Welcome to City-Data.com Forum!
U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Religion and Spirituality > Christianity
 [Register]
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
Reply Start New Thread
 
Old 09-14-2013, 10:41 PM
 
Location: Chicago Area
12,687 posts, read 6,705,217 times
Reputation: 6593

Advertisements

Quote:
Originally Posted by Julian658 View Post
A book written just a few years after Christ would have more weight than a book written several hundred years later. A book written by a witness carried a lot of weight. But, in the end the true authors may be unknown. Once Christ ascended it was the job of the Apostles to spread Christianity. And Christianity was spread with oral Tradition. Second and third generation apostles wrote, but they did not live at the time of Jesus.
And yet, the written works of the Old Testament are all many centuries removed from the life of Yeshua Messias, yet their validity is not questioned. To me, a closed canon is symptomatic of a religious body who either drifted or rebelled against God so severely that God stopped talking to them. See also: Judaism.

Quote:
By definition the Bible has to be incomplete. Sola Scriptura is a very limiting term and God has no limits.
Good thing I don't believe in Sola Scriptura then! Protestantism might be a very rough approximation of my belief set, but most Protestants wouldn't consider me non-Christian for having the audacity to doubt the formalized Catholic Trinity and my contempt for the notion of a closed canon.

In that sense, it is preferable to be conversing with a Catholic. I'm less likely to be told I'm going to burn in hell for all eternity for those "heretical" beliefs.

Quote:
You are correct! Men were corrupted, but the church survived.
But at what cost? How badly was the Church forever corrupted? After more than a dozen centuries of off and on rampant corruption, how does Catholicism fix all the things that are inevitably broken? How can they possibly know what was broken anyways? And with such a series of moral reprobate Popes, I think God would have given up on them long ago.

As is too often the case, I think the RCC does the best that it can with what they have. I greatly admire them for being unyielding on matters of morality and principal. Far too much of the rest of Christendom bends and breaks to every strong gust of wind of political correctness. I think the fact that they are so completely sure that they are THE Church and Kingdom makes them set the bar pretty high. The RCC "wet the bed" on pedophile priests, the Holocaust and a few other things, but they're doing a lot better. Vatican II is perhaps the greatest thing to happen to the RCC in its entire history.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 09-15-2013, 08:55 AM
 
12,030 posts, read 9,302,166 times
Reputation: 2845
Quote:
Originally Posted by godofthunder9010 View Post
And yet, the written works of the Old Testament are all many centuries removed from the life of Yeshua Messias, yet their validity is not questioned. To me, a closed canon is symptomatic of a religious body who either drifted or rebelled against God so severely that God stopped talking to them. See also: Judaism.
I detect some frustration with your Christianity. Sometimes this leads to more searching. That is why I am not concerned with the Bible. I believe it was written by simple holy men that were inspired by God--------but, God did not write the Bible. I think God is immense next to the Bible.

The concept that the Bible is the word of God is Catholic and Luther ran away with only this concept.

From the Catechism of the CC:

105 God is the author of Sacred Scripture. "The divinely revealed realities, which are contained and presented in the text of Sacred Scripture, have been written down under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit."69

"For Holy Mother Church, relying on the faith of the apostolic age, accepts as sacred and canonical the books of the Old and the New Testaments, whole and entire, with all their parts, on the grounds that, written under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit, they have God as their author, and have been handed on as such to the Church herself."70


But, it was the church who decided which books were sacred and canonical.

Quote:
Good thing I don't believe in Sola Scriptura then! Protestantism might be a very rough approximation of my belief set, but most Protestants wouldn't consider me non-Christian for having the audacity to doubt the formalized Catholic Trinity and my contempt for the notion of a closed canon.

In that sense, it is preferable to be conversing with a Catholic. I'm less likely to be told I'm going to burn in hell for all eternity for those "heretical" beliefs.
Good for you! You are an intellectual and therefore you challenge yourself. I suggest you join the Catholic Church. In doing this you will spend an entire year studying Catholicism with many priests and you can ask any question you want, no matter how outrageous. You will not be judged and there will be a serious theological discussion. You will find that there is a reason for everything in the church. Many of these based on sacred Tradition and the church itself. This is much more than Sola Scriptura, you will have a very large plate in front of you.

