufficient reason for the Pope to have been sdo worried about that, BUT one can see where such a concern is not without merit, and why one with special guidance would perhaps considering setting a common standard in such a case.


There are many other cases where Popes exercised authority in the early Church over other jurisdictions, but these are some of the more significant examples, IMO. This probabluy creates better precedence for the Vatican I declaration of juridical primacy than doctrinal infallibility per se, but one can argue that the former really requires the latter--how can one intervene in doctrinal disputes among other Patriarchs and bishops unless one's doctirnal decisions are themselves reliable?

More later, graybeardheadbanger

this thread = tl;dr

/.02

olias wrote:

this thread = tl;dr

/.02

tl;dr

olias wrote:

this thread = tl;dr

/.02

I am not familiar with the "tl;dr" imagery--can someone please explain this to an old man?

graybeardheadbanger

graybeardheadbanger wrote:

olias wrote:

this thread = tl;dr

/.02

I am not familiar with the "tl;dr" imagery--can someone please explain this to an old man?

graybeardheadbanger

Graybeard, to begin, I heavily apologize that even came up in this thread. By far I do read all of your' posts and still need to reply to them.

What you quoted is simply Olias proving he is an illiterate ass. tl;dr means to lazy; didn't read.

I don't know what Olias has up His' butt, but every time I post or he sees a post that is more than 2 lines long, he trolls the threads saying garbage like tl;dr.

He has next to no attention span or self-respect, so he resorts to pulling trollish tactics, effectively trying to ruin great threads to appease His' insecurity.

I'm not trying to be disrespectful to you at all or to Olias, but Olias has recently been an ass and a thorn in my ass every time I post.

That is why Olias keeps on saying to lazy didn't read.

Death over Life wrote:

graybeardheadbanger wrote:

olias wrote:

this thread = tl;dr

/.02

I am not familiar with the "tl;dr" imagery--can someone please explain this to an old man?

graybeardheadbanger

Graybeard, to begin, I heavily apologize that even came up in this thread. By far I do read all of your' posts and still need to reply to them.

What you quoted is simply Olias proving he is an illiterate ass. tl;dr means to lazy; didn't read.

I don't know what Olias has up His' butt, but every time I post or he sees a post that is more than 2 lines long, he trolls the threads saying garbage like tl;dr.

He has next to no attention span or self-respect, so he resorts to pulling trollish tactics, effectively trying to ruin great threads to appease His' insecurity.

I'm not trying to be disrespectful to you at all or to Olias, but Olias has recently been an ass and a thorn in my ass every time I post.

That is why Olias keeps on saying to lazy didn't read.

Aw I sorry. And yeah, I'm an ass. I heartily admit it Besides, if I'd have known my little trollish jabs were hurting your feelings I would've been nicer

As for the illiterate part, nah. I read a lot. Mostly military history. Now if you want to discuss the various aspects of how a special forces alpha detachment works, that is some **** I'd be down for.

graybeardheadbanger wrote:

Some of this would require a bigger answer. I don't necessarily think of the Bible as having been intended to be THE main instruciton manual for believers, etc. The earliest church, I htink, saw the gospel as being preserved in the Church itself, and this was identified through AS. scripture was critical, and at the heart of beleif and worship, BUT it was embodied within the church. Thus, the earliest church saw the truth as being preserved within the whole life of the church itself, and did not see itself as being "set up according to the Bible.' Its organizaiton, etc. was in process as the NT itself was in the process of being written ,dsitributed, etc. It was not a ready-made rule book which church's sought to follow--rahter, they sought to follow what was passed on as the teachings of the church, as sanctioned by the Apostles. scripture is but one way of getting at this. It is not clear by any means that the Apostles saw the scriptures as the ONLY way of preserving the terachings. Indeed, nothing in scripture itself declares this, although we do have scriptures indicating that what is taught therein is the truth, etc.

True. This is indeed correct. However, a thought that crossed my mind just now, although not dealing with the original quote, was how literate were the church back then? I remembered in much of Christian history, many churches held back the scriptures from anybody except for certain priests, and it was those who could determine the theology of the Church. I do know what you are saying, but I have just been reminded, why were the scriptures suppressed then, if they were under the authority of the Church? Correct me if I’m wrong, but I think scriptures Truly being spread was Martin Luther when He translated the Bible from Latin to German and mass-produced it.

I just have that feeling that Bible suppression may indeed have a factor as to how that quote is True. If you know more of this subject and wish to elaborate on it, please let me know.

graybeardheadbanger wrote:

In any case, I'd say we DO actually see pretty clear indications in Paul, and elsewhere, of how the organizaiton of the Church was going. Paul tells Timothy to neglect not the gift that pAUL has placed in himn through his hands, and clearly he is conveying leadership authority to Timothy. (He also refers to other elders laying hands on Timothy--reconciling these two images allows for various interpretations wjhich I won't get into here). Amnd, he tells Timothy not to lay hands on others lightly--this suggest that he sees Timothy as having the ability to pass on what Paul has passed on to him. (IN Acts, we are also told in the Simon the Magician story that the Holy Spirit is passed on through the Apostles hands, htough this seems to point more to confirmaiton than ordinaiton--though both could be involved). Hebrews mentions teachings regarding the laying on of hands (along with baptism, repentance, vetc.) to be among the most basic--the author almost acts annoyed that such basic points sitll need to be discussed rather than passing on to more advanced topics!

