What makes Catholicism right ?

[Clear]

1) The theory that Peter was standing Bishop of the Roman Congregation or passed his apostleship to Linus of Rome

Clear said : The Catholic Claim, according to the dogmatic canons and decrees 246, ft nt. 6, was that “...the Roman Pontiff is the successor of Peter,...”, and "...full power was given to him...by Jesus Christ.” This historicity of this central, historical, profound important claim to Apostolic authority, is the central historical issue I have been speaking to. Historically, the Roman Congregation never had any more authority than any other congregation in the period after the apostles and prophets died (since they were not given more authority by Peter than any other congregation)….. For examples... : (post # 14)

Metis replied : That simply is not true,.... (post # 15)

Metis said : Secondly, how can you possibly know "This is the specific authority which the Roman Catholic Bishops never actually received"? What evidence can you provide for that? You can't, so you are merely citing your unsupportable belief and referring to it as if it's a fact. (post #33)


Hi Metis :

The way History and historical theories work is to base a theory on good data and to limit history to what data shows and what it doesn’t show. For example, if you claimed that Pee Wee Herman was, historically, President of the United States in 1976, the historical issues to this historical claim is similar to the Claim that Peter was standing Bishop of Rome for 20 years after the death of Christ.

Firstly, there is no evidence that Pee Wee Herman was president of the United states. No concurrent records of his being elected, no official actions, no documents that would have resulted from his presidency, nothing written in the news about president Herman, etc.

Similarly, there are no concurrent records of "Bishop Peter" are in existence nor have any been found. No one at the time claimed he was Bishop, no records of his Bishopric, no actions of his administration, no documents of any speeches, any actions, nothing written by him and nothing was written by the media of the time. No historians of the time mention him, no enemies of Christianity speak of him, no members of his congregation write about him, etc.

In short, there is no concurrent documentation for either President Pee Wee Hermans administration or for Bishop / Apostle Peter administration.

Conversely, there IS a LOT of documentation that demonstrates Gerald Ford WAS president of the United States of America in 1976. There are records of his election, of his administration and of what he did as President. Similarly, there is documentation of Bishop Linus of Rome as first Bishop. There are concurrent records of the early period that describe his ordination and his administration.

Thus, one can conclude that Gerald Ford, and not Pee Wee Herman, was president in 1976. It is not historically viable to conclude that Pee Wee Herman was president. Similarly, one can conclude that Linus, and not the apostle Peter, was the first Bishop of the Roman congregation. The Historical theory of the apostle Peter as Bishop of rome was never historically viable.


2) The Historical conclusions are very simple in this case

Metis #33 : “…all I see you doing is basically parroting the Protestant line, which is nonsensical because it defies what we do know about early church history and was widely written about. “

I don't know what the “protestant line” is. I am simply offering the "historical line" and I think the objective “historical” data is actually quite simple. All claims regarding the apostle Peter leaving his traveling apostleship and becoming a standing Bishop of Rome came from later years when Rome was vying for religio-political power. There are no concurrent historical claims for this. Zero, zip, nada. On the other hand, there is concrete data that Linus was the first standing Bishop of the Roman congregation. This is the historical “line”.

Thus, as to your point in post # 35 “did the apostles teach from authority, and was this authority passed on to their appointees from their point of view?”(Metis) , we have, repeatedly agreed that apostles of Jesus had apostolic authority. If you are claiming apostles passed on apostolic authority with it’s attending duties to all bishops of all congregations who were ordained by apostles, this would be a new theory. Until you actually explain your theory where “Even if Peter had never existed, the authority was still there, and that we know for a fact”, I cannot tell what you are trying to describe.


3) You mentioned that the CC and others “claimed apostolic authority”. We agree that they claimed this authority in later years in the context of vying for authority and power and prominence. However, the CC could never historically demonstrate Peter or another apostle gave the Roman Congregation the specific apostolic authority they claimed to have.


Metis, If you can explain your theory of apostolic authority that was given independent of Peters existence, perhaps that would help your position?

Clear
φυνεφυω

 

[metis]

1) The theory that Peter was standing Bishop of the Roman Congregation or passed his apostleship to Linus of Rome

Clear said : The Catholic Claim, according to the dogmatic canons and decrees 246, ft nt. 6, was that “...the Roman Pontiff is the successor of Peter,...”, and "...full power was given to him...by Jesus Christ.” This historicity of this central, historical, profound important claim to Apostolic authority, is the central historical issue I have been speaking to. Historically, the Roman Congregation never had any more authority than any other congregation in the period after the apostles and prophets died (since they were not given more authority by Peter than any other congregation)….. For examples... : (post # 14)

Metis replied : That simply is not true,.... (post # 15)

Metis said : Secondly, how can you possibly know "This is the specific authority which the Roman Catholic Bishops never actually received"? What evidence can you provide for that? You can't, so you are merely citing your unsupportable belief and referring to it as if it's a fact. (post #33)


Hi Metis :

The way History and historical theories work is to base a theory on good data and to limit history to what data shows and what it doesn’t show. For example, if you claimed that Pee Wee Herman was, historically, President of the United States in 1976, the historical issues to this historical claim is similar to the Claim that Peter was standing Bishop of Rome for 20 years after the death of Christ.

Firstly, there is no evidence that Pee Wee Herman was president of the United states. No concurrent records of his being elected, no official actions, no documents that would have resulted from his presidency, nothing written in the news about president Herman, etc.

Similarly, there are no concurrent records of "Bishop Peter" are in existence nor have any been found. No one at the time claimed he was Bishop, no records of his Bishopric, no actions of his administration, no documents of any speeches, any actions, nothing written by him and nothing was written by the media of the time. No historians of the time mention him, no enemies of Christianity speak of him, no members of his congregation write about him, etc.

In short, there is no concurrent documentation for either President Pee Wee Hermans administration or for Bishop / Apostle Peter administration.

Conversely, there IS a LOT of documentation that demonstrates Gerald Ford WAS president of the United States of America in 1976. There are records of his election, of his administration and of what he did as President. Similarly, there is documentation of Bishop Linus of Rome as first Bishop. There are concurrent records of the early period that describe his ordination and his administration.

Thus, one can conclude that Gerald Ford, and not Pee Wee Herman, was president in 1976. It is not historically viable to conclude that Pee Wee Herman was president. Similarly, one can conclude that Linus, and not the apostle Peter, was the first Bishop of the Roman congregation. The Historical theory of the apostle Peter as Bishop of rome was never historically viable.