Quote:
But at what cost? How badly was the Church forever corrupted? After more than a dozen centuries of off and on rampant corruption, how does Catholicism fix all the things that are inevitably broken? How can they possibly know what was broken anyways? And with such a series of moral reprobate Popes, I think God would have given up on them long ago.
God does not give up. God has given man free will. The CC is well aware of the corruption of the past. The men that run the church have been corrupted. IN the old days it was a huge deal to be a priest and to be part of the church. Only the priests had access to education. Being a priests meant that a person was a highly respected member of society. The end result was that people without vocation became members of the church. As a result priests were married, had concubines, and wanted to use church property for their own personal benefit. The Church was an extremely powerful institution and power corrupts!

But, don't forget that there were many members of the church that were ascetics and lived like Christ did.

Quote:
As is too often the case, I think the RCC does the best that it can with what they have. I greatly admire them for being unyielding on matters of morality and principal. Far too much of the rest of Christendom bends and breaks to every strong gust of wind of political correctness. I think the fact that they are so completely sure that they are THE Church and Kingdom makes them set the bar pretty high. The RCC "wet the bed" on pedophile priests, the Holocaust and a few other things, but they're doing a lot better. Vatican II is perhaps the greatest thing to happen to the RCC in its entire history.

I suggest you go to mass to your local Catholic Church. As is typical in most Catholic churches no one will come looking to welcome you. Catholic churches have several masses a day on Sundays and therefore, it is easy to get lost in the crowds. In any event after mass seek the priest, introduced yourself and tell him you want to become a Catholic. The priest will set you up to do the RCIA which I believe lasts a whole year.

I must warn you. The Church will not try to assimilate you or force you to do anything. There will be no pressure or awkward moments, you will be free to do as much or as little as you want.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 09-16-2013, 11:54 AM
 
284 posts, read 306,933 times
Reputation: 51
Hi julian658 :

Rather than contaminate this thread with a correction of the usage of the word Καθολικοσ, I started a new thread on the subject so as to allow us to discuss this issue and why I do not think Ignatius' use of καθολικοσ in 100 a.d. applied to the organisation that became known, in later centuries, as the Roman Catholic Church. Below is both the title of the thread and the link to this thread. Simply click on it.

http://www.city-data.com/forum/chris...nce-roman.html

Thanks for your patience, I travel out of town 4 days weekly and so I just returned to take up this point.

Clear

Last edited by Clear lens; 09-16-2013 at 12:46 PM..
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 09-16-2013, 12:30 PM
 
Location: Chicago Area
12,687 posts, read 6,705,217 times
Reputation: 6593
Quote:
Originally Posted by Julian658 View Post
I detect some frustration with your Christianity. Sometimes this leads to more searching. That is why I am not concerned with the Bible. I believe it was written by simple holy men that were inspired by God--------but, God did not write the Bible. I think God is immense next to the Bible.

The concept that the Bible is the word of God is Catholic and Luther ran away with only this concept.

From the Catechism of the CC:

105 God is the author of Sacred Scripture. "The divinely revealed realities, which are contained and presented in the text of Sacred Scripture, have been written down under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit."69

"For Holy Mother Church, relying on the faith of the apostolic age, accepts as sacred and canonical the books of the Old and the New Testaments, whole and entire, with all their parts, on the grounds that, written under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit, they have God as their author, and have been handed on as such to the Church herself."70


But, it was the church who decided which books were sacred and canonical.

Good for you! You are an intellectual and therefore you challenge yourself. I suggest you join the Catholic Church. In doing this you will spend an entire year studying Catholicism with many priests and you can ask any question you want, no matter how outrageous. You will not be judged and there will be a serious theological discussion. You will find that there is a reason for everything in the church. Many of these based on sacred Tradition and the church itself. This is much more than Sola Scriptura, you will have a very large plate in front of you.

God does not give up. God has given man free will. The CC is well aware of the corruption of the past. The men that run the church have been corrupted. IN the old days it was a huge deal to be a priest and to be part of the church. Only the priests had access to education. Being a priests meant that a person was a highly respected member of society. The end result was that people without vocation became members of the church. As a result priests were married, had concubines, and wanted to use church property for their own personal benefit. The Church was an extremely powerful institution and power corrupts!

I suggest you go to mass to your local Catholic Church. As is typical in most Catholic churches no one will come looking to welcome you. Catholic churches have several masses a day on Sundays and therefore, it is easy to get lost in the crowds. In any event after mass seek the priest, introduced yourself and tell him you want to become a Catholic. The priest will set you up to do the RCIA which I believe lasts a whole year.

I must warn you. The Church will not try to assimilate you or force you to do anything. There will be no pressure or awkward moments, you will be free to do as much or as little as you want.
It's an intriguing invitation and certainly given in the spirit of love and fellowship. I appreciate that. I've done pretty extensive research on Catholic history, reading from pro-Catholic as well as neutral parties. Anti-Catholic literature is much like anti-anything: It sensationalizes, demonizes and is usually wildly inaccurate. I'll certainly take your suggestion to attend mass as that's something I've been meaning to do anyways. I've attended many churches and stopped by and chatted with a Catholic Priest once or twice. Never been to mass though. I always seek to understand the beliefs of others. It's just so interesting.

