Distributism

[Haruo]

As I read the history of the RCC, it seems that Constantine modeled the College of Cardinals on the Roman Senate, didn't he? They were the advisers to the Emperor.

No, you can see the Apostles and elders gather in council in scripture, deciding matters of faith. And they modeled their councils from the Sanhedrin model. Catholicism is a Jewish religion.
I dont know where you get this Constantine idea from.

Matto, you vastly underestimate, whether out of ignorance or meretriciousness, the amount of influence the Roman State (and its State Religion) had on the development of the Roman Catholic Church, particularly during the period of the decline of the Empire, its split, and the "barbarian" invasions of Italy. Much of this influence was exerted during the reign of Constantine I, when the Empire lent its imprimatur to the Petrine Primacy, more or less anyway, and the Patriarch of Rome was marked out as the first among equals. This was also the period when the first version of the Nicene Creed was adopted, when the State threw its weight against Arianism and various other views. Among the obviously pagan influences that then made themselves felt (and that still hold today) were the choice of December 25 (the birthday of Constantine's own favorite god, Sol Invictus, the one that pointed him to the IN HOC SIGNO written in the heavens) as the canonical date for Christmas, and the adoption of the pagan sacerdotal title "Pontifex Maximus" by the Pope ("Pontifex Maximus", i.e. "Chief Bridgebuilder", was the title of the head pagan priest in charge of the bridges over the river Tiber in the old Roman religion.) I think Dave may be exaggerating Constantine's personal role in the revamping of the Roman Church structure, but it is at most an exaggeration, or an according to Constantine of credit for actions actually taken by his underlings, or by churchmen eager to gain imperial favor, not a mysterious out-of-left-field kind of comment.

That said, I am not at all sure what the history of the College of Cardinals is. Apparently there was no standard procedure for the selection of the next pope prior to the year 1059 (which is long after the Constantinian period). But the college has all the earmarks of a Roman, not a Jewish, institution to my eye, including the designation of the Cardinals as "princes of the Church", "prince" being generally a secular rank, probably related to the years following the fall of the Western Empire when the Popes were temporally in charge of varying chunks of territory much larger than the Vatican City State.

[Matto]

and the "barbarian" invasions of Italy. Much of this influence was exerted during the reign of Constantine I, when the Empire lent its imprimatur to the Petrine Primacy, more or less anyway, and the Patriarch of Rome was marked out as the first among equals.

No, the Primacy of the Chair of Peter was long establish before Constantine.

"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).

See cyprian is telling all the bishops to maintain the unity to the primacy of the Chair of Peter, the Roman authorities not only didn't recognize Christianity at this time, they were still persecuting it. And Constantine was not even born.

"After such things as these, moreover, they still dare--a false bishop having been appointed for them by, heretics--to set sail and to bear letters from schismatic and profane persons to the throne of Peter, and to the chief church whence priestly unity takes its source; and not to consider that these were the Romans whose faith was praised in the preaching of the apostle, to whom faithlessness could have no access." Cyprian, To Cornelius, Epistle 54/59:14 (A.D. 252).

This is the Catholic Church under the Chair of Peter in a time of Roman persecution, Constantine was not even alive.

[Haruo]

You're quite right, Matto, that the Petrine Primacy predates Constantine; indeed, it can be found, given an appropriate hermeneutic, in the Gospel of Matthew. But it can be read different ways, and the way it's read in the Western Catholic Church is largely conditioned by the symbiosis of Ecclesia and Imperium, plus a little egotism. The churches headed by the other Patriarchs once equal to Rome, and churches outside the sphere of the five patriarchs, naturally read it differently. I didn't say that Constantine invented the Petrine Primacy, but that under his regime the Empire gave its imprimatur to the idea.

[Matto]

The churches headed by the other Patriarchs once equal to Rome,

It's not what Irenaeus the famous early Church Father says.

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." Irenaeus, Against Heresies, 3:3:2 (A.D. 180).

" 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, "

Irenaeus is saying that the Roman Church is the pre-eminent Church which all churches must aline. Decribing the Roman Church as the Pre-eminent Authority, that is, the first of Authorities, occupying a higher Authority.
Irenaeus is saying this 70-80 years before Cyprian says exactly the same thing in 250 AD.

If you were a faithful Christian in the Early Church you followed the Chair of Peter The Apostolic Successor of the Roman Church. Whether you were in Lyons (France) like Irenaeus or in Carthage like Cyprian.

This is all Catholic history anyway, nothing to do Protestant interpretation of it, as Protestants don't recognize the Chair of Peter like the early Christians did.