2) The Historical conclusions are very simple in this case

Metis #33 : “…all I see you doing is basically parroting the Protestant line, which is nonsensical because it defies what we do know about early church history and was widely written about. “

I don't know what the “protestant line” is. I am simply offering the "historical line" and I think the objective “historical” data is actually quite simple. All claims regarding the apostle Peter leaving his traveling apostleship and becoming a standing Bishop of Rome came from later years when Rome was vying for religio-political power. There are no concurrent historical claims for this. Zero, zip, nada. On the other hand, there is concrete data that Linus was the first standing Bishop of the Roman congregation. This is the historical “line”.

Thus, as to your point in post # 35 “did the apostles teach from authority, and was this authority passed on to their appointees from their point of view?”(Metis) , we have, repeatedly agreed that apostles of Jesus had apostolic authority. If you are claiming apostles passed on apostolic authority with it’s attending duties to all bishops of all congregations who were ordained by apostles, this would be a new theory. Until you actually explain your theory where “Even if Peter had never existed, the authority was still there, and that we know for a fact”, I cannot tell what you are trying to describe.


3) You mentioned that the CC and others “claimed apostolic authority”. We agree that they claimed this authority in later years in the context of vying for authority and power and prominence. However, the CC could never historically demonstrate Peter or another apostle gave the Roman Congregation the specific apostolic authority they claimed to have.


Metis, If you can explain your theory of apostolic authority that was given independent of Peters existence, perhaps that would help your position?

Clear
φυνεφυω

How many times do I have to post that this is not about Peter?

 

[metis]

OK, this issue is really about "apostolic succession", not Peter, so let me post what Wikipedia, certainly not a Catholic source, says about this:

According to International Theological Commission (ITC), conflicts could not always be avoided between individuals among the New Testament communities; Paul appealed to his apostolic authority when it [the conflict?] was a disagreement about the Gospel or principles of Christian life. How the development of apostolic government [evolved?] is difficult to say accurately because of the absence of certain documents. ITC says that the apostles or their closest assistants or their successors directed the local colleges ofepiskopoi and presbyteroi by the end of the first century; while by the beginning of the second century the figure of a single bishop, as the head of the communities, appears explicitly in the letters of Ignatius of Antioch (c. 35-107). In the Epistle to the Smyrnaeans, Ignatius wrote about three degrees ministry:

"See that you all follow the bishop, even as Jesus Christ does the Father, and the presbytery as you would the apostles; and reverence the deacons, as being the institution of God. Let no man do anything connected with the Church without the bishop.":Ch.8

Ramsey says that the doctrine was formulated in the second century in the first of the three senses given by him, originally as a response to Gnostic claims of having received secret teaching from Christ or the apostles; it emphasised the public manner in which the apostles had passed on authentic teaching to those whom they entrusted with the care of the churches they founded and that these in turn had passed it on to their successors. Ramsey argues that only later was it given a different meaning, a process in which Augustine (Bp of Hippo Regis, 395–430) played a part by emphasising the idea of "the link from consecrator to consecrated whereby the grace of order was handed on.".

“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”
— Tertullian

Writing about AD 94, Clement of Rome states that the apostles appointed successors to continue their work where they had planted churches and for these in their turn to do the same because they foresaw the risk of discord. He uses both 'bishop' and 'presbyter' to refer to these men. According to Eric G. Jay, the interpretation of his writing is disputed, but it is clear that he supports some sort of approved continuation of the ministry exercised by the apostles, which in its turn was derived from Christ.

Hegesippus (180?) and Irenaeus (180) introduce explicitly the idea of the bishop's succession in office as a guarantee of the truth of what he preached in that it could be traced back to the apostles.[25] and they produced succession lists to back this up. That this succession depended on the fact of ordination to a vacant see and the status of those who administered the ordination is seldom commented on. Woollcombe also states that no one questioned the apostolicity of the See of Alexandria despite the fact that its Popes were consecrated by the college of presbyters up till the time of the Council of Nicaea in 325. On the contrary, other sources clearly state that Mark the Evangelist is the first bishop of Alexandria (Pope of Alexandria), then he ordained Annianus as his successor bishop (2nd Pope)[28] as told byEusebius (Historia Ecclesiastica 2.24.1).

James F. Puglisi, director of Centro Pro Unione, made a conclusion about Irenaeus' writings: "the terms episkopos and presbyteros are interchangeable, but the term episkopos [bishop] is applied to the person who is established in every Church by the apostles and their successors". According to Eric G. Jay,[who?] Irenaeus also refers to a succession of presbyters who preserve the tradition "which originates from the apostles". and later goes on to speak of their having "an infallible gift of truth" [charisma veritatis certum]. Jay comments that this is sometimes seen as an early reference to the idea of the transmission of grace through the apostolic succession which in later centuries was understood as being specifically transmitted through the laying on of hands by a bishop within the apostolic succession (the "pipeline theory"). He warns that this is open to the grave objection that it makes grace a (quasi)material commodity and represents an almost mechanical method of imparting what is by definition a free gift. He adds that the idea cannot be squeezed out of Irenaeus' words.

Writing a little later, Tertullian makes the same main point but adds expressly that recently founded churches (such as his own in Carthage) could be considered apostolic if they had "derived the tradition of faith and the seeds of doctrine" from an apostolic church. His disciple, Cyprian (Bishop of Carthage 248–58) appeals to the same fundamental principle of election to a vacant see in the aftermath of the Decian Persecution when denying the legitimacy of his rigorist rival in Carthage and that of the anti-pope Novatianin Rome; however, the emphasis is now on legitimating his episcopal ministry as a whole and specifically his exclusive right to administer discipline to the lapsed rather than on the content of what is taught. Cyprian also laid great emphasis on the fact that any minister who broke with the Church lost ipso facto the gift of the Spirit which had validated his orders. This meant that the minister would had no power or authority to celebrate an efficacious sacrament. -- https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apostolic_succession

Now, my point is not that "apostolic succession" is theologically correct, but that it is without a doubt historically correct. Coming from a Protestant background that denied the above, it was quite an eye-opener for me when I did the research going back almost 40 years ago.

 

[Clear]

Hi Metis
Do you mind if we take a closer look at this research?

Metis said : “… let me post what Wikipedia, certainly not a Catholic source, says about this:

According to International Theological Commission (ITC), conflicts could not always be avoided between individuals among the New Testament communities; Paul appealed to his apostolic authority when it [the conflict?] was a disagreement about the Gospel or principles of Christian life. How the development of apostolic government [evolved?] is difficult to say accurately because of the absence of certain documents. ITC says that the apostles or their closest assistants or their successors directed the local colleges ofepiskopoi and presbyteroi by the end of the first century; while by the beginning of the second century the figure of a single bishop, as the head of the communities, appears explicitly in the letters ofIgnatius of Antioch (c. 35-107)...."

Metis, the International Theological Commision IS a “catholic source”.

If you click your own link it will tell you that “The International Theological Commission (ITC) of the Roman Catholic Church consists of up to 30 Catholic theologians…”.

