The Papist Popery Of The Papacy

[Anna]

Oops, Cure! I'd been multi-tasking and didn't see that you'd posted the very same thing before I did! lol!

[Oik]

I heart catholic apologists!

[ICTHUS]

[quote name='William Putnam' date='Aug 30 2004, 11:52 AM'] The clear evidence of the early fathers simply cannot be refuted, therefore, they are simply ignored for the most part. There have been serious attempts to prove "their point" from the fathers to pitifully no avail, St. Augustine being an example.

But there is hope: Perhaps others who have an open mind to the truth, will read them and decide where the truth lies, you and I never hearing from them in their decisions...

Come holy Spirit...

God bless,

PAX

Bill+†+


[i]Jesus said unto them, "And whom do you say that I am?" They replied, "You are the eschatological ground of our being, the ontological foundation of the context of our very selfhood." And Jesus replied, "What?"[/i] [/quote]
William, Protestants simply believe that the teachings of the Fathers ought to be evaluated on the basis of the Scriptures, not that Patristics are worthless.

[MorphRC]

[b]Clement I, Pope.[/b]

Clement I, St
Clement I, St or Clement of Rome (died c. 101), pope (c. 92-c. 101), first of the ecclesiastical writers called Apostolic Fathers. According to the 2nd-century theologian Irenaeus, Clement was the third bishop of Rome and was personally acquainted with both St Peter and St Paul. Although few details of his life are known, the high esteem in which Clement was held is evident from his Epistle to the Corinthians (c. 96), which was widely considered a canonical book of the Bible until the 4th century. One of the most important documents of apostolic times, the letter is the earliest piece of Christian literature outside the New Testament for which the name, position, and date of the author are historically attested. The outbreak of disputes within the Church of Corinth, where certain presbyters (elders) had been deposed, impelled the author to intervene. The letter is a valuable source of information about the life, doctrine, and organization of the early Christian Church. Clement's feast day is November 23.

[b]Microsoft ® Encarta ® Encyclopedia 2004. © 1993-2003 Microsoft Corporation. All rights reserved.[/b]

[ironmonk]

[quote name='ICTHUS' date='Aug 30 2004, 11:58 PM'] William, Protestants simply believe that the teachings of the Fathers ought to be evaluated on the basis of the Scriptures, not that Patristics are worthless. [/quote]
Correction... "Some" protestants... there are many protestants that believe them to be worthless.


God Bless,
ironmonk

[dairygirl4u2c]

In Epistles 16,29, and 30 Cyprian is addressed as "Cypriano Papae" or Pope Cyprian.

Epistle 74 Firmilian in regards to Stephen, "the truth of the Christian Rock is overshadowed, and in some measure abolished, by him when he betrays and deserts unity this way".

Firmilian to Pope Cyprian in regards to Pope Stephen of rome:

[quote]
And herein I am justly indignant at such open and manifest folly in Stephen, that he who boasts of the seat of his episcopate, and contends that he holds the succession from Peter, on whom the foundations of the Church were laid, introduces many other rocks, and buildeth anew many Churches, in that by his authority he maintains baptism among them...Nor does he perceive that he who thus betrays and abandons unity, casts into the shade, and in a manner effaces, the truth of the Christian Rock...Stephen, who proclaims that he occupies by succession the chair of Peter, is roused by no zeal against heretics...He who concedes and assigns to heretics such great and heavenly privileges of the Church, what else does he than hold communion with them...But as to the refutation of the argument from custom, which they seem to oppose to the truth, who so foolish as to prefer custom to truth, or not to leave darkness, when he sees light?...And this you of Africa may say in answer to Stephen, that on discovering the truth you abandoned the error of custom. But we join custom to truth, and to the custom of the Romans we oppose custom, but that of truth; from the beginning holding that which was delivered by Christ and by His Apostles (A Library of the Fathers of the Holy Catholic Church (Oxford: Parker, 1844), The Epistles of St. Cyprian, Epistle LXXV. 17, 18, 20, pp. 279-281).[/quote]

