Protestantism was falsified here on TOL

[Clete]

Okay, @Catholic Crusader, I found it!

I was off on the years just a bit, but I was pretty close considering I first saw this referrence almost thirteen years ago....

Cardinal Stanislaus Hosius said, in the original Latin....

"Nam & alterius Principis edictum non ita pridem legi, qui vicem Anabaptistarum dolens, quos ante mille ducentos annes haeretisos, capitalique supplicio dignos esse pronunciatos legimus, vult, ut audiantur omnino, nec indicta causa pro condemnatis habeantur."​

(The letters of Cardinal Stanislaus Hosius, Liber Epistolarum 150, titled "Alberto Bavariae Duci" in about 1563 A.D.)​

​

Which translates in English too:​

"For not so long ago I read the edict of the other prince who lamented the fate of the Anabaptists who, so we read, were pronounced heretics twelve hundred years ago and deserving of capital punishment. He wanted them to be heard and not taken as condemned without a hearing."​

(by Carolinne White, Ph.D, Oxford University, Head of Oxford Latin) (emphasis added)​

So, the Cardinal had access to writings that pronounced the Anabaptists of his day (i.e. the mid 1500s) to be heretics some twelve centuries earlier. Now, there wasn't any group calling themselves "Anabaptists" in the mid 300s AD and so the point being made is that the Anabaptists where teaching similar doctrines to whatever group the Cardinal is referring to that existed in the days of Augustine.
But just leave that aside because that's not the point! The point is that there were Christians teaching doctrines similar to 16th Century Anabaptists as far back as the 4th century and we have the writings of a Catholic Cardinal to prove it.

This, by the way, is not the only such reference to non-Catholic Christianity existing in the very early centuries after Christ. This is, however, one of the most powerful proofs because not only does it give evidence of very early non-Catholic secs of Christianity but it is written, first person testimony, taken directly from someone who is not just a Catholic and not just a Priest and not just any Cardinal of the Catholic Church. Cardinal Stanislaus Hosius was the President of the Council of Trent! This guy is as Catholic as Catholic gets!

I say it again, Catholicism has never been nearly as "universal" as Catholic priests want for the parishioners to believe. In fact, there is actually nothing at all to support such a claim. It is pure religious propaganda. Something a religious zealot might engage in.

Clete

 

[Right Divider]

This, by the way, is not the only such reference to non-Catholic Christianity existing in the very early centuries after Christ.

Paul was a non-Catholic Christian.

This guy is as Catholic as Catholic gets!

My mother-in-law beats him. According to her she was "born a Catholic and will die a Catholic".

 

[JudgeRightly]

My mother-in-law beats him.

That's kind of funny.

According to her she was "born a Catholic and will die a Catholic".

But that's very sad.

 

[Right Divider]

That's kind of funny.

But that's very sad.

I agree. I've had many discussions with her, but she's too stubborn to even listen. She also likes to use fallacious arguments; like "How can so many people (Roman Catholics) be wrong?". It is sad.

 

[Idolater]

Okay, @Catholic Crusader, I found it!

I was off on the years just a bit, but I was pretty close considering I first saw this referrence almost thirteen years ago....

Cardinal Stanislaus Hosius said, in the original Latin....

"Nam & alterius Principis edictum non ita pridem legi, qui vicem Anabaptistarum dolens, quos ante mille ducentos annes haeretisos, capitalique supplicio dignos esse pronunciatos legimus, vult, ut audiantur omnino, nec indicta causa pro condemnatis habeantur."​

(The letters of Cardinal Stanislaus Hosius, Liber Epistolarum 150, titled "Alberto Bavariae Duci" in about 1563 A.D.)​

​

Which translates in English too:​

"For not so long ago I read the edict of the other prince who lamented the fate of the Anabaptists who, so we read, were pronounced heretics twelve hundred years ago and deserving of capital punishment. He wanted them to be heard and not taken as condemned without a hearing."​

(by Carolinne White, Ph.D, Oxford University, Head of Oxford Latin) (emphasis added)​

So, the Cardinal had access to writings that pronounced the Anabaptists of his day (i.e. the mid 1500s) to be heretics some twelve centuries earlier. Now, there wasn't any group calling themselves "Anabaptists" in the mid 300s AD and so the point being made is that the Anabaptists where teaching similar doctrines to whatever group the Cardinal is referring to that existed in the days of Augustine.
But just leave that aside because that's not the point! The point is that there were Christians teaching doctrines similar to 16th Century Anabaptists as far back as the 4th century and we have the writings of a Catholic Cardinal to prove it.

This, by the way, is not the only such reference to non-Catholic Christianity existing in the very early centuries after Christ. This is, however, one of the most powerful proofs because not only does it give evidence of very early non-Catholic secs of Christianity but it is written, first person testimony, taken directly from someone who is not just a Catholic and not just a Priest and not just any Cardinal of the Catholic Church. Cardinal Stanislaus Hosius was the President of the Council of Trent! This guy is as Catholic as Catholic gets!

I say it again, Catholicism has never been nearly as "universal" as Catholic priests want for the parishioners to believe. In fact, there is actually nothing at all to support such a claim. It is pure religious propaganda. Something a religious zealot might engage in.

Clete

Well that's just false. Anyway there is in fact, one common thread in ancient Anabaptists and all other heretical sects throughout the history of the Church age: there are never any bishops.