Interesting points. I will not reject this post, but I do need to read Hebrews and Acts. So, thus I have no arguments for or against this.

graybeardheadbanger wrote:

We also see Paul telling Titus that he has the mandate to pass on these teachings to other men, who in turn will be granted the authority to pass it on to others, etc. Paul sees himself as directing Titus, Titus directing others, and these others directing yet others. Acts 14 tells us that the Apostles went to every city, appointing leaders. We see this happening earlier in Acts in respect to Samaria as well. Paul himself seems to see his authority as coming direclty form Christ--yet even he acknowledges the need to have his role recognized by others, such as Ananias, and later those at Jerusalem. The Ananias case is particularly
intriguing. Acts 8 (if I remember correctly), in the Simon Magician story, tells us that although the appointee Phillip spread the Gospel and baptized, it was not until the Apostles came that those in Samaria received the Spirit. This points to something like the sacrament of "confirmation." Any believer can evangelize or even baptize, but certain roles are reserved for those in AS. HOWEVER, we are then told in Acts 9 that Paul receives the Spirit from the laying on off hands by Ananias (along wiht a healing). If 8 tells us that only the Apostles can rpovide the spirit in Samaria, but Ananias is able to do this in Damascus, what does this tell us? We cannot know for sure, BUT if we consider that Paul later clearly indicates that he an apostlle can pass on gifts through laying on hands (Titus and Timothy), AND if Ananias did this as well, then it seems reasonable to consider as a distinct possibility that Ananias may have possessed an Apostolic type authority, which presumably he would have had to reeived from one of the other Apostles. This connecting the dots is not demonstrative, but does seem to offer the interpretation most consistent with all the other facts that are presented. And remember, Orhtodox sources (not considered reliable by all scholars, however), like the Chronicle Paschale, do list Ananias a bishop of sorts in Damascus. The designation of "disciple" complicates this as well--in places, it seems disciples need not be construed as the equivalent of Apostles, or those with apostolic authority, but at other times they seem to be used almost synonymously. Ananias is a disciple (in fact, certain early historical lists try to claim that he was among the 70 appointed by Christ in addition to the 12 Apostles, but I don't think historians place much confidence in these reports--but at least there were tradiitons claiming this which surface 300-400 years into the church's existence. Where these ideas came from his hard, and likely impossible, to say).
But in any case, if only the apostles can pass on the Spirit, and Ananias does this for Paul, we do seem to see something approaching AS in respect to Ananias--though once again, I am NOT holding that Ananias is "ordaining" Paul--I used to lean this way in the past, but consider the view problematic now--though I do think it COULD be an undeveloped, not yet formalized move in this direction. But I think the idea of it being a confirmation, combined with a healing, is quite reasonable.

This does explain a lot and does make sense. On the Simon the Magician story, I did read that just now, but since I believe that ordering plays a huge part in interpretation, I noticed that the story started after Stephen’s death (as we all know, 1st martyr for God). So my question is, was the setting the exact same place Stephen was when all of that happened in Acts 8 or was it in another place, then it jumps ship to another story? I wonder, because if the 1st, I’m going to have to go through that story.

However, much of what is said though, sans the hands with the Holy Spirit, is something that everybody does. Everybody elects everybody as leaders. However though, outside of the Pope, I’ve never seen anybody else (other than cults) do the laying on hands to receive some higher power. With what you said being True and it being passed on, it should indicate that there should be MANY Christians that do this, yet instead, it shrunk to 1. So, this I don’t know what it indicates, but it may perhaps show that the practice isn’t valid anymore, as remember, Paul was appointed by God directly, and yes you do have Ananias, and others, but with all the leaders they appointed, and all of those leaders, where did all these leaders go?

Another thing on the Papacy. We see the Apostles directly chose who to pass on the teachings to. We see the elect straight out of the Apostle’s mouth. Now correct me if I’m wrong, but where was this for example: John Paul going to Benedict as the successor? Last I recall, John Paul mentioned nothing of Benedict, and it was the congregation that elected Benedict as the current Pope. So, in this sense, the role was reversed. Rather than the Apostle choosing the leader and congregation, the congregation is what chose the leader/ “Apostle”. So, even with AS being True or not, the Papacy doesn’t seem to elect leaders the way the Apostles did, which makes the successor-ship somewhat fishy. It could show that AS is in fact True, but the lineage discontinued long ago. I’m not saying that it did, but there is a possibility of it. I do know some denominations believe that.

graybeardheadbanger wrote:

Beyond this, we see a reference to Clement in Phillippians 4 (named as a co-worker with Paul, whose name is written in the book of life!) has letters preserved. For a time, some Fathers even thought these should be [part of the NT, because of his mention by Paul! And what does Clem,ent tell us? In 1 Clement, he tells us around section 42 or 43 that the Apostles anticipated there would be a struggle for leadfership when they died, and so they made arrangements to begin appointing successors to their ministry. (Clement is a leder in Rome, BTW, in the 90s AD--some historical records list him as bishop, though there is debate as to hte point that Rome became led by a single bishop. But even if there was group of bishops, he would strill have bishopric authority). So, we have a friend of Paul, mentioned in scripture, who is telling us that rhApostles set up a process of succession! (These writings can be found on-line). And as I said, we have already seen Paul himself acting this way in I and II Timothy and Titus, etc.