[quote]sec. 24
"What strifes and dissensions hast thou stirred up through the Churches of the whole world! And how great `sin' hast thou `heaped up,' when thou didst cut thyself off from so many flocks. For thou didst cut thyself off; deceive not thyself; for he is truly the schismatic who has made himself an apostate from the communion of the unity of the Church. For while thou thinkest that all may be excommunicated by thee, thou hast excommunicated thyself from all." [/quote]

That link in the first post is an excerpt from "The Papacy" by Abbee Guette. The author was a devout Catholic and a historian. As a result of his historical research about the papacy, he eventually joined the Orthodox Church. He doesn't think the papacy is truly orthodox.

Edited August 31, 2004 by dairygirl4u2c

[William Putnam]

[quote name='ICTHUS' date='Aug 30 2004, 09:58 PM']William, Protestants simply believe that the teachings of the Fathers ought to be evaluated on the basis of the Scriptures, not that Patristics are worthless.[/quote]
Well bless your heart and good for you! I think that many Protestants do exacty that and again, good for them! I think that all of the writings of the fathers would stand up to scrutiny with the scriptures anytime! But I have run across too many who simply reject the fathers and their writings as heretics!

For such individuals, I often say, they are so sot in their belief system ways, they who would also reject the remains that are in the tomb that has the epitaph of Abraham Lincoln. They would claim that it is not his real body but some impostor or that there was some sort of "body exchange" just prior to burial, even if I were to produce all of the written evidence that it is his real body.

I think they would even reject DNA evidence of an exhumed body to prove it!

God bless,

PAX

Bill+†+


[i]Rome has spoken, case is closed.[/i]

Derived from Augustine's famous [i]Sermon[/i].

[William Putnam]

[quote name='ironmonk' date='Aug 31 2004, 07:16 AM']Correction... "Some" protestants... there are many protestants that believe them to be worthless.


God Bless,
ironmonk[/quote]
Indeed!

These are the same guys that would doubt that Abraham Lincoln is really buried in the tomb that has his epitaph, all documentation is similarly "worthless."

God bless,

PAX

Bill+†+


[i]Rome has spoken, case is closed.[/i]

Derived from Augustine's famous [i]Sermon[/i].

[Anna]

[quote name='dairygirl4u2c' date='Aug 31 2004, 11:38 AM'] In Epistles 16,29, and 30 Cyprian is addressed as [b]"Cypriano Papae" or Pope Cyprian. [/b]

Epistle 74 Firmilian in regards to Stephen, "the truth of the Christian Rock is overshadowed, and in some measure abolished, by him when he betrays and deserts unity this way".

Firmilian to [b]Pope Cyprian[/b] in regards to Pope Stephen of rome:





That link in the first post is an excerpt from "The Papacy" by Abbee Guette. The author was a devout Catholic and a historian. As a result of his historical research about the papacy, he eventually joined the Orthodox Church. He doesn't think the papacy is truly orthodox. [/quote]
Another way dairygirl takes things out of context: Cyprian was a bishop and died a martyr, but he was never elected pope. Papae means "pappa," "father." It does not necessarily mean "pope."

Pope St. Stephen reigned as pope of the Roman Catholic Church from 254 AD to 257 AD, succeeding Pope St. Lucias.

When did Pope Cyprian reign????? (Never.)

Amazing how some non-Catholics like to rewrite Catholic history.

[Anna]

St. Cyprian's treatise [i]"De Unitate"[/i]