This is true all the way up to the Reformation, and beyond. The institution of the office of a bishop (1st Timothy 3:1), which is Apostolic, is, organizationally, hierarchically, and institutionally the Church in the Bible. This sounds treacherous on the surface, prima facie, to believe, because one wonders how easy it will be to trace this institution today, back through the ages.

It turns out it's very easy if you believe the conclusions of the first handful of Church councils, which we almost all do. That office was very clear all the way up through the Great Schism in 1054 I think, it was clear up to the Reformation.

It's also clear that the bishops are valid in both the Catholic Church and in the Orthodox churches, because these two traditions date back to the first century, and because they both believe the Orthodox bishops are valid (Catholicism explicitly believes this, per the Catechism of the Catholic Church). So there isn't any way for us to tell which one is right. Since of course we would expect each tradition to claim that their own tradition is valid. But we do not expect the other tradition saying that this tradition is also valid. But that's what's happening. So we don't have any way to tell which one's right. But if we flip a coin and it's Catholicism, then both traditions constitute the bishops in the Bible. That's all we know. That's all we can know.

iow we don't know whether it's better to be Catholic or Orthodox, and we can't know. But we can and do know, that it's either Catholicism or Orthodoxy, if we truly value being an individual member of the One Biblical Church, which is always administrated by bishops (1st Timothy 3:1).

 

[Right Divider]

Well that's just false. Anyway there is in fact, one common thread in ancient Anabaptists and all other heretical sects throughout the history of the Church age: there are never any bishops.

Why do "bishops" only appear in Paul's epistles? (Caveat: Peter mentions one Bishop, Jesus Christ).

This is true all the way up to the Reformation, and beyond. The institution of the office of a bishop (1st Timothy 3:1), which is Apostolic, is, organizationally, hierarchically, and institutionally the Church in the Bible.

Paul was not a "Catholic". Paul and the twelve separated their ministries. There was a reason for that.
Paul was one apostle for one body.
The twelve were twelve apostles for twelve tribes.

 

[Clete]

Well that's just false.

Saying it doesn't make it so.

I not only directly quoted the source, I provided references sufficient to confirm that what I said was not false.

Anyway there is in fact, one common thread in ancient Anabaptists and all other heretical sects throughout the history of the Church age: there are never any bishops.

You need to look up the term "Begging the Question"!

Such an idiotic statement would only hold any water from within your own Catholic paradigm. It, therefore, wouldn't do anything to refute the veracity of Anabaptist teaching even if that were the argument being made, which it isn't.

This is true all the way up to the Reformation, and beyond. The institution of the office of a bishop (1st Timothy 3:1), which is Apostolic, is, organizationally, hierarchically, and institutionally the Church in the Bible. This sounds treacherous on the surface, prima facie, to believe, because one wonders how easy it will be to trace this institution today, back through the ages.

It turns out it's very easy if you believe the conclusions of the first handful of Church councils, which we almost all do. That office was very clear all the way up through the Great Schism in 1054 I think, it was clear up to the Reformation.

It's also clear that the bishops are valid in both the Catholic Church and in the Orthodox churches, because these two traditions date back to the first century, and because they both believe the Orthodox bishops are valid (Catholicism explicitly believes this, per the Catechism of the Catholic Church). So there isn't any way for us to tell which one is right. Since of course we would expect each tradition to claim that their own tradition is valid. But we do not expect the other tradition saying that this tradition is also valid. But that's what's happening. So we don't have any way to tell which one's right. But if we flip a coin and it's Catholicism, then both traditions constitute the bishops in the Bible. That's all we know. That's all we can know.

No, it isn't even close to all we know and it's the furthest thing from being all we can know.

The proof that Catholicism hasn't ever been as "universal" as you'd like people to believe is the first person testimony from one of your OWN Bishops, who wasn't just a bishop but a Cardinal (Cardinals are bishops that hang out with and advise the Pope and elect a new Pope when needed.)

iow we don't know whether it's better to be Catholic or Orthodox, and we can't know. But we can and do know, that it's either Catholicism or Orthodoxy, if we truly value being an individual member of the One Biblical Church, which is always administrated by bishops (1st Timothy 3:1).

Nonsense.

As I said above, the proof comes from one of your very own highest ranking bishops, not to mention that fact that pretty nearly everything that is distinctively Catholic, whether in doctrine or religious practice, is contradictory to the bible to the point that if you removed all the extra-biblical stuff from the Catholic faith (e.g, worship of Mary, prayer beads, confessionals, ritualistic prayers, the so called "Eucharist", the very existence of the office of Pope, etc) you'd be left with something that looks far more like the Mennonites, who are probably the closest thing to modern Anabaptist that you'll find (i.e. That is, doctrinally speaking, of course. I'm not referring to the Mennonite aversion to modern technological advancements).

Clete

 

[Derf]

I'm not referring to the Mennonite aversion to modern technological advancements).

I think that's more Amish than Mennonite.

 

[Idolater]

Saying it doesn't make it so.

I not only directly quoted the source, I provided references sufficient to confirm that what I said was not false.


You need to look up the term "Begging the Question"!

Such an idiotic statement would only hold any water from within your own Catholic paradigm.

