Papal Claims

[Montalban]

Pope St. Victor – First signs of Supremecy?

Another 'evidence' used by Catholics is the controversy over the celibration of Easter, and the machinations of Pope St Victor; claims by the Catholic church on the ‘exercise’ of papal power fail upon closer inspection.

Pope St. Victor (189-199) is sometimes claimed by Catholics as the first to demonstrate supreme power over the whole Christian world. The Church in Asia Minor celebrated Easter on a different day from the rest of the Christian churches, and although he initiated a synod to investigate, this was done by request, not command. Polycrates, Bishop of Ephesus wrote to St. Victor “Victor and the Roman Church”, (Eusebius – v. 24). [1]

Eusebius further says “There is extant to this day a letter from those who attended a conference in Palestine presided over by Bishop Theophilus of Caesarea and Narcissus of Jerusalem; and from those at Rome a similar one, arising out of the same controversy, which names Victor as bishop. There are others from the Pontic bishops, presided over by Palmas as the senior; from the Gallic province, over which Irenaeus was archbishop, and from the bishops in Osrhoene and the cities of that region. There are personal letters from Bishop Bacchyllus of Corinth and very many more, who voiced the same opinion and judgment and gave the same vote. All these laid down one single rule the rule already stated.” [2]

Thus the decree came from the conference, not from the Pope. Polycrates disputed the council, however. Eusebius said “Thereupon Victor, head of the Roman Church attempted at one stroke to cut off from the common unity all the Asian diocese, together with the neighboring churches, on the ground of heterodoxy.” [3] NOTE: Attempted He failed because “…this was not tot the taste of all the bishops: they replied with a request that he would turn his mind to the things that make for peace and unity and love towards his neighbours. We still possess the
words of these men who very sternly rebuked Victor. Among them was Irenaeus, who wrote on behalf of the Christians for whom he was
responsible for in Gaul.”[4] This hardly suggest universal over-lordship as understood by the early church.

Notes
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
[1] Whelton, M, "Two Paths", p45.
[2] Ibid, p45.
[3] Ibid, pp46-47.
Note that the Catholic Church regards Eusebius as the "Father of Church History" (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/05617b.htm)
[4] Whelton, Ibid.

 

[Montalban]

More misguided claims

One man who converted from Protestantism to Catholicism claimed that there is ample evidence of the early church fathers supporting Papal supremecy.[1]

He states with conviction…

“Tertullian, in his Demurrer Against the Heritics, written about the year A.D. 200, and continuing to challenge the heretics who have departed from the doctrine of the Church says, "Come now,...run through the apostolic Churches in which the very thrones of the Apostles remain still in place...Achaia...Corinth...Philippi...Ephesus. But if you are near to Italy, you have Rome, whence also our authority derives. How happy is that Church, on which the Apostles poured out their whole doctrine along with their blood, where Peter endured a passion like that of the Lord, where Paul was crowned in a death like John's [John the Baptist], where the Apostle John, after being immersed in boiling oil and suffered no hurt, was exiled to an island"[36,1-3]. (p.122).” (emphasis his)
Oddly enough he fails to understand that he highlights the part that doesn’t support his argument. If you are near to Italy, Rome is your head church… that is to say, only if you are near Italy. But what about ‘whence also our authority derives’?
Let’s just take a moment to look at Tertullian, is he a whole-hearted supporter of the Papacy?
A Catholic web-site[2] states…
“Tertullian (QUINTUS SEPTIMIUS FLORENS TERTULLIANUS).
Ecclesiastical writer in the second and third centuries, b. probably about 160 at Carthage, being the son of a centurion in the proconsular service. He was evidently by profession an advocate in the law-courts, and he shows a close acquaintance with the procedure and terms of Roman law, though it is doubtful whether he is to be identified with a jurist Tertullian who is cited in the Pandects. He knew Greek as well as Latin, and wrote works in Greek which have not come down to us. A pagan until middle life, he had shared the pagan prejudices against Christianity, and had indulged like others in shameful pleasures. His conversion was not later than the year 197, and may have been earlier. He embraced the Faith with all the ardour of his impetuous nature. He became a priest, no doubt of the Church of Carthage. Monceaux, followed by d'Ales, considers that his earlier writings were composed while he was yet a layman, and if this be so, then his ordination was about 200. His extant writings range in date from the apologetics of 197 to the attack on a bishop who is probably Pope Callistus (after 218 ).”

Note two things. 1) he is from North Africa; close to Italy – therefore his church then probably did come under the headship of Rome. 2) He was known to be critical of bishops of Rome.
This misguided writer goes on. Another of his so-called proofs is the opening address of St. Ignatius of Antioch to the Romans, which reads;

“Ignatius, who is also Theophorus, unto her that hath found mercy in the bountifulness of the Father Most High and of Jesus Christ His only Son; to the church that is beloved and enlightened through the will of Him who willed all things that are, by faith and love towards Jesus Christ our God; even unto her that hath the presidency in the country of the region of the Romans, being worthy of God, worthy of honour, worthy of felicitation, worthy of praise, worthy of success, worthy in purity, and having the presidency of love, walking in the law of Christ and bearing the Father's name; which church also I salute in the name of Jesus Christ the Son of the Father; unto them that in flesh and spirit are united unto His every commandment, being filled with the grace of God without wavering, and filtered clear from every foreign stain; abundant greeting in Jesus Christ our God in blamelessness.”[3]

Again note… ‘to the presidency in the country of the region of the Romans’, that is, to the area around Rome! Note also ‘to the church that is beloved…’ not ‘to the church that is MOST beloved…’

Notes
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
[1] http://www.saveourchurch.org/faithfather.html
[2] http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/14520c.htm
[3] http://www.earlychristianwritings.com/text/ignatius-romans-lightfoot.html

 

[Rev.]