I did read that, and indeed Clement’s name is in the Book of Life, as it is written. So, 1 Clement is a Book? This takes an interesting turn, but at the same time, we do must put Biblical criticism on the line before accepting it. I still recall (I for sure know Hebrews being one of them) that 6 of the Books of the Bible are questioned as Paul (or an apprentice or someone close to him) is really the author of it. Much like the same way many believe that the Torah was written by Moses (another very questionable claim). So, I shall research as to the Clement in Philippians is indeed the same Clement, and if so, are the letter’s written by Him or another who had an agenda? Once it is Truly sanctified that all the pieces of the puzzle fit together, then we can see about why it is or isn’t scriptures (like the Apocrypha debates).

This is indeed a very interesting subject, as if proven, then much of what has been argued against in Christianity, really is True, and was formed from blind hatred. It still should be questioned though, because a little wikipedia stated that people started viewing Clement as Pope Clement in the 3rd/4th centuries, not when Paul wrote the letter. So, thus, I’ll need a historic research on Him.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pope_Clement_I

graybeardheadbanger wrote:

This gives us AS. The special role of Rome requires additional, mostly historical, argument.
As this post has gotten long (surprise surprise) I WILL come back to these particular points in another post.

Enjoying it, graybeardheadbanger

It has been shown that the Apostles have given direct appointed leaders after them. So, in that sense, AS is indeed True. Where it does lie now, is, is it still a True and valid practice all the way up to today, or was it only for that time etc? Even with that though, this should not be exclusive to Rome. This should be all middle-eastern etc. because of there being far more than 1. I am very interested in the source of that guy who traced all the AS and not just Peter’s. I will have far more to reply to later.

Thank you so much for this intelligent and civil discussion! God Bless! \m/

olias wrote:

Death over Life wrote:

graybeardheadbanger wrote:

olias wrote:

this thread = tl;dr

/.02

I am not familiar with the "tl;dr" imagery--can someone please explain this to an old man?

graybeardheadbanger

Graybeard, to begin, I heavily apologize that even came up in this thread. By far I do read all of your' posts and still need to reply to them.

What you quoted is simply Olias proving he is an illiterate ass. tl;dr means to lazy; didn't read.

I don't know what Olias has up His' butt, but every time I post or he sees a post that is more than 2 lines long, he trolls the threads saying garbage like tl;dr.

He has next to no attention span or self-respect, so he resorts to pulling trollish tactics, effectively trying to ruin great threads to appease His' insecurity.

I'm not trying to be disrespectful to you at all or to Olias, but Olias has recently been an ass and a thorn in my ass every time I post.

That is why Olias keeps on saying to lazy didn't read.

Aw I sorry. And yeah, I'm an ass. I heartily admit it Besides, if I'd have known my little trollish jabs were hurting your feelings I would've been nicer

As for the illiterate part, nah. I read a lot. Mostly military history. Now if you want to discuss the various aspects of how a special forces alpha detachment works, that is some **** I'd be down for.

Wow. Guess I'm the ass afterall hehehe. I apologize. I know you aren't illiterate, but this is all with me.

Banter and trolling jabs (like what happened with Mark earlier in the Trinity thread) really boils my blood up. I don't know why, but that is the 1 thing that will cause me to instantly transform into the Incredible Hulk. I know we all can be asses at times (I admit), but I really had no idea you were messing around.

Why I said the illiterate, is due to the fact that all these are long posts, but nowhere near the amount of the Bible's length.

Once again, I apologize. All that really was in my mind is: if you really were tl;dr, why would you bother posting that instead of just not reading, going to another thread, and and calling that a day?

[quote="Death over Life"][quote="olias"]

Death over Life wrote:

graybeardheadbanger wrote:

olias wrote:

this thread = tl;dr

/.02

I am not familiar with the "tl;dr" imagery--can someone please explain this to an old man?

graybeardheadbanger

Graybeard, to begin, I heavily apologize that even came up in this thread. By far I do read all of your' posts and still need to reply to them.

What you quoted is simply Olias proving he is an illiterate ass. tl;dr means to lazy; didn't read.

Ah. That doesn't seem so bad---though I'm not sure why one would feel the need to say they didn't read. It doesn't seem like too much of a shot as me as a poster, though, so we'll just say no harm no foul.


Now, to some of Death's other questions--I'll go back to those posts and respond.

graybeardheadbanger

Death over Life wrote:

olias wrote:

Death over Life wrote:

graybeardheadbanger wrote:

olias wrote:

this thread = tl;dr

/.02

I am not familiar with the "tl;dr" imagery--can someone please explain this to an old man?

graybeardheadbanger

Graybeard, to begin, I heavily apologize that even came up in this thread. By far I do read all of your' posts and still need to reply to them.

What you quoted is simply Olias proving he is an illiterate ass. tl;dr means to lazy; didn't read.

I don't know what Olias has up His' butt, but every time I post or he sees a post that is more than 2 lines long, he trolls the threads saying garbage like tl;dr.

He has next to no attention span or self-respect, so he resorts to pulling trollish tactics, effectively trying to ruin great threads to appease His' insecurity.

I'm not trying to be disrespectful to you at all or to Olias, but Olias has recently been an ass and a thorn in my ass every time I post.

That is why Olias keeps on saying to lazy didn't read.

