Early Church

[ironmonk]

Also, just so you have something to fall back on in case I turn out to be right regarding cyprian, and just so you know I have truly considered the CC position in the past:

John Henry Newman, the intellectual convert to the CC from England, said that he figured that the CC wouldn't need to be in it's full form until later in history as a way to defend the vaqueness of Victor and Stephan. It's in his essaay (including mentioning victor and cyprian specifically as vaque) on the development of docrine I believe it is. He said that it is natural that the CC was in its infancy would not show much strong arm and that bishops would naturally rebel too.

But the infacy bit is just hersay. It's not necessarily the way they have descibed either, from what I have so far read.

Is it because I am not reading into the text the way you want me to? But yes you could say the same to me.

Anyway, what am I not comprehending? I could say the same to you.

So far I have found that all those quotes that you have on cyprian were quoted before 256AD. In 256 AD cyprian did all these controversial works of questioning the the bishop of rome that caused all of those guys to get excommunicated. Therefore, since the texts that you supplied to me can be interpreted different than what you would lead lead one to believe, it would seem more likely to any rational person (based on the inconclusive evidence) that it is you that are reading into the texts that you supplied to me.

No dairy.

It's simple English. If you are reading it, you do not understand what is clearly written. There is a great amount of detail in the writing, there is very little room to get it wrong, unless you do not understand it.

And the Christian faith is not just based on one man that lived during the 3rd century.

Your source is poor at best... it's from an unknown person who takes things out of context and puts in his own twist without noting key points... his stance appears to simply fool people who are too lazy to double check his writings.

Our sources are Encyclopedia Britannica - world reknown for their facts about history. And the very writings from the Saints, NOT some 'joe schmoe' twist on what was written.

Help us understand you better....

How old are you?

How much school did you complete?

Have you ever been in special education?

What faith are you, if any?

What part of - what country do you live in?

Is English a second language for you?

Thanks,

ironmonk

[ironmonk]

Dairy,

Just one more thing to think about....

Everyone here is having a hard time following where you get ideas from in what you read.

I have dialoged with hundreds of anti-Catholics about the ECF's and none of them got what you get from reading what is posted.

Is everyone (including non-Catholics) wrong? or are you wrong?

Since out of the hundreds of people that we have dialoged with, you come up with a totally different view of what was written, do you really think the problem is everyone else?

Normally when we start showing the ECF's in dialogs, the dialog quickly ends because there is no rebuttal that they can give... People with "masters of divinity" from various denominations stop cold.

Yet you think you have the ECF's correct when you read them and no one can figure out how you've drawn your conclusion....

I don't mean to sound harsh, I'm trying to help you think critically about where you get your ideas about the ECF's from.

God Bless,

ironmonk

[dairygirl4u2c]

[quote]How old are you?  19
How much school did you complete? I have an associate's degree in engineering and am a junior pursuing a bachelor's degree in science.
Have you ever been in special education? No, but I have taught people with learning disabilities.
What faith are you, if any? I am a general, non-fundamentalist, former catholic, christian.
What part of - what country do you live in? I live in the midwest United States.
Is English a second language for you? No, but I do incidentally speak some spanish.
[/quote]

What's an EFC?

I have studied the CC since I was a junior in high school. I left when I was a sophmore in college. I defended it very rigorously but wanted no one to have a reason to not be a Catholic and wanted to be true to God above all else, so I did some more in depth studies to see what the more scholarly protestants thought. I defended the church on superficial levels such as what this website deals mostly with. Mostly just misconceptions of the CC.


[quote]It's simple English. If you are reading it, you do not understand what is clearly written. There is a great amount of detail in the writing, there is very little room to get it wrong, unless you do not understand it.[/quote]

Read the words of all those men you posted. Don't count Cyprian or the firmilian quote. Read it in the context of a large and influential church. You'd think if the bishop of Rome had the authority you say he has, it'd be more evident.

What exactly don't I understand?

[Brother Adam]

Having read through most of the catechism and an abundance of "ECF's" I'm wondering what these "non-superficial" levels are that you might be interested in debating. If there is something to Catholicism not in the writings of the ECF's or the catechism, I need to know.

[Justified Saint]

Interesting article, especially in the methods it uses to present the clear patristic evidence for papal primacy and then try somehow to deflect the importance of the evidence and add its own "spins" and interpretations. Take for example the treatment of Pope Leo.

The clear and obvious role that Pope Leo played can't possibly be disputed yet the paper tries to divert the attention from Leo and instead suggest that acceptance of Leo's letter wasn't based on the fact that he had some kind of authority but that the council agreed with his views. This is an interesting "spin" on things and seems to be in conflict with what Chalcedon really said:

"You are set as an [b]interpreter to all [/b] of the voice of blessed Peter, and to all you impart the blessings of that faith..."

The Bishop of Constantinople at Chalcedeon seemed to realize the Pope's authority and asked pardon for the clergy's insertion of canon 28 despite the Pope's protests.

"Even so the whole force and confirmation of the acts was [b]reserved for the authority of your blessedness[/b]. Therefore let your holiness know for certain that I did nothing to further the matters..."

These "forced" interpretations abound, especially in its approach of Peter Chrysologus. One first has to ask, why would Eutyches of Constantinople beseech the safety of the Pope in Rome if there existed no Papal claims? Indeed, Eutyches says, "I take refuge, therefore with [b]you the defender of religion[/b]...pronounce the sentence which shall seem [b]to you right upon the faith[/b]."

Thus it makes perfect sense that the Chrysologus of Ravena should tell Eutyches to listen well to Leo and that those at Ravena can't decide issues of faith without the consent of Rome.

This author's novel interpretations of history should not be favored over objective, scholarly scrutiny.

[Laudate_Dominum]

dairygirl,

Here is something to look at which has some interesting points. It's a part of a different debate.

[quote]JG:
Now to Cyprian...