[color=blue][b]If any will consider this, there is no need of a long treatise and of arguments. 'The Lord saith to Peter: 'I say unto thee that thou art Peter, and upon this rock I will build My Church, and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it; to thee I will give the keys to the kingdom of heaven, and what thou shalt have bound on earth shall be bound in heaven, and what thou shalt have loosed shall be loosed in heaven.' Upon one He builds His Church, and though to all His Apostles after His resurrection He gives an equal power and says: 'As My Father hath sent Me, even so send I you: Receive the Holy Ghost, whosesoever sins you shall have remitted they shall be remitted unto them, and whosesoever sins you shall have retained they shall be retained', yet that He might make unity manifest, He disposed the origin of that unity beginning from one. The other Apostles were indeed what Peter was, endowed with a like fellowship both of honour and of power, but the commencement proceeds from one, that the Church may be shown to be one. This one Church the Holy Ghost in the person of the Lord designates in the Canticle of Canticles, and says, One is My Dove, My perfect one, one is she to her mother, one to her that bare her. He that holds not this unity of the Church, does he believe that he holds the Faith? He who strives against and resists the Church, is he confident that he is in the Church?[/b][/color]

One might ask those same questions today, which Cyprian penned in the 3rd century: [b][i]
He that holds not this unity of the Church, does he believe that he holds the Faith?

He who strives against and resists the Church, is he confident that he is in the Church?[/i][/b]

[dairygirl4u2c]

I apologize for the name of this thread if it offends you, Anna. It was meant as a joke. All a lot of noncatholics got is evasion, illogical CAPS, and what I just did and all that. (not that a lot of Catholics got more than this either) It was suppose to be ironical. Other than that, I really don't know why you're not thinking things through and ad hominem so much.



[quote]Cyprian was a bishop and died a martyr, but he was never elected pope. Papae means "pappa," "father." It does not necessarily mean "pope."[/quote]

I hope others recognize what I was sayin, but just in case they don't, my point is that just because the bishop of rome is referred to as pope in those days doesn't necessarily mean anything that Catholics sometimes assume it does.

[quote]"Before His suffering the Lord Jesus Christ, as you know, chose His disciples, whom He called Apostles. Among the Apostles almost everywhere Peter alone merited to represent the whole Church. For the sake of representing the whole Church, which he alone could do, he merited to hear: ‘I will give to you the keys to the kingdom of Heaven.’[/quote]

Just because Peter had a special place doesn't mean other bishops of rome do too. Is this what you're going to argue? No references to how this relates to the sucessors is pretty weak. I just wanted to point this out because catholics do this a lot, pointing out Peter's special role and assuming way too much.


Now anyone knowledgeable know where good info is about this situation?

Edited August 31, 2004 by dairygirl4u2c

[Brother Adam]

Here is the thing though. Are we assuming too much? Or did Jesus' (God's) words to Peter have significant meaning? If you were before God today, in the flesh, wouldn't you hang on every Word that came out of His mouth? I'd buy a tape recorder and video camara!!!

Are we assuming to much? Or are you assuming too little? Is it too much to assume that we should make a big deal out of the resurrection? Or out of Pauls commentary on salvation?

History sincerely speaks against your assertion that we are making to much about Christ's declarations to Peter. "Upon This Rock" by Stephen Ray can take you through the "Why's" if you are willing to have an open mind to at least learn another point of view.

[Cure of Ars]

[quote]In Epistles 16,29, and 30 Cyprian is addressed as "Cypriano Papae" or Pope Cyprian.

Epistle 74 Firmilian in regards to Stephen, "the truth of the Christian Rock is overshadowed, and in some measure abolished, by him when he betrays and deserts unity this way".

Firmilian to Pope Cyprian in regards to Pope Stephen of rome:


[quote]

And herein I am justly indignant at such open and manifest folly in Stephen, that he who boasts of the seat of his episcopate, and contends that he holds the succession from Peter, on whom the foundations of the Church were laid, introduces many other rocks, and buildeth anew many Churches, in that by his authority he maintains baptism among them...Nor does he perceive that he who thus betrays and abandons unity, casts into the shade, and in a manner effaces, the truth of the Christian Rock...Stephen, who proclaims that he occupies by succession the chair of Peter, is roused by no zeal against heretics...He who concedes and assigns to heretics such great and heavenly privileges of the Church, what else does he than hold communion with them...But as to the refutation of the argument from custom, which they seem to oppose to the truth, who so foolish as to prefer custom to truth, or not to leave darkness, when he sees light?...And this you of Africa may say in answer to Stephen, that on discovering the truth you abandoned the error of custom. But we join custom to truth, and to the custom of the Romans we oppose custom, but that of truth; from the beginning holding that which was delivered by Christ and by His Apostles (A Library of the Fathers of the Holy Catholic Church (Oxford: Parker, 1844), The Epistles of St. Cyprian, Epistle LXXV. 17, 18, 20, pp. 279-281). [/quote]




