Monday, November 08, 2010

The counterfeit shepherd

STEVE SAID:
CATHAPOL SAID:

“Again with the straw man! Who here is claiming that St. Peter ‘founded’ the Church at Rome?”

Irenaeus, for starters:

“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.”

http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/0103303.htm

But if you wish to dismiss the testimony of Irenaeus, that’s fine with me.

“I, for one, have explicitly DENIED he did!”

You don’t speak for Rome Catholicism. You merely speak for Scott Windsor.

“AS I SAID BEFORE TOO: St. Peter's first see was likely at Antioch, but we don't trace THE Apostolic See (of the Vicar of Christ) to Antioch, but to Rome …”

Roman Catholics trace it through Rome. What a surprise!

“But NONE of it says these two were called ‘bishops’ or even ‘overseers.’”

They don’t have to be bishops. You’re framing the issue in Roman Catholic terms, which begs the very question at issue.

“ALL we have as FACT is that they held church in their house.”

Yes, a Roman house-church. That’s all the 1C church of Rome amounted to. The pope didn’t preside. Peter didn’t preside. Aquila and Priscilla did.

“The rest of your conclusion is pure speculation.”

i) Any historical reconstruction involves an element of speculation. Your assertion that Peter’s “bones” are there (in Rome) “to this day” is pure speculation. Do you have a sample of Peter’s DNA to ID the bones?

ii) My conclusion was far from “pure speculation.” That is based on exegetical and archaeological evidence. You don’t even attempt to refute the evidence.

“Based on the ‘evidence’ provided here (Mr. Hays) we have nothing more to go on than they too were ‘missionaries’ who established a ‘mission church’ at Rome.”

In which case it wasn’t founded by Peter (pace Irenaeus). Rather, it was headed by Aquila and Priscilla.

“It is quite plausible that Sts. Peter and Paul were the first bishops to arrive at Rome.”

Peter and Paul were never bishops. They were apostles. You commit a category mistake.

“As for the comment about (Fr.) Raymond Brown being a ‘mainstream Catholic scholar...’ he WAS ‘mainstream’ during a VERY liberal era for the Church, but he can HARDLY be considered ‘mainstream’ when we look at the big picture here. He was a modernist and a revisionist and his commentaries, IMHO, are relatively worthless to one seeking orthodox Catholic teaching. Of course, NON-Catholics flock to his dissenting and revisionist views, so it's no surprise that we find him lauded in this forum.”

He was appointed to the Pontifical Biblical Commission by two successive popes. It’s counterproductive for you to defend the papacy by distancing yourself from the papacy. But, of course, you’re hardly the first Catholic epologist who labors to save the papacy from the pope.

11/08/2010 7:08 AM
STEVE SAID:
CATHAPOL SAID:

On the one hand:

"The rest of your conclusion is pure speculation."

On the other hand:

"It is quite plausible that Sts. Peter and Paul were the first bishops to arrive at Rome."

Nothing like pure speculation.

“Mr. Hays seems to think that if he uses lots of names (mostly, if not wholly, Protestant commentators) that we will be impressed.”

i) I gave author, title, and pagination to back up my claims. That’s the responsible way to argue for one’s position–unlike Windsor.

ii) If Windsor is going to dismiss scholarship just because it’s Protestant, then he’s not a real apologist. He refuses to engage the argument. At best, he only accepts preapproved, in-house authors.

Imagine a Mormon rejecting Protestant scholarship against Mormonism simply because it’s Protestant.

iii) But, of course, Windsor also rejects Catholic scholarship unless it already agrees with his position.

So he’s just a fake apologist.

iv) For that matter, Jesuit scholar Joseph Fitzmyer, in his commentary on Rom 16, corroborates Lampe’s exegesis at that juncture.

v) Moreover, I didn’t cite these scholars as authority-figures. I cited them for the evidence which they adduce.

“As I stated in my initial response to him - we don't claim St. Peter ‘founded’ the Church at Rome - but he is the first Bishop of Rome.”

Windsor may not, but Irenaeus did, and the claims of Irenaeus are certainly a fixture in the standard Catholic apologetic for Roman primacy.

If, however, Windsor wants to drop Irenaeus from the Catholic arsenal, that’s fine with me.