"Certainly the rest were as Peter was, primacy is given to Petr and one Church and one chair is shown:and they are all shepherds, but one flock is exhibited, which is fed by all the Apostles with unanimous consent. And he who does not hold this unity of his Church, does he think he holds the faith? He who deserts the chair of Peter, upon whom the Church was founded, does he trust himself to be in the Church?"
Cyprian, De Catholicae Ecclesiae Unitate, AD 251

PV:
And Rome's supremacy is found where? This passage can still be understood without accepting papal supremacy.

JG:
Then why didn't you provide the interpretation of the primacy text in concert with his other writings? I guess if some can interpret "This is my body" in a symbolic sense that anything is possible...I will wait for you interpretation of this otherwise clear and unequivocal affirmation by Cyprian of the primacy of the Bishop of Rome...Are you going by way of Guettee again? Can't wait...

PV:
But . . . why didn't you quote from Cyprian's second edition of this work, revised after his conflict with Rome on the matter of baptism?

JG:
Because Cyprian's clear testimony regarding the primacy of the Bishop of Rome destroys your premise that there was no one who affirmed the primacy of the Bishop of Rome before the fifth century...In addition, the received text was drafted after the controversy broke out between Pope Stephen and Cyprian--hence in order to find Cyprian's authentic position we must not look at a scant few testimonies(especially after the rage broke out between them) rather we should examine Cyprian's faith on the basis of =all= his testimony...Secondly, the received text doesn't support you...since I can recover the same authoritative and clear testimony from Cyprian found in the primacy text =OR= in his other writings(as I will show)...

'They, who have departed from the Church, do not allow the Church to recall and bring back the lapsed. There is one God, and One Christ, and One Chair founded by the voice on the rock. Another altar cannot be set up, nor a new priesthood made, besides the one altar and the one priesthood. Whoever gather elsewhere scatters"
Ep 43
Not as if this testimony needed any further clarification--states clearly that the One Church and the One chair was founded by Christ upon Peter!

Likewise in the primacy text we have:

'but primacy is given to Peter, and one Church and one chair is shown: and they are all shepherds, but one flock is exhibited, which is fled by all the apostles with unanimous consent. And he who does not hold this unity of his Church, does he think he holds the faith? He who DESERTS the CHAIR OF PETER, upon whom the Church was founded, does HE TRUST HIMSELF to BE IN THE CHURCH?'
Unity 4
Writing about the received text you write:

PV:
In it doesn't even give a hint that Rome is endowed with supreme power over the church.

JG:
I consider this a tacit affirmation from you that the 'primacy' text does indeed provide testimony to the primacy of the Bishop of Rome...Nevertheless your conclusion that the 'received' text gives us no hint of the primacy of the Bishop of Rome goes nowhere since one can find equally authoritative and succinct affirmations from Cyprian in his other writings...In addition, as you have already admitted that Cyprian's received text was a re-draft(by Cyprian) of the primacy text developed after the rage and controversy between Pope Stephen and Cyprian...Why in the world would Cyprian want to re-draft the primacy text if there was no such teachings such as the primacy of the Bishop of Rome contained therein? You know as well as I that during the controversy the Roman clergy probably went out of their way to show Cyprian what he wrote regarding the primacy of the Bishop of Rome in the Unity of the Church(primacy text)...

Regarding your novel idea that the received text there is no hint of the primacy of the Bishop of Rome...Let us consider the received text itself...

After quoting Matt 16:18-9 Cyprian writes in the famous 4th chapter:

'Upon ONE he builds the Church..."
Now who is that One Pedro? That One is the Rock-Cephas-Peter! So much for 'no hint'!

Hence, rather than base Cyprian's faith on a few scant testimonies (particularly after the controversy broke out with Pope Stephen) we must look at the entirety of Cyprian's writings in order to provide Cyprian's balanced view on the primacy of the Bishop of Rome...

PV:
In fact, he actively resisted Roman encroachments. For Cyprian, the "chair of Peter" was the collective episcopate. Observe from his discourse to the council of Carthage:

"Let each one give his opinion without judging any one and without separating from the communion those who are not of his opinion; for none of us sets himself up for a bishop of bishops, nor compels his brethren to obey him by means of tyrannical terror, every bishop having full liberty and complete power; as he cannot be judged by another, neither can he judge another. Let us all wait the judgment of our Lord Jesus Christ, who alone has the power to appoint us to the government of his Church and to judge our conduct"
(Guett‚e, 77). Council of Carthage, 1 Sept AD 256
JG:
Ahh we meet Guettee again and the 'episcopate doctrine'...Well of course we have Cyprian at this point in time blinded by the controversy between Pope Stephen and himself on the subject of heretical baptism--A couple of things..1)this letter was addressed to the local African bishops at Carthage and 2)Cyprian considered the matter of discipline and not doctrine.

Despite this guess who held the orthodox position? Pope Stephen or Cyprian? Pope Stephen of course as Augustine, Jerome and Lerins affirms...Again let's not base the entire faith of Cyprian simply upon this passage Pedro...Where in the final analysis Cyprian happened to be =wrong= regarding heretical baptism.

Let's look a little at Cyprian a little more closely now and examine this 'episcopate theory' in action...

In sum, you affirm that Cyprian believed that the authority of all the bishops are equal and that the Pope has no more authority than the bishop of Carthage...I can see how you can come to this (novel) conclusion if one only examine his scant protests and follow the few passages provided by Guettee...For example let's examine this clear testimony from Cyprian writing to Pope Cornelius regarding the Novatian faction:

'After all this, they yet in addition, having had a false bishop ordained for them by heretics, dare to set sail, and to carry letters from schismatic and profane persons to the CHAIR of Peter, and the PRINCIPLE CHURCH, whence the unity of the priesthood took its rise. They fail to reflect that those Romans are the same as those who faith was publicly praised by the apostle, to whom unbelief CANNOT have access'
Ep 59:14
Please tells us how your going to harmonize this passage and others alike with the novel 'episcopate theory' alleged by Cyprian and by yourself?