It is extremely doubtful that I would ever join the Catholic Church though. There are just so many things that directly contradict my own beliefs -- beliefs that are the product of a lot of prayer, research, study and constantly seeking the will of God. I know the course that God has placed me on and the RCC just isn't it. Doesn't mean I'll stop having an open mind of course.

As to frustration with my own Christianity, that's not the case at all. My frustration is with Christianity as a whole. The Protestant Reformation was one of the greatest miracles in human history. The door was opened for people to experience God, the Bible and everything about Christianity for themselves. They did not need somebody else to seek God on their behalf. They took the council from Paul to, "Prove all things; hold fast that which is good." Eventually, the majority of Protestantism has fallen back into being the same mindless sheep that they were before. They hire professional religious experts to go read the Bible for them because they can't be bothered to do it for themselves. They look to their pastors and ministers to go experience God on their behalf, and bring back spiritual water from the well for them to drink. This is the trouble with much of Christianity: Spiritual laziness. There is a minority in each denomination out there that is not lazy, seeks God on their own, studies the scriptures and maintains their relationship with God and Christ. I find the general lack of interest disappointing. I find the hatred between branches of Christianity to be disgusting, particular between the big branches. Protestants have nothing for contempt for Restorationists and quite a bit of contempt for Catholicism. Catholics vary between complete contempt to mild condescension for both Protestantism and Restorationism. All three of these western branches tend to entirely ignore Oriental, Eastern and Orthodox branches of Christianity. Everyone seems to be so very closed minded about so many things. Christians tend to throw absolutes around when they are not absolute at all. The Trinity and the closed canon have become personal pet peeves for me because they are sold as so absolute, yet prayer and research shows them to be anything but absolute. I think my frustration is with the way that Christians behave in general.

There are exceptions to every rule when it comes to stereotypes.

When they are old enough to know the commitment they are making, my children will be baptized. It will not be a priest, pastor or minister that baptizes them. It will be me baptizing them, as it should be. I am quite content with my own path. God himself put me on it and I couldn't be happier. That won't stop me from learning about the religions of others of course. My complete conviction that I am on the right path frees me from the insecurity that often makes people afraid to leave their spiritual comfort zone and learn about others.

Quote:
But, don't forget that there were many members of the church that were ascetics and lived like Christ did.
This is one of those things people tend to make as an unfounded assumption. Israelites rarely say much about their wives. We have no name for the majority of prophet's and apostle's wives, yet all of them were probably married at some point. There is this blanket assumption that Christ was never married. If he were not, then he would not have been taken seriously as a Rabbi. Prerequisites for being a legitimate Rabbi is that you have to have been married (if you are a widower you're still legit) and are over 30 years old. You will note that Jesus did all of the things necessary to legitimize himself as a bonafide Rabbi. He didn't begin his ministry until he was 30. He came "eating and drinking" did not mean he was a drunk, but that he ate, drank and followed custom just like any other devout Jewish man. The odds against Jesus of Nazareth never marrying are extremely slim. The New Testament never says one way or the other, just like the vast majority of prophets and apostles in the Bible. Whether his wife was still alive or ever even mentioned in the New Testament is completely uncertain. That is one aspect of asceticism that just contradicts every scrap of common sense.

We also have it from the apostle Paul that, "2 A bishop then must be blameless, the husband of one wife, vigilant, sober, of good behaviour, given to hospitality, apt to teach;" (1 Timothy 3:2) That would rule out two things for any bishop: Celibacy and polygamy. The reasons that celibacy was chosen and rigidly enforced ranged from the Church's greed to acquire lands and property of nobles who entered the priesthood, to the legitimate desire to preserve Church property. The ascetics were an early group, operating outside of the recognized clergy. Their success in missionary work gets the notion of celibate priests started. But the simpler solution: Don't have a professional paid clergy at all. Expand the priesthood to the entire Church. Let each man be a priest to his own wife and children. I'm fine with the concept of a top-down structure. It allows you to maintain doctrinal orthodoxy. But everyone should be a priest and everyone should be a saint in their own right.