Aw I sorry. And yeah, I'm an ass. I heartily admit it Besides, if I'd have known my little trollish jabs were hurting your feelings I would've been nicer

As for the illiterate part, nah. I read a lot. Mostly military history. Now if you want to discuss the various aspects of how a special forces alpha detachment works, that is some **** I'd be down for.

Wow. Guess I'm the ass afterall hehehe. I apologize. I know you aren't illiterate, but this is all with me.

Banter and trolling jabs (like what happened with Mark earlier in the Trinity thread) really boils my blood up. I don't know why, but that is the 1 thing that will cause me to instantly transform into the Incredible Hulk. I know we all can be asses at times (I admit), but I really had no idea you were messing around.

Why I said the illiterate, is due to the fact that all these are long posts, but nowhere near the amount of the Bible's length.

Once again, I apologize. All that really was in my mind is: if you really were tl;dr, why would you bother posting that instead of just not reading, going to another thread, and and calling that a day?

Well if I was serious I wouldn't have posted that. Actually since this pertains to the papacy it is actually quite interesting. I should have put a smiley and a disclaimer

Oh btw Tl=too long

tl =/= too lazy

[quote="Death over Life"]

graybeardheadbanger wrote:

Some of this would require a bigger answer. I don't necessarily think of the Bible as having been intended to be THE main instruciton manual for believers, etc. The earliest church, I htink, saw the gospel as being preserved in the Church itself, and this was identified through AS. scripture was critical, and at the heart of beleif and worship, BUT it was embodied within the church. Thus, the earliest church saw the truth as being preserved within the whole life of the church itself, and did not see itself as being "set up according to the Bible.' Its organizaiton, etc. was in process as the NT itself was in the process of being written ,dsitributed, etc. It was not a ready-made rule book which church's sought to follow--rahter, they sought to follow what was passed on as the teachings of the church, as sanctioned by the Apostles. scripture is but one way of getting at this. It is not clear by any means that the Apostles saw the scriptures as the ONLY way of preserving the terachings. Indeed, nothing in scripture itself declares this, although we do have scriptures indicating that what is taught therein is the truth, etc.

Quote :

True. This is indeed correct. However, a thought that crossed my mind just now, although not dealing with the original quote, was how literate were the church back then? I remembered in much of Christian history, many churches held back the scriptures from anybody except for certain priests, and it was those who could determine the theology of the Church. I do know what you are saying, but I have just been reminded, why were the scriptures suppressed then, if they were under the authority of the Church? Correct me if I’m wrong, but I think scriptures Truly being spread was Martin Luther when He translated the Bible from Latin to German and mass-produced it.

I don't know at what point most laity were expected to refrain from reading scripture, though this did develop at a certain time in history, before the RC became more open to such again. However, it would not be correct to saythe scriptures were "suppressed." They were, and are, read at Mass daily. If one went to Mass regularly, they would in time come to know all of the scriptures. We take it for granted that individuals should read the scripture on their own, but there is downside as well--many people (myself included, to a point) don't have the skills (e.g. languages) needed to study it properly. We know form experience that many people can read the same verse, and take many things away from it, sometimes almost fundamentally opposed things. It is not immediately clear to me that the abuse of holdoing scripture back is any worse than the errors that come from reading it outside the context of the liturgy and the Church. Indeed, we find the Ethiopian eunuch in Acts reading the Psalms, and being sort of confused---it was only when Philip came and explained Christ to him (PHilip was one who had had hands laid on him by Apostlers, though in more of a deacon role than an elder one, which meant he did not have the power to pass on the Holy Spirit in a formal way--more on that later) that the scriptures made sense to him.

Quote :

This does explain a lot and does make sense. On the Simon the Magician story, I did read that just now, but since I believe that ordering plays a huge part in interpretation, I noticed that the story started after Stephen’s death (as we all know, 1st martyr for God). So my question is, was the setting the exact same place Stephen was when all of that happened in Acts 8 or was it in another place, then it jumps ship to another story? I wonder, because if the 1st, I’m going to have to go through that story.

We read that after Stephen's death, people fled, as far away as Damascus and Samaria. However, while the Gospel was preached in Samaria, we find that they had not received the Holy Spirit yet, apparently because no one with Apostolic authority had been among them (read and this will be clear--the Apostles found when they came to Samaria that they had been baptized, but not received the Spirit, and Simon then saw that people received the Spirit by the Apostles laying hands on them). By contrast, in Acts 9 we see that Ananias, over in Damascus, WAS able to convey the Spirit to Paul. Thus, although it is not clear who Ananias was, it appears that he had the ability to provide the Spirit (in sort of a confirmation role, not necessarily an ordination one) in a way that those in Samaria before the Apostles came did not. From this, it is reasonable to infer, IMO, that Ananias somewhere along the line had been granted authority by the Apostles, which he could pass on, which were not yet given to those in Samaria. The Chronicle Paschale record, recognized by the Orhtodox church, lists him as the first bishop of Damascus, and the Coptic chuirch commemorates his feast day with a story that he was ordained by Apostles. We no longer have records which corroborate this--BUT, as I said, the facts seem to make this the most coherent reading, as he could pass on the Spirit, whereas those in Samaria could not.

Quote :

However, much of what is said though, sans the hands with the Holy Spirit, is something that everybody does. Everybody elects everybody as leaders.