That being cleared up, Perhaps we can discuss the independent parts of your cut and past so as to make sense of it?

1) The Roman Catholic Church has a commission (the ITC) that teaches that historically, “conflicts could not always be avoided between individuals among the New Testament communities; “
This context of conflicts IS the milieu that I described where competition arose among the various cities and congregations regarding doctrines and leadership issues. This first sentence confirms my historical claim of the motives Rome (and other communities) had for creating the claims to authority.

2) The Roman Catholic commission goes on to say : “Paul appealed to his apostolic authority when it [the conflict?] was a disagreement about the Gospel or principles of Christian life. “
This point also confirms the historical principle that Apostles were seen to have authority to settle conflicts. Thus, it was important for Rome to claim
“A P O S T O L I C” level of authority, not simply that of a bishop who was simply a bishop among equals.

3) This Roman Catholic commission goes on to say : “How the development of apostolic government [evolved?] is difficult to say accurately because of the absence of certain documents. “
"Absence of certain documents" indeed. There are NO documents that give the Roman congregation/ church / community any A P O S T O L I C level of authority. This was the historical motive to try to claim apostolic level of authority on their local bishop so as to trump the authority of other Bishops of other congregations.

4) This Roman Catholic commission then says : “…the apostles or their closest assistants or their successors directed the local colleges of episkopoi and presbyteroi by the end of the first century”
Metis, Do you have an example of an apostle teaching at or “directing” a “local college” for bishops or elders (presbyteroi)?


5) This Roman Catholic commission then starts to further “tweak” statements (and historical assumptions” of readers) by saying : “…by the beginning of the second century the figure of a single bishop, as the head of the communities, appears explicitly in the letters of Ignatius of Antioch (c. 35-107).

As anyone who reads Ignatius will see, Ignatius refers to multiple bishops (e.g. Onesimus, Damas, Polybius, Polycarp, each of whom are bishops over their individual congregations).

The three great concerns woven throughout the seven letters of Ignatius to seven different congregation are what he sees as heresies being taught in the various churches; the unity of the churches as they start to schism (thus the appeal to listen to and follow their bishops, presbyters and deacons), and he speaks of his death (he is under arrest).

A) Ignatius' letter to the Ephesians reads : “…to the church at Ephesus in Asia…”, in line 3 he says “….I have received in God’s name your whole congregation in the person of Onesimus, a man of inexpressible love who is also your earthly bishop…” He then tells the saints to ….”Act together in harmony with the mind of the bishop [Onesimus]…” Ignatius is not referring to the Bishop of a roman congregation, but to their own bishop. He again refers specifically to Bishop Onesimus, saying he “… experienced such fellowship with your bishop….how much more do I congratulate you who are united with him…”.

It is very clear Ignatius is not referring to some other bishop, but to their own bishop. Thus, when he repeats the line : “…be careful not to oppose the bishop…”, it is their own Bishop Onesimus, and not some distant roman bishop Ignatius is speaking of.

A similar pattern of honoring the specific bishop of individual congregations and then advising the individual congregations to follow their own bishop repeats itself in these letters. For example :

B) When Ignatius writes to the Magnesians he writes “ to the church at Magnesia on the Maeander..”.
He honors their specific Bishop ; “…I was permitted to see you in the persons of Damas, your godly bishop…”.
Ignatius then tells them “ …not to take advantage of the yourthfulness of your bishop, but to give him all the respect due him…. yield to him…” etc.
When Ignatius then tells them “...do everything in godly harmony, the bishop presiding…

He is speaking of their own Bishop Damas of the Magnesians. He is NOT referring to a bishop of the congregation in Rome. Similarly “the bishop and the presbyters” refers to specific bishops and specific presbyters (He also names some of the local presbyters by name).


C) When Ignatius writes to the Trallians, he writes “ to the holy church at Tralles in Asia…”
In the same pattern as before he honors their local Bishop :“…Polybius your bishop informed me when, by the will of God and Jesus Christ, he visited me in Smyrna…”
And he asks them to follow their own bishop of Tralles, Polybius, saying “…It is essential, therefore, that you continue your current practice and do nothing without the bishop…”

He is not referring to some other “single bishop” inferred by the Roman Catholic Commission, but to their OWN single bishop of the OWN congregation.

This is the context of Ignatius' comment to the Smyrnaeans, telling them to follow their own bishop, their own presbytery and reverence their own deacons in their own congregations.
“All follow the bishop as Jesus [does] the Father and the presbyters as one would the apostles and respect the deacons as being an ordinance of God.”
Πάντες τῷ ἐπισκόπῳ ἀκολουθεῖτε, ὡς Ἰησοῦς Χριστὸς τῷ πατρί, καὶ τῷ πρεσβυτερἰῳ ὡς τοῖς ἀποστόλοις. τοὺς δὲ διακόνους ἐντρέπεσθε ὡς θεοῦ ἐντολήν.

I ran out of time, I will respond to the remainder of the Roman Catholic commissions other interpretations later, but it is clear that Ignatius' is not speaking of a single bishop over all congregations (other than Jesus, whom he refers to as "bishop over all"), but to each individual bishop of each individual congregation. He is not speaking of following the bishop of the Roman congregation. This is simply another example of abusing quotes and abusing readers' assumptions to influence historical interpretation.


Clear
σεφιφιω

 

[metis]

Hi Metis
Do you mind if we take a closer look at this research?

Metis said : “… let me post what Wikipedia, certainly not a Catholic source, says about this:

According to International Theological Commission (ITC), conflicts could not always be avoided between individuals among the New Testament communities; Paul appealed to his apostolic authority when it [the conflict?] was a disagreement about the Gospel or principles of Christian life. How the development of apostolic government [evolved?] is difficult to say accurately because of the absence of certain documents. ITC says that the apostles or their closest assistants or their successors directed the local colleges ofepiskopoi and presbyteroi by the end of the first century; while by the beginning of the second century the figure of a single bishop, as the head of the communities, appears explicitly in the letters ofIgnatius of Antioch (c. 35-107)...."

Metis, the International Theological Commision IS a “catholic source”.

If you click your own link it will tell you that “The International Theological Commission (ITC) of the Roman Catholic Church consists of up to 30 Catholic theologians…”.

That being cleared up, Perhaps we can discuss the independent parts of your cut and past so as to make sense of it?

1) The Roman Catholic Church has a commission (the ITC) that teaches that historically, “conflicts could not always be avoided between individuals among the New Testament communities; “
This context of conflicts IS the milieu that I described where competition arose among the various cities and congregations regarding doctrines and leadership issues. This first sentence confirms my historical claim of the motives Rome (and other communities) had for creating the claims to authority.

