@Felagund's banner p

Felagund


				

				

				

					1 follower  

					follows 18 users  

					

					
joined 2023 January 20 00:05:32 UTC
				

				

				

				

				

				

					
						
							Verified Email
						
					
				

				

				
				
				

				
User ID: 2112


				
				
				

			

		

	














	


		


			



	

		

			

			

				

					

						

							
						

						

							
							

								
Felagund


								

								

								
								
								

								
							
					
 
				


				

				
				
				

				

					1 follower  

					follows 18 users  

					joined 2023 January 20 00:05:32 UTC
				


				
					

					
No bio...

				

				

				

				

				

					

					

					
					
					

					
User ID: 2112


					
					
					
				

			


					

						
							
								Verified Email
							
						
					



		

	

 











			
			

			
			

			




	


		

			
‎

			

				
				

					Hour
					Day
					Week
					
					Year
					All
				

			


			
‎

			

	
	

	 Hot Bump Top Bottom Old Controversial Comments
	



		

	






	

		
		

		
		
	

	

  







		

			
			
				Small-Scale Question Sunday for May 17, 2026
			
		

	

	

	

		
			

			

				

			

		

			


				

					
@urquan's comment was great. Some additional complications:


In the early church, not everyone agreed. If you look at canon lists, most (but not all) of the fathers who wrote in Latin included deuterocanonical books. But the fathers who wrote in Greek tended instead to exclude those books, and follow more closely the Hebrew canon as their exemplar for the old testament (at least, with regard to what they considered canonical; some of them put the deuterocanonical books into a "profitable but not fully scripture" category, if I remember correctly). They'll often say that there are 22 or 24 books of the old testament (numbering things fairly differently from the current 39 in a Protestant OT canon.)


That said, when we're talking about a Greek-style list, that doesn't mean that it exactly matches the Protestant canon. The book most likely to be included that Protestants do not accept is Baruch (though it can be hard to tell whether it's included or not, as some authors treated it just as part of Jeremiah). Esther was the OT book that was most likely to be left out.


And yes, on the whole the Greek fathers mostly followed the Septuagint (the book of Daniel excepted), but Jerome's translation was from the Hebrew. (And I believe Syriac Christianity tended also to use translations derived from the Hebrew instead of the Septuagint.)


In the New testament, early canon lists would sometimes say that some books were canonical, others not, and some were disputed, with some churches receiving them, and others not. The books that took the longest to be received were, in the west, Hebrews, and in the east, Revelation, but you also had authors questioning some other books earlier on. But eventually everyone in both places accepted both.


As urquan mentioned, Jerome, despite being a Latin father, followed a Greek-style list. Jerome was extremely influential, due to being the author of the vulgate. His preferred list is in at least one of the prefaces to the books of the Vulgate. Accordingly, there are a number of theologians in the Latin tradition over the next millenium who follow Jerome in holding to a shorter list of what is canonical (and of course, others who disagree). This continued to be the case up to and subsequent to Luther. The famous cardinal Cajetan, for example, a contemporary of Luther (and one who argued against Luther's views on other issues), held to what would later become an exclusively Protestant position on the deuterocanon—that the deuterocanon is profitable to read, but not part of the canon proper, nor inspired.


At the time of the Reformation, Luther (if I remember correctly), thought the shorter list was better. He also questioned four NT books—all ones that had had some level of dispute in early Christianity: James, Revelation, Hebrews, Jude. These were still published in his translation of the bible, but they had prefaces indicating his doubts about them. For some of these, his doubt about them were due to theological or aesthetic concerns. (I find his comment on Revelation ridiculous: "For me this is reason enough not to think highly of it: Christ is neither taught nor known in it.") Subsequent Lutherans were mostly more moderate, but Lutherans continued to distinguish between more and less disputed books of the New Testament—typically accepting both as canonical, but recognizing that some's canonical status might be more doubtful.


Among the Reformed churches (Calvin etc.) it was standard to adhere to what is still the standard Protestant canon, that is, the Hebrew canon for the OT, and the standard Christian NT canon.


				

				

						

							

								
							

						


						
					

				
			


			

	


			
			
				

			
		

	






		

			
			
				Friday Fun Thread for May 15, 2026
			
		

	

	

	

		
			

			

				

			

		

			


				

					
It's also the case that protestants do not all agree on what faith entails, and it isn't necessarily something super easy to achieve or to be sure that you have. And regarding confession and so on, papists do require contrition, you can't just show up and run through a script without repenting.


