An honest question about tradition

That's because you are reading your belief back into that statement and ignoring the other Patristic statements and facts of history which contradict your belief. When that statement is read in its historical context it doesn't necessitate the doctrine of papal supremacy (especially when there is good evidence that Rome was ruled by a multiple bishops at this point in time). </font>[/QUOTE]???

There were multiple bishops them most likely just like in the majority of the Diocese in the US there are Bishops and Auxilary bishops. In my diocese Flynn is the Archbishop and Pates and Campbell are the Auxillary bishops. That there were multiple bishops would prove nothing. It is quite likely that Clement was a bishop during the time that Cletus was the head Bishop of rome for tradition speaks of him as being ordained by Peter I believe. If he was ordained by Peter that would have been before Peter had died and Cletus became the Bishop of Rome. No biggy for a Catholic with a true understanding of how this all operates. Of course you Protestants who don't have a clue will try to make something of these facts. So, sorry, once again you come up with a Red Herring.

Blessings

 

That's because you are reading your belief back into that statement and ignoring the other Patristic statements and facts of history which contradict your belief. When that statement is read in its historical context it doesn't necessitate the doctrine of papal supremacy (especially when there is good evidence that Rome was ruled by a multiple bishops at this point in time). </font>[/QUOTE]So, why have all the bishops of the West been putting up with having their authority usurped for all these centuries? If all these bishops (a) thought the Pope was wrong in his claim of supremacy, and (b) had the normal human reaction of resisting a wrongful authority over them, then they would naturally have rebelled, and rebelled over and over, to protect the truth of the faith, and their own legitimate authority.

It would seem, rather, that all the bishops of the West, for all these centuries, have accepted the claim of papal supremacy, even though they have the most to lose in accepting this claim, and the most to gain in rejecting it.

 

Actually, it's not a "red herring" because at that time in Rome (and in many other churches throughout the empire) there was not yet the hard and fast distinction between bishop and presbyter as there was in certain other congregations. In other words there was in all likelihood not yet a monarchial bishop in Rome, let alone a supreme grand poo-bah of the entire church such as that which developed in the west (but never the entire church) later on.

 

Because of historical circumstances (the fall of the Western Empire) did the Pope gain greater and greater power and did the west look to him increasingly as a temporal ruler. Because of this new evolving temporal power, and also because of the effect of forged documents such as the Donation of Constantine, it isn't difficult to see how Western Christians were led to read into Scripture novel ideas of the papacy which were previously unheard of, especially as the west was becoming more and more separated from the eastern Church by political, linguistic, and theological factors.

 

Actually, it's not a "red herring" because at that time in Rome (and in many other churches throughout the empire) there was not yet the hard and fast distinction between bishop and presbyter as there was in certain other congregations. In other words there was in all likelihood not yet a monarchial bishop in Rome, let alone a supreme grand poo-bah of the entire church such as that which developed in the west (but never the entire church) later on. </font>[/QUOTE]I guess that's why clement was telling Corinth what to do. This is especially funny since he lived 600 miles from Corinth and the Apostle John was only 200 miles away in Ephuses.

More red herrings. No proof of anything.

Blessing though

 

Because of historical circumstances (the fall of the Western Empire) did the Pope gain greater and greater power and did the west look to him increasingly as a temporal ruler. Because of this new evolving temporal power, and also because of the effect of forged documents such as the Donation of Constantine, it isn't difficult to see how Western Christians were led to read into Scripture novel ideas of the papacy which were previously unheard of, especially as the west was becoming more and more separated from the eastern Church by political, linguistic, and theological factors. </font>[/QUOTE]So for centuries every bishop in the West abandoned the clear truth of the faith because they sought a temporal ruler, and that ruler had to be the pope? I'm not talking about the Catholic man in the street, I'm talking about the bishops. They all just rolled over and gave up their authority, knowing that what the popes were doing was unscriptural and against the will of God?

Not convincing!

