Yes, I do need some time. You've put a lot of effort into your post and included a lot of material. I try never to "shoot from the hip," so I am looking closely at your post, and a thoughtful and deliberated response is forthcoming.
You deserve nothing less. <img src="/forum/images/graemlins/rose.gif" alt="" />
In the Sacred Heart of Christ and the Immaculate Heart of Mary.
In agreement with Henry, I look forward to it. My concern is that my original post on the subject was eleven days ago, I have received no response to my statements, and you continue to base arguments on an undefended position.
If eleven days of research is not enough for a simple response, not even an acknowledgement, I doubt the academic sincerity of your argument. <img src="/forum/images/graemlins/Banghead.gif" alt="" />
Wanted to add something to my endorsement of de Rosa's "Vicars of Christ." de Rosa, while providing a greal deal of incredible information on papal history, has some odd beliefs himself which at times slip through, but if you can eat the meat and spit out the bones I would say that the book is a must-read.
Sir, you state your case quite eloquently that man can be condemned singularly on the witness of creation, but you've failed to convince me that the reverse implication isn't also true
Rom. 10:8–15.
The implication is that one cannot be saved unless he calls, cannot call unless he believes, cannot believe unless he hears, cannot hear unless there is one to preach. Therefore, there is no one who does not hear the Gospel and is saved; conversely, there is no one who is saved and who does not hear the Gospel—which ought to be a comfort, in that we need never fear that any of His elect may not learn of Christ.
Kyle
I tell you, this man went down to his house justified.
But most importantly, concerning Peter's misconduct in Antioch, I think you are overlooking an obvious factor here. There can be no doubt that this was Peter's private misconduct and not an infallible act. For if it was an official teaching, we would not only be allowed, but indeed charged with the duty to imitate his behavior. The same principle applying panscriptura would have us committing murder and adultery like David, getting drunk like Noah, lying like Abraham, and committing idolatry like Solomon.
So yes, Ma'am, this is clearly the private misconduct of Peter, and we are to regard in only as an example of what not to do. But his official acts, the sermon's and discourses, are infallible, and we are to heed them.
Because it's not recommended to us, therefore it must necessarily have been private and personal? It's not recommended to us because Peter was wrong, period. Peter's denial of Christ was PUBLIC, after all, not "private" and merely "personal." Yet Peter was wrong, because not even the Apostles were infallible, but only those things which they spoke and wrote by inspiration of the Holy Ghost, and which have been preserved for us in Holy Scripture.
Kyle
I tell you, this man went down to his house justified.
Thank you for your thoughtful response, and all the work you put into it. In the first portion you made some analogies, I will address those first.
The analogies you posed can do no more than express you sentiment and cannot be considered as "hard evidence", simply because they are all inexact parallels when compared to sacred doctrines.
Quote
The only reason I would jump to this conclusion is if, for whatever reason, I held to a predetermined belief in the continual succession of Bill's business. Then I might take this paltry data I am supplied with and build my case upon it. But truly, if I take myself seriously in the process, I am to be pitied by all.
To be pitied if you tried so desperately to keep a business afloat, which is not nearly the same, (in manner or magnitude) as preserving sacred Christian tradition.
Also there is indeed reason for us to believe we are to preserve and pass on the faith, and Apostolic Succession is rooted in scripture, but here I hesitate to delve any deeper into this subject because it is a separate issue to be dealt with on a separate thread. I will, though deal with your last point being as you see it as your trump card.
Quote
You are right that Catholic doctrine teaches that the Pope is only infallible when he addresses the whole Church. However, it is an historical fact that the Pope never did this until 1300.
You are quite mistaken here.
Quote
If any Bishop loses the judgement in some case (decided by his fellow bishop) and still believes he has not a bad but a good case, in order that the case be judged anew...let us honor the memory of the apostle Peter by having those who have given the judgement write to Julius, Bishop of Rome, so if it seem proper he may himself send arbiters and the judgements may be made again by the bishops of a neighboring province.
If some bishop be deposed by the judgement of the bishops sitting in the neighborhood, and if he declares that he will seek further redress, another should not be appointed to his see until the Bishop of Rome can be acquainted with the case and render a judgement. Canon 3,4 A.D. 342
In the city of Rome the episcopal chair was given first to Peter; the chair in which Peter sat the same who was head; that is why he is also called Cephas (Rock) of all the apostles, the one chair in which unity is maintained by all. Neither do the Apostles proceed individually on their own. And anyone who would presume to set up another chair in opposition to that single chair would, by that very fact, be a schismatic and a sinner. Recall then the origins of your chair, those of you who wish to claim for yourselves the title of holy Church. The Schism of the Donatists 2:2 --A.D. 367
And those are just a couple. If time and space allowed I could provide twenty such quotes from the early Church. I hope you're beginning to see the folly of trusting anti-catholic books that promise facts but deliver slander.