No! Clete. The office is objectively real. It isn't begging the question because it doesn't depend upon "Catholicism" or "Orthodoxy" being true. The office exists. That office holders today identify as "Catholic" or "Orthodox," is off-topic; it doesn't matter, to my point.

The office exists. The office was made by the Apostles (proven in the Bible). And ancient Anabaptists did not have any bishops. Same with other ancient heretical sects.

It, therefore, wouldn't do anything to refute the veracity of Anabaptist teaching even if that were the argument being made, which it isn't.

I didn't say anything about Anabaptist teaching, my point was about bishops, their physical presence, leading a flock. There were no Anabaptist bishops!

No, it isn't even close to all we know and it's the furthest thing from being all we can know.

The proof that Catholicism hasn't ever been as "universal" as you'd like people to believe is the first person testimony from one of your OWN Bishops, who wasn't just a bishop but a Cardinal (Cardinals are bishops that hang out with and advise the Pope and elect a new Pope when needed.)

He never said the Anabaptists had bishops or even had one bishop. He said these people held to different doctrines from what all the Church's bishops were teaching. I don't dispute that, there were many heretical sects in antiquity.

Nonsense.

As I said above, the proof comes from one of your very own highest ranking bishops

This is a ridiculous and pathetic appeal to authority fallacy. Your source was a bishop, I grant that, but no bishop, not even the pope, can speak for the Church without basically uniform agreement with all the other bishops, not even the pope. There's slight exceptions for the pope, but the rule is that the Magisterium (the entire college of Catholic bishops) teaches in unison, so if you want to appeal to the authority of a bishop to speak on behalf of the Magisterium OK, but he better be saying what the whole Magisterium also says, otherwise it's an invalid appeal to authority.

But in this case you're basically appealing to the authority of a bishop that he said what he never said! He never said the Anabaptists had bishops. If they had bishops you'd have some sort of point but you don't because they didn't. Lots of ancient heretical sects were led by non-bishops, ancient Anabaptists were just among them.

, not to mention that fact that pretty nearly everything that is distinctively Catholic, whether in doctrine or religious practice, is contradictory to the bible to the point that if you removed all the extra-biblical stuff from the Catholic faith (e.g, worship of Mary, prayer beads, confessionals, ritualistic prayers, the so called "Eucharist", the very existence of the office of Pope, etc) you'd be left with something that looks far more like the Mennonites, who are probably the closest thing to modern Anabaptist that you'll find (i.e. That is, doctrinally speaking, of course. I'm not referring to the Mennonite aversion to modern technological advancements).

Clete

Saying it doesn't make it so. Bald assertion. Declaratory. Fallacy.

 

[Clete]

No! Clete.

Yes! Idolater.

The office is objectively real. It isn't begging the question because it doesn't depend upon "Catholicism" or "Orthodoxy" being true.

You're so blinded by your paradigm that you can't even see what you're doing. Your understanding of the office of Bishop is entirely informed by your Catholicism and so...

Yes! Idolater, it is text book question begging.

More importantly, its a fallacious refutation against a position that has not been argued.

The office exists. That office holders today identify as "Catholic" or "Orthodox," is off-topic; it doesn't matter, to my point.

If your point was on point, which it isn't, it would matter because it's only Catholics that think it means what you think it means.

The office exists. The office was made by the Apostles (proven in the Bible). And ancient Anabaptists did not have any bishops. Same with other ancient heretical sects.

I doubt very much that you could prove that they had no Bishops (bishops are called Elders by nearly the whole rest of the Christian church that isn't Catholic or Orthodox, by the way) and even if you could, it would not prove what you are attempting to prove because only Catholics (and Orthodox people - whatever) attach the significance to this detail that you attach to it.

Further, it hasn't anything to do with the point that was made by bringing up the Anabaptists in the first place. It's altogether irrelevant to the argument that has been made.

I didn't say anything about Anabaptist teaching, my point was about bishops, their physical presence, leading a flock. There were no Anabaptist bishops!

Contradict yourself much?

This silly comment just demonstrates your blindness to the meaning of your own statements.

The role of a bishop is to teach, Idolater. That fact is, itself, a teaching. You yourself have claimed that what the Anabaptist have in common with all "heretical sects" is the absence of bishops so practically everything you've said about them has to do with their teaching!

He never said the Anabaptists had bishops or even had one bishop. He said these people held to different doctrines from what all the Church's bishops were teaching. I don't dispute that, there were many heretical sects in antiquity.

So then it is about there teaching! Make up your mind, Idolator!

Regardless, this point about bishops or even what their teachings were is wholly irrelevant to the point.

This is a ridiculous and pathetic appeal to authority fallacy.

Says the Catholic who is making an irrelevant argument about the existence of Anabaptist bishops!

And no, it isn't an appeal to authority fallacy! His position adds weight to his testimony because he has no motive to make it up. In fact, he'd have a counter motive. You're here communicating a claim made by the Catholic church and I present a Catholic witness, a witness who was not only much closer to being contemporary to the history being debated but a witness who should be hostile to my side of the debate but, to the contrary, presents evidence in opposition to the Catholic claim.

Your source was a bishop, I grant that, but no bishop, not even the pope, can speak for the Church without basically uniform agreement with all the other bishops, not even the pope.