 

Never mind the fact that whoever wrote 1 Clement wrote in the first person plural. Also it wasn't uncommon for bishops of other churches (Polycarp at Smyrna or Ignatius at Antioch) to write to other congregations giving spiritual guidance. This doesn't mean they had universal jurisdiction over the church.

 

You have proven you don't understand the Church. You guys love to make the papacy out as a dictatorship. It is not. Thanks for trying though. When you try and fail it only builds my faith.

God Bless.

 

Sorry you feel that way. I don't find that any more difficult to imagine than for bishops in other parts of the empire to embrace Arianism (even to the point where Arianism was in the ascendency for a time) despite the fact that Arianism is unscriptural and against the will of God. But that's what happened. Bishops are human and are capable of error.

 

Oh, I get it. When Protestants, Orthodox, or other non-Roman Catholics point out evidence from history which contradicts the lofty claims of the papacy, they "prove" that they just "don't understand the Church". I see. That makes perfect sense.

Of course, it's easy to "build your faith" when you keep your head in the sand and protect your belief system from falsification.

God Bless you too, and have a great Labor Day weekend

 

Sorry you feel that way. I don't find that any more difficult to imagine than for bishops in other parts of the empire to embrace Arianism (even to the point where Arianism was in the ascendency for a time) despite the fact that Arianism is unscriptural and against the will of God. But that's what happened. Bishops are human and are capable of error. </font>[/QUOTE]But Arianism was defeated by the Church, not accepted by it, so your comparison argues against your point, not for it. There were Councils that fought against Arianism. Where are the Councils that fought against papal supremacy?

 

The fact of Councils is evidence in and of itself against papal supremecy. For it was the decisions of bishops (plural) in COUNCIL, and not some grand papal pronouncement from on high, that defined and clarified doctrine, condemned heresies, and developed Church canons. The pope, at least until the Great Schism, was subject to the Councils, and not the other way around.

 

The fact of Councils is evidence in and of itself against papal supremecy. For it was the decisions of bishops (plural) in COUNCIL, and not some grand papal pronouncement from on high, that defined and clarified doctrine, condemned heresies, and developed Church canons. The pope, at least until the Great Schism, was subject to the Councils, and not the other way around. </font>[/QUOTE]Once again, the "on high bit is a bit over blown from the way Catholicism really operates and only displays your woeful ignorance. But you know Cathoicism better than me of course.

So what council did Clement run his letter by. The Councils were quite Catholic by the way DT. Do you ignore Ephesus? It's not very Protestant. The way the councils opperated like you multiple bishops baloney is quite consistent with how the Catholic Church operates today. We see councils as having infallible authority as well as the Pope having the same infallible authority. They both are authoritative, though the Pope presides over the councils (as he did then) and is not subject to the councils. Yet of course he does not contradict their infallible decrees and vice versa. So what is your point. By the way, if your all for councils why do your reject the 7 books of the OT that are in dispute between us since they were ratified by Hippo and Carthage after Pope Damasus declared them canon in around 384. I do like how you in one post claim that the Popes had all the power and wielded a billy club to enforce it and then in the next breath you claim the Popes in council had all the power. Consistent. Nice goin. You know a shotgun against an elphant (the gates of hell shall not prevail) might hit him but it isn't going to stop him. You might try using it on ducks.

Blessings

 

Ahh...Historical revisionism at its finest. And speaking of "red herrings", I love how you presume to know what I may or may not think about the 7 Deuterocanonicals or about certain councils (I believe you are referring to Ephesus declaring Mary to be the "Theotokos"--no objections here).

Keep up your ahistorical spin. Never mind that the pope didn't even ATTEND many of the ecumenical councils let alone preside over them. (I guess you probably believe it was Pope Sylvester and not Constantine who summoned the first Ecumenical Council. Or am I being as presumptuous about what you think and as you are about what I believe?)