Your posts have been fascinating, but you are mounting a one-sided debate.
Why the crusade?

 

[Montalban]

Your posts have been fascinating, but you are mounting a one-sided debate.
Why the crusade?

In a sense I'm trying to post what I can, when I can... because I've been kicked off two other forums by Catholic moderators who won't engage me in debate on this issue, but simply siffled my 'rant' by censorship. So, now that I've been able to go unmolested* here, I've got a chance to air my stuff at last ! Even though my posts are (if I'm not being too arrogant) well researched it seems that Catholics have no wish but to provide their own one-sided accounts.
I am aware of several Catholic sites that use Holy Fathers out of context.
http://www.catholic.com/library/eastern_orthodoxy.asp
http://www.globalserve.net/~bumblebee/ecclesia/patriarchs.htm
This last list itself is linked from a vast number of sites:
http://www.geocities.com/Athens/Atrium/8410/pete.html
http://ic.net/~erasmus/ERASMUS4.HTM
http://www.catholicsource.net/articles/petertherock.html
http://jloughnan.tripod.com/the_rock.htm
http://forums.catholic.com/showthread.php?p=239960
http://srv1.ic.net/~erasmus/RAZ206.HTM
http://www.americancatholictruthsociety.com/docs/ecfpapacy.htm

I've written to the 'bumblebee' site and all they responded was shock that I would even question their statements.

I've got much more, if you like I'll post some. Here's a bit more.
One of their misquotes read...

"And he says to him again after the resurrection, 'Feed my sheep.' It is on him that he builds the Church, and to him that he entrusts the sheep to feed. And although he assigns a like power to all the apostles, yet he founded a single Chair, thus establishing by his own authority the source and hallmark of the (Church's) oneness. No doubt the others were all that Peter was, but a primacy is given to Peter, and it is (thus) made clear that there is but one flock which is to be fed by all the apostles in common accord. If a man does not hold fast to this oneness of Peter, does he imagine that he still holds the faith? If he deserts the Chair of Peter upon whom the Church was built, has he still confidence that he is in the Church? This unity firmly should we hold and maintain, especially we bishops, presiding in the Church, in order that we may approve the episcopate itself to be the one and undivided." Cyprian, The Unity of the Church, 4-5 (A.D. 251-256).

To which I stated...
Actually your quote is quite liberal in it's interpretation and thus misses a bit... " Assuredly the rest of the apostles were also the same as was Peter, endowed with a like partnership both of honour and power; but the beginning proceeds from unity"
http://www.ccel.org/fathers2/ANF-05/anf05-111.htm#P6832_2190664

Do you want to know more?


*unmolested in the sense that no one has warned me for these postings. I would welcome Catholics defending their church; after-all I could be wrong on some or all points.

 

[Rev.]

It's all very interesting but I'm afraid you'll get no debate from me. I don't understand how anyone can read "On this rock I will build my Church" and get out of it "Peter, I annoint you Pope."

In a sense I'm trying to post what I can, when I can... because I've been kicked off two other forums by Catholic moderators who won't engage me in debate on this issue, but simply stiffled my 'rant' by censorship. So, now that I've been able to go unmolested* here, I've got a chance to air my stuff at last ! Even though my posts are (if I'm not being too arrogant) well researched it seems that Catholics have no wish but to provide their own one-sided accounts.

What are you hoping to accomplish through these posts? Correct history, just for the record? Or that Catholics will realize the truth and...?

 

[Montalban]

What are you hoping to accomplish through these posts? Correct history, just for the record? Or that Catholics will realize the truth and...?

Both, as well as to present to those who don't actually post, a case against Papal claims.

It might also come up if someone does an internet search.

This does not mean I support 'sola scriptura' claims of the Protestant churches

 

[Rev.]

This does not mean I support 'sola scriptura' claims of the Protestant churches

"Sola scriptura" is the doctrine that the entire plan of salvation is contained in the scripture and that no outside teaching (tradition) is needed in order to be saved. (...just for the record )

What have the Protestants missed from tradition that is preventing them from being saved?

 

[Montalban]

"Sola scriptura" is the doctrine that the entire plan of salvation is contained in the scripture and that no outside teaching (tradition) is needed in order to be saved. (...just for the record

Which itself is not supported by the early church

The last words of the last of the Gospels (John’s) says that not all that Jesus said and did was contained in the scriptures.

Further, the Bible itself did not come into existence until after the church brought it together in the 300s. Which would mean that for ‘sola scriptura’ to be true, the early church was un-Christian.

What have the Protestants missed from tradition that is preventing them from being saved?

Good question. I can not judge that a particular person will, or will not be saved; that is up to God.