He wasn't speaking for the church and I didn't present his statements as such. He wrote a letter that happens to include information in it that is contrary to the claims you are here defending.

There's slight exceptions for the pope, but the rule is that the Magisterium (the entire college of Catholic bishops) teaches in unison, so if you want to appeal to the authority of a bishop to speak on behalf of the Magisterium OK, but he better be saying what the whole Magisterium also says, otherwise it's an invalid appeal to authority.

Irrelevant gibberish.

But in this case you're basically appealing to the authority of a bishop that he said what he never said!

I directly quoted his exact words.

He never said the Anabaptists had bishops.

I never suggested that he said that. I QUOTED HIS EXACT WORDS!

I never once mentioned bishops and bishops have nothing to do with the point of quoting him!

If they had bishops you'd have some sort of point but you don't because they didn't.

You are the one who brought up bishops, not me! I don't care whether they had bishops or not. The point that destroys your idea that Catholcism was universal was the fact that the Anabaptists existed at all during the 3rd or 4th century as indicated by a Catholic Cardinal!

Lots of ancient heretical sects were led by non-bishops, ancient Anabaptists were just among them.

They're only heretical, in your mind, because they weren't Catholic!

How can you not see yourself making such fallacious statements?

Saying it doesn't make it so. Bald assertion. Declaratory. Fallacy.

I never claimed that my simply making such a claim made it so. It is not a fallacy to make a claim. It is a fallacy to make an unsupported claim IN REFUTATION of an argument. It is also a fallacy to make a claim while refusing to support that claim with an argument. I have done neither. We aren't debating what the Catholic Church would look like stripped of its extra-biblical doctrines and so, no, my making an ancillary observation is not a fallacy of logic. Your spitting out anything you can think of so as to accuse me of committing a logical fallacy is itself a logical fallacy though!

Clete

 

[Derf]

I didn't say anything about Anabaptist teaching, my point was about bishops, their physical presence, leading a flock. There were no Anabaptist bishops!

Don't "shepherds" lead flocks? Isn't "pastor" the word we use that's derived from the Greek word for shepherd? And don't most churches that don't have "bishops" at least have pastors, including Anabaptist congregations? You're splitting word hairs to make a useless point.

 

[Right Divider]

Don't "shepherds" lead flocks? Isn't "pastor" the word we use that's derived from the Greek word for shepherd? And don't most churches that don't have "bishops" at least have pastors, including Anabaptist congregations? You're splitting word hairs to make a useless point.

Indeed, the RCC claims that they got their "authority" from Peter and the eleven. The twelve had priests and not "bishops". The term "bishops" is most frequently in Paul's epistles and Paul was not a Catholic, nor under the authority of anyone but the risen Lord Jesus Christ.

 

[Derf]

Indeed, the RCC claims that they got their "authority" from Peter and the eleven. The twelve had priests and not "bishops". The term "bishops" is most frequently in Paul's epistles and Paul was not a Catholic, nor under the authority of anyone but the risen Lord Jesus Christ.

You mean like here:
Acts 1:20 (KJV)
For it is written in the book of Psalm, Let his habitation be desolate, and let no man dwell therein: and his bishoprick let another take.
?

 

[Right Divider]

You mean like here:
Acts 1:20 (KJV)
For it is written in the book of Psalm, Let his habitation be desolate, and let no man dwell therein: and his bishoprick let another take.
?

Yes, here are the TWO verses that this quote refers to:

Ps 69:25 (AKJV/PCE)
(69:25) Let their habitation be desolate; [and] let none dwell in their tents.
Ps 109:8 (AKJV/PCE)
(109:8) Let his days be few; [and] let another take his office.

The Greek word translated "bishoprick" is:
G1984 ἐπισκοπή episkope (e-piy-sko-pee') n.
1. inspection (for relief).
2. (by implication) superintendence.
3. (specially) the Christian “episcopate.”
[from G1980]
KJV: the office of a “bishop,” bishoprick, visitation
Root(s): G1980

This word is used in these places:
Luke 19:44 (AKJV/PCE)
(19:44) And shall lay thee even with the ground, and thy children within thee; and they shall not leave in thee one stone upon another; because thou knewest not the time of thy visitation.
1Tim 3:1 (AKJV/PCE)
(3:1) This [is] a true saying, If a man desire the office of a bishop, he desireth a good work.
1Pet 2:12 (AKJV/PCE)
(2:12) Having your conversation honest among the Gentiles: that, whereas they speak against you as evildoers, they may by [your] good works, which they shall behold, glorify God in the day of visitation.

As you were pointing out earlier, it refers to an office.

 

[Idolater]

Don't "shepherds" lead flocks? Isn't "pastor" the word we use that's derived from the Greek word for shepherd? And don't most churches that don't have "bishops" at least have pastors, including Anabaptist congregations? You're splitting word hairs to make a useless point.

Me saying that the office of the presidency of the United States existed in times past is not splitting hairs. If ever someone were to come along and say, "I hold the office of the president of the United States," we can quickly tell whether he did or didn't. When someone says they hold an office, there's objectivity in determining whether he's correct or not. This isn't hair-splitting, it is the whole point, and the point is decisive. The office was made by the Apostles. That same office persisted even upon their deaths. Ancient Anabaptists had no bishops.