2) The Roman Catholic commission goes on to say : “Paul appealed to his apostolic authority when it [the conflict?] was a disagreement about the Gospel or principles of Christian life. “
This point also confirms the historical principle that Apostles were seen to have authority to settle conflicts. Thus, it was important for Rome to claim
“A P O S T O L I C” level of authority, not simply that of a bishop who was simply a bishop among equals.

3) This Roman Catholic commission goes on to say : “How the development of apostolic government [evolved?] is difficult to say accurately because of the absence of certain documents. “
"Absence of certain documents" indeed. There are NO documents that give the Roman congregation/ church / community any A P O S T O L I C level of authority. This was the historical motive to try to claim apostolic level of authority on their local bishop so as to trump the authority of other Bishops of other congregations.

4) This Roman Catholic commission then says : “…the apostles or their closest assistants or their successors directed the local colleges of episkopoi and presbyteroi by the end of the first century”
Metis, Do you have an example of an apostle teaching at or “directing” a “local college” for bishops or elders (presbyteroi)?


5) This Roman Catholic commission then starts to further “tweak” statements (and historical assumptions” of readers) by saying : “…by the beginning of the second century the figure of a single bishop, as the head of the communities, appears explicitly in the letters of Ignatius of Antioch (c. 35-107).

As anyone who reads Ignatius will see, Ignatius refers to multiple bishops (e.g. Onesimus, Damas, Polybius, Polycarp, each of whom are bishops over their individual congregations).

The three great concerns woven throughout the seven letters of Ignatius to seven different congregation are what he sees as heresies being taught in the various churches; the unity of the churches as they start to schism (thus the appeal to listen to and follow their bishops, presbyters and deacons), and he speaks of his death (he is under arrest).

A) Ignatius' letter to the Ephesians reads : “…to the church at Ephesus in Asia…”, in line 3 he says “….I have received in God’s name your whole congregation in the person of Onesimus, a man of inexpressible love who is also your earthly bishop…” He then tells the saints to ….”Act together in harmony with the mind of the bishop [Onesimus]…” Ignatius is not referring to the Bishop of a roman congregation, but to their own bishop. He again refers specifically to Bishop Onesimus, saying he “… experienced such fellowship with your bishop….how much more do I congratulate you who are united with him…”.

It is very clear Ignatius is not referring to some other bishop, but to their own bishop. Thus, when he repeats the line : “…be careful not to oppose the bishop…”, it is their own Bishop Onesimus, and not some distant roman bishop Ignatius is speaking of.

A similar pattern of honoring the specific bishop of individual congregations and then advising the individual congregations to follow their own bishop repeats itself in these letters. For example :

B) When Ignatius writes to the Magnesians he writes “ to the church at Magnesia on the Maeander..”.
He honors their specific Bishop ; “…I was permitted to see you in the persons of Damas, your godly bishop…”.
Ignatius then tells them “ …not to take advantage of the yourthfulness of your bishop, but to give him all the respect due him…. yield to him…” etc.
When Ignatius then tells them “...do everything in godly harmony, the bishop presiding…

He is speaking of their own Bishop Damas of the Magnesians. He is NOT referring to a bishop of the congregation in Rome. Similarly “the bishop and the presbyters” refers to specific bishops and specific presbyters (He also names some of the local presbyters by name).


C) When Ignatius write to the Trallians, he writes “ to the holy church at Tralles in Asia…”
In the same pattern as before he honors their local Bishop :“…Polybius your bishop informed me when, by the will of God and Jesus Christ, he visited me in Smyrna…”
And he asks them to follow their own bishop of Tralles, Polybius, saying “…It is essential, therefore, that you continue your current practice and do nothing without the bishop…”

He is not referring to some other “single bishop” inferred by the Roman Catholic Commission, but to their OWN single bishop of the OWN congregation.

This is the context of Ignatius' comment to the Smyrnaeans, telling them to follow their own bishop, their own presbytery and reverence their own deacons in their own congregations.
“All follow the bishop as Jesus [does] the Father and the presbyters as one would the apostles and respect the deacons as being an ordinance of God.”
Πάντες τῷ ἐπισκόπῳ ἀκολουθεῖτε, ὡς Ἰησοῦς Χριστὸς τῷ πατρί, καὶ τῷ πρεσβυτερἰῳ ὡς τοῖς ἀποστόλοις. τοὺς δὲ διακόνους ἐντρέπεσθε ὡς θεοῦ ἐντολήν.

I ran out of time, I will respond to the remainder of the Roman Catholic commissions other interpretations later, but it is clear that Ignatius' is not speaking of a single bishop over all congregations (other than Jesus, whom he refers to as "bishop over all"), but to each individual bishop of each individual congregation He is not speaking of following the bishop of the Roman congregation. This is simply another example of abusing readers assumptions to influence historical interpretation.


Clear
σεφιφιω

You virtually ignore the evidence of what my last post confirmed, plus the fact that you continue to ignore and not consider the fact that the issue of Roman leadership evolved over time. You keep ignoring that which doesn't fit into your predetermined paradigm, preferring instead to pontificate on side issues that don't directly deal with what I've been saying. It's clear you have an agenda, and historical objectivity is not one of them. As the Wikipedia article shows, evidenced by the 2nd century church writings, "apostolic succession" was very important in the early church, plus the Bishop of Rome had a special designation that evolved over time.

Also, a reminder that your Bible was selected by this early church authority, although not exclusively Rome, but it was initiated by Rome, largely because of the issue of conflicting opinions on various letters.

Also, the church never saw itself as just being a confederacy of bishops all at the same level, but neither was it a "dictatorship" from Rome. This is what the real history shows-- not your Protestant-oriented fabrication. As I previously mentioned, I have no "irons in this fire", but you clearly do.

fini

 

[Clear]

POST ONE OF TWO

Hi Metis
Do you mind if we take a closer look at this research?

Metis said : “… let me post what Wikipedia, certainly not a Catholic source, says about this:

According to International Theological Commission (ITC), conflicts could not always be avoided between individuals among the New Testament communities; Paul appealed to his apostolic authority when it [the conflict?] was a disagreement about the Gospel or principles of Christian life. How the development of apostolic government [evolved?] is difficult to say accurately because of the absence of certain documents. ITC says that the apostles or their closest assistants or their successors directed the local colleges ofepiskopoi and presbyteroi by the end of the first century; while by the beginning of the second century the figure of a single bishop, as the head of the communities, appears explicitly in the letters ofIgnatius of Antioch (c. 35-107)...."

Metis, the International Theological Commision IS a “catholic source”.

If you click your own link it will tell you that “The International Theological Commission (ITC) of the Roman Catholic Church consists of up to 30 Catholic theologians…”.

That being cleared up, Perhaps we can discuss the independent parts of your cut and past so as to make sense of it?