				

				

						

							

								
							

						


						
					

				
			


			

	


			
			
				

			
		

	






		

			
			
				Converting to Catholicism
			
		

	

	

	

		
			

			

				

			

		

			


				

					
My point is that the document seems to conceptualize them as presbyters, and not bishops. It contrasts them with bishops, and elsewhere speaks of other presbyters, who I believe you only consider presbyters.


I suppose some of this just depends on the level of confidence you have in your framework. You are saying that they cannot have been bishops, because you've been taught from whatever other sources that presbyters cannot ordain (let's set aside the fact that there were plenty of medievals and so on who thought they could in the right contexts). But that's just to import your view of what the episcopal office entails.


Both Jerome and Severus are citing the example in order to make theological points that are incompatible with your own position. In Severus, it's because it is different from the post-Nicene bishops ordaining. In Jerome's case, it's because it shows presbyters possessing the power of ordination. This indicates that neither of these patristic authors follow your understanding of what it means to be a bishop and the connection of that with ordination, but take it to be a mutable feature of church law, and that is the very purpose that they are bringing it up. To say that differently: Severus and Jerome are both bringing this up in order to argue that your position is wrong. I suppose I can understand from your perspective why you personally would be motivated to necessitate the interpretation that they were really just bishops, but the sources are pretty clearly arguing to the contrary, and would not grant your "definitionally, a bishop just is such and such, so therefore" argument.


				

				

						

							

								
							

						


						
					

				
			


			

	


			
			
				

			
		

	






		

			
			
				Converting to Catholicism
			
		

	

	

	

		
			

			

				

			

		

			


				

					
I recommend looking at the history of the episcopate of Alexandria (page 267 and following here), which is considered to be earlier than Severus, likely 4th century.


Note:


    

  1. 

    in 4, it contrasts it being done by presbyters vs. bishops
    

    2. 

  2. 

    in 15, there were no bishops in the region, apart from the one in Alexandria, who alone consecrated presbyters
    

    3. 

  3. 

    in 16, bishops are first appointed by Demetrios. Wikipedia puts him from 189-232.
    

    4. 

  4. 

    in 3, this practice of presbyterial ordination continued until Petros. Wikipedia says he was in office from 300-311. Nicea enacted its canon on ordination in 325. (I know other sources disagree on the dates of when this practice stopped, I'd have to look back and compare.)
    

    5. 



I'd assume that it's talking about chief presbyters of the city itself, and not the surrounding regions. But this document, like Severus, seems to indicate that they were indeed presbyters, since it contrasts them with bishops.


Regarding your comments on reordination, I don't see why that would be the case. When Alexandria switched to the Nicene practice, I don't think there's any sign that they thought that the prior practice was invalid—Severus, though yes, late, would be one witness against them thinking it invalid—and they had other bishops from the surrounding Egyptian regions who could perform the episcopal ordinations. But those bishops' ordinations themselves would trace back to earlier Alexandrian bishops.


				

				

						

							

								
							

						


						
					

				
			


			

	


			
			
				

			
		

	






		

			
			
				Converting to Catholicism
			
		

	

	

	

		
			

			

				

			

		

			


				

					
Going from memory here, the Severus of Antioch passage requires that he think that they were actually presbyters, not merely called such (he's talking about how ecclesiastical law here is mutable, if I remember correctly). I believe the History of the Episcopate of Alexandria also discusses when there first began to be bishops beside the Alexandrian one.


You're correct that sources disagree on when this ended.


Agreed that Athanasius was ordained by a bishop, but I would expect that if you traced back the ordinations you'd get to people whose episcopal consecration was not done by any bishops.


				

				

						

							

								
							

						


						
					

				
			


			

	


			
			
				

			
		

	






		

			
			
				Converting to Catholicism
			
		

	

	

	

		
			

			

				

			

		

			


				

					
"a private letter" is probably a bit too far. The Catholic Encyclopedia says:




The letter cannot be called a private one, for it is an official reply to a formal consultation.




But fair enough that it wouldn't necessarily therefore be infallible. Chapman, the author of that article, continues:




It had, however, less publicity than a modern Encyclical. As the letter does not define or condemn, and does not bind the Church to accept its teaching, it is of course impossible to regard it as an ex cathedra utterance.