Don't you just love the contrast between the 'schismatics and profane' and the pristine faith of 'those Romans' which St. Paul wrote about in his epistle to the Romans....Notice that Cyprian could still make the remark some 200 years later after Paul wrote his epistle to the Romans that 'those Romans' in which 'unbelief cannot have access'!

Please tell me Pedro what source/instinct is behind Cyprian's words where it can be said of the Romans of AD 250 , 'unbelief cannot have access'?

Lastly, how are you going to reconcile 'whence the unity took its rise' with your novel 'episcopate theory'?

I submit that the reason that unbelief has no access is that Bishop of Rome is the 'chair of Peter' on which Christ built his Church--hence it is the Principle Church...

PV:
Jurgens' rendering avoids the term "bishop of bishops" and relegates it to a note. After some comments on the origin of this title, he cannot help but to conclude that Cyprian was saying this with the Bishop of Rome in mind.

JG:
Sheesh! Is Jurgens your only Catholic reference Pedro? Nevertheless Guettee avoids all kinds of Cyprian passages in support of the primacy of the Bishop of Rome...In fact, I don't see anywhere where he treats St. Ignatius views anywhere...It is still debatable who is referred to in regards to 'bishop of bishop'...some say Stephen some say Cyprian himself since there were factions protesting in his own Church and the council consisted primarily of African clergy...However the protests of Cyprian here suggest(IMO) that Stephen himself or someone affirmed a clear primacy prior to the 5th century!

"After all this, they yet in addition, having had one false bishop ordained for them by heretics, dare to set sail, and to carry letters from schismatic and profane persons to the chair of Peter, and to the principle church, whence the unity of its priesthood took its rise."
Cyprian Ep 59, AD 252
PV:
Are you willing to understand this against Cyprian's understanding of the episcopacy as the source of authority in the church?

JG:
No..let's not put words in Cyprian's mouth. Are you willing to examine Cyprian's entire writings? See above for my treatment of this passage....

PV:
Can we derive from this an understanding that Rome has a supremacy of divine right over the church?

JG:
We can derive from this passage that the Church of Rome is the principle Church because it is the chair of Peter upon which Christ built His Church, a church in which unbelief has no access and a Church where the priesthood gets its unity...if that not papal primacy I don't know what is Pedro...

PV:
Many other heretics appealed to other principal sees for redress.

JG:
Let Cyprian speak for himself regarding principle churches:

"...from schismatic and profane persons to the chair of Peter, and to the PRINCIPLE church, whence the unity of its priesthood took its rise."
Cyprian Ep 59, AD 252
Ergo, Rome is the 'ecclesia principalis'...

That is why Cyprian naturally and matter of factly said of Novatian when he made himself bishop of Rome(an anti-Pope):

'...These [Novatians] now rend the church and rebel against the peace and unity of Christ, and attempt to set up a chair for themselves and to assume a PRIMACY...'
Ep 69

PV:
Even Irenaeus appealed to Cyprian. Is this to be taken also as a sign of Carthage's supremacy?

JG:
Now where did you get this 'pearl' of wisdom Pedro?

Pedro writes: 'Irenaeus appealed to Cyprian'

Irenaeus was born around 140 AD and died around 203 AD--whereas Cyprian was born around 200 AD and didn't become bishop till around 250 AD? That's a real beauty Pedro...

Instead we have Irenaeus who appealed to the then Bishop of Rome, Pope Eleutherius, regarding the Montanist controversies in Gaul...

'Just then for the first time the disciples of Montanus...in the region of Phrygia were winning a wide reputation for prophecy...And when a discussion arose about these said people, the brethren in GAUL once more submitted a pious and most orthodox judgement of their own on this matter also, issuing as well various letters of martyrs who had been perfected among them, letters that they penned, while still in bonds, to the brethren in Asia and Phrygia, and MOREOVER to Eleutherus, who was then bishop of Rome, negotiating for the peace of the churches'
Martyrs of Lyon 3

'And the same martyrs too commended Irenaeus already at that time a presbyter of the community of Lyons, to the said Bishop of Rome..'
ibid 4
Since we've already dispensed with the myth of 'Irenaeus appealed to Cyprian' let me dispense with latter accusation of the appeal from Lyons to Carthage somehow undermines the primacy of the Bishop of Rome...

Now a similar(like the previous Montanist problem in Gaul) problem was happening in Gaul with the Novatian faction some 80 years later. Here we have a bishop(of Arles in Gaul) who joined the Novatian sect...They in Gaul tried to dispose their wayward bishop then appealed to Cyprian for help...And guess what good old Cyprian did?

Before the baptismal controversies between Pope Stephen and Cyprian we had Cyprian himself appealing to Pope Stephen to intervene at the Arles to excommunicate the present Bishop and appoint another. We read in Cyprian's epistle:

'It is ours, dearest brother, to advise and come in aid...Wherefore it behoves you to write a very full letter to our fellow-bishops established in Gaul, that they no longer suffer the froward and proud Marcianus to insult our college, because he does NOT SEEM to be excommunicated by US...Let letters be directed by YOU into the province and to the people abiding at Arles, by which, Marcian being excommunicated, another may be substituted in his place...'
Ep 68
Hence Cyprian himself recognized the papal authority in the chair of Peter! Hence, Pope Stephen was not only considered the appropriate man for the job but the only one in this particular case who could(excommunicate) do so effectively and appoint substitutes!...Note this is exactly what Pope Cornelius did of a couple of bishops who consecrated Novatian..we read in a letter from Pope Cornelius to Fabian of Antioch:

'And we ordained successors of the other bishops, and sent them to the places where they were...'
Eusebius 6,43:10
This is exactly what the schismatic Novatian(anti-pope) was trying to do:

'And although there have been already been ordained in each city, and through all provinces, bishops old in years, sound in faith, proved in trial, prescribed in persecution,(this one) dares to create over these other and false bishops; as if he could either wander over the whole world with the persistence of this new endeavor...'
Ep 55:24
So here we have two bishops Novatian and Cornelius appointing Bishops--to whom did Cyprian appeal to and to which set of appointed bishops did Cyprian side with Pedro? With Novatian's or Cornelius'?