[Timothy Bonney]

Matto,

Irenaus might have said such things about Protestantism if he had been alive at the Reformation (or not) but the material you are quoting is from Irenaus' work refuting the heresy of gnosticism. I'm not sure the that you can use Irenaus to claim that he is saying that in all things at all times you have to agree with the Roman Catholic Church. For example in later years Irenaus tried to convince the Pope not to excommunicate persons in Asia Minor who differed on their view of the dating of Easter. Why didn't they also have to agree with the church then?

What we can say of Irenaus is that he thought the entire church should agree on the heresy of gnosticism. We can't say what Irenaus would have thought of the Protestant Reformation and the more than a millenium of church history that followed after his death before the Reformation since he had no knowledge of it not could have written about it.

After all, Martin Luther was a good Roman Catholic until he came to believe that the church of his day was wrong in the practice of selling indulgences. Would Irenaus have agreed with Luther or the Pope? Who knows, he wasn't alive. The Lutheran Church today recognizes Irenaus in its sanctorial calendar and I believe Luther himself was known to have quoted Irenaus.

So this brings up the question Matto, what do you do if you believe the Roman Church and the Pope have erred? What do you then do if disagreeing with the Pope garners you excommunication?

You can thank Pope Leo X in part fo the existence of "the separated brethren." Luther didn't leave the Roman Church, he was removed. His excommunication brought to a head a whole set of existing disagreements that many had with Rome, either with its ecclesiastical power or its secular power or both.

[Haruo]

Thanks, Timothy. Well put.

Matto, a "Church Father" and a "Patriarch" are two different things. Irenaeus was a Church Father. The Patriarchs of that era were the (chief) bishops of Antioch, Alexandria, and Jerusalem (I'm not sure when the Patriarchate of Constantinople was created; it may not have existed in the second century). Those churches were of an antiquity similar to Rome's; the churches in Jerusalem and Antioch, at any rate, predated Rome. They had every bit as much claim to the apostolic succession as Rome had, maybe more (since Paul and Peter didn't found the church there, but arrived after it had been founded by others).

[Matto]

So this brings up the question Matto, what do you do if you believe the Roman Church and the Pope have erred? What do you then do if disagreeing with the Pope garners you excommunication?

Erred on what Timothy?

If it is a matter of Faith and Morals, it is impossible for the Chair of Peter to teach error, simply because Christs Word stands forever.
It does not mean the Pope is guaranteed to be impeccable in his behavior, Christ only guaranteed that Peter teach the matters of the Faith without error.
In fact I think some of the saints have been shown some Popes damned in hell, however the office of the Chair of Peter remains untainted by any error.
It is a Divinely supported Office, they can't teach error even if they wanted to.
This gift was given to the Chair of Peter not for it's own enjoyment, it is a gift of continuing Infallible guidance by God for the whole Church.
It is the final Authority on matters of Faith and Morals.

I can see the Protestant mindset can not fathom a final Authority like this, because there is no final authority in Protestantism. Of cause they will point to scripture as the final authority, but it is scripture that divides them.
For each interpretation another Protestant Church is founded, until today there are tens of thousands of different denominations and non denominations, all divided on scriptures interpretation.

That's not guidance in the " fullness of Truth " that Jesus promised, no, to have guidance in the fullness of Truth there would have to be an established Infallible Authority.

"Number the bishops from the See of Peter itself. And in that order of Fathers see who has succeeded whom. That is the rock against which the gates of hell do not prevail" Augustine, Psalm against the Party of Donatus, 18 (A.D. 393).

"I am held in the communion of the Catholic Church by...and by the succession of bishops from the very Chair of Peter, to whom the Lord, after His resurrection commended His sheep to be fed up to the present episcopate." Augustine, Against the Letter of Mani, 5 (A.D. 395).

People can go there own changeable way regarding faith and morals, but the Chair of Peter is there for those who wish to know the Truth.

[Ed Pettibone]

Thanks, Timothy. Well put.

Matto, a "Church Father" and a "Patriarch" are two different things. Irenaeus was a Church Father. The Patriarchs of that era were the (chief) bishops of Antioch, Alexandria, and Jerusalem (I'm not sure when the Patriarchate of Constantinople was created; it may not have existed in the second century). Those churches were of an antiquity similar to Rome's; the churches in Jerusalem and Antioch, at any rate, predated Rome. They had every bit as much claim to the apostolic succession as Rome had, maybe more (since Paul and Peter didn't found the church there, but arrived after it had been founded by others).

