"I have asked many times: show us some evidence. Show us the evidence that the early church operated on the assumption of apostolic succession centred in a geneological type lineage through Peter. Or evidence for confession in the early church when your own scholars deny that such an institution existed for two hundred years. Or evidence for believing in Mary, Queen of Heaven and Co-mediatrix of the people of God.

The problem for the vast majority of Roman Catholic beliefs is that they lack any objective warrant. For instance, you will not find anyone in the church operating on the assumption that Mary is Queen of Heaven and Co-Mediatrix of the People of God for at least the five five hundred years, and despite the Council of Trent's (infallible) assertion that such a belief owned the unanimous consent of the Church Fathers, we can now see from clear and accurate translations of those texts that such is simply not the case. Even if 50 or 60% of the Church Fathers hinted in that direction, that is still a far cry from unanimous consent - an infallible proclamation, incidentally.

Show us the historical evidence and you might begin to build upon a foundation with some meaning. Of course the reason such evidence cannot be found, or that Catholics rely upon out-of-context Church Father quotations (I have often said to friends that I am convinced Roman Catholics produce Handy-Dandy Protestant Refuter handbooks because of the lockstep nature of the arguments) is because the evidence is not there. If it were, the RCC has had five hundred years to definitively refute Protestant claims on the basis of history, and has singularly failed to do so.

History demonstrates other than the supremacy of the Roman Pontiff that Boniface VIII attempted to promote in Unam Sanctum - "Furthermore, we declare, we proclaim, we define that it is absolutely necessary for salvation that every human creature be subject to the Roman Pontiff". During the Arian controvesy we see the reverse of the Roman Catholic claim. The Emperor preferred heretical Arianism to the nascent Trinitarianism, and on his deathbed he was baptised an Arian. Does this suggest that there existed a supreme pontiff, recognised as infallible on matters of faith and practice? Rome had spoken (another tortured historical remark levered from its context and distorted shamelessly), but that did not mean one whit apparently."

As usual--thanks for any help.
Linda

Under discussion were Mt 16:18 and Jn 21:16...

"You know? Upon what basis do you know that these passages teach the collection of things you derive from their meaning? Your answer, if you are consistent, is that you possess such knowledge because of the magesterium of your church. This then raises another question for us. How can you objectively test the magesterium to see whether it is telling the truth? As Luther pointed out, popes and councils have "so often contradicted each other", and recent popes, in uncharacteristic openness, have admitted to errors committed by past generations of Roman Catholics.

The answer to our question is the magesterium cannot be tested or scrutinised objectively. The magesterium, by its very nature, is beyond objective scrutiny because it not only defines the extent of Scripture and Tradition, but it also demands first assent in your faith. You cannot accept the magesterium's claims about itself allegedly found in Scripture and Tradition without accepting first the magesterium itself. It is a self-referential faith.

Thus your faith begins with the magesterium and processes to Scripture. This is the way it is for every Roman Catholic no matter how it may be justified (eg. the common justification that "Jesus started a church and garanteed it's authenticity and thus, the RCC being the oldest must it and must still be rightly guided" etc.). Ultimately, your confidence in Scripture rests on your confidence that the church is rightly guided and led by the Holy Spirit and apostolic mandate.

These beliefs are accepted by faith. By faith you believe the magesterium is infallible (it must be by faith because as I have already established, the truthfulness and fidelity of the magesterium is beyond any objective test). Your faith then leads you to believe whatever the magesterium teaches about Scripture, but by the nature of the system, those teachings are beyond human scrutiny as well. How do you scrutinise the teachings of an infallible teaching organisation? Hence your claim to knowledge is fallacious. From beginning to end it rests on confidence in an institution that throughout history has demonstrated innumerable errors, heresies and corruptions.

I have used this dialogue before, but I shall use it again:

RC: I know what is in Scripture.
P: How do you know?
RC: The infallible church tells me.
P: How do you know your church is infallible?
RC: The Scriptures tell me.

It is an endless loop of circulatory reasoning. The same applies to alleged sacred Tradition.

