Where does the Pope get his authority?

[Jude Thaddeus]

He discovered nothing of the sort. Meaning that JHN was aware of all the historical problems of Rome’s claims. From the preface of the 1878 edition of the "An Essay on the Development of Doctrine:

THE following pages were not in the first instance written to prove the divinity of the Catholic Religion, though ultimately they furnish a positive argument in its behalf, but to explain certain difficulties in its history, felt before now by the author himself, and commonly insisted on by Protestants in controversy, as serving to blunt the force of its primâ facie and general claims on our recognition.


JHN actually concedes most of the historical arguments that Magisterial Protestants have been making for the past 350 years yet that is not the point. He is trying to reframe the argument to in order to survive the assaults of German liberalism that was beginning to rot the Church of England. While one can, at first glance, be sympathetic to his arguments what you find as you zoom out is that JHN is engaging in post ex facto reasoning. JHN is almost reactionary when it comes to this kind of liberalism and skepticism and thus begins with a philosophical or perhaps even political premise which then collides with his theology. As his philosophical premise evolves it forces JHN to restitch his theology according to his philosophy. As you read his "Apologia", one can see that is what is happening as he recounts his evolution and conversion to Rome.


John Henry Cardinal Newman was a brilliant chap to be sure. Wrong, but brilliant. I was poking a little fun at JHN. I had to read #1 and #3 of JHN's works you listed some 15 years ago along with about maybe dozen sermons and lectures. In my opinion he straddles the Romantic and Modern era which I would add being a romantic is problematic when handling history. If you read "An essay on the Development of Christian Doctrine", it is clear that his philosophical and perhaps his political precepts are underpinning his theology. It’s the lens by which he is developing his theology. Furthermore, and I am hardly alone in stating this, Newman is engaging in ex post facto reasoning in EDCD. Yet that isn't the part of JHN that I find most disturbing. I find him to be thoroughly deceptive and subversive in his handling of the meaning of language especially of Tract 90. Perhaps the first postmodern with a Romish bent. If you read his "Apologia", he admits as much:

In addition, I was embarrassed in consequence of my wish to go as far as was possible, in interpreting the Articles in the direction of Roman dogma, without disclosing what I was doing to the parties whose doubts I was meeting, who might be thereby encouraged to go still further than at present they found in themselves any call to do.

Newman, John Henry. Apologia Pro Vita Sua. D. Appleton and Company, 1865, p. 124.



You see, Charles Kingsley was right to question JHN's integrity. Of course, JHN converted to Rome after the controversy erupted over tract 90. I would argue that JHN fascination with Rome was a part of his romanticism as well as his reaction to the creeping liberalism and outright revolution that was spreading across the continent. To be fair, Rome at the time was a bulwark against the revolutions that were sweeping the continent at this time. JHN was a counter-revolutionary in my opinion and that was the driving force in his conversion or at least a large part of it.

Do you find the Oxford Movement disturbing? Rome is quite accommodating.

Anglicanorum coetibus Providing for Personal Ordinariates for Anglicans Entering into Full Communion with the Catholic Church (November 4, 2009) | BENEDICT XVI

Anglicanorum coetibus Providing for Personal Ordinariates for Anglicans Entering into Full Communion with the Catholic Church (November 4, 2009)

www.vatican.va

 

[Athanasius377]

Do you find the Oxford Movement disturbing? Rome is quite accommodating.

Anglicanorum coetibus Providing for Personal Ordinariates for Anglicans Entering into Full Communion with the Catholic Church (November 4, 2009) | BENEDICT XVI

Anglicanorum coetibus Providing for Personal Ordinariates for Anglicans Entering into Full Communion with the Catholic Church (November 4, 2009)

www.vatican.va

That is a great question. The short answer is in the final analysis yes. Now here is where I qualify what I just said. The Oxford Movement or Tracterian movement was a reaction to what for sake of argument was a Calvinist revival that came before it. The Anglican Church since the Elizabethan Settlement was largely a lightly Reformed church. The Via Media (not the term the reformers would have used) is historically between Wittenberg and Geneva. So the Anglican Church is rightly regarded as lightly reformed. Anglicans don’t have a systematic theology like the Lutherans or the Reformed. Rather Anglicans have formularies that are:
-the 1662 book of common prayer including the Ordinal
-the 39 articles of religion
-the 2 books of Homilies.