So your statement that Pope Stephen had no authority in Cyprian's eye's has gone up in a puff of white smoke(which is the case when a newly elected Pope is determined)...

So much for your no testimony prior to the 5th century of papal primacy...

"...there is one baptism and one Holy Ghost and one Church founded by Christ our Lord upon Peter for the origin and principle of unity."
Cyprian Ep 70, AD 255
PV:
Where's the papacy here, Joe? Where's the beef? It is "there" because you see it there, the perennial illness of your approach.

JG:
Why the glib response of 'Where's the beef?' Pedro--you did the exact same thing for the received text of chapter 4 in Cyprian's Unity of the Church...

Nothing like not addressing the text Pedro...What is this origin and principle of unity Pedro? If recall you said there wasn't even a hint of the papacy within the 'received text' and you draw the same conclusion here without any evidence other than your assertions... Let's revisit Cyprian's Unity for a moment in order to get the full orbed meaning of the 'origin' of unity according to Cyprian which you just glibly passed aside!
In the received text of chapter 4 we read:

After Cyprian quotes Matt 16:18-9 he continues:

'It is on one man that He builds the Church; and although He assigns a like power to all the Apostles...Nevertheless, in order that unity might be clearly shown, He established by His own authority a SOURCE for that unity, which takes its beginning from one man alone.'
Now what is that source[origo] of that unity? Cyprian says that the source of that unity is Peter the Rock! The disciples as 'Apostles' were equal in authority and power. However, Peter as the foundation stone of the Church is unique and different from the other Apostles...

In chapter 5 Cyprian writes that:

'this unity is preserved in the source.'
Cyprian in the same chapter provides analogies of this unity such as the many branches of a tree which finds it's source in one root. Cyprian also mentions that if one departs from this one source as a broken branch on a tree it 'will not be able to bud'...

Hence, during NT times Peter was the icon of unity and it was by preserving in this one source of unity that each of the other disciples remained in Christ's Church. Let's take a look to see what this source of unity is for Cyprian(some 250 years later).

IOW let's take a look at another testimony from Cyprian(not that I want to avoid the primacy text--since it is clear and loud as one would want regarding the primacy of the Bishop of Rome) in order to determine what the =source= of that unity is in AD 250...

Here's a letter from Cyprian himself to Pope Cornelius regarding the schism and controversies in Carthage(the Fortunatus episode). The context of this letter is as follows...There were a band of heretics that set up a rival bishopric in Carthage against Cyprian ...these same factions sent an appeal to the Bishop of Rome Cornelius in order to get their Bishopric recognized as the official chair of Carthage... Cyprian writes:

'They dare to take a ship and carry a letter, from schismatical people who are outside the temple, to the chair of Peter and to the principle church whence unity of the bishops took its rise, and to give no thought to the fact that these are the Romans whose faith was praised by the Apostle's proclamation, to whom false faith can have no access'
Ep 58 AD 252
Here we see Cyprian treat the Bishop of Rome and the Church of Rome as one -- it is infinitely clear that the successor of Peter is the Bishop of Rome -- it is equally clear that from this chair of Peter in Rome the source of unity of the Bishops and consequently of the Church is preserved! Hence, just as the Apostles were preserved in unity by communing with that source of unity, Peter the Rock--the bishops of today are preserved in unity by communing with that source of unity, the bishop who succeeded to the chair of Peter!

Likewise in the primacy text of Cyprian we read:

'And though he give equal authoritative power to all the Apostles, still He instituted a single chair an by his own authority established the source[origo] and rationale of unity. The other Apostles were what Peter was but a 'primacy'(there goes your novel 5th century theory) is given to Peter so that a single Church and a single chair may be visibly set forth...He who deserts this chair of Peter on whom the Church has been founded, does he trust that he is in the Church?'
Unity 4
I've read the rest of Guettee's critique on Cyprian and again they are not in the least bit formidable as they repeat the same old tired arguments refuted by Catholics throughout the ages...

Let me close this reply on Cyprian from a letter to Cyprian by Pope Cornelius...Pope Cornelius writes(quoting words of the schismatics Maximus, Urban, Sidonius et. al accepted by Pope Cornelius) in AD 252:

'We know that Cornelius, bishop of the most holy Catholic Church, was chosen by God almighty and by Christ our Lord; we confess our error; we have suffered imposture; we have been deceived by treachery and captious loquacity; for although we seemed to have held, as it were, a certain communication with a schismatical and heretical man, nevertheless our heart has always been in the Church; for we are not ignorant that there is one God and that there is one Lord Christ, whom we have confessed, that there is one Holy Spirit, and THERE OUGHT TO BE ONE BISHOP in the Catholic Church'
Epis 'Quantam Solicitudinem' to Cyprian Bishop of Carthage AD 252
Denzinger 44 or ANF Ep (49:2/45:2) or Quasten Vol II pg 236[/quote]

[dairygirl4u2c]

hey thanks laudate_dominum.. btw, I've always wondered what the name meant?.. anyway, that's a very good excerpt!

Cyprian says things like there "ought" to be one head bishop, that Peter is the "principle of unity", "rationale of unity", and other ambiguous phrases. It still seems lacking that he is ever explicity saying that the bishop of Rome was truly infallible. He could have said something explicitly like, "The bishop of rome has the power of Jesus in teaching and can not error". Or something like that. I realize that is a major concept to injest if it was true, so many would argue the development of doctrine. But anything I've seen using these texts to argue the papal claims of today could definitly be argued as just assumptions since they lack definitive language.