I commend you for your faith however, even if I do not believe it is rational. You are able to believe even in the face of contrary, objective evidence and unassailable argumentation. Over the months in which we have dialogued I have observed time and again that you have demonstrated a truly remarkable capacity to ignore evidence and objectively, testable counter-arguments (even arguments advanced by your own scholars) so as to maintain your position. I am amazed that anyone who loves the truth could persist so firmly in holding to violent and detestable doctrines that have virtually no historical or scriptural warrant."

Any comments on this one?
Thanks
Linda

A bit of background...
This particular discussion on Jn 21:16 was a result of my going to Parallel Bible and pointing out that 'tend'
can translate 'shepherd' as in "shepherd the sheep of me".
John 21:16
ðïßìáéíå poimaine 4165 V-PAM-2S shepherd
ôὰ ta 3588 T-APN the
ðñïâÜôéá probatia 4263 N-APN sheep
ìïõ mou 3450 P-1GS of me
http://biblos.com/john/21-16.htm

The argument was that Jesus is the only shepherd and he did not leave bishops to 'shepherd' us, that there
were bishops, but certainly not bishops today thru apostolic succession as we (Catholics) maintain.

Isn't the mere fact that we have a list of successors of Peter in existence to this day itself evidence? The earliest known list of Popes comes from Irenaeus circa AD185.....if they didn't believe in apostolic succession why did they even bother keeping track? Do people generally keep track of things which are irrelevant and they don't care about?

I have used the list before.
This guy is the board bully.
Obviously.
He will attempt to discredit anything put before him.
Sometimes I just ignore him and post for the
benefit of others who read there.
Thanks--I'll check back tomorrow.
I'm hoping to go to bed and sleep.
Tough on us nightowls isn't it, Doom.
(To try to sleep at a reasonable hour...)

Linda

From my understanding, "unanimous consent" does not imply every Father taught the particular doctrine, just that none or materially none taught an opposing doctrine. Doctrines like the Blessed Virgin's Queenship and association with Christ's redemptive act were not explored by the early Fathers because they were spending all of their doctrinal energy in preserving the deposit of faith in regard to the Incarnation of the Son of God and the Holy Trinity from the countless heresies attacking the true faith in the early Church (St. Epiphanius himself combatted eighty heresies in his work Adversus haereses also known as the Panarion around 375).

Also, St. Epiphanius of Salamis attributed the woman with a crown of twelve stars in Revelation 12 in the above mentioned work to the Blessed Virgin. I would argue that this is an implicit, undeveloped reference to Mary's Queenship of her Son's Kingdom which would certainly make her Queen of Heaven.

In regards to Marian doctrine, I think Fr. Luigi Gambero, S.M. makes an excellent point in Mary and the Fathers of the Church that some of the silence of the doctrinal teaching regarding the Blessed Virgin Mary in the Apostolic Fathers and the subsequent generations may be attributed to the reality of pagan religions that always have a primary feminine goddess that they worshipped. The fathers would have naturally desired to avoid confusing the pagan converts and the pagans whom they would preach to.

Thanks, CCB.
May I use some of this and quote you as "a poster at DCF"?

Linda

I can give you real quotes from Fr. Gambero and St. Epiphanius if you want, but yes you can quote me if this DCF poster if you wish.

It doesn't really matter whether the list is accurate or not I don't think. The mere fact that a list existed at all, even if it was fabricated from whole cloth after the fact is proof that Christians believed that succession from Peter mattered, otherwise they never would have bothered to compile the list.

Ask for documentation from Catholic scholars.

Confession:

"In church confess your sins, and do not come to your prayer with a guilt conscience. Such is the Way of Life...On the Lord's own day,assemble in common to break bread and offer thanks; but first confess your sins,so that your sacrifice may be pure"
Didache,4:14,14:1(A.D.70),in ACW,6:18,23

"Confess your sins. Do not come to prayer with a guilty conscience."
Epistle of Barnabas,19:12(A.D. 74),in ACW,6:63

Apostolic Succession

"And thus preaching through countries and cities, they appointed the first-fruits [of their labours], having first proved them by the Spirit, to be bishops and deacons of those who should afterwards believe. Nor was this any new thing, since indeed many ages before it was written concerning bishops and deacons. For thus saith the Scripture a certain place, 'I will appoint their bishops s in righteousness, and their deacons in faith.'... Our apostles also knew, through our Lord Jesus Christ, and there would be strife on account of the office of the episcopate. For this reason, therefore, inasmuch as they had obtained a perfect fore-knowledge of this, they appointed those [ministers] already mentioned, and afterwards gave instructions, that when these should fall asleep, other approved men should succeed them in their ministry...For our sin will not be small, if we eject from the episcopate those who have blamelessly and holily fulfilled its duties."
Clement,Epistle to Corinthians,42,44(A.D. 98),in ANF,I:16,17