Of course they had leaders, just like every heretical group had leaders, the Church too has leaders, those leaders are Jesus Christ and His Apostles, and the Apostles, we have on Biblical record, established the institution of Church bishop. This office almost basically defined the Church. Where the bishops were is where the Church was.

Trying to sweep away this point as some kind of logical fallacy or even trying to make it seem trivial, is weak. It's like saying the office of the president of the United States never existed, it's just flatly false. And that office, just like every office, has a formal, objective way to elect men to hold the office, and that procedure is the same now as it's ever been, and none of the men who held that very real office, ever led an ancient Anabaptist community.

And yes absolutely pastors are called pastors because they're supposed to shepherd. And that's part of the duty of the office of a bishop (1st Timothy 3:1) and
Acts 20
And from Miletus he (Paul) sent to Ephesus, and called the elders of the church.

And when they were come to him, he said unto them, ...

Take heed therefore unto yourselves, and to all the flock (the Church), over the which the Holy Ghost hath made you overseers, to feed the church of God, which he hath purchased with his own blood.

29 For I know this, that after my departing shall grievous wolves enter in among you, not sparing the flock.

30 Also of your own selves shall men arise, speaking perverse things, to draw away disciples after them.

Note what Paul doesn't say: That the office of a bishop itself shall disappear. In spite of men arising, speaking perverse things, to draw away disciples after them, the office itself is never going to stop. It would be perverse to suggest that this is what Paul means here (the Apostle to the Gentiles, speaking about shepherding the flock).

And so I hope you can see, that even if the Anabaptists did have an authentic bishop, even still Clete would have to prove that Anabaptist teachings were in conformity with what all the other bishops were teaching, in order to prove the point he's trying to make, which is just silly on its face but he wants me to argue with him.

The office exists. The Apostles made it. There is a formal, objective way that men take the office, that has never changed. If a man wasn't a bishop he wasn't a bishop, and so without knowing anything else about his ideas, we know "he neglect to hear the Church" (Matthew 18:17), we don't have to know what he taught. Anabaptists taught something other than the college of Church bishops, so their leaders are those who "neglect to hear the Church."

But again, my point is merely that the office exists. It bewilders me to have to devise an analogy to make this clearer. During the Civil War Jefferson Davis held the presidency of the Confederacy. But nobody was under any illusion that the presidency of the Confederacy was also the same office as the presidency of the United States! But this is what denying the office of a bishop is like. It's like trying to argue that Jefferson Davis was really the president of the United States. It's so ridiculous that it's ridiculous how ridiculous it is.

My only point here, is that the office is real, and that the office exists. All the other stuff I wrote, that's so irritating for you to read I'm sure, is window dressing. The office of a bishop (1st Timothy 3:1) is as real an office as the office of the president of the United States. That's all I'm saying, that's my whole point, and it isn't hair-splitting.

 

[Derf]

Me saying that the office of the presidency of the United States existed in times past is not splitting hairs. If ever someone were to come along and say, "I hold the office of the president of the United States," we can quickly tell whether he did or didn't. When someone says they hold an office, there's objectivity in determining whether he's correct or not. This isn't hair-splitting, it is the whole point, and the point is decisive. The office was made by the Apostles. That same office persisted even upon their deaths. Ancient Anabaptists had no bishops.

Of course they had leaders, just like every heretical group had leaders, the Church too has leaders, those leaders are Jesus Christ and His Apostles, and the Apostles, we have on Biblical record, established the institution of Church bishop. This office almost basically defined the Church. Where the bishops were is where the Church was.

Trying to sweep away this point as some kind of logical fallacy or even trying to make it seem trivial, is weak. It's like saying the office of the president of the United States never existed, it's just flatly false. And that office, just like every office, has a formal, objective way to elect men to hold the office, and that procedure is the same now as it's ever been, and none of the men who held that very real office, ever led an ancient Anabaptist community.

And yes absolutely pastors are called pastors because they're supposed to shepherd. And that's part of the duty of the office of a bishop (1st Timothy 3:1) and
Acts 20
And from Miletus he (Paul) sent to Ephesus, and called the elders of the church.

And when they were come to him, he said unto them, ...

Take heed therefore unto yourselves, and to all the flock (the Church), over the which the Holy Ghost hath made you overseers, to feed the church of God, which he hath purchased with his own blood.

29 For I know this, that after my departing shall grievous wolves enter in among you, not sparing the flock.

30 Also of your own selves shall men arise, speaking perverse things, to draw away disciples after them.

Note what Paul doesn't say: That the office of a bishop itself shall disappear. In spite of men arising, speaking perverse things, to draw away disciples after them, the office itself is never going to stop. It would be perverse to suggest that this is what Paul means here (the Apostle to the Gentiles, speaking about shepherding the flock).

And so I hope you can see, that even if the Anabaptists did have an authentic bishop, even still Clete would have to prove that Anabaptist teachings were in conformity with what all the other bishops were teaching, in order to prove the point he's trying to make, which is just silly on its face but he wants me to argue with him.

The office exists. The Apostles made it. There is a formal, objective way that men take the office, that has never changed. If a man wasn't a bishop he wasn't a bishop, and so without knowing anything else about his ideas, we know "he neglect to hear the Church" (Matthew 18:17), we don't have to know what he taught. Anabaptists taught something other than the college of Church bishops, so their leaders are those who "neglect to hear the Church."