However I can tell you that the Orthodox understanding of the path to salvation is to live a life as Christ did, to be like Christ.

Christ lived a liturgical existence; he was at the cusp between the old and the new; establishing new
ways of living… such as the Liturgy – the partaking of the Eucharist, which St. Paul confirms in Corinthians (I think 1 Corinthians) that it is not to be seen as a mere communal meal.

 

[geekgrrl]

Ten persons reading any chapter of the scriptures will arrive at ten different understandings. Ten more will do the same, and so on. It is for this reason that with every passing day, new religions with the word Christian in their names are being organized.

I claim no special understanding of theology and therefore hitch my wagon, as it were, to the teachings of the Vatican, which is able to trace a direct line to Christ.

I don't have a dog in this fight, and I don't have any special understanding of theology either, but when I read the following...

17 Jesus replied, "Blessed are you, Simon son of Jonah, for this was not revealed to you by man, but by my Father in heaven. 18 And I tell you that you are Peter, and on this rock I will build my church, and the gates of Hades will not overcome it. ..."

...I say to myself, all we have to read are translations, because the people who wrote all this stuff didn't speak English, which didn't even exist yet as the Germano-Celtic Old English. So we are dependent on the translated structure of the language. But if you want to go the linguistic analysis route, well, assuming the translation into English is correct (and that's a BIG assumption), I can see 3 distinct segments, each of them capable of standing as a complete sentence. I've highlighted these three candidate segments in bold. Because these sentence-segments are linked by the conjunctive "and", the implication seems to me to be that all 3 hold true individually at the same time, not that there is any order or dependence on them.

1. "I tell you that you are Peter." OK, Peter (petrus) means "rock" in Latin. Jesus is identifying some particular grace that makes him stand out, inasmuch as he later tells Peter that his Father had to have given him some special knowledge.

2. "On this rock I will build my church." Jesus didn't say that he would build his church on Peter, he said he would build it "on this rock". My guess is that Jesus didn't say "On you I will build my church" or "On Peter I will build my church" because he deliberately wanted to leave some ambiguity so that people like us could argue about it for aeons afterward.

3. "The gates of Hades will not overcome it." Clearly, by "it", Jesus means the church, not Peter.

I vote for deliberate ambiguity. Thus every dog in this fight is right. The difference is one of degree, not of kind.

 

[Tashah]

Being of the Jewish faith, I do not pretend to fully understand the Catholic theological dynamics of Papal Supremacy and the notion of Papal Infallibility.

That said, I will now say that something that has always bothered me was the past persecution of natural philosophers and scientists by the Catholic Church when new discoveries discredited Catholic cosmological doctrine .

If the Pope enjoys infallibility in religious matters, why was Giordano Bruno burned at the stake and Galileo persecuted and sentenced to house arrest for their respective views on cosmology? They were both tried and convicted of religious heresy. The Catholic Church later recanted, and today you can even find an astronomical observatory in Vatican City.

Nevertheless, many scientists were persecuted and even executed by the church on the implicit premise that Catholic religious doctrine was correct and infallible.

Can someone be so kind as to explain this so-called infallibility to me in a manner that is both logical and persuasive?

 

[geekgrrl]

Being of the Jewish faith, I do not pretend to fully understand the Catholic theological dynamics of Papal Supremacy and the notion of Papal Infallibility.

I was born Jewish (but abandoned all religion long ago), and I don't even pretend to understand why freeborn human beings submit themselves to the shackles of illogic and illusion that comprise religion.

That said, I will now say that something that has always bothered me was the past persecution of natural philosophers and scientists by the Catholic Church when new discoveries discredited Catholic cosmological doctrine.

Catholicism never had a cosmological doctrine. Cosmology is not its area of interest. It does have a religious doctrine, upon which reality intrudes at its own peril.

f the Pope enjoys infallibility in religious matters, why was Giordano Bruno burned at the stake and Galileo persecuted and sentenced to house arrest for their respective views on cosmology? They were both tried and convicted of religious heresy. The Catholic Church later recanted, and today you can even find an astronomical observatory in Vatican City.

The Catholic Church never recants, since to do so would be to show itself fallible. However, it "studies the situation" and modifies its views by declaring scientific findings "not in conflict" with the Church's teachings -- for example, Charles Darwin's Theory of Evolution. This is its usual backtracking -- not recanting, mind you -- when it is confronted with inarguable evidence not supported by religious dogma. No matter how hard you may preach, people will still believe their eyes first.

BTW, the astronomical observatory, according to something I read a long time ago, was actually used for astrological, not astronomical purposes. Superstition dies hard.

Nevertheless, many scientists were persecuted and even executed by the church on the implicit premise that Catholic religious doctrine was correct and infallible.

Can someone be so kind as to explain this so-called infallibility to me in a manner that is both logical and persuasive?

Probably not.

 

[Montalban]

...I say to myself, all we have to read are translations, because the people who wrote all this stuff didn't speak English, which didn't even exist yet as the Germano-Celtic Old English. So we are dependent on the translated structure of the language. But if you want to go the linguistic analysis route, well, assuming the translation into English is correct (and that's a BIG assumption), I can see 3 distinct segments, each of them capable of standing as a complete sentence. I've highlighted these three candidate segments in bold. Because these sentence-segments are linked by the conjunctive "and", the implication seems to me to be that all 3 hold true individually at the same time, not that there is any order or dependence on them.