But all the points I did have were mentioned! Now I have to do some research till I come up with some other points. But for now..

One, I've heard some claim that the term "chair of peter" was often used in many cases not having anything to do with the bishop of rome. Though, of course, there are many cases when that phrase was used with the bishop of rome mentioned in the text since he represents the ambiguously elusive "principle of unity".

Or one such as:
I'll try google the best I know how, but does anyone know how to find these letters from cyprian online? I have a question regarding the "...." that left words out in this quote:

[quote]'And though he give equal authoritative power to all the Apostles, still He instituted a single chair an by his own authority established the source[origo] and rationale of unity. The other Apostles were what Peter was but a 'primacy' is given to Peter so that a single Church and a single chair may be visibly set forth....He who deserts this chair of Peter on whom the Church has been founded, does he trust that he is in the Church?'[/quote]

It looks like it may be part of the first quote you have in your (laud) quotations but I'm not sure. I really need to see the whole quote without the "...."'s and such.

"and such" What I mean is for example, www.catholic.com uses "fed by all the apostles in single-minded accord" instead of "which is fed by all the Apostles with unanimous consent" such as is used by your first quote in your quotation. I think I'll end up with more ambiguity and needing more information regardless, but I can see what I can do!

And thanks for your help!

Edited March 8, 2004 by dairygirl4u2c

[dairygirl4u2c]

[quote]http://www.aomin.org/SBNDDHrep.html
[url="http://www.christiantruth.com/stephenray.html"]http://www.christiantruth.com/stephenray.html[/url][/quote]

Here is what I got so far from Webster and White by using "chair of peter" and "not just the bishop of rome" in google. Sorry to just paste long websites with links. I just wanted to give you a heads up what I was up to bc I will get back to this later.

[Laudate_Dominum]

[quote name='dairygirl4u2c' date='Mar 8 2004, 01:39 PM']
Here is what I got so far from Webster and White by using "chair of peter" and "not just the bishop of rome" in google. Sorry to just paste long websites with links.    I just wanted to give you a heads up what I was up to bc I will get back to this later. [/quote]
See the links on this page:
[url="http://www.catholic-convert.com/DesktopDefault.aspx?tabid=67"]http://www.catholic-convert.com/DesktopDefault.aspx?tabid=67[/url]

Also these links:
[url="http://www.mwt.net/~lnpalm/sungenis.htm"]http://www.mwt.net/~lnpalm/sungenis.htm[/url]
[url="http://www.cin.org/users/jgallegos/web_chry.htm"]http://www.cin.org/users/jgallegos/web_chry.htm[/url]
[url="http://www.bringyou.to/apologetics/num41.htm"]http://www.bringyou.to/apologetics/num41.htm[/url]

I would recommend reading [i]Jesus, Peter and the Keys[/i] if you haven't already. I have read a number of anti-catholic attacks on the Papacy (including things from White and Webster) and find that they don't even touch this book. One, or a few little thorny, ambiguous polemics (such as the Cyprian stuff) are not very impressive compared to the mountain of evidence in support of the Papacy.

The tenth link down on this page:
[url="http://www.catholic-convert.com/DesktopDefault.aspx?tabid=77"]http://www.catholic-convert.com/DesktopDefault.aspx?tabid=77[/url]
has a long discussion of Cyprian and Stephen from Steve Ray in response to William Webster. I thought you might find it interesting.

Edited March 8, 2004 by Laudate_Dominum

[Laudate_Dominum]

[quote name='dairygirl4u2c' date='Mar 8 2004, 12:15 PM'] hey thanks laudate_dominum.. btw, I've always wondered what the name meant?.. anyway, that's a very good excerpt!

Cyprian says things like there "ought" to be one head bishop, that Peter is the "principle of unity", "rationale of unity", and other ambiguous phrases. It still seems lacking that he is ever explicity saying that the bishop of Rome was truly infallible. He could have said something explicitly like, "The bishop of rome has the power of Jesus in teaching and can not error". Or something like that. I realize that is a major concept to injest if it was true, so many would argue the development of doctrine. But anything I've seen using these texts to argue the papal claims of today could definitly be argued as just assumptions since they lack definitive language.

But all the points I did have were mentioned! Now I have to do some research till I come up with some other points. But for now..

One, I've heard some claim that the term "chair of peter" was often used in many cases not having anything to do with the bishop of rome. Though, of course, there are many cases when that phrase was used with the bishop of rome mentioned in the text since he represents the ambiguously elusive "principle of unity".

Or one such as:
I'll try google the best I know how, but does anyone know how to find these letters from cyprian online? I have a question regarding the "...." that left words out in this quote:



It looks like it may be part of the first quote you have in your (laud) quotations but I'm not sure. I really need to see the whole quote without the "...."'s and such.

"and such" What I mean is for example, www.catholic.com uses "fed by all the apostles in single-minded accord" instead of "which is fed by all the Apostles with unanimous consent" such as is used by your first quote in your quotation. I think I'll end up with more ambiguity and needing more information regardless, but I can see what I can do!

And thanks for your help! [/quote]
Do you know which one of Cyprian's writings that quote is from? I was trying to look it up for you (I have lots of books) but there is too much stuff to sift through.
thx

[dairygirl4u2c]

It's kinda funny Ironmonk asks if I was in special education right after posting something that proves nothing.