1) The Roman Catholic Church has a commission (the ITC) that teaches that historically, “conflicts could not always be avoided between individuals among the New Testament communities; “
This context of conflicts IS the milieu that I described where competition arose among the various cities and congregations regarding doctrines and leadership issues. This first sentence confirms my historical claim of the motives Rome (and other communities) had for creating the claims to authority.

2) The Roman Catholic commission goes on to say : “Paul appealed to his apostolic authority when it [the conflict?] was a disagreement about the Gospel or principles of Christian life. “
This point also confirms the historical principle that Apostles were seen to have authority to settle conflicts. Thus, it was important for Rome to claim
“A P O S T O L I C” level of authority, not simply that of a bishop who was simply a bishop among equals.

3) This Roman Catholic commission goes on to say : “How the development of apostolic government [evolved?] is difficult to say accurately because of the absence of certain documents. “
"Absence of certain documents" indeed. There are NO documents that give the Roman congregation/ church / community any A P O S T O L I C level of authority. This was the historical motive to try to claim apostolic level of authority on their local bishop so as to trump the authority of other Bishops of other congregations.

4) This Roman Catholic commission then says : “…the apostles or their closest assistants or their successors directed the local colleges of episkopoi and presbyteroi by the end of the first century”
Metis, Do you have an example of an apostle teaching at or “directing” a “local college” for bishops or elders (presbyteroi)?


5) This Roman Catholic commission then starts to further “tweak” statements (and historical assumptions” of readers) by saying : “…by the beginning of the second century the figure of a single bishop, as the head of the communities, appears explicitly in the letters of Ignatius of Antioch (c. 35-107).

As anyone who reads Ignatius will see, Ignatius refers to multiple bishops (e.g. Onesimus, Damas, Polybius, Polycarp, each of whom are bishops over their individual congregations).

The three great concerns woven throughout the seven letters of Ignatius to seven different congregation are what he sees as heresies being taught in the various churches; the unity of the churches as they start to schism (thus the appeal to listen to and follow their bishops, presbyters and deacons), and he speaks of his death (he is under arrest).

A) Ignatius' letter to the Ephesians reads : “…to the church at Ephesus in Asia…”, in line 3 he says “….I have received in God’s name your whole congregation in the person of Onesimus, a man of inexpressible love who is also your earthly bishop…” He then tells the saints to ….”Act together in harmony with the mind of the bishop [Onesimus]…” Ignatius is not referring to the Bishop of a roman congregation, but to their own bishop. He again refers specifically to Bishop Onesimus, saying he “… experienced such fellowship with your bishop….how much more do I congratulate you who are united with him…”.

It is very clear Ignatius is not referring to some other bishop, but to their own bishop. Thus, when he repeats the line : “…be careful not to oppose the bishop…”, it is their own Bishop Onesimus, and not some distant roman bishop Ignatius is speaking of.

A similar pattern of honoring the specific bishop of individual congregations and then advising the individual congregations to follow their own bishop repeats itself in these letters. For example :

B) When Ignatius writes to the Magnesians he writes “ to the church at Magnesia on the Maeander..”.
He honors their specific Bishop ; “…I was permitted to see you in the persons of Damas, your godly bishop…”.
Ignatius then tells them “ …not to take advantage of the yourthfulness of your bishop, but to give him all the respect due him…. yield to him…” etc.
When Ignatius then tells them “...do everything in godly harmony, the bishop presiding…

He is speaking of their own Bishop Damas of the Magnesians. He is NOT referring to a bishop of the congregation in Rome. Similarly “the bishop and the presbyters” refers to specific bishops and specific presbyters (He also names some of the local presbyters by name).


C) When Ignatius write to the Trallians, he writes “ to the holy church at Tralles in Asia…”
In the same pattern as before he honors their local Bishop :“…Polybius your bishop informed me when, by the will of God and Jesus Christ, he visited me in Smyrna…”
And he asks them to follow their own bishop of Tralles, Polybius, saying “…It is essential, therefore, that you continue your current practice and do nothing without the bishop…”

He is not referring to some other “single bishop” inferred by the Roman Catholic Commission, but to their OWN single bishop of the OWN congregation.

This is the context of Ignatius' comment to the Smyrnaeans, telling them to follow their own bishop, their own presbytery and reverence their own deacons in their own congregations.
“All follow the bishop as Jesus [does] the Father and the presbyters as one would the apostles and respect the deacons as being an ordinance of God.”
Πάντες τῷ ἐπισκόπῳ ἀκολουθεῖτε, ὡς Ἰησοῦς Χριστὸς τῷ πατρί, καὶ τῷ πρεσβυτερἰῳ ὡς τοῖς ἀποστόλοις. τοὺς δὲ διακόνους ἐντρέπεσθε ὡς θεοῦ ἐντολήν.

I ran out of time, I will respond to the remainder of the Roman Catholic commissions other interpretations later, but it is clear that Ignatius' is not speaking of a single bishop over all congregations (other than Jesus, whom he refers to as "bishop over all"), but to each individual bishop of each individual congregation He is not speaking of following the bishop of the Roman congregation. This is simply another example of abusing readers assumptions to influence historical interpretation.


Clear
σεφιφιω

Metis replied : " You virtually ignore the evidence of what my last post confirmed, plus the fact that you continue to ignore and not consider the fact that the issue of Roman leadership evolved over time. You keep ignoring that which doesn't fit into your predetermined paradigm, preferring instead to pontificate on side issues that don't directly deal with what I've been saying. It's clear you have an agenda, and historical objectivity is not one of them. As the Wikipedia article shows, evidenced by the 2nd century church writings, "apostolic succession" was very important in the early church, plus the Bishop of Rome had a special designation that evolved over time. " (Metis, post #45)


Metis, please be at peace. If I had been ignoring your post, I would not have been able to comment on the details of it. I am not ignoring the cut and paste from Wikipedia, I am examining it for historical accuracy.


POST TWO OF TWO FOLLOWS

 

[Clear]

POST TWO OF TWO

1) REGARDING METIS' CLAIM THAT THE ROMAN LEADERSHIP EVOLVED
I have always agreed with you that the Roman leadership evolved over time.

An evolution of leadership was the very point that I made in post #14 when I discussed (quote) : “the differences between the initial Church of Jesus Christ versus the characteristics of the Later Roman organization. One had apostolic authority and the other did not. The goals and methods differed. The organization, administration were different (e.g. the nature of bishoprics had changed). The mindset towards worldly power and money and oppression had changed. The early doctrines had changed. They were two different organizations.” End quote

In post #17, I discussed “the evolution and spiritual decline of the roman version of the office of Bishop. Bishops became unequal, the early method of choosing and who was chosen as Bishop changed. The office became a political office with Bishops acting like politicians and both seeking and obtaining political power.”