 

Perhaps if that statement was at all coherent, I could respond to it. What is the "it" that you say I claimed the Popes used a "billy club to enforce"? In the "next breath" I claimed that "Popes in council had all the power"? And you are saying that I also claimed (in the "one post", I guess) that Popes had "all the power" (by "weilding a billy club"--words I never used BTW)? How is Popes "having all the power" inconsistent with Popes "having all the power"? Perhaps you wish to clarify?

 

On second thought, I give up--you win.

Have a Happy Labor Day

 

Correction, you claim in one breath the Popes had all the power and in the next the councils had all the power. I'm allowed a typo once in a while. Hope that helps DT.

Blessings

 

Thanks for the clarification. However, if you read carefully what I wrote, I did not contradict myself as those two concepts refer to two different time periods. (If you still think so, perhaps I didn't make myself clear). The bishop of Rome (once the monarchial episcopate developed in that city) was subject to the councils during the period of the undivided church although he had a primacy of honor among bishops (due to the Roman church's importance because of SEVERAL factors--Peter and Paul's martyrdom; the fact that Rome had been the imperial capital, etc). As the papacy evolved however (because of the historical factors I already described), the pope became more and more powerful in the west. What began as a primacy AMONG equals, became gradually a SUPREMECY OVER the church in the WEST. Remember for a time Rome was but one of five great patriarchates--Constantinople, Antioch, Alexandria, and Jerusalem were the others. Because of the political situation (lack of strong temporal leadership in what was the Western Empire), the eastern Sees were content to allow Rome to assume jurisdictional authority in the West. Except for rare intstances, the Roman bishop did not pretend to have jurisdictional authority over the East. However, as the Holy Roman Empire emerged in the West as a political rival to Byzantium, the East became more leery of papal power. It was when the pope tried to exert power OVER the Eastern patriarchs, that the Great Schism took place. After that split, papal power continued to become more absolute OVER the (Western) Church, to the point where the pope was considered to be ABOVE the (Western) Councils. And the rest is history....

 

There is a good reason why good seminaries and Bible colleges require their students to take languages studies. Language is a door to the culture. Historically I believe that so many Catholics and Protestants are ill prepared to correctly interpret scripture. Most simply repeat what they have been told or taught. To correctly interpret any document you must first understand its historical background which includes its cultural setting.

It is not the work of a particular church to determine the historical background of the Bible. It is the task of everyone. But I see so many who relegate that task to others and then accept their findings as truth. Some writers are better than others. Some will write to support their pet theology rather than the truth. The historical background of the Bible has never changed so why should the foundation of the church keep changing. If the Bible has not changed there is no need to keep adding new doctrines. Were not the doctrines of the early church sufficient for today?

I would say the vast majority of Christians are quite ignorant of what the Bible teaches. I have even seen theological school teach only what they cal the truth. The problem is that it is their brand of truth. It is the idea that we have the truth and we only need to teach the truth. The problem is that they become a god to themselves. They have such a handle on truth that they are the only ones who do. In those seminaries there is a lack of emphasis on historical background and the culture that lies behind the scripture. Serious study requires taking a look at what others writes that may disagree with what we believe and then taking a look at their reasons and evidences to support what they write. To be balanced it requires that we try and maintain a balanced approach to interpreting scripture.

For any person or church to say it contains all truth is to say it contains God. It is also in direct opposition to 1 Cor. 13:12, "For now we see in a mirror dimly, but then face to face; now I know in part, but then I will know fully just as I also have been fully known."

 

I have seen professors of Greek in a Bible college and two different seminaries who when it came time to interpret the given passage in the epistle, refused to acknowledge the real Greek words and/or the correct interpretation of said verse, because it would then disagree with their pet doctrine of their denomination.

It is true that knowing the original language is a must in exegeting the Word, but very few are dedicated enough to learn the languages. I also find that some Greek scholars can give you the details of tenses, etc. but offer little if anything about the meaning of said, verses. Dr. Kenneth S. Wuest is very good at offering the meaning of the words, plus the interpretation of the passage.

The Greek N.T. caused me to change a major doctrine of the Bible, namely the security of the Christian as to his hope of eternal life.