Ed: Haruo would not the first Patriarch of Constantinople have been St Andrew who was the sitting Arch Bishop of the Byzantine empire in 330 when Constantinople was created to signify the complication of by Constantine as a new imperial capital at Byzantium .

[Matto]

(since Paul and Peter didn't found the church there, but arrived after it had been founded by others).

No not according to Irenaeus. Peter and Paul laid down the foundations of the Church there.

"Matthew also issued a written Gospel among the Hebrews in their own dialect, while Peter and Paul were preaching at Rome, and laying the foundations of the Church." Irenaeus, Against Heresies, 3:1:1 (c. A.D. 180).

You have perhaps forgotten the Churches principle. No Bishop no Church. Peter was the first Bishop of Rome and with Paul laid down the first foundations of the Church there.

Yes Christians would have been in Rome before Peter and Paul, but there was no Church there until it's first Bishop was there, Peter.

[Matto]

After all, Martin Luther was a good Roman Catholic

No he wasn't.

until he came to believe that the church of his day was wrong in the practice of selling indulgences.

Selling indulgences was never an article of faith taught by the Church, it was an abuse by some clerics, hardly a reason to split from the Church.

[Timothy Bonney]

If it is a matter of Faith and Morals, it is impossible for the Chair of Peter to teach error, simply because Christs Word stands forever.

That is a very convenient doctrine for someone who wants to control you and the Church. Take charge, declare your primacy over all the other Patriarchs and Bishops of the church and then when someone questions you tell them that it is impossible for you to err. That's very convenient indeed.

[Timothy Bonney]

No not according to Irenaeus. Peter and Paul laid down the foundations of the Church there.

And is Irenaeus suppose to be infallible too? (Just checking, Jesus is the only person on my infallibility list but you seem to have one as long as your arm.)

[Timothy Bonney]

Selling indulgences was never an article of faith taught by the Church, it was an abuse by some clerics, hardly a reason to split from the Church.

It was an abuse by some clerics which had approval in one form or another from the Pope Matto.

Selling salvation for money sounds to me like a darn good reason to split the church. Remember the money changers in the temple? Jesus was pretty ticked off by that behavior.

[Ed Pettibone]

Selling indulgences was never an article of faith taught by the Church, it was an abuse by some clerics, hardly a reason to split from the Church.

It was an abuse by some clerics which had approval in one form or another from the Pope Matto.

Selling salvation for money sounds to me like a darn good reason to split the church. Remember the money changers in the temple? Jesus was pretty ticked off by that behavior.

Ed: So Tim what did the money changers who Christ drove from the porches of the temple have to do with "selling salvation".

[Timothy Bonney]

Ed: So Tim what did the money changers who Christ drove from the porches of the temple have to do with "selling salvation".

Well Ed they were selling animals for sacrifice and they were exchanging money for temple money charging exchange rates bilking temple goers. Given that sacrifices were necessary for the covering of sin that sounds like selling salvation to me.

[Matto]

If it is a matter of Faith and Morals, it is impossible for the Chair of Peter to teach error, simply because Christs Word stands forever.

That is a very convenient doctrine for someone who wants to control you and the Church. Take charge, declare your primacy over all the other Patriarchs and Bishops of the church and then when someone questions you tell them that it is impossible for you to err. That's very convenient indeed.

The Infallibility gift is rarely used, and what ever has been taught by the preceding Popes is Infallible as well. So a new Pope can not teach against the Infallible teaching of past Popes.
Jesus governs the Catholic Church, and He does not allow error to be taught by the Apostolic See.

If someone did have ill intentions, he would not long live, the same as quite a few others.

[Matto]

Selling salvation for money sounds to me like a darn good reason to split the church.

They weren't selling salvation Timothy, they were selling indulgences, which was a disciplinary issue of a few clergy, not a doctrinal issue.

Luther shipwrecked the western world, caused mass death and suffering, divided Christianity into thousands of sects that interpret scripture how they feel. He fathered relativism in the west, such that no man in protestantism can be sure of the truth in faith or morals.
A lot of protestants today don't even believe in the Divinity of Christ, His miracles or even His salvific mission.
So no, a few clergy selling indulgences is no reason to cause all that damage.

Protestantism will come to an end like all other heresies, and only the Catholic Church will stand in the end.

[Matto]

It was an abuse by some clerics which had approval in one form or another from the Pope Matto.

Ok, show me the Papal Bull teaching the selling of indulgences.

[Timothy Bonney]

Ok, show me the Papal Bull teaching the selling of indulgences.

Matto you've been showing me enough Papal bull. Thanks.