The OM started as a reaction of the British government getting involved in backing a defrocked priest who found himself defrocked for denying Baptismal Regeration which the BCP clearly teaches. The OM evolved into trying to say that the COE was a continuation of the catholic Church prior to the Reformation. Which I would add, she is clearly not. I have even seen some trying to say the BCP liturgy is merely a reworking of the Sarum rite which is silly. There are parts of the OM that are adiaphora and others that are straight doctrinal error. There is no Anglican Church body that hasn’t been affected by the OM. Some for the better and some for the worst. What I see is that the OM made the BCP a schizophrenic wax nose that doesn’t know what it is trying to say. Just look at the Anglican Missal published by the Frank Gavin Society. As a RC, you have to rework sections of the Missal especially the communion section becuase it’s half Lutheran and half Romish. The other prayers seem to be taken from the old Tridentine missal such as the secondary collects, introit and graduals etc. The Missal is what those churches that were brought over to Rome were using under AC. However if read the BCP it clearly teaches justification by faith alone and the communion is not a propitiatory sacrifice. Rather it is part sacrifice of prayer and thanksgiving.

So while Rome may be accommodating the accommodating was already done by those Anglicans who were eventually received by Rome long before their reception. Though I can’t blame them because the COE is in straight free fall in GB when it comes human sexuality or any other doctrine for that matter. Which, I would add that almost all the churches what embraced the OM went soft of Human sexuality. I would not say it’s causation but there does seem to be a correlation.

So in summary. Yes, I feel the OM to be disturbing because it denied the Anglican formularies by the time it was finished in 1928. The OM engaged in redefining all the theological language that historic Anglicanism used to define her position. Officially the 1662 BCP is still the official liturgy of the COE but good luck finding a parish that still uses it.

 

[Marymog]

Yes, I agree. It is also possible that the church in Corinth was simply unable to resolve their controversy themselves and looked for outside help, perhaps Clement as I see Clement the author of the epistle and Clement in Philippians and a friend of Paul. Which would make sense as Paul founded the Church in Corinth. And yes parts of the church may have considered 1 Clement scripture as the book was known to be bound with other books that are in the present day Bible. However, we are not certain how widespread or exactly how authoritative it was compared to, say the Gospels. Also, the date that I have seen is 96AD during the reign of Domitian.

Also Clement uses the terms episcapoi and presbyteroi interchangeably. I’m editing this on a phone so give me some rope for not including the Greek terms. So while you can make the argument that there is a sense of primacy of the Church of Rome in the epistle, I don’t think you can do the same for a monarchical bishop of Rome.






Ye have never envied any one; ye have taught others. Now I desire that those things may be confirmed [by your conduct], which in your instructions ye enjoin [on others]. Only request in my behalf both inward and outward strength, that I may not only speak, but [truly] will; and that I may not merely be called a Christian, but really be found to be one. For if I be truly found [a Christian], I may also be called one, and be then deemed faithful, when I shall no longer appear to the world.

Ignatius of Antioch. “The Epistle of Ignatius to the Romans.” The Apostolic Fathers with Justin Martyr and Irenaeus, edited by Alexander Roberts et al., vol. 1, Christian Literature Company, 1885, p. 74.

It seems to me in my reading of the epistle that the Roman church was teaching about suffering and hardship and is now asking that they do nothing to contradict their teaching.




The quote is:

So, when I shall complete all the words, with your help they will be made known to all the elect. 3 Write, then, two small booklets, one for Clement and one for Grapte. Clement will then send it to the cities abroad since this is his duty, and Grapte will instruct the widows and orphans. But you shall read it to this city together with the Presbyters, who are in charge of the church.’


Marique, Joseph M. F. “The Shepherd of Hermas.” The Apostolic Fathers, translated by Francis X. Glimm et al., vol. 1, The Catholic University of America Press, 1947, p. 242.


I don't see anything about Rome here, but I do see that Rome (the location the author if indeed Hermas) is run by Presbyters and not a monarchial episcopate at this time. Also, if the Clement mentioned in the Shephard is in fact the same Clement as the author of 1 Clement that would put the dating in the 90's AD.


Irenænus certainly believes it. As to Dionysius I am assuming you mean Dionysius of Corinth? I haven't read his letters just the summary Eusebius gives us in his Ecclesiastical History. By that time there seems to be a functioning monarchial episcopate in Rome. It is my reading that the office of a monarchial bishop in the Roman church was a development and wasn’t there from the very beginning. A development that occurred in Antioch before it occurred in Rome.

The issue I see is that you are taking a later development and reading it back into history.

Thank you for your opinions.

Mary

 

[Marymog]

There is nothing the Catholics teach that is biblical. Nothing.

Who decides that? YOU? Or the men you follow?