The point of AS is that one does not have full authority in the Church without the laying on of hands by one in apostolic succession. People can vote on pastors, etc., but this does not in itself give them true AS--or at least, one cannot say that we have any basis for knowing that they have this. It is of course true that the Spirit can work through any believer in any number of ways--BUT the claim is that specific tasks, like confirmation, confession, the consecration of communion, and ordination are reserved for those with AS, or those they ordain (priests vs. bishops).

Quote :

However though, outside of the Pope, I’ve never seen anybody else (other than cults) do the laying on hands to receive some higher power.

It's all over the place in Acts. You also see precedence in the OT--e.g. Elijah gives his spirit to Elisha, etc. In any case, the AS model is not just a Catholic thing---ALL the ancient Churches hold this view of how authority is passed on--the various Eastern Orhtodox, as well as Coptic, Assyrian, etc. churches also hold this practice. As is NOT referring specifically to hte papacy. The RC recognizes the AS of these groups, even htough they no longer have full communion with Rome (or with each other, in certain cases).

Quote :

With what you said being True and it being passed on, it should indicate that there should be MANY Christians that do this, yet instead, it shrunk to 1.

See above; AS is NOT just limited to one (papacy). Catholics teach that Popes have a special primacy that other patriarchs and bishops do not have, BUT recognize that these other churches have all the sacraments, as their bishops are in line with the Apostles.

Quote :

So, this I don’t know what it indicates, but it may perhaps show that the practice isn’t valid anymore, as remember, Paul was appointed by God directly, and yes you do have Ananias, and others, but with all the leaders they appointed, and all of those leaders, where did all these leaders go?

Look at Titus and II and I Timothy--clearly Paul explains the passing on of authority in experctation that Titus and Timothy will pass it on--he does not specifically, mention laying on hands in Titus, but he entrusts the authority of the message to Titus, and entreats Titus to pass this on to others who will pass it on to others. Paul clearly envisions an ongoing process.

Quote :

Another thing on the Papacy. We see the Apostles directly chose who to pass on the teachings to. We see the elect straight out of the Apostle’s mouth. Now correct me if I’m wrong, but where was this for example: John Paul going to Benedict as the successor? Last I recall, John Paul mentioned nothing of Benedict, and it was the congregation that elected Benedict as the current Pope. So, in this sense, the role was reversed.

To understand how Popes are elected, you need to understand how the office of "patriach" (which also exists in the other AS churches) developed. scripture and early church history only knew priests and bishops and something like deacons. In the ealriest times, some churches had multiple bishops, though we know by early to mid 1st centiry one bishop for each church (a church covering an entire region, I don;t just mean an indivudal parish) was pretty much the norm (see Ignatius of Antioch, 110 AD). However, as these regions grew even larger and larger, even single bishops could not handle everything. Thus, the JURIDICAL position of Patriarch was formed, at first for Jerusalem, Alexandria, Rome, Constantinople, and Anioch (actually, Con, was added a bit later). Patriarchs exerise juridical authority, but sacramentally, do not have any more gifts than those possessed by all bishops in AS. The Pope therefore weres three hats, so to speak--he is the Bishop of a single region (Rome), he is the Patriarch of the whole West (covering, say, RC bishops in US, Canada, South America, Asia, Africa, etc. etc.) AND he is considered to have primacy which allows him to resolve theological and juridical disputes arising under other bishops and patriarchs. At the same time, it is recognized that these other jurisdictions are generally autonomous in their fuinctioning--a right to intervene does not mean that intervention is the norm, or even the ideal.

Now, I bring all this up to say that Patriarchs, both Popes and other groups (Orthodox, etc.) are NOT directly appointed by their predecessor. In the Cahtolic tradition, the position of "cardinal" developed.
Cardinals are priests, deacons, or bishops (nowadays, almost all bishops) who have been appointed by a Pope to serve in a "college" which elects a new Pope when needed. So, these cardinals vote for who will become Pope. This too shows that those who think of the papacy are a monarchy are misguided, as it is not just automatically passed down from one leader to the next.

Quote :

Rather than the Apostle choosing the leader and congregation, the congregation is what chose the leader/ “Apostle”. So, even with AS being True or not, the Papacy doesn’t seem to elect leaders the way the Apostles did, which makes the successor-ship somewhat fishy. It could show that AS is in fact True, but the lineage discontinued long ago.

Hopefully the above clears this up. As continues, but Patriarchs (of which Rome is one) are not directly appointed--they are elected by priests and/or bishops who have been assigned for this. It works in a similar way in the Orthodox churches, though they do not have "cardinals" per se.

Quote :

I did read that, and indeed Clement’s name is in the Book of Life, as it is written. So, 1 Clement is a Book? This takes an interesting turn, but at the same time, we do must put Biblical criticism on the line before accepting it. I still recall (I for sure know Hebrews being one of them) that 6 of the Books of the Bible are questioned as Paul (or an apprentice or someone close to him) is really the author of it. Much like the same way many believe that the Torah was written by Moses (another very questionable claim). So, I shall research as to the Clement in Philippians is indeed the same Clement, and if so, are the letter’s written by Him or another who had an agenda?

It is not certain that this is the same Clement, but ancient hisotrians like Eusebius and I believe others recognize him as such. It makes sense--Clement was bishop of Rome around 90 AD, so if Paul knew him, and Paul died in the 60s, then if we assume Clement was younger than Paul, and we know Paul went to Rome, etc. then it seems very plausible that someone who was a young man when Paul knew him could be the leader in a Church where Paul served 25-30 years later. The best evidence suggests that it is likely that this is the same Clement.