1. "I tell you that you are Peter." OK, Peter (petrus) means "rock" in Latin. Jesus is identifying some particular grace that makes him stand out, inasmuch as he later tells Peter that his Father had to have given him some special knowledge.

2. "On this rock I will build my church." Jesus didn't say that he would build his church on Peter, he said he would build it "on this rock". My guess is that Jesus didn't say "On you I will build my church" or "On Peter I will build my church" because he deliberately wanted to leave some ambiguity so that people like us could argue about it for aeons afterward.

3. "The gates of Hades will not overcome it." Clearly, by "it", Jesus means the church, not Peter.

I vote for deliberate ambiguity. Thus every dog in this fight is right. The difference is one of degree, not of kind.

When trying to interpret the text we, the Orthodox Church have something in common with the Catholic Church - we go to see what the great Church Fathers have said. We see if they are of accord, and we go for consensus. The problem for Catholics is that there is no consensus on what 'rock' means; and more Church Fathers believe it DOES NOT mean Peter, than those who do.

Unfortunately the Catholic Church, when presenting its case presents only those (that is the minority) who state the interpretation the way they want it to be.

We almost all agree with the notion that the 'gates of hell' refer to the church; that the church shall not fail.

 

[Montalban]

“Long ago (in the 4th century!) one of the Church's teachers Vasilius the Great wrote about this. He advised the Orthodox Christians neither to rely upon the scientific data in order to provide foundation for their faith in Christ, nor to try to disprove them, because “the scientists permanently disprove themselves.”
http://www.pravoslavie.ru/english/age-of-earth.htm

Being of the Jewish faith, I do not pretend to fully understand the Catholic theological dynamics of Papal Supremacy and the notion of Papal Infallibility.

The teachings on the position/authority of the Pope are central to Catholic teaching authority. From the notion that the Pope is supreme comes the notion that he, and those he appoints, have the right to develop dogma/doctrines. Thus new doctrines such as "The Immaculate Conception" can be claimed to be 'real' because the Pope has ruled on them.

That said, I will now say that something that has always bothered me was the past persecution of natural philosophers and scientists by the Catholic Church when new discoveries discredited Catholic cosmological doctrine.

If the Pope enjoys infallibility in religious matters, why was Giordano Bruno burned at the stake and Galileo persecuted and sentenced to house arrest for their respective views on cosmology? They were both tried and convicted of religious heresy. The Catholic Church later recanted, and today you can even find an astronomical observatory in Vatican City.

Nevertheless, many scientists were persecuted and even executed by the church on the implicit premise that Catholic religious doctrine was correct and infallible.

Can someone be so kind as to explain this so-called infallibility to me in a manner that is both logical and persuasive?

Firstly, the statement you have made about the Catholic Church is not entirely the case. See Appendix A "Bruno" and Appendix B "Galileo" (below)

You must realise that for a long period of time the best science that was available said that the earth was the centre of the Solar System; it is a belief that dated back before the Church, to the ancient Greeks.

The Catholic Church made an error in tying their religious views to science. Science said that the earth was the centre, so many Catholics would scour the Bible to find a 'proof' that a text agreed with the then state-of-the-art science. Suddenly science says "No, we've got it wrong". This left a lot of puzzled Catholics; who always have approached matters of doctrine through speculation (refer to Orthodox stance in quote atop). However as shown below these respective gentlemen were not persecuted because of their science.

Many modern Protestants do this by trying to find science to back up Genesis. I personally am a 'creationist', but my faith does not rest on the latest scientific 'affirmations' of what I already believe (some may be shocked by this).

Appendix A
Bruno
In the spring of 1599, the trial was begun before a commission of the Roman Inquisition, and, after the accused had been granted several terms of respite in which to retract his errors, he was finally condemned (January, 1600), handed over to the secular power (8 February), and burned at the stake in the Campo dei Fiori in Rome (17 February). Bruno was not condemned for his defence of the Copernican system of astronomy, nor for his doctrine of the plurality of inhabited worlds, but for his theological errors, among which were the following: that Christ was not God but merely an unusually skilful magician, that the Holy Ghost is the soul of the world, that the Devil will be saved, etc.
http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/03016a.htm

Appendix B
Galileo
Under the sentence of imprisonment Galileo remained till his death in 1642. It is, however, untrue to speak of him as in any proper sense a "prisoner". As his Protestant biographer, von Gebler, tells us, "One glance at the truest historical source for the famous trial, would convince any one that Galileo spent altogether twenty-two days in the buildings of the Holy Office (i.e. the Inquisition), and even then not in a prison cell with barred windows, but in the handsome and commodious apartment of an official of the Inquisition." For the rest, he was allowed to use as his places of confinement the houses of friends, always comfortable and usually luxurious. It is wholly untrue that he was... either tortured or blinded by his persecutors -- though in 1637, five years before his death, he became totally blind -- or that he was refused burial in consecrated ground. On the contrary, although the pope (Urban VIII) did not allow a monument to be erected over his tomb, he sent his special blessing to the dying man, who was interred not only in consecrated ground, but within the church of Santa Croce at Florence.
http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/06342b.htm

It might not seem to you much of a difference, in the case of Bruno, because he was still executed (indirectly) by the Church. However your belief is flawed; it would be akin to saying that a scientist who was a murderer, was executed not of the murder he committed, but because he was a scientist; which is not the case.