Quote
If Peter were to arise from his tomb under the dome and be told that all this was erected in his honor, how would he react?
Again, skewed facts. The Vatican was built for the honor and service primarily of Jesus Christ, as is all Catholic churches. Though they bear the title of the saints they honor, it is only a secondary honor. Catholicism, despite anticatholic hype, is Christ centered.
Quote
Jesus was born in a stable, In his ministry, he had nowhere to lay his head.
Ok. Let's take this analogy to the natural conclusion of the course your author set it on. This is the going presumption of all these comparisons: Anything Jesus does, we must also do. Anything Jesus didn't do, we must never do.
Jesus was homeless. Are we all to become homeless?
Jesus was unmarried. Is it now a sin to marry? When did Jesus convey this to Peter?
Jesus was poor and never carried money. We know this because He asked for a Denarius to be brought to him so He could make a point about taxes. Is it sinful to be well off, or even rich? Will the money we carry in our wallet drag us into the pit of hell?
Let's take this to even more ridiculous proportions. Jesus was a carpentar. Is any other line of work now unlawful? He also had a beard, is it now sinful to shave?
Ok, we'll consider that last segment quid pro quo for your opening comparisons, because there are some deeper issues you're not seeing.
Perhaps you forget that the Tabernacle and later the Temple were constructed of the finest and costliest materials. You may minimize the grandure of the most holy place in the tabernacle compared to the palaces of Rome, but the Tabernacle was built to the very best ability given the talent and resources available to the Hebrews at the time. When the Temple was constructed, it was considerably bigger, more majestic and expensive. Reading about the construction of the Temple by Solomon would prove very similar to those splendid palaces in Rome, but both were for the same purpose, to glorify and honor God.
In fact, God's superiority to all other gods is evident in the greatness of the buildings built in His honor throughout history, in comparison to pagan counterparts. God has not changed, and the honor He merited in the past He still merits today.
Quote
He constantly taught: "Go, sell all thou hast and give to the poor, then come follow me."
Again speaks to the truth twisting nature of this author. Jesus didn't constantly teach that. He spoke that to one particular individual. That man had a problem with his love of wealth, and Jesus knew it. It bespeaks of the wonderful way that God has a taylor made way of dealing with us all, meeting our specific and unique needs.
Quote
When the Pope renews that sacrifice...
Protestant hype. The sacrifice of Christ is not duplicated, it is re-enacted and honored as Christ commanded. Perhaps you are also forgetting how the Levitical priests were also dressed in the finest robes and costliest materials and jewels. Again, God has not changed, neither should our manner of worshipping Him.
Also, you keep pointing to the splendor in which the Church is built as if there were some scandel inherent. By human standards perhaps, but we live by the word of God, and according to the word of God, the Church is the bride of Christ and adorns herself. (Rev 21:2) That this is to be taken in a spiritual sense is irrefutable, but also we are to manifest this beauty physically. Again, God has not changed.
Quote
And that the Vatican has its own bank to which clients are only admitted if, in addition to sound referrences, they can provide something Peter never had; a baptismal certificate.
Is there something reprehensible about a Church bank that wants only church members in it? Baptismal certificates are needed in a way that they weren't in Peter's day. Which brings up another point, you are making no allowances for the changing of Papal responsibilities as the church grows. Why was there no need for a "supreme administrator and manager of all Church property"? Because the Church had very little property at the time, mostly because Christians were persecuted at the time and needed to remain aloof.
Quote
Peter...and His Master, as Jews, were opposed to religious images.
As averagefellar might say, "Scripture referrence, please?"
Images are in fact a significant part of Jewish worship, and Protestants don't like to acknowledge this. They like to read the second commandment like this: Thou shall not make any graven image. But in fact it says: Thou shall not make any graven images unto thyselves. God wasn't prohibiting the creation of images, but rather the creation of other gods. Protestants are at a loss when we remind them that He had cheribum erected in the Tabernacle, and a bronze serpent put on a pole. I should wish they would work up the nerve to accuse God of scandal if they think it wrong, instead of accusing Catholics while ignoring the holy precident of this practice.
Every church that has broken away from the holy Catholic Church have one thing in common, hatred for the Pope stemming from some disagreement that led to the separation in the first place.
The Orthodox
The Anglicans
The Protestants
That there is a consortium of antisentiment is no definitive proof that there is anything unbecoming either in the Bishop of Rome, or the seat he holds. I am not comfortable responding to a book, and this is probably the last time I'll do it, because I want to know what YOU think. There is no mantel of truth about any book, article, or any other work designed to paint another person or organization in the worst light possible. It is called advocacy, and it is a twist on the truth.