There are a number of books attributed to Clement, but only the letter to the Corinthians, which contains the ideas of AS, is considered authentic by scholars. This is undisputed, as far as I know. If you study the history of the canonization of the Bible, you will find that some early Fathers leaned toward saying Clement I should be in the Bible, since he was mentioned by Paul. But at the end of the day, it was decided that only those who writing directly as, or in the tradition of, an Apostle would be canonized.

Quote :

Once it is Truly sanctified that all the pieces of the puzzle fit together, then we can see about why it is or isn’t scriptures (like the Apocrypha debates).

While it is not in scripture, and hence cannot be considered "inspired" in the same way, it still gives us clear hisotry of how followers of the Apostles did things, and tell us the Apostles did them. I would not accept any argument (not that you are making it) htat if something isn't a scripture, we don't have to give it any weight. In any case, I would hold that Clement, and others, are merely corroborating which is already strongly suggested in terms of AS by Paul and perhaps others, to a lesser degree.

Quote :

This is indeed a very interesting subject, as if proven, then much of what has been argued against in Christianity, really is True, and was formed from blind hatred. It still should be questioned though, because a little wikipedia stated that people started viewing Clement as Pope Clement in the 3rd/4th centuries, not when Paul wrote the letter. So, thus, I’ll need a historic research on him.

Let me clarify--there was no Pope when Paul wrote, and certainly it wasn;t Clement. My point is, if someone with whom Paul spoke with strong approval of later became Pope, it seems that his testimony should be given a great deal of weight. Incidentally, one of the people to whom Paul says "hi" at the end of, I believ, 2 Timothy is aloso believed to have become a Pope (Linus). There was a Pope Linus two popes prior to Clement.

Quote :

It has been shown that the Apostles have given direct appointed leaders after them. So, in that sense, AS is indeed True. Where it does lie now, is, is it still a True and valid practice all the way up to today, or was it only for that time etc? Even with that though, this should not be exclusive to Rome. This should be all middle-eastern etc. because of there being far more than 1. I am very interested in the source of that guy who traced all the AS and not just Peter’s. I will have far more to reply to later.

See above--it was viewed as something ongoing, and it is not just limited to Rome and the Pope, As I said, papal primacy is a different, though indirectly related, topic to that of AS generally.

Quote :

Thank you so much for this intelligent and civil discussion! God Bless! \m/

Thank you--ditto. I learn from dialogue as well. Peace, graybeardheadbanger

"Vigilance Saints Arise"

EWTN.com
The Eternal Word Television Network
will answer all of your questions about
the History of The Roman Catholic Church.
Also, any real mysterious thoughts about
the Pope now and throughout history.

Watch this Source of Truth every day.

A Catholic young man is in great need
of the internet fellowship the EWTN.com
has to offer. No True Catholic man is
excused from this Great gift of computer
aided "live and archives" Catholic TV.

Greg Edwards and The Knights of Columbus.

Was there a need to repeat it?

I think graybeard alone is doing a great job of putting everything into perspective and even showing the history behind it within Scriptures. Sure, I haven't had the time to properly reply to everything atm, as there are still a few things I need to know about, but I'm really enjoying the flow of the thread on here.

Shoot, since I have already made this, I shall speak on this one subject. There has been much hearings (and proof) about how to give yourself to the Priesthood, Bishops, etc. and eventually becoming the Pope (if you become the Pope that is), you have to give up the possibility of marrying somebody for the priesthood instead. I'm not quoting this, but I've been hearing for a while (this is used by Protestants to disprove the Papacy, so rather than instigate it, I'm questioning it) is that Peter, as the 1st Pope, was married. If this is True, and Peter did have a wife, what caused there to be changes to the whole marriage perspective on authority?

The whole marriage thing on priesthood is a whole different thread within itself, because I would argue about how everybody showed it as a choice, not an abstinance, but preferred not to be married (ala Paul).

But since this is dealing with Papacy, I'm interested in hearing this, if Peter really was married, and if so, what caused the changes to occur, and why is it wrong today, when it wasn't for Peter? If married as well, then I would ask, why does the Catholic church throughout history says it never changes, but it does with some History backing up the claim?

Death over Life wrote:

Was there a need to repeat it?

I think graybeard alone is doing a great job of putting everything into perspective and even showing the history behind it within Scriptures. Sure, I haven't had the time to properly reply to everything atm, as there are still a few things I need to know about, but I'm really enjoying the flow of the thread on here.

Shoot, since I have already made this, I shall speak on this one subject. There has been much hearings (and proof) about how to give yourself to the Priesthood, Bishops, etc. and eventually becoming the Pope (if you become the Pope that is), you have to give up the possibility of marrying somebody for the priesthood instead. I'm not quoting this, but I've been hearing for a while (this is used by Protestants to disprove the Papacy, so rather than instigate it, I'm questioning it) is that Peter, as the 1st Pope, was married. If this is True, and Peter did have a wife, what caused there to be changes to the whole marriage perspective on authority?

The whole marriage thing on priesthood is a whole different thread within itself, because I would argue about how everybody showed it as a choice, not an abstinance, but preferred not to be married (ala Paul).