 

[Jude Thaddeus]

Who decides that? YOU? Or the men you follow?

 

[Marymog]

There's no mystery and there's no water baptizing that was for any purpose other than something John did for Israel only during his lifetime and only for about 6 months. It has nothing to do with Christians and a red flag on that is that the Catholics teach it and they have never been right about anything.

Lol...Us Christians will believe what Scripture says the purpose of baptism is and not believe you and your heretical men: And now why are you waiting? Arise and be baptized, and wash away your sins, calling on the name of the Lord.’...... There is also an antitype which now saves us—baptism....Repent and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of your sins, and you will receive the gift of the Holy Spirit.....Whoever believes AND is baptized will be saved,

 

[Marymog]

Everything I teach is the exact opposite of what the Catholics teach. I believe I'm correct and therefore the Catholics must be wrong. In fact, I can't find one thing they have ever been right about. And the Catholics did not write the New Testament. It was written by Paul. Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John is not the New Testament and once again the religious world thinks it is for only one reason. Catholics.

 

[Marymog]

The 11 Apostles received the Holy Spirit and none of then were baptized in water...., not before or after they received it from JESUS.... John 20:22

Lol....Jesus was baptized in water.

Your theory is that the Apostles baptized others (in water) but didn't get baptized (in water)? They told everyone else to get baptized (in water), but they didn't get baptized (in water)? They didn't follow the example of Jesus? Did Jesus say to the Apostles, baptize all? OR did he say baptize all, but you 11 don't need to be baptized?

You crack me up Behold....

 

[Marymog]

I don't know how many of the original apostles were water baptized. Nobody does. Scripture is silent on the point. So why bother to argue over it? Let's just concede that we don't know if it was none of them, two of them, six of them, twelve of them, whatever. Let's move on.

Lol...Hold on RedFan HOLD ON.

The Apostles told others to get baptized. Jesus told the Apostles to baptize all. But you don't know if the Apostles were water baptized? Do you think the Apostles didn't practice what they preached? The Apostles didn't adhere to their own teachings or the teachings of Christ?

C'mon man.....

 

[Peterlag]

Lol...Us Christians will believe what Scripture says the purpose of baptism is and not believe you and your heretical men: And now why are you waiting? Arise and be baptized, and wash away your sins, calling on the name of the Lord.’...... There is also an antitype which now saves us—baptism....Repent and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of your sins, and you will receive the gift of the Holy Spirit.....Whoever believes AND is baptized will be saved,

They were baptized with the spirit in the name of Jesus Christ. No water mentioned.

 

[Peterlag]

Who decides that? YOU? Or the men you follow?

There is something I'm interested in. What do the Catholics teach for how to walk by the spirit?

 

[Marymog]

There is something I'm interested in. What do the Catholics teach for how to walk by the spirit?

Who decides that? YOU? Or the men you follow?

 

[Marymog]

They were baptized with the spirit in the name of Jesus Christ. No water mentioned.

OMG....You are right Peter. The word water was NOT mentioned in any of those passages I gave. How have I and billions of other Christians missed that for the last 2,000 years. All of us have been wrong and you......well YOU.....are right. ;)

 

[Peterlag]

OMG....You are right Peter. The word water was NOT mentioned in any of those passages I gave. How have I and billions of other Christians missed that for the last 2,000 years. All of us have been wrong and you......well YOU.....are right. ;)

Water baptism is a carryover from part of the Levitical Law. There are many examples of people in the Old Testament who would wash themselves with water as a final step to being clean. Water baptism was an outward sign of washing, and then you would be clean to God. Baptism in water, and the need to be circumcised passed away with the coming of Pentecost, as did the other Levitical Laws. To be led by the spirit is to not be under the yoke of bondage with the extreme of legalism, seeking the works of the flesh from the old covenant concerning the past Law administration that was written to Israel.

It's clear from the gospels that water baptism had to do with the kingdom, which was ministered by John who was known as the Baptizer, and not a minister for the Church of God. John who was a prophet functioning under the old covenant was appointed by God to prepare and confirm the promises made to Israel. His message was to tell those who lived under the old covenant that the king had come and “the kingdom of heaven is at hand.” He used water as a sign to baptize those who believed the promised Messiah would be coming in just a matter of months and to illustrate that he would be the Christ, who would baptize them not with material water, but with holy spirit, which is “power from on high.” From the habit of tradition, and only for a short period of time, a small handful of people were baptized with water into the New Testament, but never again afterwards.