Last edited by godofthunder9010; 09-16-2013 at 12:52 PM..
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 09-16-2013, 01:01 PM
 
12,030 posts, read 9,302,166 times
Reputation: 2845
Quote:
Originally Posted by godofthunder9010 View Post
It's an intriguing invitation and certainly given in the spirit of love and fellowship. I appreciate that. I've done pretty extensive research on Catholic history, reading from pro-Catholic as well as neutral parties. Anti-Catholic literature is much like anti-anything: It sensationalizes, demonizes and is usually wildly inaccurate. I'll certainly take your suggestion to attend mass as that's something I've been meaning to do anyways. I've attended many churches and stopped by and chatted with a Catholic Priest once or twice. Never been to mass though. I always seek to understand the beliefs of others. It's just so interesting.

It is extremely doubtful that I would ever join the Catholic Church though. There are just so many things that directly contradict my own beliefs -- beliefs that are the product of a lot of prayer, research, study and constantly seeking the will of God. I know the course that God has placed me on and the RCC just isn't it. Doesn't mean I'll stop having an open mind of course.

As to frustration with my own Christianity, that's not the case at all. My frustration is with Christianity as a whole. The Protestant Reformation was one of the greatest miracles in human history. The door was opened for people to experience God, the Bible and everything about Christianity for themselves. They did not need somebody else to seek God on their behalf. They took the council from Paul to, "Prove all things; hold fast that which is good." Eventually, the majority of Protestantism has fallen back into being the same mindless sheep that they were before. They hire professional religious experts to go read the Bible for them because they can't be bothered to do it for themselves. They look to their pastors and ministers to go experience God on their behalf, and bring back spiritual water from the well for them to drink. This is the trouble with much of Christianity: Spiritual laziness. There is a minority in each denomination out there that is not lazy, seeks God on their own, studies the scriptures and maintains their relationship with God and Christ. I find the general lack of interest disappointing. I find the hatred between branches of Christianity to be disgusting, particular between the big branches. Protestants have nothing for contempt for Restorationists and quite a bit of contempt for Catholicism. Catholics vary between complete contempt to mild condescension for both Protestantism and Restorationism. All three of these western branches tend to entirely ignore Oriental, Eastern and Orthodox branches of Christianity. Everyone seems to be so very closed minded about so many things. Christians tend to throw absolutes around when they are not absolute at all. The Trinity and the closed canon have become personal pet peeves for me because they are sold as so absolute, yet prayer and research shows them to be anything but absolute. I think my frustration is with the way that Christians behave in general.

There are exceptions to every rule when it comes to stereotypes.

When they are old enough to know the commitment they are making, my children will be baptized. It will not be a priest, pastor or minister that baptizes them. It will be me baptizing them, as it should be. I am quite content with my own path. God himself put me on it and I couldn't be happier. That won't stop me from learning about the religions of others of course. My complete conviction that I am on the right path frees me from the insecurity that often makes people afraid to leave their spiritual comfort zone and learn about others.
It is clear you are not prejudiced, but nevertheless, you have some issues with Catholicism . You would benefit enormously by studying with a good priest running the RCIA. This will be a year long seminar and it will be mostly academic with minimal praying at the onset of each session. All the nuances will be covered including those issues that bother you.

All the things you can do as a Protestant you can also do as a Catholic, but within Catholicism you have an overwhelming amount of history and tradition available to you. This may open new avenues for you and allow you to see things you ignored in the past. It has been my experience that those that study Christianity from an academic point of view may convert to Catholicism.

You may simply tag along with the group of cathecumens and see where it goes. You can always quit or you can always go back to being a Protestant after you have received all your papers as a Catholic.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 09-16-2013, 01:32 PM
 
284 posts, read 306,933 times
Reputation: 51
Quote:
GodofThunder9010 said in post # 162 : “ I have never encountered any Catholic who can confidently establish that Peter was ever Bishop of Rome -- after all, the Pope and Bishop of Rome are exactly the same thing. Peter must be demonstrated to have been Bishop of Rome in order for the Popes to validate their presumed authority through him. I've never met anyone who can do that. Granted, it's hard to explain how Peter was Bishop over a See when he never lived anywhere near there. To make matters worse, Peter was apparently the Bishop of the See of Antioch at the same time. It is far more likely that he lived at Antioch, so Antioch's claim to apostolic succession trumps Rome's. They will sometimes point to Peter's martyrdom in Rome, but that in no way makes Peter the Bishop of Rome. If dying in a place invests your authority upon that place, the rightful leader of the ancient Church would of necessity been the Bishop of Jerusalem. Jesus Christ died there and you can't beat that for authority. Add James dying there and Jerusalem would have an absolute lock on rightful apostolic succession. “


Hi GodofThunder,


I JUST now noticed your post to me (#162) and apologize for not responding. I work 3 days a week in a town approx. 300 miles away and so travel 4 days weekly. The days I’m gone I may not see the internet until I return home.