But again, my point is merely that the office exists. It bewilders me to have to devise an analogy to make this clearer. During the Civil War Jefferson Davis held the presidency of the Confederacy. But nobody was under any illusion that the presidency of the Confederacy was also the same office as the presidency of the United States! But this is what denying the office of a bishop is like. It's like trying to argue that Jefferson Davis was really the president of the United States. It's so ridiculous that it's ridiculous how ridiculous it is.

My only point here, is that the office is real, and that the office exists. All the other stuff I wrote, that's so irritating for you to read I'm sure, is window dressing. The office of a bishop (1st Timothy 3:1) is as real an office as the office of the president of the United States. That's all I'm saying, that's my whole point, and it isn't hair-splitting.

Wrong hair.

You've tried to assert that the Catholic Church is legitimate and most others illegitimate based on the presence of bishops, not allowing for other churches to call the same office by a different name. And perhaps you're forgetting the Church of England, which is Protestant, but has bishops by name.

Bishops and Elders and Pastors all are names of the same office.
Philippians 1:1 (KJV)
Paul and Timotheus, the servants of Jesus Christ, to all the saints in Christ Jesus which are at Philippi, with the bishops and deacons:

Titus was told to "ordain elders", yet the description was applied to "bishops".
Titus 1:5-7 (KJV) 5 For this cause left I thee in Crete, that thou shouldest set in order the things that are wanting, and ordain elders in every city, as I had appointed thee: 6 If any be blameless, the husband of one wife, having faithful children not accused of riot or unruly. 7 For a bishop must be blameless, as the steward of God; not selfwilled, not soon angry, not given to wine, no striker, not given to filthy lucre;

And you already pointed out that bishops do pastoral work.

Focusing on the word used is like someone calling you by your first name, and you arguing that your actual name is your last name. It's called a false dichotomy.

 

[JudgeRightly]

Me saying that the office of the presidency of the United States existed in times past is not splitting hairs.

They way you said it, it was.

The office was made by the Apostles.

No, it wasn't. The Twelve Apostles were part of a nation of priests who used to be of the tribe of Levi, not bishops.

That same office persisted even upon their deaths.

No, it did not. The Twelve Apostles will sit on twelve thrones ruling over the the twelve tribes of Israel in the coming Kingdom of Israel.

They still retain their position. It was not passed down.

Ancient Anabaptists had no bishops.

To use your analogy, this is like saying the Confederacy had no president, based on your definition. Your definitions are wrong, therefore your views are wrong.

the Church too has leaders, those leaders are Jesus Christ and His Apostles,

Wrong.

The head of the church (of the Body of Christ) is Christ, not the 12 Apostles.

The 12 Apostles have their own calling in leading the twelve tribes of Israel when they sit on twelve thrones.

and the Apostles, we have on Biblical record, established the institution of Church bishop.

No, they didn't, not because there wasn't an office created, but because they aren't the ones to create it.

Trying to sweep away this point as some kind of logical fallacy or even trying to make it seem trivial, is weak.

This coming from someone who is arguing something that has nothing to do with the point Clete made in post #141 in this thread...

It's like saying the office of the president of the United States never existed, it's just flatly false.

So the office of the President of the United States always existed?

No. At some point in the past, the phrase "the office of the President of the United States never existed" was true, specifically, prior to 1776.

And that office, just like every office, has a formal, objective way to elect men to hold the office, and that procedure is the same now as it's ever been,

If we're still talking about the President of the United States, no, the process for electing him hasn't always been the same, and you should already know that.

and none of the men who held that very real office, ever led an ancient Anabaptist community.

Because you say so?

And yes absolutely pastors are called pastors because they're supposed to shepherd. And that's part of the duty of the office of a bishop (1st Timothy 3:1) and
Acts 20
And from Miletus he (Paul) sent to Ephesus, and called the elders of the church.

And when they were come to him, he said unto them, ...

Take heed therefore unto yourselves, and to all the flock (the Church), over the which the Holy Ghost hath made you overseers, to feed the church of God, which he hath purchased with his own blood.

29 For I know this, that after my departing shall grievous wolves enter in among you, not sparing the flock.

30 Also of your own selves shall men arise, speaking perverse things, to draw away disciples after them.

Note what Paul doesn't say: That the office of a bishop itself shall disappear. In spite of men arising, speaking perverse things, to draw away disciples after them, the office itself is never going to stop. It would be perverse to suggest that this is what Paul means here (the Apostle to the Gentiles, speaking about shepherding the flock).

And?

And so I hope you can see, that even if the Anabaptists did have an authentic bishop, even still Clete would have to prove that Anabaptist teachings were in conformity with what all the other bishops were teaching,

Why?

in order to prove the point he's trying to make, which is just silly on its face but he wants me to argue with him.

The point Clete was making had nothing to do with whatever you're arguing. As Clete already pointed out, YOU are the one who brought up the disscussion of bishops.

As Clete said:

The point is that there were Christians teaching doctrines similar to 16th Century Anabaptists as far back as the 4th century and we have the writings of a Catholic Cardinal to prove it.