In the epistles written just a little bit past the beginning of the New Testament is where we read the only time water baptism is mentioned is to note there is no more need for it, and that we are now to be baptized with holy spirit. And this is why in Acts 2:38, Peter commands “Repent, and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ.” In Acts 8:16, Peter and John “baptized in the name of the Lord Jesus.” In Acts 10:48, Peter “commanded them to be baptized in the name of the Lord.” In Romans 6:3, it declares “that so many of us as were baptized into Jesus Christ.” There is not one exception to this practice where we see water baptism, which belonged to the time period when Christ walked the earth, being used once the Church of God had become established.

 

[Peterlag]

Who decides that? YOU? Or the men you follow?

I googled it using the word Catholic and nothing came up. Only one Catholic writing that mentioned it and then went write into talking about the fruit of the spirit. Am I correct that the Catholics do not know what walking by the spirit is?

 

[RedFan]

In the epistles written just a little bit past the beginning of the New Testament is where we read the only time water baptism is mentioned is to note there is no more need for it, and that we are now to be baptized with holy spirit. And this is why in Acts 2:38, Peter commands “Repent, and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ.” In Acts 8:16, Peter and John “baptized in the name of the Lord Jesus.” In Acts 10:48, Peter “commanded them to be baptized in the name of the Lord.” In Romans 6:3, it declares “that so many of us as were baptized into Jesus Christ.” There is not one exception to this practice where we see water baptism, which belonged to the time period when Christ walked the earth, being used once the Church of God had become established.

What about Acts 8:36-38?

36 And as they went on their way, they came unto a certain water: and the eunuch said, See, here is water; what doth hinder me to be baptized?

37 And Philip said, If thou believest with all thine heart, thou mayest. And he answered and said, I believe that Jesus Christ is the Son of God.

38 And he commanded the chariot to stand still: and they went down both into the water, both Philip and the eunuch; and he baptized him.

 

[Peterlag]

What about Acts 8:36-38?

36 And as they went on their way, they came unto a certain water: and the eunuch said, See, here is water; what doth hinder me to be baptized?

37 And Philip said, If thou believest with all thine heart, thou mayest. And he answered and said, I believe that Jesus Christ is the Son of God.

38 And he commanded the chariot to stand still: and they went down both into the water, both Philip and the eunuch; and he baptized him.

Water baptism is a carryover from part of the Levitical Law. There are many examples of people in the Old Testament who would wash themselves with water as a final step to being clean. Water baptism was an outward sign of washing, and then you would be clean to God. Baptism in water, and the need to be circumcised passed away with the coming of Pentecost, as did the other Levitical Laws. To be led by the spirit is to not be under the yoke of bondage with the extreme of legalism, seeking the works of the flesh from the old covenant concerning the past Law administration that was written to Israel.

It's clear from the gospels that water baptism had to do with the kingdom, which was ministered by John who was known as the Baptizer, and not a minister for the Church of God. John who was a prophet functioning under the old covenant was appointed by God to prepare and confirm the promises made to Israel. His message was to tell those who lived under the old covenant that the king had come and “the kingdom of heaven is at hand.” He used water as a sign to baptize those who believed the promised Messiah would be coming in just a matter of months and to illustrate that he would be the Christ, who would baptize them not with material water, but with holy spirit, which is “power from on high.” From the habit of tradition, and only for a short period of time, a small handful of people were baptized with water into the New Testament, but never again afterwards.

In the epistles written just a little bit past the beginning of the New Testament is where we read the only time water baptism is mentioned is to note there is no more need for it, and that we are now to be baptized with holy spirit. And this is why in Acts 2:38, Peter commands “Repent, and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ.” In Acts 8:16, Peter and John “baptized in the name of the Lord Jesus.” In Acts 10:48, Peter “commanded them to be baptized in the name of the Lord.” In Romans 6:3, it declares “that so many of us as were baptized into Jesus Christ.” There is not one exception to this practice where we see water baptism, which belonged to the time period when Christ walked the earth, being used once the Church of God had become established.

 

[RedFan]

Water baptism is a carryover from part of the Levitical Law. There are many examples of people in the Old Testament who would wash themselves with water as a final step to being clean. Water baptism was an outward sign of washing, and then you would be clean to God. Baptism in water, and the need to be circumcised passed away with the coming of Pentecost, as did the other Levitical Laws. To be led by the spirit is to not be under the yoke of bondage with the extreme of legalism, seeking the works of the flesh from the old covenant concerning the past Law administration that was written to Israel.