 

[edb19]

Re: Evidence from the First Church Council

Conclusion. The Apostels did not view Peter as the supreme head of the church

Neither did Peter.

1 Peter 5:1
1Therefore, I exhort the elders among you, as your fellow elder and witness of the sufferings of Christ, and a partaker also of the glory that is to be revealed

Now it seems to me that if Peter was the head of the church he would have addressed subjects, not fellow elders. He addressed himself simply as an apostle of Christ.

 

[Montalban]

Re: Evidence from the First Church Council

Neither did Peter.

1 Peter 5:1
1Therefore, I exhort the elders among you, as your fellow elder and witness of the sufferings of Christ, and a partaker also of the glory that is to be revealed

Now it seems to me that if Peter was the head of the church he would have addressed subjects, not fellow elders. He addressed himself simply as an apostle of Christ.

Indeed, Acts 15 (I belive; memory fading), there's a meeting of the Apostles. Catholics say we should note that when Peter speaks, all are silent. But they forget to note that when someone else speaks, all are silent too, it's called being polite. Peter doesn't head that meeting, James does.

 

[geekgrrl]

When trying to interpret the text we, the Orthodox Church have something in common with the Catholic Church - we go to see what the great Church Fathers have said. We see if they are of accord, and we go for consensus. The problem for Catholics is that there is no consensus on what 'rock' means; and more Church Fathers believe it DOES NOT mean Peter, than those who do.

Unfortunately the Catholic Church, when presenting its case presents only those (that is the minority) who state the interpretation the way they want it to be.

We almost all agree with the notion that the 'gates of hell' refer to the church; that the church shall not fail.

Myself, I concede that Jesus was a master of ambiguity. This instance ("Upon this rock...") is one of the most telling. The only thing you have to rely on is the semantic deconstruction, but Jesus knows you're going to do that, so he deliberately fails to complete the transfer of identity from the name "Petrus" to the object "petrus". The name "Petrus" is a designee, but the object "petrus" is what is designated as that upon which Jesus will build his church. The name and the object are homonymous, but not synonymous; they are different entities. So Petrus is the subject of "I tell you that you are Peter" and by the time Jesus passes the conjunction "and" to get to "...upon this rock I shall build my church, and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it", "this rock" is not guaranteed to be Peter, because "You are Peter" (a rock), but Peter is not necessarily "this rock" (on which I shall build my church). It's clever dissimulation, but for what purpose?

And, again, everything depends on the correctness of the translation, which I am unqualified to judge, since my only foreign language of any real competence is French.

 

[Tashah]

Catholicism never had a cosmological doctrine. Cosmology is not its area of interest. It does have a religious doctrine, upon which reality intrudes at its own peril.

From my humble point of view, the Book of Genesis is just as cosmological as the Ancient Egyptian Enead or the celestial spheres of Ptolomy. Seeing that Cosmology is the study of the origin and history of the universe, any sources that claim a knowledge of cosmic origin must be considered a form of cosmological dogma.

The Catholic Church made an error in tying their religious views to science.

Although I lack your eloquence, I do thank you for stating this convergence of opinion.

 

[geekgrrl]

From my humble point of view, the Book of Genesis is just as cosmological as the Ancient Egyptian Enead or the celestial spheres of Ptolomy. Seeing that Cosmology is the study of the origin and history of the universe, any sources that claim a knowledge of cosmic origin must be considered a form of cosmological dogma.

Hmmm... "cosmological dogma". Interesting. In any case, OK, semantically speaking, you have a point: the Catholic Church did not concoct its own cosmology, just borrowed the one from the Old Testament Genesis. The Church had no interest in explaining the universe's origin beyond what was in Genesis, and anyone who tried to suggest anything radically different ran the risk of being deemed a heretic -- just like anyone who supports women's rights to self-determination, gay rights to marriage, married priests and ordination of women is reviled as a shameless apostate nowadays. On the other hand, maybe the term "cosmological dogma" is redundant, if all cosmologies are deemed to be dogma.

However, for clarification, and just so we're all on the same page, so to speak, I just want to run through some basic definitions. First, let's have a definition of dogma...

Main Entry:dog£ma
Pronunciation:*d*g-m*, *d*g-
Function:noun
Inflected Formlural dogmas also dog£ma£ta \-m*-t*\
Etymology:Latin dogmat-, dogma, from Greek, from dokein to seem— more at DECENT
Date:1638

1 a : something held as an established opinion; especially : a definite authoritative tenet b : a code of such tenets *pedagogical dogma* c : a point of view or tenet put forth as authoritative without adequate grounds
2 : a doctrine or body of doctrines concerning faith or morals formally stated and authoritatively proclaimed by a church

And then, let's do both "cosmology " and "cosmogony"...