But since this is dealing with Papacy, I'm interested in hearing this, if Peter really was married, and if so, what caused the changes to occur, and why is it wrong today, when it wasn't for Peter? If married as well, then I would ask, why does the Catholic church throughout history says it never changes, but it does with some History backing up the claim?

These are good questions because the give people a chance to understand better important distinctions in Catholic theology.

When people say the Catholic church never changes, they are talking about fundamental matters of doctrine and morality. Liturgical practices, ecclesiastical law, and discipline (tied in with law) can, however,change, if church authorities see fit. In very early centuries, the practice of Bishops remaining unmarried became standard for ALL ancient churches. Today, this is stll practiced in the Coptic, Orhtodox, Catholic, Assyrian, etc. churches. For PRIESTS, however, the tradition differed from rite to rite (rite referring to a particular liturgical and canon law tradition). At some point, the RC chose in its discipline to have an unmarried clergy. Most other ancient churches allowed married priests (but not bishops), BUT they had to be married before ordination--and, if their wife died, they could not be remarried (for this, they cite the Scripture that leaders should have "but one wife", which they take must mean PERIOD,
as the Chistian church has never permitted polygamy.) Some Orthodox churches today, from what I've been told, allow for priests whose wives die to remarry, IF they have small children and the bishop okays it. This is for the sake of the children. Once again, however, these are matters of ecclesiastical law, which can be changed; the authority of bishops extends to using judgment in matters such as these.

In addition, even the RC has a handful of married priests (I met one recently!) These were men who were married and ordained in other traditions, who converted to Catholicism and had their ordination carry over by the decision of the RC bishop. They were allowed to priests and marry. In addiiton, certain Eastern rite Cahtolics (members of Orthodox and some other groups who have re-entered into full-communion with Rome, sometimes also referred to as Byzantine--i.e. Greek--Catholics) also have married priests, though with the restricitons noted above. The RC, to the best of my knowledge, has always recognized the legtimacy of rites as different traditions to have married priests. I am guessing the same would be true for bishops, though the tradition of unmarried bishops goes back almost as far as the generation immediately following the Apostles. As far as what the reasons are for favoring unmarried priests, they are many--to an extent, it has to do with hte imagery of thye Church as Christ's bride, so that the priest, as the representative of Christ, has the Church for his bride. There are practical considerations as all (it is financially burdensome to support entire families, there can be difficulties with spouses ande children which can draw a priest's attention away from the ministry, inheritance laws, etc.)

Similarly, the RC, for better or worse, has undertaken various changes in its litrugical practices over the years. For example, priests used to face the altar during consecration (as is the case virutally all other anicent churches still), now they face the people; female altar servers are allowed, and there can be lay peopel distributing (though not consecrating) the Eucharist, which used to be allowed only for priests and deacons (and of course, bishops). But these are matters of law and discipline which can be changed; they are not matters of fudnamental moral or theoological teaching. The RC could declare tomorrow that there can be married priests (other than those converting from other traditions)--they very likely will not, but they could. This would not in any way constitute a substantial change in the Catholic faith.

graybeardheadbanger

This does lay it out perfectly concerning Priests and Bishops, but would the same lie for Popes? I did not use Scriptures in describing Peter's wife, and if married, He is thus far, the only married Pope ever throughout the history.

However, with the AS being such an important subject, you have the point on Bishops and Priests, but wouldn't Apostles to Successors (Popes) be more important, or would it just lie under the rest as is for them?

You are correct in that the unmarried Bishops and such were there since the very early days, but as with what you are saying, it pretty much proves that it has to have come after Peter's death, lest there is another conflict of the Papacy (not so much AS however). If this was indeed at the time of the Apostles, that should have disqualified Peter as becoming Pope, and should have given the Pope title to Paul, as Paul wasn't married and even recommended against it, though he didn't condemn it.

With Bible Gateway, there is only 1 verse in the entire Bible that shows Peter was married (although it may not be the same Peter, but I think research does show this as the same Peter, much like with Clement from earlier).

Matthew 8:13-15 (King James Version)

13And Jesus said unto the centurion, Go thy way; and as thou hast believed, so be it done unto thee. And his servant was healed in the selfsame hour.

14And when Jesus was come into Peter's house, he saw his wife's mother laid, and sick of a fever.

15And he touched her hand, and the fever left her: and she arose, and ministered unto them.


Yes, this is the only time it's ever mentioned in the Bible that Peter has a wife, and it was simply Christ healing Peter's Wife's Mother. So, I'd like to grasp this more on explicitly Papacy. Priests and Bishops have already been defined, but as you already mentioned how one get's to Pope to begin with, it does through the Bishops I recall, so it's still a small roadblock never the less.

Ah the marriage issue for Priests. Yeah one of our priests was married a while back but she was elderly and died.

Death over Life wrote:

This does lay it out perfectly concerning Priests and Bishops, but would the same lie for Popes? I did not use Scriptures in describing Peter's wife, and if married, He is thus far, the only married Pope ever throughout the history.

However, with the AS being such an important subject, you have the point on Bishops and Priests, but wouldn't Apostles to Successors (Popes) be more important, or would it just lie under the rest as is for them?