It's clear from the gospels that water baptism had to do with the kingdom, which was ministered by John who was known as the Baptizer, and not a minister for the Church of God. John who was a prophet functioning under the old covenant was appointed by God to prepare and confirm the promises made to Israel. His message was to tell those who lived under the old covenant that the king had come and “the kingdom of heaven is at hand.” He used water as a sign to baptize those who believed the promised Messiah would be coming in just a matter of months and to illustrate that he would be the Christ, who would baptize them not with material water, but with holy spirit, which is “power from on high.” From the habit of tradition, and only for a short period of time, a small handful of people were baptized with water into the New Testament, but never again afterwards.

In the epistles written just a little bit past the beginning of the New Testament is where we read the only time water baptism is mentioned is to note there is no more need for it, and that we are now to be baptized with holy spirit. And this is why in Acts 2:38, Peter commands “Repent, and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ.” In Acts 8:16, Peter and John “baptized in the name of the Lord Jesus.” In Acts 10:48, Peter “commanded them to be baptized in the name of the Lord.” In Romans 6:3, it declares “that so many of us as were baptized into Jesus Christ.” There is not one exception to this practice where we see water baptism, which belonged to the time period when Christ walked the earth, being used once the Church of God had become established.

You are repeating yourself, Peter.

I quoted Acts 8:36-38 only to disprove your comment that "There is not one exception to this practice where we see water baptism, which belonged to the time when Christ walked the earth, being used once the Church of God had become established." You quoted from Acts 8 in support of your thesis. I quoted from Acts 8 to show you are mistaken.

 

[Marymog]

I googled it using the word Catholic and nothing came up. Only one Catholic writing that mentioned it and then went write into talking about the fruit of the spirit. Am I correct that the Catholics do not know what walking by the spirit is?

Dear dear Peter,

I know this is a waste of time but I'm going to try one more time.

You said: There is nothing the Catholics teach that is biblical. Nothing.

So I asked you: Who decides that? YOU? Or the men you follow?

Are you going to answer the question? Or should I move on?

 

[Marymog]

Water baptism is a carryover from part of the Levitical Law. There are many examples of people in the Old Testament who would wash themselves with water as a final step to being clean. Water baptism was an outward sign of washing, and then you would be clean to God. Baptism in water, and the need to be circumcised passed away with the coming of Pentecost, as did the other Levitical Laws. To be led by the spirit is to not be under the yoke of bondage with the extreme of legalism, seeking the works of the flesh from the old covenant concerning the past Law administration that was written to Israel.

It's clear from the gospels that water baptism had to do with the kingdom, which was ministered by John who was known as the Baptizer, and not a minister for the Church of God. John who was a prophet functioning under the old covenant was appointed by God to prepare and confirm the promises made to Israel. His message was to tell those who lived under the old covenant that the king had come and “the kingdom of heaven is at hand.” He used water as a sign to baptize those who believed the promised Messiah would be coming in just a matter of months and to illustrate that he would be the Christ, who would baptize them not with material water, but with holy spirit, which is “power from on high.” From the habit of tradition, and only for a short period of time, a small handful of people were baptized with water into the New Testament, but never again afterwards.

In the epistles written just a little bit past the beginning of the New Testament is where we read the only time water baptism is mentioned is to note there is no more need for it, and that we are now to be baptized with holy spirit. And this is why in Acts 2:38, Peter commands “Repent, and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ.” In Acts 8:16, Peter and John “baptized in the name of the Lord Jesus.” In Acts 10:48, Peter “commanded them to be baptized in the name of the Lord.” In Romans 6:3, it declares “that so many of us as were baptized into Jesus Christ.” There is not one exception to this practice where we see water baptism, which belonged to the time period when Christ walked the earth, being used once the Church of God had become established.

How does Acts 8:36 work into your theory? Well, it actually destroys your theory. Also, Pet. 3:20–21 destroys your theory. Jesus was baptized in water and we are to follow his example and be like Him if we want to be saved so that fact destroys your theory.

And I LOVE how you cleverly didn't quote in context Acts 10. You mentioned Acts 10:48, which supports your false teaching, but you "accidently" left out the verse before that (10:47) because it doesn't fit into your false teaching. You crack me up. Furthermore, when one looks at historical Christian writings from the 1st century (things that were written before your false teachers wrote words in their diary) we see that water was in fact used for baptism.

So, with that said YOU ARE RIGHT PETER! Water isn't needed for baptism if we throw out the verses in the bible that say water was used for baptism, decide not to follow Jesus example and throw out 1st century Christian history and follow the teachings of your men.

BTW....who are your men? Which Protestant denomination do you belong to that taught you this? Curious Mary