So then you had originally meant only that the pope could not do those things in an ex cathedra statement.


I'm curious, do you think that the SSPX are schismatic?


				

				

						

							

								
							

						


						
					

				
			


			

	


			
			
				

			
		

	






		

			
			
				Converting to Catholicism
			
		

	

	

	

		
			

			

				

			

		

			


				

					
So you think that the passage saying "drinks my blood" refers to partaking of the Eucharist but not the chalice?




But would you like to share a good summary?




There are a number of sources (Jerome, the early but recently unearthed History of the Episcopate of Alexandria, Severus of Antioch, Eutychius of Alexandria, among others) that attest the Alexandrian presbyters, following a tradition established by Mark the Evangelist would, upon the death of the last bishop, meet at the corpse to consecrate a new bishop from among them. This practice continued for several hundred years until they started ordaining other bishops and following the custom of everywhere else, had their bishop ordained by the bishops.


You are saying that it does not bother you at all that an entire patriarchate (and Alexandria was quite influential on the early church: see Origen, Athanasius, among others) did not have valid orders, and that because they were following what they believed was a tradition passed down to them from Mark the Evangelist?


				

				

						

							

								
							

						


						
					

				
			


			

	


			
			
				

			
		

	






		

			
			
				Converting to Catholicism
			
		

	

	

	

		
			

			

				

			

		

			


				

					


I take Jesus seriously when he says (Jn 6:51–55.):




Oh, I'd agree with cardinal Cajetan that that passage doesn't mainly have in view the Eucharist.
Do you think the passage mandates communion in both kinds?




Obedience




I agree that one should submit to those over him.




Episcopal succession




I don't know if this is too far afield, but have you looked into the early history of the Alexandrian succession at all? There's good reason to think that the bishops there were ordained by presbyters, which would, under your model, I believe, mean that people in Egypt had no valid sacraments except baptism—which would be quite something, given that Alexandria became a patriarchate.


				

				

						

							

								
							

						


						
					

				
			


			

	


			
			
				

			
		

	






		

			
			
				Converting to Catholicism
			
		

	

	

	

		
			

			

				

			

		

			


				

					
What do you make of Honorius' condemnation?


				

				

						

							

								
							

						


						
					

				
			


			

	


			
			
				

			
		

	






		

			
			
				Converting to Catholicism
			
		

	

	

	

		
			

			

				

			

		

			


				

					
If what you mean by being in communion with the pope, is, to be a genuine Christian, why is it defined in reference to the pope, and not as "being in communion with @OracleOutlook" or whatever?


				

				

						

							

								
							

						


						
					

				
			


			

	


			
			
				

			
		

	






		

			
			
				Converting to Catholicism
			
		

	

	

	

		
			

			

				

			

		

			


				

					
All good! This is a topic that I really can't say that I have developed opinions on myself.


To my knowledge, the main area of metaphysics where there was a consistent confessional divide was over whether transubstantiation is coherent.


				

				

						

							

								
							

						


						
					

				
			


			

	


			
			
				

			
		

	






		

			
			
				Converting to Catholicism
			
		

	

	

	

		
			

			

				

			

		

			


				

					


I worry for those who are against infant baptism, or those who do not generally see baptism as necessary.




Is this because you think this leads to the neglect of it?




I worry for those who do not have the Eucharist.




I assume this is because you think their ordination is invalid? Isn't this straying from the original teaching of which teachings you think are damnable, to what problems you have with Protestantism more generally? Or do you mean to say that you think that having a bad view of presence in the Eucharist may be damnable, rather than talking about whether the eucharist is valid?




I worry for those who have rejected obedience and apostolic succession.




What do you mean by obedience here? By apostolic succession, do you require it to be episcopal succession, or would you count presbyterial succession?


				

				

						

							

								
							

						


						
					

				
			


			

	


			
			
				

			
		

	






		

			
			
				Converting to Catholicism
			
		

	

	

	

		
			

			

				

			

		

			


				

					
What does it mean to be in communion with the pope?


				

				

						

							

								
							

						


						
					

				
			


			

	


			
			
				

			
		

	






		

			
			
				Converting to Catholicism
			
		

	

	

	

		
			

			

				

			

		

			


				

					
Which of those Protestant teachings do you think are damnable?