Main Entry:cos£mol£o£gy
Pronunciation:k*z-*m*-l*-j*
Function:noun
Inflected Formlural -gies
Etymology:New Latin cosmologia, from Greek kosmos + New Latin -logia -logy
Date:circa 1656

1 a : a branch of metaphysics that deals with the nature of the universe b : a theory or doctrine describing the natural order of the universe
2 : a branch of astronomy that deals with the origin, structure, and space-time relationships of the universe; also : a theory dealing with these matters
–cos£mo£log£i£cal \*k*z-m*-*l*-ji-k*l\ adjective
–cos£mo£log£i£cal£ly \-ji-k(*-)l*\ adverb
–cos£mol£o£gist \k*z-*m*-l*-jist\ noun

Main Entry:cos£mog£o£ny
Pronunciation:k*z-*m*-g*-n*
Function:noun
Inflected Formlural -nies
Etymology:New Latin cosmogonia, from Greek kosmogonia, from kosmos + gonos offspring; akin to Greek genos race— more at KIN
Date:1766

1 : the creation or origin of the world or universe
2 : a theory of the origin of the universe
–cos£mo£gon£ic \*k*z-m*-*g*-nik\ or cos£mo£gon£i£cal \-ni-k*l\ adjective
–cos£mog£o£nist \k*z-*m*-g*-nist\ noun

Are we discussing cosmological dogma or cosmogonic dogma? I't's not clear which context you really want to use, since the meanings appear quite close.

I think we got off on this tangent unrelated to the subject of the thread when the subject arose of persecution of scientists for their lack of adherence to the official church cosmology.

 

[Fantasea]

Both, as well as to present to those who don't actually post, a case against Papal claims.

It might also come up if someone does an internet search.

This does not mean I support 'sola scriptura' claims of the Protestant churches

Set aside, for a moment, the words, "And I tell you, you are Peter, and on this rock I will build My church, and the Gates of Hell shall not prevail against it. (Matthew 16:18 )

Focus on the next verse, "I will give you the keys of the kingdom of heaven, and whatever you bind on earth shall be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven." (Matthew 16:19 )

Does this not confer infallibility upon Peter?

Christ said that His Church would last for all time. Peter could not be expected to live more than the typical life time and would have to have successors who would continue his role in the Church. Does this not confer infallibility upon each of the 264 successors to Peter?

Does this not render insignificant the question of 'Founding the Church upon Peter'?

 

[Tashah]

Are we discussing cosmological dogma or cosmogonic dogma? I't's not clear which context you really want to use, since the meanings appear quite close.

You have a valid argument. Forgive me here... because English is actually my third language and thus I do not wish to quibble over proper semantics. The germane point I was attempting to articulate was that... creation beliefs accepted by any society (ancient or contemporary) or put forth by any theological authority is considered by modern academia to be a cosmology. On further reflection, the word dogma was a poor descriptive choice on my part.

I think we got off on this tangent unrelated to the subject of the thread when the subject arose of persecution of scientists for their lack of adherence to the official church cosmology.

My apologies for initiating this tangential avenue of discussion. No harm was intended. I sincerely sought a logical theological answer for what I consider to be an archaic and centric-based format of theological revenge.

 

[Montalban]

Set aside, for a moment, the words, "And I tell you, you are Peter, and on this rock I will build My church, and the Gates of Hell shall not prevail against it. (Matthew 16:18 )

Focus on the next verse, "I will give you the keys of the kingdom of heaven, and whatever you bind on earth shall be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven." (Matthew 16:19 )

Does this not confer infallibility upon Peter?

However Matthew 18:18 shows that all the Apostles received the same powers. Thus to turn to St. Augustine.

“He had not the primacy over the disciples (in discipulos) but among the disciples (in disipulis). His primacy among the disciples was the same as that of Stephen
among the deacons.” (Sermon 10 on Peter and Paul).[1]


As with the Matthew verses, Catholics often cite Luke...
“In Matthew 16:19, Jesus gives Peter "the keys to the kingdom" and the power to bind and loose. While the latter is later given to the other apostles (Matt. 18:18 ), the former is not. In Luke 22:28–32, Jesus assures the apostles that they all have authority, but then he singles out Peter, conferring upon him a special pastoral authority over the other disciples which he is to exercise by strengthening their faith (22:31–32).”[2]



This is just simply not true. Looking at the verses just preceding it,

Luke 22

24 Also a dispute arose among them as to which of them was considered to be greatest.

25 Jesus said to them, "The kings of the Gentiles lord it over them; and those who exercise authority over them call themselves Benefactors.

26 But you are not to be like that. Instead, the greatest among you should be like the youngest, and the one who rules like the one who serves.

27 For who is greater, the one who is at the table or the one who serves? Is it not the one who is at the table? But I am among you as one who serves.

28You are those who have stood by me in my trials.

29 And I confer on you a kingdom, just as my Father conferred one on me,

30 so that you may eat and drink at my table in my kingdom and sit on thrones, judging the twelve tribes of Israel.[3]



We can see that Jesus had an opportunity to name Peter as the leader, and he does the very opposite. He says that they all should be equal. He speaks to them all when he says that they are to be appointed to the Kingdom. THEN he turns to speak to Simon Peter to tell him that he will betray Him.


St. Peter founded my church (Antioch), before he founded yours (Rome), given your beliefs this would mean that my church has seniority over your church.