Regarding the myth of Peter having been the “first bishop of rome”. It is widespread and powerful, and completely false. However, Even I, growing up in a protestant church, had simply heard all of my life that Peter was the first Bishop of Rome (and I repeated this mythic lore just as the catholics did…) It wasn’t until I was a young adult that it ever even occurred to me to consider whether this was, in fact, true. I have simply assumed that this is the situation most Catholics grow up with, that is, they have heard such things over and over and thus, simply grow up assuming these things to be historically accurate.


Historically, Linus was the first Bishop of the Roman
congregation
:

Eusebius
, in his history of the Christian religion tells us that Linus, NOT peter, was the first Bishop to the Roman congregation, then Anacletus, third Clemens, fourth Evaristus.

Anastasius' also confirms that Linus was the first Bishop of the Roman congregation, then 2. Cletus; 3. Clemens; 4. Anacletus; 5. Evarestus.

The Liberian Catalogues also confirm that Linus was the first Bishop of the Roman Congregation, then Clemens; 3. Cletus; 4. Anacletus; 5. Evarestus.

Eusebius tells us that after Paul and Peter were martyred, "Linus was the first to obtain the episcopate of the church at Rome." (eusebius of caesaria - eclesiatical hx). This specific quote comes from chapter two entitled "The first ruler of the Church of Rome". Eusebius repeats this same claim in chapter thirteen which is entitiled "Anacletus, the second Bishop of Rome".

Perhaps it is important to discuss historical context of the inconsistencies as well. For example, "The book of Pontiffs" claims Cletus follows Clement whereas the liberian catalog reverses this order. The difficulty is in making some sense of the conflicting data sets. In liber Pontificalis, peter suffers martyrdom "
in the 38th year after the Lord suffered (68 c.e.) And Linus "was bishop in the time of Nero from the consulship of Saturninus and scipio (56 c.e.)

To that of Capito and Rufus (67.c.e.) Linus was bishop of Rome for 11 years from 56 c.e and it was by amazing historical coincidence that paul arrives in Rome (under house arrest) at this approximate time. Though Bishop Irenaeus indicates that both "the blessed apostles, St. Peter, and St. Paul, upon founding and erecting the church at Rome committed the office of administering the church at Rome to Linus", it may be that it was Paul alone who was responsible for Linus ordination (we simply don't know if one or both ordained Linus). The 11 years attributed to Linus makes complete sense if he held office from that time until just before Peter was martyred in 68 c.e. since this time table allows Peter to ordain Clement (since Bishops did not ordain bishops in original christianity, but rather one in a higher rank would ordain bishops). Clement succeeding Linus as the first real bishop is in agreement with the testimony of the Apostolic constitutions and it's list of who were the first bishops of various cities in the first century.

"
Now concerning those bishops which have been ordained in our lifetime, we let you know that they are these : - James the bishop of Jerusalem, the brother of our Lord; upon whose death the second was simeon the son of Cleopas; after whom the third was Judas the son of James. Of Caesarea of Palestine, the first was Zacchaeus, who was once a publican; after whom was Cornelius, and the third Theophilus. Of Antioch, Euodius, ordained by me Peter; and Ignatius by Paul. Of alexandria, Annianus was the first, ordained by Mark the evangelist; the second Avilius by Luke, who was also an evangelist. Of the church of Rome, Linus the son of Claudia was the first, ordained by Paul; and Clemens, after Linus' death, the second, ordained by me Peter (Constitutions of the Holy Apostles 4:46 [ANF 7:477-8]).

The lists placing Linus as first Bishop ordained by Paul (and not by Peter), followed by the second bishop of Rome, Clement (ordained by Peter) reflects the earliest tradition and may be preferred over the conflicting traditions. As I say, the history becomes a bit murky.

It is suspected that it is Irenaeus' text that first makes famous the later claim that Linus and Cletus followed the dead Peter while other texts claim Peter was alive and, in fact, ordained Clement, the third in line. It is, obviously, inconsistent with History to claim Linus received the bishopric upon the death of Peter when Peter ordained another bishop years after Linus and Cletus served as bishops.