In post #18 I discussed the “political infighting which resulted from the change in the office of Bishop to an elected office. I gave multiple examples of fights and problems, even murders that resulted from these changes made to this office. I discussed the consequences of the gaining of political power and wealth and worldly influence that was occurring in this organization.”

In post # 19 I discussed the increasing tendency for abuse of this worldly power that was then turned to the gain of wealth, property, increase in membership and oppression of those unwilling to conform. I gave more than 30 examples from canons and popes which demonstrated the underlying motive of gaining power, influence and to oppress as I claimed.

ALL OF THESE POINTS IN MULTIPLE POSTS show that I also believe that the roman leadership “evolved” and it changed, and developed and it was not the same leadership nor the same model as originally existed in the original church of Jesus Christ. We both agree that the Roman Catholic leadership and the Roman Catholic Church church and it's policies and it's methods all evolved.



2) REGARDING THE CLAIM THAT I HAVE IGNORED METIS’ POST # 43
As I pointed out, If I had been ignoring your post, I would not have been able to examine it’s contents nor comment on the details of it with any accuracy. If I had not looked up the International Theological Commission, I would not have known this was a Catholic organization; a Catholic source. I am not ignoring this cut and paste from Wikipedia, I am examining it for historical accuracy.



3) REGARDING THE HISTORICAL POSITION THE CATHOLIC THEOLOGIANS OF THE ITC SUGGEST

A) the Roman Catholic ITC says that the apostles or their closest assistants or their successors directed the local colleges ofepiskopoi and presbyteroi by the end of the first century.
I asked you : “Metis, Do you have an example of an apostle teaching at or “directing” a “local college” for bishops or elders (presbyteroi)?”.

The question still needs an answer.


B) The Roman Catholic ITC said that “ …by the beginning of the second century the figure of a single bishop, as the head of the communities, appears explicitly in the letters of Ignatius of Antioch (c. 35-107).”

Their wording, “a single bishop, as the head of the communities” is, historically, incorrect. As I demonstrated, Ignatius was NOT speaking of a “single bishop”, but he addresses his letters to individual congregations and refers, by their names, to the multiple bishops (e.g. Onesimus, Damas, Polybius, Polycarp, each of whom are bishops) over their individual congregations he is writing to.

This is a very good modern example of a subtle Roman Catholic “tweaking” of history, that is designed (presumably) to influence opinion away from the earliest version of leadership of the original Church of Jesus Christ toward the evolved version of Roman Catholic leadership.

None of my comments suggest that I was ignoring your post, instead I hope readers see that I read your post from Wikipedia for even subtle meanings.

Metis, We certainly can discuss the “confederacy of bishops” you spoke of, but for now, I still need to know :

1) What is your example of an apostle teaching at or “directing” a “local college” for bishops or elders (presbyteroi)”?

and

2) Do you have any comments or data to offer readers on the actual comments I made? (other than that you didn't like them) For example, If you think the ITC is correct that Ignatius is speaking of a “single bishop” rather than of “multiple bishops”, you could comment on that since, that is the ITCs suggestion and it seems to be a point of disagreement.

In any case Metis; I truly and honestly hope your spiritual journey in this life it satisfying and good and wonderful.

Clear
σενεειω

 

[Clear]

Metis' quote from the Roman Catholic ITC (continued) :

"Ramsey says that the doctrine was formulated in the second century in the first of the three senses given by him, originally as a response to Gnostic claims of having received secret teaching from Christ or the apostles; it emphasised the public manner in which the apostles had passed on authentic teaching to those whom they entrusted with the care of the churches they founded and that these in turn had passed it on to their successors. Ramsey argues that only later was it given a different meaning, a process in which Augustine (Bp of Hippo Regis, 395–430) played a part by emphasising the idea of "the link from consecrator to consecrated whereby the grace of order was handed on.".

“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”
— Tertullian " (Metis, Post #45)


If forum members read the quote, they will notice that Ramseys comment mirrors my own claim that the tradition of apostolic succession forms in the midst of competition with other claims to authority (Ramsey uses competition with Gnostic claims in his example).

Ramsey confirms that the claim to apostolic succession and its implied authority, was initially used to enhance the claim to authority and credibility of one groups doctrinal authority over than of another group and later became applied to enhancing the claim to administrative authority of one group over others.

Whether a religious group sought for credibility of doctrine or for pre-eminence of administrative rights, still it was a gambit for pre-eminence. This is the same point I already made in post #10 when I said : “There were many early Christian congregations in Jerusalem, Antioch, Corinth, Ephesus, Galatia, etc. In the centuries after the Apostles died. The Roman Religious movement historically, tried to distinguish themselves from other fellow schizmatics on the basis of at least two claims. They repeatedly claimed to have greater RELIGIOUS AUTHORITY and they claimed to have ORIGINAL CHRISTIAN TRADITIONS."

Regardless of who used the claim, the motive underlying the the claim was to achieve higher credibility and pre-eminence. Later, as the Roman organization “evolved”, this claim to authority became a tool used to gain power and money and influence.

I’ll comment on the Roman Catholic Commissions use of Clements comment on "Succession" as soon as I get a few minutes.


Clear
σιδρτζω

 

[Clear]

Metis' quote from the Roman Catholic ITC (continued) :

" Writing about AD 94, Clement of Rome states that the apostles appointed successors to continue their work where they had planted churches and for these in their turn to do the same because they foresaw the risk of discord. He uses both 'bishop' and 'presbyter' to refer to these men. According to Eric G. Jay, the interpretation of his writing is disputed, but it is clear that he supports some sort of approved continuation of the ministry exercised by the apostles, which in its turn was derived from Christ."



Clement is speaking to the Corinthians, in a similar context to Bishop Ignatius. They are trying to keep some order in the churches after the death of the apostles and prophets who had been the highest authority after Jesus died. In his first sentence Clement tells us his purpose. He is "...giving attention to the matters in dispute among you dear friends, especially the destestable and unholy schism..". As Ignatius tells us, "leadership" is one focus for discontent and schism.

In 41 Clement is encourages existing leaders to continue to perform their duties well.
In 42 Clement relates the chain of Authority : “Jesus the Christ was sent forth from God. So then Christ is from God, and the apostles from Christ.” and he speaks of how the apostles chose proven men “to be bishops and deacons for the future believers”. “…this was no new thing they did [ordain one to an office of bishop],…for indeed something had been written about bishops and deacons many years ago…(he then quotes Isa 60:17 from the LXX to show the position was scriptural).
In 43, Clement relates the Old Testament story of “when jealousy arose concerning the priesthood, and the tribes were quarreling about which of them was to be decorated with the glorious title” (of the priesthood), he explains how it was settled in Moses time.
In 44, Clement relates “Our apostles likewise knew…that there would be strife over the bishops office. For this reason, therefore…they appointed the officials mentioned earlier and afterwards they gave the offices a permanent character; that is, if they should die, other approved men should succeed to their ministry….
Clement is, at this point, speaking of the office of Bishop. Clement is not speaking of the office of apostle. He is saying the office of Bishop would continue in the church at the death of a bishop and that another person would become a bishop in the same place as the first man, doing the same job.