“There we agree! And if we slip in the word ‘informally’ then we could also use the word ‘formally’ - and validly claim the ‘formal’ formation of the Church of Rome was when the bishops, Sts. Peter and Paul, arrived there. Then it went from a ‘mission’ community to a ‘formal’ church.”

That’s an institutional myth. There was nothing above and beyond the informal founding of the Roman church.

Indeed, there was no one church of Rome in the 1C. Rather, you had a number of independently founded house-churches. These were at best loosely affiliated, and there is evidence that some of them were rivals (i.e. Paul’s shadowy Jewish opponents).

“And again, this would appropriately describe a MISSION community, where several MISSION churches/chapels were established prior to officially establishing the Church hierarchy at Rome as was done in other cities.”

Yes, the mythical, backdated “official establishment” of the Roman church.

“They left due to the edict and didn't return until after Claudius' death. Then some historians have it that they left again for Asia on more MISSIONARY work, and were martyred there.”

Irrelevant.

“They were Jewish tentmakers, hardly a position of ‘nobility’ in Rome! Now, amongst Jews they may have had some stature and/or financial stability, and perhaps those resources assisted them in attaining a household in Rome large enough to host church meetings (or perhaps they met in a tent!), but to jump to ‘Roman noblewoman’ seems quite the leap here. I can't prove she wasn't of Roman nobility, so if Hays, et al, wishes to make that leap, sobeit.”

i) It’s a “leap” because he’s too lazy and intellectual insecure to study the evidence which scholars like Lampe and Jewett (among others) present.

ii) If she married down, she would acquire her husband’s business through marriage. It would thereby become a family business.

iii) This dovetails with the Lucan theme of Godfearers and proselytes who are drawn to the true faith via their contacts with the Jewish people.

iv) It explains how they could afford to maintain establishments in Rome, Corinth, and Ephesus.

v) It would explain how she was in a position to intervene on Paul’s behalf with the Roman authorities (cf. Rom 16:4).

vi) It would explain how they could afford a house-church in the upscale Aventine district.

vii) It would explain why Santa Prisca is named after her rather than Aquila. She held the title-deed.

viii) Through ignorance, Windsor disregards the evidence of her noble Acilian pedigree.

“All this ‘probably’ and ‘may have been’ is pure speculation - all we ‘know’ is he was a Jewish tentmaker who did missionary work for St. Paul.”

Missionaries planted churches. Who was in charge? The missionary. Not the pope.

“THEN to jump to ‘vicars of the heavenly head (Christ)’ is taking it (again) WAY too far!”

I’m recasting the issue in Catholic terms for the sake of argument.

“Jesus Christ Himself selected His vicar in St. Peter - ALONE - in John 21:15-17.”

That would come as news to the author of John, who was the “vicar” of the churches in Asia Minor.

“No, Jesus was singling him out to be the lead Shepherd to "feed (His) sheep" after He ascended into Heaven.”

i) Jesus doesn’t single out Peter as the “lead Shepherd.”

ii) Anyway, Peter isn't the pope or vice versa.

“So, Mr. Hays admits to building this straw man - and then he proceeds to knock it down. Does he really think he's convincing anyone here (besides the choir)?”

It’s not a straw man to engage the opposing view on its own grounds for the sake of argument.

“I realize the Protestant need to throw the ‘if’ in there... they wish to deny that St. Peter ever even went to Rome in their fear of the papacy.”

Peter may well have visited Rome–among other places. If he was ever there, his presence there is no more or less significant than any other apostle who paid a visit to Rome.

“I hope the readers have noticed the bait and switch here which has reduced his argumentation to ad hominem (invalidity). What difference to the substance of what these Catholics say is affected by whether or not they are laity and/or converts? He seems to think that if one is a layperson or a convert that they have a lesser voice in apologetics. What it boils down to is that he is trying to minimize what is levied against him through character attacks (ad hominem).”

i) Since the Roman church is hierarchical, and Windsor isn’t a member of the hierarchy, then by definition his lay status makes him a lesser voice.

Moreover, it’s not as if the hierarchy put him on some papal commission. He has no institutional standing in a hierarchical institution.

“The fact that Fr. Brown held liberal, modernistic and revisionist ideas is not unknown to the Catholic faithful, even this short bio (http://www.christianbook.com/html/authors/3001.html) by a non-Catholic source admits he has his critics - especially in Catholic circles. I am also wholly unaware of his ascension to the bishoprick! When did this happen?”