You've given me no reason to be convince of the Pope's infallibility or that Jesus keeps the Pope infallible or ever offered to do so for that matter.

[Haruo]

Protestantism will come to an end like all other heresies, and only the Catholic Church will stand in the end.

What other heresy has come to an end? You may say they will as a statement of faith, but I don't think you can point to a single heresy that has gone away to date.

[Matto]

Ok, show me the Papal Bull teaching the selling of indulgences.

Matto you've been showing me enough Papal bull. Thanks.

You've given me no reason to be convince of the Pope's infallibility or that Jesus keeps the Pope infallible or ever offered to do so for that matter.

I don't think any proofs offered to you from Scripture, Tradition, or even the dictionary would convince you Timothy.
When people reach a certain stage of rationalizing, not even the raising of dead would convince them, let alone Scripture and Tradition.

[Timothy Bonney]

What other heresy has come to an end? You may say they will as a statement of faith, but I don't think you can point to a single heresy that has gone away to date.

Good point Haruo, including he gnostic heresy that Ireneus was arguing against.

[Timothy Bonney]

I don't think any proofs offered to you from Scripture, Tradition, or even the dictionary would convince you Timothy.
When people reach a certain stage of rationalizing, not even the raising of dead would convince them, let alone Scripture and Tradition.

1. There is no scriptural basis for papal infallibility much less the primacy of the Bishop of Rome.

2. You've got a lot of nerve calling my position "rationalizing." Given your assertions with only one quote from one church father as proof. Also you should know as well as I do that of the 2 Billion Christians in the world something over half are Roman Catholic but something over 800 Million are Protestant. You have nearly half of all Christendom to convince of your viewpoint. So if you want to fantasize that 800 Million Protestants are just rationalizing their viewpoint go right ahead. But you are being simplistic.

3. As to Tradition in this case that is a tautological argument. The tradition that the Pope is leader of the church and infallible is the very doctrine I'm disagreeing with. So to refer to the the doctrine of infallibility as a proof for the doctrine of infallibility is useless to anyone who doesn't already believe it.

4. If you can raise someone from the dead go right ahead. It might not convince me of Papal infallibility since I can't see how they'd be related. But empty a grave for someone else's use.

[Matto]

Protestantism will come to an end like all other heresies, and only the Catholic Church will stand in the end.

What other heresy has come to an end? You may say they will as a statement of faith, but I don't think you can point to a single heresy that has gone away to date.

Catholics have seen off many heresies over 2000 years. Arians, Manicheans, Donatists just to name a few.

There is no such thing as heresy in Protestantism I realize, because there is no Infallible authority to declare such a state.
This usually manifests in a person not being declared a heretic, but encouraged to join a Protestant denomination that has an opposing theology on a matter of faith.
Say a Presbyterian is convicted by scripture to believe that baptism is essential and salvific in it's effect, he will leave to a Protestant denomination that holds to his antithetical belief, and become a Lutheran let's say. So he will leave his previous Protestant denomination with a hail and hearty handshake with all smiles, and move on to a Protestant denomination with completely opposing beliefs on essential doctrine.

You can believe anything and still be a Protestant, with no Infallible Authority, who is there to call anyone a heretic.
Spong is a good example of this, denying the Divinity of Christ, denying original sin, denying the miraculous works of Christ, denying Christs redemptive mission etc, etc. Yet he is still Protestant, and considered a Protestant thinker and educator in good standing.

So when we are talking about heresy, we are talking about formal beliefs that oppose the Infallible doctrines of the Catholic Church. Heresies can only be declared so by the Catholic Church.

It is the lack of Infallible Authority that has split Protestantism from it's very beginning into tens of thousands of denominations and non denominations.
Luther thought that people would only follow his interpreted doctrines, but to his disgust other Protestants started teaching different doctrines from his.
Each man was his own Pope, pandoras box had been opened and each man interpreted what he liked from scripture, and thousands of conflicted human founded churches sprang, and many sects that can not even be recognized as being Christian, Mormons for instance.
Instead of a man conforming himself to Truth, he simply fabricated his own beliefs from his private interpretations.

In Catholic hands the Bible has an absolute meaning, in Protestant hands it can mean whatever anyone wants, it is reduced to a relative and subjective experience.

If no one is in error, then there is no such thing as Truth, and thus the Truth sets no one free, it has been nullified.

[Timothy Bonney]

If no one is in error, then there is no such thing as Truth, and thus the Truth sets no one free, it has been nullified.

That is hardly an argument for accepting your version of the truth.