"For what is the bishop but one who beyond all others possesses all power and authority, so far as it is possible for a man to possess it, who according to his ability has been made an imitator of the Christ Of God? And what is the presbytery but a sacred assembly, the counsellors and assessors of the bishop? And what are the deacons but imitators of the angelic powers, fulfilling a pure and blameless ministry unto him, as ... Anencletus and Clement to Peter?"
Ignatius,To the Trallians,7(A.D. 110),in ANF,I:69

"Hegesippus in the five books of Memoirs which have come down to us has left a most complete record of his own views. In them he states that on a journey to Rome he met a great many bishops, and that he received the same doctrine from all. It is fitting to hear what he says after making some remarks about the epistle of Clement to the Corinthians. His words are as follows: 'And the church of Corinth continued in the true faith until Primus was bishop in Corinth. I conversed with them on my way to Rome, and abode with the Corinthians many days, during which we were mutually refreshed in the true doctrine. And when I had come to Rome I remained a there until Anicetus, whose deacon was Eleutherus. And Anicetus was succeeded by Soter, and he by Eleutherus. In every succession, and in every city that is held which is preached by the law and the prophets and the Lord.' "
Hegesippus,Memoirs,fragment in Eusebius Ecclesiatical History,4:22(A.D. 180),in NPNF2,I:198-199

"True knowledge is [that which consists in] the doctrine of the apostles, and the ancient constitution of the Church throughout all the world, and the distinctive manifestation of the body of Christ according to the successions of the bishops, by which they have handed down that Church which exists in every place, and has come even unto us, being guarded and preserved without any forging of Scriptures, by a very complete system of doctrine, and neither receiving addition nor [suffering] curtailment [in the truths which she believes]; and [it consists in] reading [the word of God] without falsification, and a lawful and diligent exposition in harmony with the Scriptures, both without danger and without blasphemy; and [above all, it consists in] the pre-eminent gift of love, which is more precious than knowledge, more glorious than prophecy, and which excels all the other gifts [of God]."
Irenaeus,Against Heresies,4:33:8(A.D. 180),in ANF,I:508

"But if there be any (heresies) which are bold enough to plant themselves in the midst Of the apostolic age, that they may thereby seem to have been handed down by the apostles, because they existed in the time of the apostles, we can say: Let them produce the original records of their churches; let them unfold the roll of their bishops, running down in due succession from the beginning in such a manner that [that first bishop of theirs] bishop shall be able to show for his ordainer and predecessor some one of the apostles or of apostolic men,--a man, moreover, who continued stedfast with the apostles. For this is the manner in which the apostolic churches transmit their registers: as the church of Smyrna, which records that Polycarp was placed therein by John; as also the church of Rome, which makes Clement to have been ordained in like manner by Peter. In exactly the same way the other churches likewise exhibit (their several worthies), whom, as having been appointed to their episcopal places by apostles, they regard as transmitters of the apostolic seed. Let the heretics contrive something of the same kind. For after their blasphemy, what is there that is unlawful for them (to attempt)? But should they even effect the contrivance, they will not advance a step. For their very doctrine, after comparison with that of the apostles, will declare, by its own diversity and contrariety, that it had for its author neither an apostle nor an apostolic man; because, as the apostles would never have taught things which were self-contradictory, so the apostolic men would not have inculcated teaching different from the apostles, unless they who received their instruction from the apostles went and preached in a contrary manner. To this test, therefore will they be submitted for proof by those churches, who, although they derive not their founder from apostles or apostolic men (as being of much later date, for they are in fact being founded daily), yet, since they agree in the same faith, they are accounted as not less apostolic because they are akin in doctrine. Then let all the heresies, when challenged to these two tests by our apostolic church, offer their proof of how they deem themselves to be apostolic. But in truth they neither are so, nor are they able to prove themselves to be what they are not. Nor are they admitted to peaceful relations and communion by such churches as are in any way connected with apostles, inasmuch as they are in no sense themselves apostolic because of their diversity as to the mysteries of the faith."
Tertullian,Prescription against the Heretics,33(A.D. 200),in ANF,III:258