Not only do Eusebius, Anastasius and the Liberian Catalogs list Linus as the first Bishop of rome, but Irenaeus tells us that BOTH Peter and Paul were involved in founding the Roman congregation and that Linus was their first Bishop. The early Apostolic constitutions tell us it was Paul who Ordained Linus and not Peter. (ANF 7:477-8)

Whether it is Paul who ordained Linus, or if it was Peter who ordained Linus, Still, All of these early witnesses consistently agree that Linus was the first bishop of the Christian congregation in Rome and thus the Apostle Peter was never a standing bishop of Rome. The later tradition that was started regarding the apostle Peter serving as a standing bishop of a single congregation was a "back claim" made in later years as the roman congregation sought justification for pre-eminence.



The historical problem for the Roman Catholic Church was NOT the claim that Peter had Authority, but their claim that Peter gave THEM authority


I quite agree that, historically, no pope of the Roman Christian movement ever received the apostle Peter’s authority and thus, the Roman Congregation was left in the same situation as all other early congregations; with a void of higher authority they could not fill with authentic authority (thus the motive was to fill the lack of authentic authority with something else as Tertulian pointed out).


I do not think the first Bishop of Rome (Linus, ), nor his successors Anacletus nor Clement were at all bad people, but instead I believe these early Bishops were very good individuals who were trying to do the best they could in the state of confusion and lack of authority after Jesus and the Prophets and the Apostles all died off. I do NOT think Linus, Anacletus nor Clement would inaugurated the false claim to having been given authority from Peter, but instead, I think this myth was instituted in the years when Rome was vying for political and religious pre-imminence over other cities and congregations.

The problem for Roman Catholic Historians has not been to show that Peter was given authority, but rather, they cannot show that Peter gave that authority to any of their bishops. Catholic historians have tried to find THAT important connection for 1600 years and THAT is the connection that has never been made from the earliest texts, but instead came as a “back claim” from later centuries. The great Catholic historian Duchesne, dedicated his professional life to finding that historical connection; he had access to vatican archives and records that the rest of us can only dream of seeing; and yet he never found it. (I have wondered if he wasn't hoping to be the first historian in history to make the connection since it would have made him incredibly famous...)


Early efforts to forge this link were counterproductive and disastrous (historically) . For example, the pseudo-clementine letters very clearly have Peter, giving Clement all sorts of power (I will describe these in greater detail in the other thread). However, they were very quickly discovered to be counterfeits and resulted in embarrassment and undercut the claim to authority rather than enhancing the claim. However, they demonstrate the importance such a claim started to have as infighting and competition came to eventually characterize the various religious groups.


Clear
ειειειαξσιω

Last edited by Clear lens; 09-16-2013 at 01:46 PM..
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 09-16-2013, 01:41 PM
 
12,030 posts, read 9,302,166 times
Reputation: 2845
Quote:
Originally Posted by Clear lens View Post

Hi GodofThunder,


I JUST now noticed your post to me (#162) and apologize for not responding. I work 3 days a week in a town approx. 300 miles away and so travel 4 days weekly. The days I’m gone I may not see the internet until I return home.

Regarding the myth of Peter having been the “first bishop of rome”. It is widespread and powerful, and completely false. However, Even I, growing up in a protestant church, had simply heard all of my life that Peter was the first Bishop of Rome (and I repeated this mythic lore just as the catholics did…) It wasn’t until I was a young adult that it ever even occurred to me to consider whether this was, in fact, true. I have simply assumed that this is the situation most Catholics grow up with, that is, they have heard such things over and over and thus, simply grow up assuming these things to be historically accurate.

Historically, Linus was the first Bishop of the Roman congregation :
Eusebius, in his history of the Christian religion tells us that Linus, NOT peter, was the first Bishop to the Roman congregation, then Anacletus, third Clemens, fourth Evaristus.

Anastasius' also confirms that Linus was the first Bishop of the Roman congregation, then 2. Cletus; 3. Clemens; 4. Anacletus; 5. Evarestus.

The Liberian Catalogues also confirm that Linus was the first Bishop of the Roman Congregation, then Clemens; 3. Cletus; 4. Anacletus; 5. Evarestus.

Eusbius tells us that after Paul and Peter were martyred, "Linus was the first to obtain the episcopate of the church at Rome." (eusebius of caesaria - eclesiatical hx). This specific quote comes from chapter two entitled "The first ruler of the Church of Rome". Eusebius repeats this same claim in chapter thirteen which is entitiled "Anacletus, the second Bishop of Rome".

Perhaps it is important to discuss historical context of the inconsistencies as well. For example, "The book of Pontiffs" claims Cletus follows Clement whereas the liberian catalog reverses this order. The difficulty is in making some sense of the conflicting data sets. In liber Pontificalis, peter suffers martyrdom "
in the 38th year after the Lord suffered (68 c.e.) And Linus "was bishop in the time of Nero from the consulship of Saturninus and scipio (56 c.e.)