This, by the way, is not the only such reference to non-Catholic Christianity existing in the very early centuries after Christ. This is, however, one of the most powerful proofs because not only does it give evidence of very early non-Catholic secs of Christianity but it is written, first person testimony, taken directly from someone who is not just a Catholic and not just a Priest and not just any Cardinal of the Catholic Church. Cardinal Stanislaus Hosius was the President of the Council of Trent! This guy is as Catholic as Catholic gets!

I say it again, Catholicism has never been nearly as "universal" as Catholic priests want for the parishioners to believe. In fact, there is actually nothing at all to support such a claim. It is pure religious propaganda. Something a religious zealot might engage in.

The office exists.

Yes, it does.

The Apostles made it.

No, they didn't.

There is a formal, objective way that men take the office, that has never changed.

If the Apostles made the office of Bishop, then why did the second Ananias (of three), a disciple, and not the Apostles themselves, lay hands on Saul?

If a man wasn't a bishop he wasn't a bishop, and so without knowing anything else about his ideas, we know "he neglect to hear the Church" (Matthew 18:17), we don't have to know what he taught.

Matthew 18:15-17 has absolutely nothing to do with bishops or pastors. It's talking about members of the same religious community.

“Moreover if your brother sins against you, go and tell him his fault between you and him alone. If he hears you, you have gained your brother.But if he will not hear, take with you one or two more, that ‘by the mouth of two or three witnesses every word may be established.’And if he refuses to hear them, tell it to the church. But if he refuses even to hear the church, let him be to you like a heathen and a tax collector. - Matthew 18:15-17 http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Matthew18:15-17&version=NKJV

Anabaptists taught something other than the college of Church bishops,

So what?

so their leaders are those who "neglect to hear the Church."

That's your Catholic bias speaking.

The same could be said from the Anabaptist position: The Catholic Church's leaders are those who "neglect to hear the Church."

It doesn't make them right, any more than it makes you right by saying it of them.

I, say you're both in the wrong, because both Anabaptists and Catholics fail to rightly divide the word of truth.

But again, my point is merely that the office exists.

Which has nothing to do with Clete's point, which is as he said:

The point is that there were Christians teaching doctrines similar to 16th Century Anabaptists as far back as the 4th century and we have the writings of a Catholic Cardinal to prove it.

This, by the way, is not the only such reference to non-Catholic Christianity existing in the very early centuries after Christ. This is, however, one of the most powerful proofs because not only does it give evidence of very early non-Catholic secs of Christianity but it is written, first person testimony, taken directly from someone who is not just a Catholic and not just a Priest and not just any Cardinal of the Catholic Church. Cardinal Stanislaus Hosius was the President of the Council of Trent! This guy is as Catholic as Catholic gets!

I say it again, Catholicism has never been nearly as "universal" as Catholic priests want for the parishioners to believe. In fact, there is actually nothing at all to support such a claim. It is pure religious propaganda. Something a religious zealot might engage in.

It bewilders me to have to devise an analogy to make this clearer.

Don't hurt yourself.

During the Civil War Jefferson Davis held the presidency of the Confederacy.

Supra.

But nobody was under any illusion that the presidency of the Confederacy was also the same office as the presidency of the United States!

Technically, it wasn't the presidency of The United States, because they weren't united.

The same could be argued about the "church" (and I use that term VERY broadly here).

But this is what denying the office of a bishop is like.

Supra.

It's like trying to argue that Jefferson Davis was really the president of the United States.

On the other hand, you're trying to say that good ol' Honest Abe was the president of the United States when they weren't actually united.

Yet Davis was, in fact, A president.

So that backfired on you...

It's so ridiculous that it's ridiculous how ridiculous it is.

Appeal to the stone.

My only point here, is that the office is real, and that the office exists.

The problem is that it's not what you say it is.

All the other stuff I wrote, that's so irritating for you to read I'm sure,

If it's irritating at all, it's because it has nothing to do with what Clete said.

A red herring, if you will.

is window dressing.

That's all any of it is.

The office of a bishop (1st Timothy 3:1) is as real an office as the office of the president of the United States.

No one has said otherwise.

That's all I'm saying, that's my whole point, and it isn't hair-splitting.

It misses Clete's point entirely.

 

[Idolater]

Wrong hair.

You've tried to assert that the Catholic Church is legitimate and most others illegitimate based on the presence of bishops, not allowing for other churches to call the same office by a different name.

No I haven't. I don't care and I'm ignoring whatever you want to label all the office holders together as a group. Catholic, Orthodox, Ethiopian Orthodox, whatever, I don't care. The name doesn't matter. It's the category, which exists in reality, which the Apostles invented, and which can be held by individual men.

You can call them Martian scientists if you want. All I've ever been saying is that a real, objective thing existed, and that it was made by the Apostles. They made the first bishops, literally with their own hands. They didn't just make bishops, they made the office of bishop (1st Timothy 3:1).

Call em whatever you want. The King James Bible calls them bishops in 1st Timothy 3:1

And perhaps you're forgetting the Church of England, which is Protestant, but has bishops by name.

Of course I'm not forgetting that ecclesial community. There's just nobody who believes the Church of England didn't begin in the 1500's----nobody. So you want to say those bishops also are valid, fine. afaik they don't say the Catholic and Orthodox bishops are frauds and aren't holding the real office, so even if you want to roll a three-sided die to decide, two of them would say that another of the groups of bishops were also validly consecrated and or ordained (Holy Orders, sacrament).