While the Catholic IDC says Clement "supports some sort of approved continuation of the ministry exercised by the apostles", Clement actually, did not say this at all. Clement was speaking of a continuation of the ministry exercised by BISHOPS. Clement does not even speak of the office of an apostle continuing in this text, merely of the office of Bishop continuing.

Clement was speaking of the office of Bishop as a continuing office in the Church. That is, the office was not the man, but rather when one bishop died, another bishop would take the place of that bishop and the office would continue. Clements’ comments have nothing to do with a bishop being promoted [“succeeding to”] an apostle, or then being promoted from apostle to a prophet as one is “promoted” in business or in the armed forces. Clement is simply saying the office of Bishop is scriptural, and is an integral and permanent part of the ancient church administration.

If you remember Clements original context, he wrote in context of "the destestable and unholy schism." which was happening not merely among the corinthians, but as we saw from Ignatius letters, controversies and schisms were happening in multiple churches. For example, the earliest church members had experienced a Bishop being chosen and ordained by an apostle. However, once the apostles died, the new practice of a Bishop(s) ordaining another Bishop was new and caused questions and problems in credibility of authority that did not exist when apostles existed and ordained the bishop.

P.S. I noticed First Baseman (post #50 below) posted his version of "succession". I believe First Basemans' post represents the most common Catholic Claim concerning authority and succession associated with the apostle Peter. Metis' Anglican view : "How many times do I have to post that this is not about Peter?" (post #45) does not seem to be the most common Catholic View. See post # 50. Thus, posts #9-19 all are in context with the Catholic historical claim regarding Peter.



Clear
σισεσιω

 

[First Baseman]

What makes Catholicism right?

Catholics believe and teach that Jesus built His Church on Peter. Peter is believed to have been the first "pope." It is believed that Catholicism started with St. Peter. There is where Apostolic Succession comes from and many other doctrines of the Roman Catholic Church. Jesus is the king and the pope is considered to be His vicar on Earth.

This is why the RCC teaches that it is "right."

Personally, I believe that all of the denominations are correct that teach Jesus Christ is the Son of God, died for our sins and rose again on the third day. Of course New Testament teaching is needed, particularly the teaching of Jesus Himself. Being saved is not a license to live a life of sin. Rather, being saved leads us to live a new kind of life, accountable to Jesus and His teaching.

 

[blue taylor]

As one who is not Catholic but am married to one who is and I attend mass with her regularly, I find it beautiful in terms of how devout Catholics tend to turn out. My experience is that usually they're less aggressive and tend to be more modest about their religious bent, thus less prone to radical tendencies and religious arrogance.

Also, the Catholic church can and does trace its ancestry back to the apostles as it was the church through apostolic succession and not the Bible that was the mark of the early church. Matter of fact, it was that church that chose what was going to be in the Bible in the 4th century.

Historically and factually, the Catholic church can not trace it's

Hello i am very interessed in Catholicism. I am an ex Shia Muslim and i find Catholicism very beautiful compared to the cold protestant worship.. (no offense) but my question is what makes Catholicism the right religion ?

There is no

Hello i am very interessed in Catholicism. I am an ex Shia Muslim and i find Catholicism very beautiful compared to the cold protestant worship.. (no offense) but my question is what makes Catholicism the right religion ?

There is no "right religion". Why would you even think that there is?

 

[Orontes]

To both points, I have repeatedly covered them and in some detail.

Peter became pretty much the human symbol of apostolic succession because of what is clearly found in the gospels ("Who do you say I am?" and "Feed my sheep..." and other statements), but we all know that he was not the administrative head of the church, nor the only one cited by Jesus as having certain powers that would be shared. What the RCC may claim in regards to any supposed linkage going back to Peter is meaningless to me.

As to the evolution of apostolic authority, that should be logically obvious as all institutions change over time, and when they grow in size, they tend to become more formalized and often more rigid. Acts and the various epistles clearly point out that the appointees of the apostles are to be listened to and followed. Also, we need to remember that it was this body that three centuries later chose the scriptures that you are still using.

Please note that I am not justifying anything here since this is strictly academic with me and not personal. What got me involved with this is strictly academic based on my studies over the decades.

Hello Metis,

Apologies for the delayed reply. I'm not sure I understand your position. You claim Peter was the human symbol of apostolic succession, that I take means he was not the actual source for apostolic succession. You assert institutions may change over time: growing in size, formalization (and I would assume power). Neither of these positions speak to either authority or legitimacy. My question then: are you arguing the RCC has some authority or legitimacy within the realm of Christendom? If yes, where does this authority and legitimacy source to? If you are not arguing such, is your stance simply that what became Roman Catholicism is a belief set that includes a bureaucracy that has evolved over time?

 

[metis]

Historically and factually, the Catholic church can not trace it's

Seems that your sentence got cut off. But if you were saying that the CC cannot trace its origins back to the apostles, that is very much wrong. Since you seem to have made that assertion, please point out when there was a break in the link and what replaced it, if anything.

 

[metis]

Hello Metis,

Apologies for the delayed reply. I'm not sure I understand your position. You claim Peter was the human symbol of apostolic succession, that I take means he was not the actual source for apostolic succession. You assert institutions may change over time: growing in size, formalization (and I would assume power). Neither of these positions speak to either authority or legitimacy. My question then: are you arguing the RCC has some authority or legitimacy within the realm of Christendom? If yes, where does this authority and legitimacy source to? If you are not arguing such, is your stance simply that what became Roman Catholicism is a belief set that includes a bureaucracy that has evolved over time?

My response strictly is what the early church documents clearly indicate how the early church saw itself. Since I'm neither Catholic nor Christian, the issue of my "faith" doesn't play into what I've posted one way or another.

When we go into the 2nd & 3rd century documents, which granted are subjective in nature, they saw themselves as an extension of the apostolic church, and even though there were a great many local churches, they did not see themselves as being unaffiliated. The Roman church had a special designation, which not only is mentioned in some of these documents but also becomes evident as time goes on because of certain issues that come up, such as the 4th century selection of the canon or dealing with "heresies" earlier on.

As far as today's churches are concerned, that's of no concern to me, including how they may view the Roman church. And the theology of this is also of no concern to me, although I don't mind discussing it now and then-- typically "devil's advocate"-style.