You are correct in that the unmarried Bishops and such were there since the very early days, but as with what you are saying, it pretty much proves that it has to have come after Peter's death, lest there is another conflict of the Papacy (not so much AS however). If this was indeed at the time of the Apostles, that should have disqualified Peter as becoming Pope, and should have given the Pope title to Paul, as Paul wasn't married and even recommended against it, though he didn't condemn it.

With Bible Gateway, there is only 1 verse in the entire Bible that shows Peter was married (although it may not be the same Peter, but I think research does show this as the same Peter, much like with Clement from earlier).

Matthew 8:13-15 (King James Version)

13And Jesus said unto the centurion, Go thy way; and as thou hast believed, so be it done unto thee. And his servant was healed in the selfsame hour.

14And when Jesus was come into Peter's house, he saw his wife's mother laid, and sick of a fever.

15And he touched her hand, and the fever left her: and she arose, and ministered unto them.


Yes, this is the only time it's ever mentioned in the Bible that Peter has a wife, and it was simply Christ healing Peter's Wife's Mother. So, I'd like to grasp this more on explicitly Papacy. Priests and Bishops have already been defined, but as you already mentioned how one get's to Pope to begin with, it does through the Bishops I recall, so it's still a small roadblock never the less.

I guess I'm not following ther question. There is no biblical prohibition on bishops, including the Pope, marrying. I wou,d say the Church used her authority, which is develped in part through Scripture, to establish this policy very early on. In theory, that could perhaps change, but I'm confident never would. But the fact Peter had a wife would in no way in-and-of-itself compromie his role in the church, as the rule had not been established yet. To clarify, the fasct the Bible doesn't prohibit does not not mean the Church cannot make a rule--certainly Scripture nowhere states that Bishops MUST be allowed to marry.

graybeardheadbanger

graybeardheadbanger wrote:

Death over Life wrote:

This does lay it out perfectly concerning Priests and Bishops, but would the same lie for Popes? I did not use Scriptures in describing Peter's wife, and if married, He is thus far, the only married Pope ever throughout the history.

However, with the AS being such an important subject, you have the point on Bishops and Priests, but wouldn't Apostles to Successors (Popes) be more important, or would it just lie under the rest as is for them?

You are correct in that the unmarried Bishops and such were there since the very early days, but as with what you are saying, it pretty much proves that it has to have come after Peter's death, lest there is another conflict of the Papacy (not so much AS however). If this was indeed at the time of the Apostles, that should have disqualified Peter as becoming Pope, and should have given the Pope title to Paul, as Paul wasn't married and even recommended against it, though he didn't condemn it.

With Bible Gateway, there is only 1 verse in the entire Bible that shows Peter was married (although it may not be the same Peter, but I think research does show this as the same Peter, much like with Clement from earlier).

Matthew 8:13-15 (King James Version)

13And Jesus said unto the centurion, Go thy way; and as thou hast believed, so be it done unto thee. And his servant was healed in the selfsame hour.

14And when Jesus was come into Peter's house, he saw his wife's mother laid, and sick of a fever.

15And he touched her hand, and the fever left her: and she arose, and ministered unto them.


Yes, this is the only time it's ever mentioned in the Bible that Peter has a wife, and it was simply Christ healing Peter's Wife's Mother. So, I'd like to grasp this more on explicitly Papacy. Priests and Bishops have already been defined, but as you already mentioned how one get's to Pope to begin with, it does through the Bishops I recall, so it's still a small roadblock never the less.

I guess I'm not following ther question. There is no biblical prohibition on bishops, including the Pope, marrying. I wou,d say the Church used her authority, which is develped in part through Scripture, to establish this policy very early on. In theory, that could perhaps change, but I'm confident never would. But the fact Peter had a wife would in no way in-and-of-itself compromie his role in the church, as the rule had not been established yet. To clarify, the fasct the Bible doesn't prohibit does not not mean the Church cannot make a rule--certainly Scripture nowhere states that Bishops MUST be allowed to marry.

graybeardheadbanger

Yes, but the point that I was trying to make, was that there are some that use the marriage issue to disprove the Papacy, and that the Scriptures left that open for each individual to decide. However, despite that being, we do see at times in Catholic history where it was forbidden, as opposed to being open for the individual to decide. At the same time though, Scriptures nowhere state that Bishops are NOT allowed to be married.

I was mainly trying to get down to the marriage issues.

This is no way factual or anything, and it is not an attack on anybody, but I honestly do believe the heavy anti-marriage views Catholicism did have on the Priesthood (I'm not saying there aren't married Priests, but I remembered marrying Priests were suppressed) is a big reason as to why so many pedophilia cases have sprouted in the church.

graybeardheadbanger wrote:

To clarify, the fasct the Bible doesn't prohibit does not not mean the Church cannot make a rule--

I will be honest and would like to challenge that statement actually. In fact, that is how this thread came to be. Why I challenge is because I really see that as the Church is trying to overthrow the God they claim to be worshipping and declaring themselves God. At the same time though, you could make that very same statement with the Bible and the Books contained in it.

Then again, that particular would cause us to go to another topic on Textual criticism and then again, the whole battle on who's beliefs are correct and what books should be in the Bible etc.

It was indeed some of the rules the Church made and theological standpoints that did cause the Protestant Reformation to come about by the way.

In dealing with Papacy, I am thinking AS and Papacy may be 2 differing things. But when we mention Apolistic Succession, what did go through my head sometimes is, why not have it Christolic Succession? Because we trace the Apostles back to Christ.