To that of Capito and Rufus (67.c.e.) Linus was bishop of Rome for 11 years from 56 c.e and it was by amazing historical coincidence that paul arrives in Rome (under house arrest) at this approximate time. Though Bishop Irenaeus indicates that both "the blessed apostles, St. Peter, and St. Paul, upon founding and erecting the church at Rome committed the office of administering the church at Rome to Linus", it may be that it was Paul alone who was responsible for Linus ordination (we simply don't know if one or both ordained Linus). The 11 years attributed to Linus make complete sense if he held office from that time until just before Peter was martyred in 68 c.e. since this time table allows Peter to ordain Clement (since Bishops did not ordain bishops, but rather one in a higher rank would ordain bishops). Clement succeeding Linus as the first real bishop is in agreement with the testimony of the Apostolic constitutions and it's list of who were the first bishops of various cities in the first century.

"
Now concerning those bishops which have been ordained in our lifetime, we let you know that they are these : - James the bishop of Jerusalem, the brother of our Lord; upon whose death the second was simeon the son of Cleopas; after whom the third was Judas the son of James. Of Caesarea of Palestine, the first was Zacchaeus, who was once a publican; after whom was Cornelius, and the third Theophilus. Of Antioch, Euodius, ordained by me Peter; and Ignatius by Paul. Of alexandria, Annianus was the first, ordained by Mark the evangelist; the second Avilius by Luke, who was also an evangelist. Of the church of Rome, Linus the son of Claudia was the first, ordained by Paul; and Clemens, after Linus' death, the second, ordained by me Peter (Constitutions of the Holy Apostles 4:46 [ANF 7:477-8]).

The lists placing Linus as first Bishop ordained by Paul (and not by Peter), followed by the second bishop of Rome, Clement (ordained by Peter) reflects the earliest tradition and may be preferred over the conflicting traditions

It is suspected that it is Irenaeus' text that first initiates the later claim that Linus and Cletus followed the dead Peter while other texts claim Peter was alive and, in fact, ordained Clement, the third in line. It is, obviously, inconsistent with History to claim Linus received the bishopric upon the death of Peter when Peter ordained another bishop years after Linus and Cletus served as bishops.

Not only do Eusebius, Anastasius and the Liberian Catalogs list Linus as the first Bishop of rome, but Irenaeus tells us that BOTH Peter and Paul were involved in founding the Roman congregation and that Linus was their first Bishop. The early Apostolic constitutions tell us it was Paul who Ordained Linus and not Peter. (ANF 7:477-8)

All of these early witnesses consistently agree that Linus was the first bishop of the Christian congregation in Rome and thus the Apostle Peter was never a standing bishop of Rome. The later tradition that was started regarding the apostle Peter serving as a standing bishop of a single congregation was a "back claim" made in later years as the roman congregation sought justification for pre-eminence.


The historical problem for the Roman Catholic Church was NOT the claim that Peter had Authority, but their claim that Peter gave THEM authority
I quite agree that, historically, no pope of the Roman Christian movement ever received the apostle Peter’s authority and were thus, left in the same situation as all other early congregations, with a void they could not fill with authentic authority.


I do not think the first Bishop of Rome (Linus, ), nor his successors Anacletus nor Clement were at all bad people, but instead I believe these early Bishops were very good individuals who were trying to do the best they could in the state of confusion and lack of authority after Jesus and the Prophets and the Apostles all died off. I do NOT think Linus, Anacletus nor Clement would inaugurated the false claim to having been given authority from Peter, but instead, I think this myth was instituted in the years when Rome was vying for political and religious pre-iminence over other cities and congregations.
The problem for Roman Catholic Historians has not been to show that Peter was given authority, but rather, they cannot show that Peter gave that authority to any of their bishops. Catholic historians have tried to find THAT important connection for 1600 years and THAT is the connection that has never been made from the earliest texts, but instead came as a “back claim” from later centuries.

Early efforts to forge this link were counterproductive and disastrous (historically) . For example, the pseudo-clementine letters very clearly have Peter, giving Clement all sorts of power (I will describe these in greater detail in the other thread). However, they were very quickly discovered to be counterfeits and resulted in embarrassment and undercut the claim to authority rather than enhancing the claim. However, they demonstrate the importance such a claim started to have as infighting and competition came to eventually characterize the various religious groups.