 

[Orontes]

My response strictly is what the early church documents clearly indicate how the early church saw itself.

I see. I'm not sure how one is to define early and church, since there are a variety of Jesus movements (as demonstrated by a plethora of pseudepigrapha, pastoral writings and sectarian papers that lead up to the losers of the first four ecumenical councils). Even so, if one were to focus on proto-orthodoxy: given the earliest Church documents do not establish apostolic succession of the Roman Pontiff and that such posturing is all post hoc. I don't think there is any disagreement.

 

[metis]

I see. I'm not sure how one is to define early and church, since there are a variety of Jesus movements (as demonstrated by a plethora of pseudepigrapha, pastoral writings and sectarian papers that lead up to the losers of the first four ecumenical councils). Even so, if one were to focus on proto-orthodoxy: given the earliest Church documents do not establish apostolic succession of the Roman Pontiff and that such posturing is all post hoc. I don't think there is any disagreement.

As I have repeatedly mentioned, the issue of Peter and even the pontificate was not the issue I focused on. Going back early into this thread, my point was that there was and is the issue of apostolic succession that was the early litmus test for the church, and that this concept evolved over time but never disappeared. Whether it evolved correctly or not is a matter of opinion, and I have none on that because my "theology" is so far out in left field that I can't even see the stadium.

The problem I have with some people is that they try and negate the reality, probably because it doesn't fit into their paradigm, which in my experience is done by their conflating the issues by using "side-bars". Historically, we well know what the reality is on this in general, and it's only some of the details that can be conjectural.

Again, the Bible you read was selected by the church, not the other way around. Nor did the church see itself as somehow an equal collection of fully independent churches as that certainly would not constitute "one body". Even Origen, who put strong emphasis on scripture, referred to the church as "the scarlet thread that binds", and questioned whether there was even salvation outside the church.

Anyhow, it appears we're pretty much on the same page.

Take care.

 

[Clear]

1) REGARDING APOSTOLIC ORIGIN VS APOSTOLIC AUTHORITY
Metis said : “Also, the Catholic church can and does trace its ancestry back to the apostles as it was the church through apostolic succession. #4”
Blue taylor said : “Historically and factually, the Catholic church can not trace it's…” # 51
Metis replied : “ Seems that your sentence got cut off. But if you were saying that the CC cannot trace its origins back to the apostles, that is very much wrong.” #53

I have to agree with Metis on this specific point. The claim to apostolic origin is different than the claim to apostolic authority.

“Apostolic origin” may be taken to mean an apostle organized a congregation and ordains a bishop at the head of that congregation. Multiple congregations and schisms of those ancient congregations can claim apostolic “origin”. Even the later Christian movements have justifications whereby they claim Apostolic origins (e.g. Lutherans, Anglicans, etc, those that claim origination from a church that claims apostolic origination)
“Apostolic authority” may be taken to mean an apostle gives his own apostolic level authority to the congregations leader(s). THIS is the claim that cannot be supported historically. We have no concurrent evidence this ever happened with any ancient Christian congregation.


2) REGARDING THE CLAIM THAT THERE IS NO "RIGHT RELIGION"
blue taylor said : " There is no "right religion". Why would you even think that there is? " #51

Blue Taylor doesn’t explain what is meant by “right religion”. If the statement means that one cannot find varying truths in varying religious movements, the statement is incorrect. It may simply imply that no single Christian movement has all religious truth. However, this is as it should be.

If blue taylor means that there is no "plug and play' organization that provides all truths without any contamination with some sort of errors, then he may be correct. However, this does not negate the value of religion (or a specific religion) and it also, is to be expected.

Multiple sources of education for spiritual truths
What “truths” make up the sort of education that will prepare us to live in a Christian heaven, that is, to live in a social order that is characterized by complete social harmony and eternal joy?

Most of the characteristics required as a preparation to live that sort of life are moral and social characteristics, such as Kindness, Empathy, Honesty, Love, Patience, Insight, Civility, Diligence, Understanding, Faith, Etc. To a certain extent, these characteristics can be learned in a multitude of milieus and are taught by a multitude of churches.

Few individuals would argue that the Catholic Church has not produced some extremely wonderful individuals such as "mother teresa" that characterize many of the highest moral and character aspirations which would characterize one who would be able to live in a social heaven.

The discrete factual details of Christianity, are important. But, I do not think a completely correct understanding of details are required of all individuals in this life.

If the early Christian context of life as a tutoring is correct, that is, we are experiencing a school to which the spirits of mankind are embodied and sent to learn, by their own experience, the principles of good and evil and their consequences, then this sort of moral education is, somewhat, independent of a specific church as the single source of this experience and education mankind are to obtain. I can learn about honesty and kindness in the Catholic Church as well as in the Baptist church as well as in the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints ("mormon") or in the Seventh Day Adventist church or in the Jehovahs Witnesses church.

My point is NOT that all these distinct Christian movements have the same amount of historical facts or the same amount of truth upon a specific, and discrete theological principle, but that much of the generic moral education that must take place inside of mortality can be accomplished inside any of these Christian movements and it is only the specific discrete details, which are often separate principles from moral characteristics, which I must learn from a specific source. No matter where we are, we all begin at one level of knowledge and truth and are seeking to achieve a greater level of knowledge and truth.


Clear
νεδρτζω

 

[BilliardsBall]

Hello i am very interessed in Catholicism. I am an ex Shia Muslim and i find Catholicism very beautiful compared to the cold protestant worship.. (no offense) but my question is what makes Catholicism the right religion ?

I think an important issue here is where a church or movement stands on salvation. Logically, the most important Bible doctrines to us as (selfish) individuals, in order, should be:

1. How may I be saved?

2. Can I keep or forfeit my salvation?

3. What happens at the end of this age? (this last doctrine becomes very important if we are living in the times when Jesus will return)

The Roman Catholic Church teaches that salvation comes from a blend of what Jesus has done on the cross along with our faith and our adherence to Jesus and the teachings of the Roman Catholic Church.

Evangelicals believe salvation comes from trusting in Jesus.

Full disclosure: I'm an evangelical Christian.

 

[metis]

The Roman Catholic Church teaches that salvation comes from a blend of what Jesus has done on the cross along with our faith and our adherence to Jesus and the teachings of the Roman Catholic Church.

The RCC teaches that it might be possible that those in other religions may be saved.

Gotta go for now.

 

[BilliardsBall]

The RCC teaches that it might be possible that those in other religions may be saved.

Gotta go for now.

When evangelicals teach the same thing, it is called "inclusivism". Some people interpret Romans 1 & 2 as non-Christians may be saved. Others are called "exclusivists".

As important, readers on this forum have heard Jesus saves, so they cannot be saved apart from trusting in Jesus Christ.