However I realise that Rome was accorded greater honour, not because of Peter's founding (but of Peter and Paul), and the fact that Rome was the chief city. It was because of the importance of Rome, and not of Peter that Rome had this honour, else Antioch which was his first foundation would by precedent have more honour. The fluidity of this is confirmed when Constantinople was crowned the "New Rome" by Constantine and this little town suddenly leap-frogged over all other Christian cities (save Rome, which was still very important); Constantinople's Bishops position was because of the prestige of the city, not the founder.

Christ said that His Church would last for all time. Peter could not be expected to live more than the typical life time and would have to have successors who would continue his role in the Church. Does this not confer infallibility upon each of the 264 successors to Peter?
Does this not render insignificant the question of 'Founding the Church upon Peter'?

I don't disagree that Christ was predicting that the church would not fail. I don't accept (for the reasons above) that it is the Catholic Church.


Notes
[1] quoted in Whelton, M "Two Paths", p-33.

[2] http://www.catholic.com/library/eastern_orthodoxy.asp

[3] http://www.biblegateway.com/cgi-bin/bible?language=english&passage=luke+22&version=NIV

 

[Fantasea]

However Matthew 18:18 shows that all the Apostles received the same powers. Thus to turn to St. Augustine.

“He had not the primacy over the disciples (in discipulos) but among the disciples (in disipulis). His primacy among the disciples was the same as that of Stephen
among the deacons.” (Sermon 10 on Peter and Paul).[1]


As with the Matthew verses, Catholics often cite Luke...
“In Matthew 16:19, Jesus gives Peter "the keys to the kingdom" and the power to bind and loose. While the latter is later given to the other apostles (Matt. 18:18 ), the former is not. In Luke 22:28–32, Jesus assures the apostles that they all have authority, but then he singles out Peter, conferring upon him a special pastoral authority over the other disciples which he is to exercise by strengthening their faith (22:31–32).”[2]



This is just simply not true. Looking at the verses just preceding it,

Luke 22

24 Also a dispute arose among them as to which of them was considered to be greatest.

25 Jesus said to them, "The kings of the Gentiles lord it over them; and those who exercise authority over them call themselves Benefactors.

26 But you are not to be like that. Instead, the greatest among you should be like the youngest, and the one who rules like the one who serves.

27 For who is greater, the one who is at the table or the one who serves? Is it not the one who is at the table? But I am among you as one who serves.

28You are those who have stood by me in my trials.

29 And I confer on you a kingdom, just as my Father conferred one on me,

30 so that you may eat and drink at my table in my kingdom and sit on thrones, judging the twelve tribes of Israel.[3]



We can see that Jesus had an opportunity to name Peter as the leader, and he does the very opposite. He says that they all should be equal. He speaks to them all when he says that they are to be appointed to the Kingdom. THEN he turns to speak to Simon Peter to tell him that he will betray Him.


St. Peter founded my church (Antioch), before he founded yours (Rome), given your beliefs this would mean that my church has seniority over your church.



However I realise that Rome was accorded greater honour, not because of Peter's founding (but of Peter and Paul), and the fact that Rome was the chief city. It was because of the importance of Rome, and not of Peter that Rome had this honour, else Antioch which was his first foundation would by precedent have more honour. The fluidity of this is confirmed when Constantinople was crowned the "New Rome" by Constantine and this little town suddenly leap-frogged over all other Christian cities (save Rome, which was still very important); Constantinople's Bishops position was because of the prestige of the city, not the founder.




I don't disagree that Christ was predicting that the church would not fail. I don't accept (for the reasons above) that it is the Catholic Church.


Notes
[1] quoted in Whelton, M "Two Paths", p-33.

[2] http://www.catholic.com/library/eastern_orthodoxy.asp

[3] http://www.biblegateway.com/cgi-bin/bible?language=english&passage=luke+22&version=NIV

All of the above notwithstanding, Peter did not found the Church. The Church was founded by Christ who named Peter to be its temporal head and conferred upon him, and by extension, his successors, infallibility in matters of faith or morals.

 

[edb19]

I love it when people use Matthew 16:16-19 as their rationale for Peter being the head of the church. It seems that they quit reading right there (v19) and don't follow the rest of the conversation. You know, Matthew 16:23, where Jesus the Christ calls Peter "Satan" and a "stumbling block", a person with his own rather than God's interests.

Doesn't make Peter sound infallible at all - in fact, it makes him sound just the opposite.

Another passage that makes it clear that Peter was imperfect (fallible), Galatians 2:11-21. Paul corrected Peter's errancy!

 

[Montalban]

“He had not the primacy over the disciples (in discipulos) but among the disciples (in disipulis). His primacy among the disciples was the same as that of Stephen among the deacons.” (Sermon 10 on Peter and Paul).[1] And Stephen wasn't 'pope' of deacons.

All of the above notwithstanding, Peter did not found the Church. The Church was founded by Christ who named Peter to be its temporal head and conferred upon him, and by extension, his successors, infallibility in matters of faith or morals.

Thanks for re-stating your opinion on the matter. The 'evidence-lite' approach may be very popular with some.

The Scripture says otherwise. Jesus gave the 'powers' to all the Apostles. Odd too that the Apostles didn't realise this when in Acts they all met in Jerusalem and Peter didn't preside.