				

				

						

							

								
							

						


						
					

				
			


			

	


			
			
				

			
		

	






		

			
			
				Converting to Catholicism
			
		

	

	

	

		
			

			

				

			

		

			


				

					
How if they were not in communion with the pope? (I had the great western schism in mind, but this applies also to the people you are referring to)


				

				

						

							

								
							

						


						
					

				
			


			

	


			
			
				

			
		

	






		

			
			
				Culture War Roundup for the week of April 6, 2026
			
		

	

	

	

		
			

			

				

			

		

			


				

					
Do you think that all texts lead to anarchy? The text has an objective meaning aside from the interpretation thereof: the correct stance would be scripture according to the sense genuinely latent in the text.


You may object: but we may disagree on what that sense is. Okay, true. There are disagreements within every religion. Sufficiently bad errors may warrant ecclesiastical or civil (were we to live in a state that still took an interest in such things) censure.


All that said, I'm fine with some degree of looking at tradition and so on.


				

				

						

							

								
							

						


						
					

				
			


			

	


			
			
				

			
		

	






		

			
			
				Converting to Catholicism
			
		

	

	

	

		
			

			

				

			

		

			


				

					


As an aside, I've never heard any Protestant of any denomination say that Michael is Christ; it is certainly not the understanding that I grew up with.




I'm pretty sure there are some Reformed authors who affirm it, can't say that I've really thought about it myself.


				

				

						

							

								
							

						


						
					

				
			


			

	


			
			
				

			
		

	






		

			
			
				Converting to Catholicism
			
		

	

	

	

		
			

			

				

			

		

			


				

					
I know that there are papists who've argued for elements of penal substitution in the atonement. I know Ybarra recently released a book on the subject. No need, of course, to treat many of these theories as exclusive and incompatible.


I haven't read that particular work of Muller, what was he saying the whole time? I generally hear very positive things about him.


I can't say I'm terribly active on this site at the moment, but feel free to DM about religious topics and so on.


				

				

						

							

								
							

						


						
					

				
			


			

	


			
			
				

			
		

	






		

			
			
				Converting to Catholicism
			
		

	

	

	

		
			

			

				

			

		

			


				

					
It's only a problem for people to disagree over what's essential if it is itself essential to judge correctly whether that doctrine is essential, I would think?


				

				

						

							

								
							

						


						
					

				
			


			

	


			
			
				

			
		

	






		

			
			
				Converting to Catholicism
			
		

	

	

	

		
			

			

				

			

		

			


				

					


There are cases of ecumenical councils erring and Pope's preventing the error.




And there are cases of the contrary, as seen in the case of Vigilius at the 2nd council of Constantinople. (Funny you should mention Liberius. I've seen him cited as an example of an erring pope, in that I believe there's some reason to think he signed onto some Arian formulas. But I'd need to look further into that.)


				

				

						

							

								
							

						


						
					

				
			


			

	


			
			
				

			
		

	






		

			
			
				Converting to Catholicism
			
		

	

	

	

		
			

			

				

			

		

			


				

					
I never found the Clement example compelling. This was said shortly after making an extended scriptural case for his position. I read that simply as saying, "we are declaring what God has revealed; heed this word or you invite judgment upon yourself" (which latter point he had also cited plenty of scripture for). I do not understand, then, why everyone makes a big deal out of the passage.


You mean Irenaeus, not Ignatius. You say, "but if you read his letter to Victor all his arguments show he believes Victor has this authority, he's just hoping Victor doesn't use it"; I nowhere see that in the letter.


How large was the church in 1400? Was half of Western Europe not in the church?


				

				

						

							

								
							

						


						
					

				
			


			

	


			
			
				

			
		

	






		

			
			
				Converting to Catholicism
			
		

	

	

	

		
			

			

				

			

		

			


				

					
200 uncontested instances? What would you point to?


				

				

						

							

								
							

						


						
					

				
			


			

	


			
			
				

			
		

	






		

			
			
				Converting to Catholicism
			
		

	

	

	

		
			

			

				

			

		

			


				

					
Francisco Suarez, though a papist, was very influential in every tradition in that era (e.g. I'm told that the 17th century Reformed Aberdeen divine Robert Baron usually follows him), and my understanding was that Suarez was a nominalist.