Here is the main point of his post:

[quote]For he goes on to say: "It remains that we severally declare our opinion on this same subject, judging no one, nor depriving any one of the right of communion if he differ from us."(2) He allows me, therefore, without losing the right of communion, not only to continue inquiring into the truth, but even to hold opinions differing from his own. "For no one of us," he says, "setteth himself up as a bishop of bishops, or by tyrannical terror forces his colleagues to a necessity of obeying." What could be more kind? what more humble? Surely there is here no authority restraining us from inquiry into what is truth. "Inasmuch as every bishop," he says, "in the free use of his liberty and power, has the right of forming his own judgment, and can no more be judged by another than he can himself judge another,"--that is, I suppose, in those questions which have not yet been brought to perfect clearness of solution; for he knew what a deep question about the sacrament was then occupying the whole Church with every kind of disputation, and gave free liberty of inquiry to every man, that the truth might be made known by investigation. For he was surely not uttering what was false, and trying to catch his simpler colleagues in their speech, so that, when they should have betrayed that they held opinions at variance with his, he might then propose, in violation of his promise, that they should be excommunicated. Far be it from a soul so holy to entertain such accursed treachery; indeed, they who hold such a view about such a man, thinking that it conduces to his praise, do but show that it would be in accordance with their own nature. I for my part will in no wise believe that Cyprian, a Catholic bishop, a Catholic martyr, whose greatness only made him proportionately humble in all things, so as to find favor before the Lord,(1) should ever, especially in the sacred Council of his colleagues, have uttered with his mouth what was not echoed in his heart, especially as he further adds, "But we must all await the judgment of our Lord Jesus Christ, who alone has the power both of setting us in the government of His Church, and of judging of our acts therein."(2) When, then, he called to their remembrance so solemn a judgment, hoping to hear the truth from his colleagues, would he first set them the example of lying? May God avert such madness from every Christian man, and how much more from Cyprian! We have therefore the free liberty of inquiry granted to us by the most moderate and most truthful speech of Cyprian.[/quote]

Augustine was a Catholic in the sense that the Church should be one and in communion dispite disagreements. He talks about Cyprians humility in that he too follows this train of thought. They were both "Catholic" because this was how the Church was set up then. **(even as evidenced by Ironmonks own quote)**He never mentions anything above the bishop of rome other than his prominent position and he would not be kosher with the claims of the papacy of today. Especially considering the extent of Augustine's writings which show nothing of the claims of the papacy of today. And I strongly encourage you to show otherwise.

If anything you are disproving your own point. If you wish to hold any thread of accusing me of being in special education, you tell me, what's your point?

Edited March 8, 2004 by dairygirl4u2c

[Laudate_Dominum]

[quote name='dairygirl4u2c' date='Mar 8 2004, 12:15 PM']

I'll try google the best I know how, but does anyone know how to find these letters from cyprian online? I have a question regarding the "...." that left words out in this quote:
[/quote]
actually I found it. I have put the parts from your quote in italics:

[quote]And again He says to him [Peter] after His resurrection: 'Feed my sheep' [John 21:17]. On him He builds the Church, and to him He gives the command to feed the sheep; [i]and although He assigns a like power to all the Apostles, yet He founded a single chair, and He established by His own authority a source and an intrinsic reasons for that unity. Indeed the others were that also which Peter was; but a primacy is given to Peter, whereby it is made clear that there is but one Church and one chair.[/i] So too, all are shepherds, and the flock is shown to be one, fed by all the Apostles in single-minded accord. If someone does not hold fast to the unity of Peter, can he imagine that he still holds the faith? [i]If he desert the chair of Peter upon whom the Church was build, can he still be confident that he is in the Church?[/i]" - Cyprian, De ecclesiae catholicae unitatae 4
[/quote]

[dairygirl4u2c]

Laud,
I'm not sure where it's at cuz that excerpt didn't quote it! But his might be it: Cyprian, De Catholicae Ecclesiae Unitate, The Unity of the Catholic Church 4; 1st edition AD 251

I think these two quotes go together since they end in the same way:

[quote]"Certainly the rest were as Peter was, primacy is given to Peter and one Church and one chair is shown:and they are all shepherds, but one flock is exhibited, which is fed by all the Apostles with unanimous consent. And he who does not hold this unity of his Church, does he think he holds the faith? He who deserts the chair of Peter, upon whom the Church was founded, does he trust himself to be in the Church?"[/quote]

[quote]'And though he give equal authoritative power to all the Apostles, still He instituted a single chair an by his own authority established the source[origo] and rationale of unity. The other Apostles were what Peter was but a 'primacy' is given to Peter so that a single Church and a single chair may be visibly set forth....He who deserts this chair of Peter on whom the Church has been founded, does he trust that he is in the Church?'[/quote]


Edit: okay nevermind

Something I found on Newman that discredits the fact that a smart guy like him would convert. (and why dudes like Augustine and Cyprian were in the CC of those days) During those times, the pope was not considered "infallible". I saw that mentioned when a catholic apologist was paralleling how he doesn't think Mary should be considered Mediatrix as doctrine with how Newman didn't think think the Pope should be claiming infallibility. So I'm not sure if Newman believed it or not. (maybe some help?) I'm left hanging, but it seems that if he were like Augustine, he would have only been Catholic not for infallibility but for unity.

Edited March 8, 2004 by dairygirl4u2c

[dairygirl4u2c]

..

Edited March 8, 2004 by dairygirl4u2c

[Laudate_Dominum]

[quote name='dairygirl4u2c' date='Mar 8 2004, 04:37 PM'] Laud,
I'm not sure where it's at cuz that excerpt didn't quote it! But his might be it: Cyprian, De Catholicae Ecclesiae Unitate, The Unity of the Catholic Church 4; 1st edition AD 251

I think these two quotes go together since they end in the same way:






Edit: okay nevermind

Something I found on Newman that discredits the fact that a smart guy like him would convert. (and why dudes like Augustine and Cyprian were in the CC of those days) During those times, the pope was not considered "infallible". I saw that mentioned when a catholic apologist was paralleling how he doesn't think Mary should be considered Mediatrix as doctrine with how Newman didn't think think the Pope should be claiming infallibility. So I'm not sure if Newman believed it or not. (maybe some help?) I'm left hanging, but it seems that if he were like Augustine, he would have only been Catholic not for infallibility but for unity. [/quote]
are you sure dairygirl?? You posted this:

'And though he give equal authoritative power to all the Apostles, still He instituted a single chair an by his own authority established the source[origo] and rationale of unity. The other Apostles were what Peter was but a 'primacy' is given to Peter so that a single Church and a single chair may be visibly set forth....He who deserts this chair of Peter on whom the Church has been founded, does he trust that he is in the Church?'

and asked about the "...." in the middle of the quote. I quoted the whole thing with the preceding sentence as well as the content that was skipped over in the "....", what else were you looking for?