Even if what you said were true, then Antioch, being founded first would have primacy over Rome, but that's just assuming what you think to be true.



When we look at the first council, that of Jerusalem (in Acts 15) it was presided over by James, who also rendered the final judgment, even as
Peter was present. ”When they finished, St. James spoke up: ”It is my judgment, therefore, that we should not make it difficult for the Gentiles who are turning to God.”



Eusebius wrote of this in his church history (note he also quotes Clement – a supposed Papal prince). “This James, whom the early Christians surnamed the Righteous because of his outstanding virtue, was the first, as the records tell us, to be elected to the Episcopal throne of the Jerusalem church. Clement, in Outlines Book VI, puts it thus: “Peter, James, and John, after the Ascension of the Saviour, did not claim pre-eminence because the Saviour had especially honoured them, but chose James the Righteous as Bishop of Jerusalem.”[2]



Looking at Acts 15:22 we see “Then the apostles and elders, with the whole church, decided to choose some of their own men and send them to Antioch with Paul and Barnabas. They chose Judas (called Barsabbas) and Silas, two men who were leaders among the brothers” That is, the council in session decided, not a pontiff, Peter.

There are a few important things to note about this council. St. James was the bishop of Jerusalem, therefore the meeting was held in his See, and thus he presided, not Peter, because Jerusalem was then the most important Christian centre.

Some Roman Catholics claim that when St. Peter spoke, all were silent. When someone spoke, whomever it was, no one else spoke over them. That's called politeness
Thus...
"When they finished, St. James spoke up:..."
That is, St. James waited his turn.
Earlier...
Acts 15:12
"The whole assembly became silent as they listened to Barnabas and St. Paul
telling about the miraculous signs and wonders God had done among the
Gentiles through them. "
They too had the floor, and everyone was silent.
c) MOST IMPORTANT OF ALL James clearly made the decision
Acts 15:19
"It is my judgment, therefore, that we should not make it difficult for
the Gentiles who are turning to God.
Note also...
Acts 15:23
"With them they sent the following letter: The apostles and elders, your brothers, To the Gentile believers in Antioch, Syria and Cilicia: Greetings.
24 We have heard that some went out from us without our authorization and disturbed you, troubling your minds by what they said.
25 So we all agreed to choose some men and send them to you with our dear friends Barnabas and Paul-- 26 men who have risked their lives for the name of our Lord Jesus Christ That is, 'we' decided this, 'we' voted on this. Not "Peter" decided this.
Thus "But observe how Peter does everything with the common consent; nothing imperiously."
St. John Chrysotomon, Homily III on Acts 1:12[3]



"Since, however, it would be very tedious, in such a volume as this, to reckon up the successions of all the Churches, we do put to confusion all those who, in whatever manner, whether by an evil self-pleasing, by vainglory, or by blindness and perverse opinion, assemble in unauthorized meetings; [we do this, I say, ] by indicating that tradition derived from the apostles, of the very great, the very ancient, and universally known Church founded and organized at Rome by the two most glorious apostles, Peter and Paul; as also [by pointing out] the faith preached to men, which comes down to our time by means of the successions of the bishops. For it is a matter of necessity that every Church should agree with this Church, on account of its pre- eminent authority, that is, the faithful everywhere, inasmuch as the apostolical tradition has been preserved continuously by those [faithful men] who exist everywhere. The blessed apostles, then, having founded and built up the Church, committed into the hands of Linus the office of the episcopate."[4] That is, Linus is the first Bishop, NOT St. Peter If you read on, he counts St. Clement as third from Linus (not St. Peter)... "Of this Linus, Paul makes mention in the Epistles to Timothy. To him succeeded Anacletus; and after him, in the third place from the apostles, Clement was allotted the bishopric."[5]

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

[1] quoted in Whelton "Two Paths", p-33.
[2] “The History of the Church” – II.I quoted in Ibid, pp38-9.
[3] Whelton, p33 and at http://www.ccel.org/fathers2/NPNF1-11/npnf1-11-10.htm#P272_117779
[4] Irenaus, “Against Heresies”, Book III.3.2-3 (quoted at http://www.ccel.org/fathers2/ANF-01/anf01-60.htm#P7297_1937859).
[5] Ibid. Book III.3.3

 

[Fantasea]

I love it when people use Matthew 16:16-19 as their rationale for Peter being the head of the church. It seems that they quit reading right there (v19) and don't follow the rest of the conversation. You know, Matthew 16:23, where Jesus the Christ calls Peter "Satan" and a "stumbling block", a person with his own rather than God's interests.

Doesn't make Peter sound infallible at all - in fact, it makes him sound just the opposite.

Another passage that makes it clear that Peter was imperfect (fallible), Galatians 2:11-21. Paul corrected Peter's errancy!

Christ understood that Peter, being human, was susceptible to all of the foibles of humans. He also understood that when responsibility and authority are thrust upon a person, that person can rise to the occasion. He further understood the differences between temporal matters and matters of faith or morals. The infallibility He specifically conferred upon Peter and his successors is narrow and relates solely to matters of faith or morals. Hence, the keys to the kingdom; hence the reference to binding.

There is a lengthy and quite detailed explanation to be found at:

http://www.cathinsight.com/apologetics/rock.htm