Notice Windsor’s implicit admission that the pope is a counterfeit shepherd. Even though it’s the duty of a shepherd to protect the flock from wolves, two successive popes allowed the wolfish Fr. Brown to infiltrate the fold, and prey upon the sheep, by appointing him to the Pontifical Biblical Commission.

12 comments:

  1. "Notice Windsor’s implicit admission that the pope is a counterfeit shepherd. Even though it’s the duty of a shepherd to protect the flock from wolves, two successive popes allowed the wolfish Fr. Brown to infiltrate the fold, and prey upon the sheep, by appointing him to the Pontifical Biblical Commission."

    Heh, heh, hee, hee, hoo, hoo, ha, ha. Dat's funny.

    ReplyDelete
  2. Off topic but any chance, at this point, that you would consider rescinding the ban on certain users. It is annoying trying to read through the archives and often running into:

    [Comment removed. This user has been banned from posting comments.]

    Thanks for your consideration of this matter.

    ReplyDelete
  3. They are always banned for a reason.

    ReplyDelete
  4. >>"Notice Windsor’s implicit
    >> admission that the pope is a
    >> counterfeit shepherd. Even
    >> though it’s the duty of a
    >> shepherd to protect the flock
    >> from wolves, two successive
    >> popes allowed the wolfish Fr.
    >> Brown to infiltrate the fold,
    >> and prey upon the sheep, by
    >> appointing him to the
    >> Pontifical Biblical Commission."
    >
    > Heh, heh, hee, hee, hoo, hoo,
    > ha, ha. Dat's funny.


    Laugh all you want. I, for one, do not deny that the "smoke of Satan has entered the Church" - oh, Pope Paul VI said that... I guess that makes me at least #2.

    I have no qualms admitting that "wolves" have entered the fold - which is something Scripture tells us to be wary of. Now, if this could never happen, why the warning? There have been some HUGE abuses in the Church over the last 40 years or so - I pray that St. Peter's current successor is righting the ship - and thus far he seems to be doing a fair job of it (IMHO).

    As for Steve's rather long reply, that's way too much for a combox response - I'll respond on my blog.

    Scott<<<

    ReplyDelete
  5. CATHAPOL SAID:

    "Laugh all you want. I, for one, do not deny that the 'smoke of Satan has entered the Church' - oh, Pope Paul VI said that... I guess that makes me at least #2. I have no qualms admitting that 'wolves' have entered the fold - which is something Scripture tells us to be wary of."

    It was Pope Paul VI who rolled out the red carpet for the "smoke of Satan" when he appointed Ray Brown to the Pontifical Biblical Commission–an appointment reaffirmed by John-Paul II.

    So by your own admission, the popes are counterfeit shepherds. Instead of shielding the flock from the wolves, they are feeding the sheep to the wolves.

    ReplyDelete
  6. So by your own admission, the popes are counterfeit shepherds. Instead of shielding the flock from the wolves, they are feeding the sheep to the wolves.

    No more than St. Peter - who denied our Lord three times. The wolves don't just come in looking like wolves - their "sheep's costume" is sometimes good enough to fool, even the elect. Again, when we see such warnings in Scripture, are we to assume they'll never materialize?

    Now, does this make them "counterfeit shepherds?" No. There is no promise that our shepherds will be impeccable.

    AMDG,
    Scott<<<

    ReplyDelete
  7. "does this make them "counterfeit shepherds?" No. There is no promise that our shepherds will be impeccable."

    Sincerely, I thought this was the very claim of Romanism. If your church allowed a false teacher in this case, then maybe in others. Maybe the guy who first taught transubstantiation, purgatory, Mary as mediatrix. Maybe Newman was a false teacher. How do we know?

    ReplyDelete
  8. CATHAPOL SAID:

    "The wolves don't just come in looking like wolves - their 'sheep's costume' is sometimes good enough to fool, even the elect. Again, when we see such warnings in Scripture, are we to assume they'll never materialize?"

    i) So even though you can see through Ray Brown's sheepish costume and detect the wolf lurking within, Pope Paul VI and John-Paul II (who appointed Brown to the Pontifical Biblical Commission) lacked your spiritual discernment. If so, that speaks poorly of the papacy.

    ii) Moreover, Brown was a known-quantity at the time of his appointment (twice!) to the Commission. Indeed, he was appointed precisely because he was such a prominent figure in Catholic Bible scholarship.

