Question:
You don’t know what you’re talking about. A few snippets of scripture hardly define Peter and Paul’s relationship to each other or the Church. BAM
The whole new testament is one big argument about what the disciples thought the old testament meant. The church was as split then as now. What the majority decides is what the church thinks is the truth. What the real truth is can be something else. J
Response:
– Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – You don’t know what you’re talking about. A few snippets of scripture hardly define Peter and Paul’s relationship to each other or the Church. BAM The whole new testament is one big argument about what the disciples thought the old testament meant. The church was as split then as now. What the majority decides is what the church thinks is the truth. What the real truth is can be something else. J
How true, how can such a sloppy legacy be the work of a God? Joe
Response:
You don’t know what you’re talking about. A few snippets of scripture hardly define Peter and Paul’s relationship to each other or the Church. BAM The whole new testament is one big argument about what the disciples thought the old testament meant.
Ridiculous. The church was as split then as now. What the majority decides is what the church thinks is the truth. What the real truth is can be something else.
Negative on both counts. The teachings of the Catholic Church are guaranteed to be free from error, and we don’t need a majority; we only need one. BAM
Response:
How true, how can such a sloppy legacy be the work of a God?
It isn’t, its the work of men. J
Response:
– Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – How true, how can such a sloppy legacy be the work of a God? It isn’t, its the work of men. How can a god entrust the most important task of delivering the truth to such incompetant men then? What responsibility does god have in the failure of the plan? You’re the failure. There are no others. BAM How can I fail at something I am not obligated to do?
You have failed to recognize the truth. BAM
Response:
Negative on both counts. The teachings of the Catholic Church are guaranteed to be free from error, and we don’t need a majority; we only need one.
Better check that guarantee, you might be getting screwed. J
Response:
Negative on both counts. The teachings of the Catholic Church are guaranteed to be free from error, and we don’t need a majority; we only need one. Better check that guarantee, you might be getting screwed.
Worry about yourself, thank you. BAM
Response:
How true, how can such a sloppy legacy be the work of a God? It isn’t, its the work of men.
How can a god entrust the most important task of delivering the truth to such incompetant men then? What responsibility does god have in the failure of the plan? Joe
Response:
– Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – How true, how can such a sloppy legacy be the work of a God? It isn’t, its the work of men. How can a god entrust the most important task of delivering the truth to such incompetant men then? What responsibility does god have in the failure of the plan?
You’re the failure. There are no others. BAM
Response:
– Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – How true, how can such a sloppy legacy be the work of a God? It isn’t, its the work of men. How can a god entrust the most important task of delivering the truth to such incompetant men then? What responsibility does god have in the failure of the plan?
None – the Holy Spirit has more power than incompitent men. Peter was a primary example. So was the choice of the Apostles. At least one Apostle was a murderer. God bless, Stephen — — Stephen Korsman www.theotokos.co.za www.theotokos.co.za/adventism IC | XC NI | KA
Response:
– Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – How true, how can such a sloppy legacy be the work of a God? It isn’t, its the work of men. How can a god entrust the most important task of delivering the truth to such incompetant men then? What responsibility does god have in the failure of the plan? You’re the failure. There are no others. BAM
How can I fail at something I am not obligated to do? Joe
Response:
– Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – How true, how can such a sloppy legacy be the work of a God? It isn’t, its the work of men. How can a god entrust the most important task of delivering the truth to such incompetant men then? What responsibility does god have in the failure of the plan? None – the Holy Spirit has more power than incompitent men. Peter was a primary example. So was the choice of the Apostles. At least one Apostle was a murderer. God bless, Stephen
Interesting Joe
Response:
– Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – And Paul. The writings we preserved included Paul’s letters. You make it sound like the early Church was the image of modern Protestantism, with little sects all over the place. But Paul himself makes it very clear that personal factions are not the Lord’s will. We are called to be one body, one church. The church of Paul WAS the church of Peter and Andrew and John and Barnabas and Luke and Mark and Timothy and Titus and …. Yes, but it seems to me that Paul and the others didn’t agree among themselves what exactly was the gospel. Paul jumped on Peter for his hypocrisy and Peter said some of Pauls writings were hard to be understood etc. So there was division among them and I don’t know that they ever agreed. The church that emerged was catholic in its beliefs but I am not convinced that it was right in its doctrines. And it seems like the catholic church today has the same problems in that its members don’t agree on the doctrines. But protestant churches don’t agree either on doctrines so the division continues. Unity based on doctrines seems to be doomed to fail.
You don’t know what you’re talking about. A few snippets of scripture hardly define Peter and Paul’s relationship to each other or the Church. BAM
Response:
What’s amazing to me is that the catholics trace everything back to the disciples of Christ, Peter, James, John etc. but nobody questions whether these fishermen knew what they were talking about.