[Laudate_Dominum]

[quote name='dairygirl4u2c' date='Mar 8 2004, 04:37 PM'] Something I found on Newman that discredits the fact that a smart guy like him would convert. (and why dudes like Augustine and Cyprian were in the CC of those days) During those times, the pope was not considered "infallible". I saw that mentioned when a catholic apologist was paralleling how he doesn't think Mary should be considered Mediatrix as doctrine with how Newman didn't think think the Pope should be claiming infallibility. So I'm not sure if Newman believed it or not. (maybe some help?) I'm left hanging, but it seems that if he were like Augustine, he would have only been Catholic not for infallibility but for unity. [/quote]
Well dairygirl, there is a lot of crrrap out there. Loads of it actually.
The issues regarding the definition of Papal infallibility are complex to say "Newman didn't think the Pope should be claiming infallibility" is, I think misleading and false. Also the guy who said that Mary as Mediatrix should not be considered doctrine doesn't know what he's talking about. It already is doctrine. It's a part of Sacred, Apostolic Tradition, and it's been taught definitively and repeatedly by the Church's Magisterium.

Here is some werds on Newman and infallibility:

[quote]Some have claimed that John Henry Cardinal Newman denied the Catholic doctrine of papal infallibility. In actuality, he was an inopportunist, that is, one who (at the time of the First Vatican Council in 1870) favored waiting to dogmatically define the definition of papal infallibility (for fear of the Ultramontane party and their ideas and devices). This is a completely different proposition from acceptance or non-acceptance of some form of infallibility. The following is from Ian Ker's John Henry Newman: A Biography, probably the most comprehensive and scholarly recent biography of Newman (Oxford Univ. Press, 1988, 764 pages):

Newman himself would continue to pray that there was no definition, but he would accept it if one was passed......

Although the Council would be protected by the Holy Spirit from teaching error, it was not divinely prevented from acting inopportunely. Even that eventuality, however, Newman could believe must be in the long run be expedient in God's Providence, however inexpedient it might seem at the time.....

On 23 July Newman saw the definition of papal infallibility which had been passed five days earlier. He was 'pleased at its moderation'; the 'terms used' were 'vague and comprehensive', and he personally had no difficulty in accepting it......

'If the definition is eventually received by the whole body of the faithful.......then too it will claim our assent by the force of the great dictum, Securus judicat orbis terrarum.' After all, 'the general acceptance, judgment of Christendom' was not only 'the broad principle by which all acts of the rulers of the Church are ratified', but also 'the ultimate guarantee of revealed truth'................

He was sure that it was divine intervention which had prevented the extyreme Ultramontanes, including the Pope, from getting through a much stronger definition. it was a pity that Dollinger and others persisted in exaggerating what actually had been defined, however scandalous the proceedings. but it was not the first scandal at a Council, and good would come out of it.......

Newman could not accept the validity of his [i.e., Dollinger's] arguments against the actual definition. Even if the supporting Scripture texts were not convincing (as Newman thought they were), this did not affect the truth of the actual decisions of a Council, which alone were guaranteed.......

He continued to think Dollinger 'wrong in making the worst of the definition instead of making the best.' It was simply playing into the hands of the extremists to exaggerate the terms of the definition, which in fact had been a 'defeat' for the Ultramontanes......

He diagnosed Dollinger's crisis as fundamentally a failure of imagination......'He ties you down like Shylock to the letter of the bond, instead of realizing what took place as a scene.' Newman could not understand how Dollinger could accept the Council of Ephesus, for example, which was notorious for intrigue and violence, and not the recent one.......

'The more one examines the Councils, the less satisfactory they are.....[but] the less satisfactory they, the more majestic and trust-winning, and the more imperatively necessary, is the action of the Holy See.'.......

Newman also wrote to the Guardian sharply denying the allegation of J.M. Capes that he did not really believe in papal infallibility, and citing a number of passages in his writings, beginning with the Essay on Development, for more or less explicit avowals of the doctrine...... "As regards the relation between history and theology, Newman is unequivocal in his criticism of Dollinger and his followers......'I think them utterly wrong in what they have done and are doing; and, moreover, I agree as little in their view of history as in their acts.' It is not a matter of questioning the accuracy of their historical knowledge, but 'their use of the facts they report' and 'that special stand-point from which they view the relations existing between the records of History and the communications of Popes and Councils.' Newman sums up the essence of the problem: 'They seem to me to expect from History more than History can furnish.' The opposite was true of the Ultramontanes, who simply found history an embarrassing inconvenience.......

But he wondered why 'private judgment' should 'be unlawful in interpreting Scripture against the voice of authority, and yet be lawful in the interpretation of history?'...........No Catholic doctrine could be fully proved (or, for that matter, disproved) by historical evidence - 'in all cases there is a margin left for the exercise of faith in the word of the Church.' Indeed, anyone 'who believes the dogmas of the Church only because he has reasoned them out of History, is scarcely a Catholic.'

{from chapter 17: "Papal Infallibility," pp.652, 654-5, 660-1, 665, 671-3, 684
[/quote]

[dairygirl4u2c]

Laud,
Ah, sorry about the confusion!