Bishops and Elders and Pastors all are names of the same office.

Yes! Glad you're seeing the light.

Philippians 1:1 (KJV)
Paul and Timotheus, the servants of Jesus Christ, to all the saints in Christ Jesus which are at Philippi, with the bishops and deacons:

Titus was told to "ordain elders", yet the description was applied to "bishops".
Titus 1:5-7 (KJV) 5 For this cause left I thee in Crete, that thou shouldest set in order the things that are wanting, and ordain elders in every city, as I had appointed thee: 6 If any be blameless, the husband of one wife, having faithful children not accused of riot or unruly. 7 For a bishop must be blameless, as the steward of God; not selfwilled, not soon angry, not given to wine, no striker, not given to filthy lucre;

And you already pointed out that bishops do pastoral work.

Focusing on the word used is like someone calling you by your first name, and you arguing that your actual name is your last name. It's called a false dichotomy.

No it's like the analogy I set out above, about Jefferson Davis and Abraham Lincoln, and who was actually the objectively actual president of the United States. It's not controversial. There's no reasonable doubt available. You're just blind or are being stubborn.

Besides, the only thing I'm really trying to prove in all this, and I'm doing a great job at it if I do say so myself, is that the Church always believed in the Real Presence of Jesus Christ in the "breaking of bread" (Act 2:42 KJB).

That's it. That's my whole point, I don't have to prove anything else to prove this whole thread is right. The Church always believed in His Real Presence, each time she obeyed His instruction for her, "Do this in memory of Me." The bishop's office exists to fulfill that instruction. The bishop's office was made by the Apostles.

That office has always believed in the Real Presence of Jesus Christ in the Eucharist.

 

[Clete]

@Idolater @JudgeRightly

All this talk about bishops is entirely irrelevant.

The Catholic Church began in something like the late 3rd or early 4th century and we have clear proof out of the mouths of very prominent Catholic bishops that there were other sects of Christianity in existence during that same period. Anabaptists are only one example of such groups. They were not presented as being superior or even correct but merely ancient and indeed as ancient as any other Christian sect that we have historical evidence for, including Catholicism.

If someone wants to argue about whether the Anabaptists teaching is better or worse than the Catholics, then that might be an interesting discussion and whether they had bishops that could trace the delineation of their office to a biblical Apostle might be a great point for someone to make in such a discussion but since that isn't the discussion we are having and since I really couldn't care less what the Anabaptist's teachings were beyond the fact that they were a sect of Christianity, the point about bishops is nothing more than a distraction and, if it continues beyond this post without clear and convincing arguments establishing it's relevance, then we can conclude that it is not only a distraction but an intentional one that is born out of a lack of anything relevant to offer in rebuttal to the absolute proof that the Catholic Church hasn't ever been "universal" and is nothing more than the Christian sect that happened to get a boost by becoming the official religion of the Roman Empire, which, in my view, is a mark against it, not in favor of it since such official status meant that the Catholic church was a political entity and was being formed and run by politicians.

By the way, the fact that the Catholic church has records that it claims demonstrate the continuous delineation of their Bishops back to the Apostles would have been an easy thing for the Roman government to fake. And, even if they didn't fake it, they would have been one of, if not the only sect of Christianity with the resources needed to preserve such records and they would have had motive to destroy any records that might have existed showing the same for some other sect of Christianity. The point being, of course, that Idolator's "they had no Bishops" argument wouldn't prove what he pretends it proves, even if it were on point.

Clete

 

[Derf]

No I haven't. I don't care and I'm ignoring whatever you want to label all the office holders together as a group. Catholic, Orthodox, Ethiopian Orthodox, whatever, I don't care. The name doesn't matter. It's the category, which exists in reality, which the Apostles invented, and which can be held by individual men.

You can call them Martian scientists if you want. All I've ever been saying is that a real, objective thing existed, and that it was made by the Apostles. They made the first bishops, literally with their own hands. They didn't just make bishops, they made the office of bishop (1st Timothy 3:1).

Call em whatever you want. The King James Bible calls them bishops in 1st Timothy 3:1

Of course I'm not forgetting that ecclesial community. There's just nobody who believes the Church of England didn't begin in the 1500's----nobody. So you want to say those bishops also are valid, fine. afaik they don't say the Catholic and Orthodox bishops are frauds and aren't holding the real office, so even if you want to roll a three-sided die to decide, two of them would say that another of the groups of bishops were also validly consecrated and or ordained (Holy Orders, sacrament).

Yes! Glad you're seeing the light.

No it's like the analogy I set out above, about Jefferson Davis and Abraham Lincoln, and who was actually the objectively actual president of the United States. It's not controversial. There's no reasonable doubt available. You're just blind or are being stubborn.

Besides, the only thing I'm really trying to prove in all this, and I'm doing a great job at it if I do say so myself, is that the Church always believed in the Real Presence of Jesus Christ in the "breaking of bread" (Act 2:42 KJB).

That's it. That's my whole point, I don't have to prove anything else to prove this whole thread is right. The Church always believed in His Real Presence, each time she obeyed His instruction for her, "Do this in memory of Me." The bishop's office exists to fulfill that instruction. The bishop's office was made by the Apostles.

That office has always believed in the Real Presence of Jesus Christ in the Eucharist.

Oh, so you're building your split hair case to support a split end?