    So, how, exactly, were two successive popes "fooled" by Brown? It's not as if he had a hidden agenda.

    Once again, you save the papacy by demeaning the papacy. You treat the papacy like a senile old man, casting yourself in the role of the faithful butler who covers up for his feeble-mindedness.

    ReplyDelete
  9. Is Cardinal Yves Congar a counterfeit shepherd?

    "The claim of Roman apologists on behalf of Rome that its interpretation of Matthew 16 is the catholic interpretation, i.e., of the patristic exegesis by and large, is explicitly denied by a cardinal [Yves Congar] of their own communion."

    Read it all: Here.

    ReplyDelete
  10. TUaD, I think we have enough "rabbit trails" going in this discussion as it is without starting another one.

    I am proofing my response to Mr. Hays now, it should be posted shortly.

    Scott<<<

    ReplyDelete
  11. louis said:"does this make them "counterfeit shepherds?" No. There is no promise that our shepherds will be impeccable."

    Sincerely, I thought this was the very claim of Romanism.

    No, Catholicism makes no claims of impeccability. Many non-Catholics confuse the teaching of papal infallibility with impeccability, and the two simply cannot be equivocated. ALL popes are sinners - some have been worse than others. There is no promise that our popes will be impeccable. They can and WILL make mistakes.

    Now this must not be confused with papal infallibility. The ONLY TIME the charism of infallibility is applied to St. Peter's office is when the pope speaks "ex cathedra" (that is, "from the chair") and that teaching must be made binding on ALL Catholics (not a teaching directed to a single church or congregation), it must invoke the authority of the Chair of St. Peter; it must be on a matter of faith or morals, and it must be clear what the consequences are for violating the teaching. In short, this charism has been utilized very sparingly throughout the ages - though it has been used. This is really going beyond the scope of what Mr. Hays is discussing at present. If you're interested, I would encourage you to utilize the "Dear CathApol" (which isn't just me) feature on my blog.

    AMDG,
    Scott<<<

    ReplyDelete
  12. Once again, you save the papacy by demeaning the papacy. You treat the papacy like a senile old man, casting yourself in the role of the faithful butler who covers up for his feeble-mindedness.

    Let's be clear here... the late Fr. Brown was not a heretic. The late Fr. Brown had some very liberal ideas which ran contrary to traditional Catholic thought. He had some concepts of history which were quite revisionist. Back in the 1960's and 70's the Church was being very tolerant of "progressive" and "liberal" ideas, which was a mistake, IMHO (and I'm not alone in that opinion). The mistakes I refer to here with the late Fr. Brown are not heretical, though some may come close. The issue was and remains that you (and many other Protestant apologists) RUN to the cassock of Frs. Brown or Fitzmyer - and why is that? Perhaps because they have said/written things which go against the grain of traditional Catholic thought?! If your intent is to sow tares among the wheat, which side does that put you on?

    Back to the point of this response... and I repeat, Frs. Brown and Fitzmyer are not heretics. They did hold some ideas quite contrary to traditional Catholic thought - and it must be known that their ideas are not "mainstream" but moreso are radical views coming from a very liberal age in the Church (one which is subsiding). If you weren't aware of their liberal views before, you are now. Even your friend James White acknowledges their liberal views:


    I can't tell you how often I hear Shabir Ally or other Islamic apologists trotting out Brown or Fitzmyer to prove that this or that biblical teaching is "mythological" or the like. http://www.aomin.org/aoblog/index.php?itemid=3435

    So I am not alone, and even an anti-Catholic like White has the integrity to admit that apologists (Islamic in the above example) often "trot out Brown and Fitzmyer" when trying to demonstrate liberal or even modernist views from "Catholic scholars." The knowledgeable reader is not taken in by such tactics - only those ignorant of the likes of Frs. Brown and Fitzmyer. You may get away with fooling the ignorant for a while, but once they learn you're fooling them - they will turn on you. It is best to accept and use a more honest approach.

    So, do we get a retraction of your use of Frs. Brown and Fitzmyer? Somehow I doubt you will, but if you do, I will be pleasantly surprised and humbled.

    Scott<<<

    ReplyDelete