In fact, it is possible for a creative mind to write a scandelous piece on anyone or anything. You simply take things that are not well understood and give it a little twist to make it seem suspicious at best, and contemptable at worst. All such anticatholic works are like that; dripping with contempt, and fueled by blind antipathy to our faith. Such "facts" derived from such sources ought to be taken with a grain of salt.
But on to your most important point. You quote Acts 1:21, 22 which listed the accolades that the candidate for apostle needed for consideration, and then made a case that this would always be the necessary qualification for any future apostle, (does this sound familiar? Kinda like the comparison's you drew at the start?)
But if this was an attempt to disprove apostolic succession, you have indeed failed. For in that the original 12 were appointed by Christ Himself ("Did I not choose you, the twelve, and yet one of you is a devil?" Jn 6:71). This qualification changed with the appointment of Mathias. And if it changed once, it can change again to reflect new situations that warrant the changes. I will go no further to establish the biblical case for apostolic succession. That's for a different thread.
You're being led astray, so you don't need to worry about me. You read books written by spiteful authors and take them for gospel truth. Perhaps in time you will be wise enough to take a few steps back and take a gander at the larger picture.
Grace to you and peace from God our Father and the Lord Jesus Christ
[Therefore, there is no one who does not hear the Gospel and is saved; conversely, there is no one who is saved and who does not hear the Gospel—which ought to be a comfort, in that we need never fear that any of His elect may not learn of Christ.
No argument from me <img src="/forum/images/graemlins/yep.gif" alt="" />
Because it's not recommended to us, therefore it must necessarily have been private and personal? It's not recommended to us because Peter was wrong, period. Peter's denial of Christ was PUBLIC, after all, not "private" and merely "personal." Yet Peter was wrong, because not even the Apostles were infallible, but only those things which they spoke and wrote by inspiration of the Holy Ghost, and which have been preserved for us in Holy Scripture.
Sir, perhaps we're not connecting because we have two differing definitions of "private." For instance, Pope John Paul expressed certain "private" beliefs in his book, Crossing The Threshold Of Hope. And as you know, the book went on to be published and became an instant best seller, so in a sense, his beliefs were publicized.
Perhaps you missed the point I made earlier that the Pope is considered inerrant when he addresses the church in an official capacity and renders judgements of doctrinal and administrative matters. None of Peter's recorded indescretions fits this criteria.
I have already acknowledged that popes can indeed sin and even live scandelous lives as some of them have. Peter was very wrong in what he did, and no, the Church isn't trying to whitewash what he did.
Quote
not even the Apostles were infallible, but only those things which they spoke and wrote by inspiration of the Holy Ghost, which have been preserved for us in Holy Scripture.
Right on! I see we're really not arguing the main point about Peter. You seem to understand perfectly.
carpe ceravesaSeize the beer! <img src="/forum/images/graemlins/cheers2.gif" alt="" />
catholicsoldier said: ...and Apostolic Succession is rooted in scripture, but here I hesitate to delve any deeper into this subject because it is a separate issue to be dealt with on a separate thread.
Then when are you going to deal with it? You've brought it up in this thread and in another on the papacy? In fact I would argue that you are basing these arguments on it. It does not belong in another thread as long as, just as the case is here, it is central to your argument.
Henry and I both questioned it in this thread and I in another. It has now been 14 days, no response...
You responded to some post titled Popish Heresy, the one I wrote was Papal Infallibility...Catholic Definition. Were you addressing me? <img src="/forum/images/graemlins/shrug.gif" alt="" />
Sir, perhaps you could better learn the time honored codes of politeness and respect. This will certainly be a requisite in order to have any dialogue with me, for I will not suffer your insolence. Perhaps it has escaped your consideration that as a member here, Catholic or not, I am entitled to the same respect and cordial treatment as anyone else. <img src="/forum/images/graemlins/scold.gif" alt="" />
Sir, it is simply not unreasonable that I request we stick to the topic. If I'm not mistaken, this is also the rule of this forum. If you have certain contentions with Apostolic Succession, you may open a new thread and lay the question out. You can be certain I will respond.
catholicsoldier said: Papal infallibility is also rooted in precident. Even Protestants won't deny the Peter spoke infallibly in his address to the apostles (Acts 1:15) and his sermon following Pentecost (Acts 2:14-39). He then went on to write infallibly two epistles.
But are the Popes really the successors of Peter? Yes! The apostolic succession began with the appointment of Mathias in Acts, clearly indicating that the Apostolic age would go on and never die. (James)
From Peter the Rock, the birth of the Papacy:
Quote
catholicsoldier said: Apostolic succession began immediately with the appointment of Mathias by the rest of the apostles, and in the same manner bishops are appointed today.
It is in fact relevant to this thread. It was also relevant to the thread on Peter and the papacy. You have based both arguments on the fact that papal succession is reliant upon apostolic succession. Stop dodging.
Last edited by ForSBCReform; Thu Oct 21, 20049:50 PM.
