Ted Cruz's STRANGE WAR on American Catholics...
Watch the full episode here: youtu.be/o8VUCM7URt4
YouTube
English
Shameless Popery
1.4K posts
Shameless Popery
@ShamelessPopery
Shameless Popery is a witty podcast that equips you to explain Catholicism, hosted by Catholic Answers apologist Joe Heschmeyer
Kansas, USA Katılım Nisan 2014
202 Takip Edilen8.1K Takipçiler
Spots are almost gone! Join me for the Catholic Answers Rhine River Pilgrimage. It’s going to be unforgettable.
👉 ctscentral.net/travel-tours/r…
English
Martin Luther literally called himself a schismatic 😳
Watch the full episode here: bit.ly/415Iuzj
English
From the beginning, Christians understood the Eucharist as sacrificial.
Watch the full episode here: youtu.be/3hmbrnutUmY
YouTube
English
The problem wasn’t ‘tradition.’ It was missing the law entirely.
Watch the full episode here: bit.ly/47m6npL
English
@ShamelessPopery Just finished "Pope Peter" this morning while driving (audible) 7 hours just flew by listening to it. I can't recommend it enough.
English
Jesus NEVER CONDEMNED Tradition ITSELF!
Watch the full episode here: youtu.be/rbJONLbVnKM
YouTube
English
@HwsEleutheroi @JoeHeschmeyer @ThoughtfulSaint I would like that. Additionally / alternatively, I do a Thursday morning live stream at 9:00 a.m. Central. It's basically a conversation plus a few questions from viewers. Would you want to come on that?
English
My position is that you do not interpret ancient documents in modern contexts or under constraint of later authority systems. Of course someone wrote the epistle, but we do not know that person's name. If his name was Clement, he was not the bishop of Rome. He would have, at the very most, been one of the plural elders at Rome, which is the ecclesiology the letter defends. He could have been the secretary for the group of elders at Rome. But my point is simple: if you interpret the letter in its original language and in its historical context it does not even hint at the office of a Pope, let alone even hint at a concept of primacy, jurisdiction, etc. and etc. The citation of it as evidence of such things is a primary example of anachronism, an anachronism that I honestly do not think you can escape. And given that the mantra here on X from many RC apologists is, "Prots never do history!" I thought an original language, text-based discussion of the letter would be useful to at least some of the more serious minded on the platform. It's just an invitation, not a debate challenge or anything. I do not have time before my debate later in the year to add anything else to my plate. But we have managed to snag a new 5th wheel for my travels, it has an already existing, uber-cool office in the back that will allow me to be ready to go live on the air in a matter of minutes, so I could do this some evening at an RV park while on the road.
English
Hey @JoeHeschmeyer : I hope someone let you know I have been reviewing the cross-ex of your debate with Jacob Hansen from back in December on the DL. I've really enjoyed it! Fascinating discussion.
But, to my real reason for writing: you have made reference to the letter from the church at Rome to the church at Corinth in your claims about the Papacy being ancient and even apostolic. I very bluntly said in my response to your citation of it with Hansen that this is simply indefensible. So, how about we do an online discussion, based on the original language text of 1 Clement? I will argue that the original text makes it very clear this is one church "sojourning" on earth (ἡ παροικοῦσα) writing to another. There is no Clement, there is no Pope, there is no singular person writing to the Corinthians. One church writing to another in brotherly concern and rebuke. Zero evidence of even a monarchical episcopate (in fact, lots of evidence against the idea). How about it?
English
It's true that the author does not identify himself. But surely we would agree a human being did write the letter? So I'm trying to understand if your position is that Clement wrote it on behalf of the Church of Rome, or that someone other than Clement wrote it and the Christians in the 100s invented the story of Clement writing it. Those are two very different positions.
English
As you know, the text does not contain the name Clement. Anywhere. It never speaks using singular pronouns (they are found only in citations of the LXX). There is no identification of an individual writer. The epistle is written by the church sojourning in Rome to the church sojourning in Corinth. Period. The author makes no reference to universal jurisdiction, to a special power or authority invested either in an individual, or in the church at Rome itself. An honest analysis of the letter would not anachronistically insert into its text concepts that cannot be identified in the immediate context of the letter itself, or its obvious preceding historical context, that being provided by Paul's epistle to the Romans, and his two epistles to the Corinthians. Later generations provided their own commentary, normally coming from the struggle against gnosticism and the claims of authority the gnostics made. Early lists of bishops in Rome come from the same context, and do not deal with the reality that early Roman ecclesiology was New Testament based: a plurality of elders, not a monarchical episcopate (the very ecclesiology defended in this epistle, where "bishop/elder" is used interchangeably, just as in Scripture, and there is no singular "bishop" even hinted at in Corinth, let alone in Rome). Hence, the citation of Clement as an early indication of the existence of a papal office is the fulfillment of the anachronism forced upon you by Satis Cognitum and other such documents. I don't have time this morning to pull up your exact words from the cross-ex, but I have the transcript if you'd like the specifics.
English
@HwsEleutheroi @JoeHeschmeyer @ThoughtfulSaint When you say of 1 Clement, "It's not Clement," am I to understand that you deny that St. Clement even wrote 1 Clement? 3/
English
@HwsEleutheroi @JoeHeschmeyer @ThoughtfulSaint I haven't watched your entire debate review (I only learned about this evening, and just got home from dinner with my parents, + getting the kids down), but I watched the section I could find on Clement, and I want to see if I understand your position. 2/
English
"I know ABORTION IS WRONG... but I just CANT have a BABY right NOW..."
Is this a valid argument?
Watch the full episode here: youtu.be/XnCMKMilFR8
YouTube
English
@parkmanplus326 I think you should read more Augustine!
English
@ShamelessPopery Augustine doesn't seem to think so. 😜
English