Clear
ειειειαξσιω

Lest assume Peter was not the Bishop of Rome. Nevertheless Jesus entrusted Peter with his church.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 09-16-2013, 01:45 PM
 
Location: Southern Oregon
17,071 posts, read 10,868,694 times
Reputation: 1871
Quote:
Originally Posted by godofthunder9010 View Post
I'll certainly take your suggestion to attend mass as that's something I've been meaning to do anyways. I've attended many churches and stopped by and chatted with a Catholic Priest once or twice. Never been to mass though. I always seek to understand the beliefs of others. It's just so interesting.
I would also recommend it. It is a different approach and experience from most Protestand services. I also recommend an historic church building for the surroundings if it is possible. I used to enjoy going to mass occasionally in some of the California Missions, particularly San Juan Capistrano.


The Catholic Church has a lot to offer for some personality types. My major objection besides the inevitable obfuscation of the message of Christ (it's there, but requires a little digging) is the spurious claims to authority for the institution.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 09-17-2013, 05:55 AM
 
12,030 posts, read 9,302,166 times
Reputation: 2845
Quote:
Originally Posted by nateswift View Post
I would also recommend it. It is a different approach and experience from most Protestand services. I also recommend an historic church building for the surroundings if it is possible. I used to enjoy going to mass occasionally in some of the California Missions, particularly San Juan Capistrano.


The Catholic Church has a lot to offer for some personality types. My major objection besides the inevitable obfuscation of the message of Christ (it's there, but requires a little digging) is the spurious claims to authority for the institution.
A Catholic Church looks like a church, smells like a church, and provides the right ambience for meditation and worship. And everything has historical meaning. There is a reason for the architecture and the layout. The rich tradition permeates the air. It is a different experience!
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 09-17-2013, 09:52 AM
 
Location: Chicago Area
12,687 posts, read 6,705,217 times
Reputation: 6593
Quote:
Originally Posted by Julian658 View Post
Lest assume Peter was not the Bishop of Rome. Nevertheless Jesus entrusted Peter with his church.
Peter's succession would have passed on to the surviving apostles immediately following his death. Most likely, the highest ranking apostle would take Peter's place. When Peter dies in 68 AD, John would have been the highest ranking surviving apostle. When John dies in about 100 AD, he was the last apostle. At that point, where does the authority vested in Peter go? There are several possibilities:

1.) The highest ranking surviving office in the Church is Bishop. The typical assumption is that the apostolic authority is then passed on to all bishops equally. There were dozens of bishops at this point. This is where things get messy. Previously, only apostles could ordain bishops. With no apostles left, sometimes existing bishops ordained new bishops over congregations that needed one. Sometimes the congregation just nominates a bishop for themselves. So are the apostle-ordained bishops higher in authority than those that were not? Were further ordinations of bishops even valid at all? Nonetheless, the assembly of all bishops in the Church was the highest remaining authority. If Petrine authority survives, it would have passed to all bishops equally and collectively.

2.) The authority vested in Peter simply ends with the apostles. You could assume that the need for centralized authority had ended and it was now up to each individual Christian. You could assume that Christ's authorized Church ceases to exist with no more surviving apostles.

The problem with the Roman Catholic Church's point of view: They presume that Peter's authority get's passed on to only one bishop, the Bishop of Rome. This is how they justify the Pope's right to excommunicate other bishops, kings, emperors, rulers, etc. The Bishop of Rome has gradually over time taken upon himself more and more and more authority, but clearly the Bishop of Rome did not start out with that authority.

I suppose that the whole of the Church wanted to have centralized leadership again. Why else would bishops from all over the Empire eventually accept the preeminence of just 5 bishops -- men who really had no more authority than they themselves did. With 5 uber-bishops, the Church must have felt more organized Once 4 of those 5 bishops were overrun by the Muslim Jihads, the only one of those uber-bishops remained. Oh the other 4 still continued on of course. They each have their own unbroken line all the way back to Christ's apostles, as do several other bishops. Bishops of Alexandria and Constantinople both claim authority over all Christendom too. Tens of millions in Africa acknowledge the authority of the Pope of Alexandria. Hundreds of millions acknowledge the authority of the Patriarch of Constantinople. But all four of them were now in Muslim occupied territory and Rome was/is not.

I think the Roman Pope becomes the head of the Church partly by attrition, partly by doing a good job of selling his authority and partly by the whole Church wanting to have centralized leadership in one place.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.

Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.


Reply
Please update this thread with any new information or opinions. This open thread is still read by thousands of people, so we encourage all additional points of view.

Quick Reply
Message:

Over $104,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Religion and Spirituality > Christianity
Similar Threads

All times are GMT -6.

© 2005-2024, Advameg, Inc. · Please obey Forum Rules · Terms of Use and Privacy Policy · Bug Bounty

City-Data.com - Contact Us - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37 - Top