[quote] 
sec. 24
"What strifes and dissensions hast thou stirred up through the Churches of the whole world! And how great `sin' hast thou `heaped up,' when thou didst cut thyself off from so many flocks. For thou didst cut thyself off; deceive not thyself; for he is truly the schismatic who has made himself an apostate from the communion of the unity of the Church. For while thou thinkest that all may be excommunicated by thee, thou hast excommunicated thyself from all."  [/quote]



That link in the first post is an excerpt from "The Papacy" by Abbee Guette. The author was a devout Catholic and a historian. As a result of his historical research about the papacy, he eventually joined the Orthodox Church. He doesn't think the papacy is truly orthodox. [/quote]



We need some historical context here. First off there was a controversy over rebaptizing heretics. Pope Stephen said that there was no need for rebaptism. Firmilian disagreed;

[quote]We know from Cyprian that Stephen issued an edict which ordered obedience under pain of excommunication. We learn from Firmilian that Stephen based his edict on an appeal to his succession from Peter. As to both these points Firmilian has, of course, an answer ready: the excommunication recoils upon Stephen, and his edict shows him to be no true successor to Peter.[/quote]

So what can be learned from the quote that you gave from Firmilian. Well Firmilian had a strong motivation to deny the papacy of Stephen because he was excommunicated by him and because he disagreed with St. Stephen in regards to rebaptizing heretics when they come back into the fold. At the very least this shows that pope Stephen claimed to be the successor of Peter and that he believed that he had authority over the entire church. And so far Firmilian is the only person you have shown to challenge this position. You would think that there would be a larger outcry if someone started to take a position of authority that they believed that he did not possess. Firmilian was wrong in regards to both baptism and the Papacy. Another interesting thing is that unlike Firmilian, St. Cyprian did believe the Peter was the rock in Matt 16:18. Here is a quote from an Anglican historian.

[quote][b]The Anglican historian Edward Giles comments:[/b] "Cyprian is clearer than Origen about the meaning of our Lord's words to Peter (Matt 16:18). [b]To him the rock is Peter, and our Lord built his Church on Peter. He says this so often that no one doubts that it is his view. [/b]Cyprian also claims that this text gives the bishops their authority, for the Church is settled upon them....Disputes on this version [of De Unitate 4] have therefore turned on the question whether in Cyprian's view the primacy of Peter was a permanent factor in the Church or not. On the one hand it is suggested that 'Peter is not the real ground, not the cause nor the centre, but only the starting point in time, and the means of recognition of Church unity' [quoting Hugo Koch]....Against this view Dom Chapman stresses the words [b]'Upon one he builds the Church.' That one is Peter; Peter is the rock, and the idea of a temporary rock is absurd. There is no mention of priority in time in Epistles 33 and 43, and from these letters it seems clear to Chapman that Cyprian means Peter, like the bishop to be 'a permanent not a transient guarantee of the unity of the edifice which rises upon a single rock.''" (Giles, page 49, 52)[/b]

[/quote]

[url="http://66.102.7.104/search?q=cache:82PsvOkHhcIJ:www.bringyou.to/apologetics/num44.htm+Firmilian++papacy+catholic&hl=en&ie=UTF-8"]http://66.102.7.104/search?q=cache:82PsvOk...&hl=en&ie=UTF-8[/url]

There have also been non-Catholic historians who have became catholic do to history. An example is Cardnal Newman. Here are some links that I think you will find interesting.