"For as Eve was seduced by the word of an angel to flee from God, having rebelled against His Word, so Mary by the word of an angel received the glad tidings that she would bear God by obeying his Word. The former was seduced to disobey God, but the latter was persuaded to obey God, so that the Virgin Mary might become the advocate of the virgin Eve. As the human race was subjected to death through [the act of] a virgin, so it was saved by a virgin."
Irenaeus, Against Heresies, V:19,1(A.D. 180),in ANF,I:547

"O noble Virgin, truly you are greater than any other greatness. For who is your equal in greatness, O dwelling place of God the Word? To whom among all creatures shall I compare you, O Virgin? You are greater than them all O Covenant, clothed with purity instead of gold! You are the Ark in which is found the golden vessel containing the true manna, that is, the flesh in which divinity resides."
Athanasius, Homily of the Papyrus of Turin,71:216(ante AD 373),in MCF,106

"Mary, the holy Virgin, is truly great before God and men. For how shall we not proclaim her great, who held within her the uncontainable One, whom neither heaven nor earth can contain?"
Epiphanius, Panarion, 30:31(ante AD 403),in MCF,127

"Hail, Mary, you are the most precious creature in the whole world; hail, Mary, uncorrupt dove; hail, Mary, inextinguishable lamp; for from you was born the Sun of justice...through you, every faithful soul achieves salvation"
Cyril of Alexandria,Homily 11 at Ephesus(A.D. 431),in MFC,243-245

Thanks CCB. If it's not a lot of trouble that would be
great. If it's something that involved books and a lot
of time, don't worry with it right now.

Oh. Wait. I see Siggy has posted too.
Let me see what all is there.

Linda

Excellent!
Thanks!

Thanks for all of your posts, Siggy.
I will be going through them.

Linda

Another good point!
Thanks!

Linda

Today's reply:

I am going to supply a quotation I have already once provided. I do so with some irritation - I am covering ground already ploughed; which, had it been interacted with properly the first time around, would not require me to again essay into the topic:

"In the first two centuries of the Church there was no common, ritual practice of reconcilliation. One of the reasons for this lay in the fact that the early Christians believed that the Second Coming of Christ was imminent. Since baptism washed away sin, it was believed that there would be little change to sin again before the Second Coming." (Kelly, 2000, p. 99).

Jesuit scholar Liam Kelly has impeccable scholarly credentials. He was trained in Rome. His text bears the imprimatur of the Bishop of Nottingham James McGuinness, a foreword by Bishop Vincent Nichols, an approving disclaimer by the National Adviser for Catechesis and Religious Education in the U.K., Father Faley. This was the approved text for my Sacramental Theology course - I studied under a Roman Catholic theologian whose name now escapes me. I give these details in order to avoid the invariable attacking of the validity of the text which occurs when scholarly opinion runs contrary to a laypersons' convictions.

Kelly makes it abundantly clear that confession of the sort Roman Catholics would understand began properly after the lifting of the ban on Christianity when apostates, no longer under the pain of persecution, longed for reinstatement in the church. Prior to that, confession, when it occured, was not a private function between a penitent and priest, but rather between individuals within the church community - as we read in James' Epistle. In short, anyone could be a confessor to anybody else - just as Protestants believe and practice today. The confessor held no power to forgive sins in the understanding of early Christians, of course."


The two thoughts I've had are these:
1) Leave it alone at this point--the evidence has been provided (Siggy's quotes)--everyone at the board knows you can never satisfy this poster--that he will go on and on...
2) It seems he chooses to completely disregard Jesus giving the Apostles the instruction to hear sins, etc...if I
mentioned it again here, I'm sure he would only twist it in his usual style--with a lot of words.

Linda

But certainly Kelly must be aware of these quotes.

Right or wrong, from his response, I believe the following would be the response to that--that it was an informal type of confession:

"Prior to that, confession, when it occured, was not a private function between a penitent and priest, but rather
between individuals within the church community - as we read in James' Epistle."

Linda

The quote from the Didache proves him wrong. Not that he would accept any proof at all.