This quote from me was for you:
[quote]Edit: okay nevermind 
[/quote]


Thank you for fixing getting that for me laud! I posted that post right after you posted yours!

[Laudate_Dominum]

[quote name='dairygirl4u2c' date='Mar 8 2004, 05:01 PM'] Laud,
Ah, sorry about the confusion!

This quote from me was for you:



Thank you for fixing getting that for me laud! I posted that post right after you posted yours! [/quote]
Haha! T'saw good.. I hope the quotes and things have helped.
Something that makes sense to me regarding Papal infallibility (besides the fact that I think the nature of the Church and Christ's promises strongly support it), is the fact that in the old covenant the high priest could speak infallibly under certain conditions. For example way back in the OT they had the Urim and Thumin (sp?), and in the NT it talks about the high priest being able to prophesy because he was high priest that year. (When he says that Christ would die for the people). So if the OT guys had a special charism whereby they could utter infallible things why not the Pope? It's not a proof per se but when I thought about it a long time ago it made a lot of sense to me.

[dairygirl4u2c]

It very much appears that augustine and cyprian was not a catholic the way it is understood. But as for Newman:

[quote]On 23 July Newman saw the definition of papal infallibility which had been passed five days earlier. He was 'pleased at its moderation'; the 'terms used' were 'vague and comprehensive', and he personally had no difficulty in accepting it......

'If the definition is eventually received by the whole body of the faithful.......then too it will claim our assent by the force of the great dictum, Securus judicat orbis terrarum.' After all, 'the general acceptance, judgment of Christendom' was not only 'the broad principle by which all acts of the rulers of the Church are ratified', but also 'the ultimate guarantee of revealed truth'................

He was sure that it was divine intervention which had prevented the extyreme Ultramontanes, including the Pope, from getting through a much stronger definition.[/quote]

Is it just inspiration and "converging and convincing" arguments and inspiration in a general sense? So what exactly is Newman's take on "infalliblity"? And is the CC's teaching on infallibility not as strict as its made out to be?

I'll need to study the development of infalliblity to see how this era played out. :ph34r:

Edited March 8, 2004 by dairygirl4u2c

[dairygirl4u2c]

It appears that Newman believed in infallibility, but didn't think it should be defined in the sense that someone would have to believe it. (cuz c'mon what proof is there if you were a Catholic but didn't believe in infallibility)

[quote]Newman's position in 1867 is clearly stated in a letter to Pusey in that year:

"A man will find it a religious duty to believe it, or may safely disbelieve it, in proportion as he thinks it probable or improbable that the Church might or will define it, or does hold it, and that it is the doctrine of the Apostles. For myself...I think that the Church may define it (i.e. it possibly may turn out to belong to the original depositum), but that she will not ever define it; and again I do not see that she can be said to hold it. She never can simply act upon it (being undefined, as it is), and I believe never has -- moreover, on the other hand, I think there is a good deal of evidence, on the very surface of history and the Fathers, in its favour. On the whole then I hold it: but I should account it no sin if, on the grounds of reason, I doubted it." [19]

"For myself, I have never taken any great interest in the question of the limits and seat of infallibility. I was converted simply because the Church was to last to the end, and that no communion answered to the Church of the first ages but the Roman Communion, both in substantial likeness and in actual descent. And as to faith, my great principle was: 'securus judicat orbis terrarum.' So I say now -- and in all these questions of detail I say to myself, I believe whatever the Church teaches as the voice of God -- and this or that particular inclusively, if she teaches this -- it is this fides implicita which is our comfort in these irritating times. And I cannot go beyond this -- I see arguments here, arguments there -- I incline one way today another tomorrow -- on the whole I more than incline in one direction -- but I do not dogmatise....I have only an opinion at best (not faith) that the Pope is infallible." [20]

In the following year (1868) we find him writing to a Mr. Renouf, who had published a pamphlet on the case of Pope Honorius, as follows: "I hold the Pope's Infallibility, not as a dogma, but as a theological opinion; that is, not as a certainty, but as a probability."

When the Vatican Council actually came to define the Pope's infallibility, the exaggerations of the neo-Ultramontanes [those who taught that the doctrine was declaring that everything a Pope said ever (not faith and morals) was infallible]were "definitely rejected." [21] And on seeing the test of the definition Newman was able to write to a friend: "I saw the new definition yesterday and am pleased at its moderation -- that is, if the doctrine in question is to be defined at all."

And on August 8th he wrote to Mrs. Froude:
"As I have ever believed as much as the definition says, I have a difficulty in putting myself into the position of mind of those who have not....I very much doubt if at this moment -- before the end of the Council, I could get myself publicly to say it was de fide, whatever came of it -- though I believe the doctrine itself." [22]

It had been alleged that it was understood at one time that Newman "was on the point of uniting with Dr. Dollinger and his party [those ultradontasts] who refused to submit to the Vatican definition, "and that it required the earnest persuasion of 'several bishops' to prevent him from taking that step: Newman responded --

"...an unmitigated and most ridiculous untruth in every word of it... On July 24, 1870, I wrote as follows: 'I saw the new Definition yesterday, and am pleased at its moderation...The terms are vague and comprehensive; and, personally, I have no difficulty in admitting it....' Also I wrote as follows to a friend: (July 27, 1870) '...for myself, ever since I was a Catholic, I have held the Pope's infallibility as a matter of theological opinion; at least, I see nothing in the Definition which necessarily contradicts Scripture, Tradition, or History....'" [/quote]

It appears that Newman believed in infallibilty just because it "made sense" but not to force it. I wonder if there's anything Newman is missing (constantine issues or leo issues). And I wonder what Newman would have taught if people started asking him to believe that people who didn't agree would go to hell.

Again, I still need to research the development of this doctrine to see if this ever had the chance to happen. :ph34r:

Edited March 9, 2004 by dairygirl4u2c