--[url="http://www.globalserve.net/~bumblebee/ecclesia/ecu.htm"]The Pope and the Ecumenical Councils[/url]
--[url="http://web.globalserve.net/~bumblebee/ecclesia/patriarchs.htm"]The Eastern Church Defends Petrine Primacy and the Papacy![/url]
--[url="http://www.catholicculture.org/docs/doc_view.cfm?recnum=1355"]Byzantium and the Roman Primacy[/url]
--[url="http://www.mwt.net/~lnpalm/byzantin.htm"]The Primitive Church and the See of Peter: The Byzantine Plot[/url]
--[url="http://www.mwt.net/~lnpalm/sixth.htm"]The Sixth Nicene Canon and the Papacy[/url]
--[url="http://rtforum.org/lt/lt29.html"]Papal Authority in the First Ecumenical Councils[/url]
--[url="http://www.catholicculture.org/docs/doc_view.cfm?recnum=1092"]Eastern Orthodoxy: Primacy and Reunion[/url]
--[url="http://www.catholicculture.org/docs/doc_view.cfm?recnum=3485"]Peter and the Orthodox: A Reprise[/url]
--[url="http://www.catholicculture.org/docs/doc_view.cfm?recnum=586"]The Epiphany of the Roman Primacy[/url]
--[url="http://www.ewtn.com/library/CURIA/CDFPRIMA.HTM"]The Primacy of the Successor of Peter in the Mystery of the Church[/url]
--[url="http://www.catholicapologetics.info/Universal.htm"]The Papacy[/url]
--[url="http://www.bringyou.to/apologetics/num12.htm"]Does the Orthodox Church Believe in the Primacy of Rome? [/url]
--[url="http://www.bringyou.to/apologetics/a30.htm"]Popes, Councils, and Orthodoxy by Mark Bonocore[/url]
--[url="http://www.tcrnews2.com/EOrthodoxy2.html"]Why the Office of Peter is Necessary: The Importance of Papal Primacy in the Church[/url]
--[url="http://www.tcrnews2.com/likoudis.html"]Apologetics, the Papacy, and Eastern Orthodoxy[/url]

Edited September 1, 2004 by Cure of Ars

[Cure of Ars]

dairygirl4u2c,


When looking at the history of Christian faith it is clear that there is development in its doctrines. There is a deeper understanding of the deposit of faith over time. To put the papacy’s development in perspective, I think it would be helpful to compare its development to the development of a doctrine that we both hold. By putting the Papacy into this context I think it will convey how remarkable the historical development of the Papacy really is. What I am asking of you is to show me the earliest correct canon of the Bible both OT and NT (the same one that you use) listed in Christian history. Then we will see if it is earlier that Pope St Stephen who claimed to be the successor of Peter and excommunicated bishop Firmilian around the year 254-257 A.D.

It will be interesting to see what you find. God bless

Edited September 2, 2004 by Cure of Ars

[dairygirl4u2c]

Thank you Cure.

[quote]We know from Cyprian that Stephen issued an edict which ordered obedience under pain of excommunication. We learn from Firmilian that Stephen based his edict on an appeal to his succession from Peter. As to both these points Firmilian has, of course, an answer ready: the excommunication recoils upon Stephen, and his edict shows him to be no true successor to Peter.[/quote]

I just want to remind people to read these commentaries in different contexts other than the one you perceive. Look at the facts of the situation; neglect the way the facts are presented, such as in that quote.

The fact. Based on his succession from Peter, Stephen wanted to excommunicate other churches, and firmilian was against it. Remeber the succession from Peter does not necessarily mean with all the perogatives of Peter. (I might argue that even Peter didn't have what most claim he has, but I want to aruge what might actually be considered)

And your last post summarizes Newman. I am knowledgable. But even that case does not prove the papacy, it only show that it might be true.

I will look into more, but I doubt I will be able to find anything. Being from that time and all. I do subscribe somewhat to evidence we have against the Catholic Church doesn't exist because it had control over it for so long.

So, I'd think there'd be more stronger evidence that the bishop of rome was then as we think of today. I don't mean it has to be the full tree, but the acorn should at least show more signs of being an acorn tree that put to rest ideas that it might not be.

Edited September 2, 2004 by dairygirl4u2c