And Paul. The writings we preserved included Paul’s letters. You make it sound like the early Church was the image of modern Protestantism, with little sects all over the place. But Paul himself makes it very clear that personal factions are not the Lord’s will. We are called to be one body, one church. The church of Paul WAS the church of Peter and Andrew and John and Barnabas and Luke and Mark and Timothy and Titus and ….
Response:
And Paul. The writings we preserved included Paul’s letters. You make it sound like the early Church was the image of modern Protestantism, with little sects all over the place. But Paul himself makes it very clear that personal factions are not the Lord’s will. We are called to be one body, one church. The church of Paul WAS the church of Peter and Andrew and John and Barnabas and Luke and Mark and Timothy and Titus and ….
Yes, but it seems to me that Paul and the others didn’t agree among themselves what exactly was the gospel. Paul jumped on Peter for his hypocrisy and Peter said some of Pauls writings were hard to be understood etc. So there was division among them and I don’t know that they ever agreed. The church that emerged was catholic in its beliefs but I am not convinced that it was right in its doctrines. And it seems like the catholic church today has the same problems in that its members don’t agree on the doctrines. But protestant churches don’t agree either on doctrines so the division continues. Unity based on doctrines seems to be doomed to fail. John
Response:
D. Ehrman. He covers the bases on the competing claims of orthodoxy during the first half millenium. Interesting read.
– Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – Were the church fathers Roman Catholic? Did people like Polycarp, Irenaeus, and Augustine believe what Roman Catholicism teaches? A couple of years ago, I began a series of posts at the New Testament Research Ministries web site (http://www.ntrmin.org ) documenting hundreds of examples of the church fathers disagreeing with Roman Catholicism. You can access archives of the series at: http://www.ntrmin.org/catholic_but_not_roman_catholic_index.htm Jason Engwer http://members.aol.com/jasonte New Testament Research Ministries http://www.ntrmin.org
Response:
Were the church fathers Roman Catholic? Did people like Polycarp, Irenaeus, and Augustine believe what Roman Catholicism teaches? A couple of years ago,
What’s amazing to me is that the catholics trace everything back to the disciples of Christ, Peter, James, John etc. but nobody questions whether these fishermen knew what they were talking about. They assume because they were with Christ they knew it all. Obviously they didn’t or otherwise Christ wouldn’t have had to call Paul, who was an ex-Pharissee who knew the law, to teach what Peter and the rest didn’t know. Paul’s faith alone versus James faith and works doctrines. There were two different gospels being preached and I think Paul’s was the right one, not the disciples. John
Response:
Were the church fathers Roman Catholic? Yes. Did people like Polycarp, Irenaeus, and Augustine believe what Roman Catholicism teaches? Yes. BAM
I’m starting to wonder, what with the higher than usual number of anti-Catholic diatribese being posted to ARCRC, if these assorted trolls are having a convention this month.
Response:
– Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – Were the church fathers Roman Catholic? Yes. Did people like Polycarp, Irenaeus, and Augustine believe what Roman Catholicism teaches? Yes. BAM I’m starting to wonder, what with the higher than usual number of anti-Catholic diatribese being posted to ARCRC, if these assorted trolls are having a convention this month.
My guess is, no. As a general rule they are not visibly united. They are only united by evil hearts and this they won’t admit. BAM
Response:
– Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – Were the church fathers Roman Catholic? Did people like Polycarp, Irenaeus, and Augustine believe what Roman Catholicism teaches? A couple of years ago, I began a series of posts at the New Testament Research Ministries web site (http://www.ntrmin.org ) documenting hundreds of examples of the church fathers disagreeing with Roman Catholicism. You can access archives of the series at: Probably snippets taken out of context, like a true Protestant. Take it elsewhere "Rev’rend"
Having read the previous ones, yes, they are. God bless, Stephen — — Stephen Korsman www.theotokos.co.za www.theotokos.co.za/adventism IC | XC NI | KA
Response:
Were the church fathers Roman Catholic? Did people like Polycarp, Irenaeus, and Augustine believe what Roman Catholicism teaches? A couple of years ago, I began a series of posts at the New Testament Research Ministries web site (http://www.ntrmin.org ) documenting hundreds of examples of the church fathers disagreeing with Roman Catholicism. You can access archives of the series at: http://www.ntrmin.org/catholic_but_not_roman_catholic_index.htm Jason Engwer http://members.aol.com/jasonte New Testament Research Ministries http://www.ntrmin.org
You have brought some interesting points, Jason. Which christian church do you follow? It seems that you could be Eastern Orthodox. I will try to give you my personal view on this; although I am not a theologian. We first need to understand that, even today, some catholic literature can have serious errors within, so we cannot read the church fathers in the same manner we read the scriptures. "Any" information, whether it be an attack on the roman bishop or a support to the Petrine teaching, is important in order for us to have a picture of the early church. We know right from the start that there were many christian sects,some of which, influenced great apologetics of the catholic church to actually write against the church they once followed and loved. I will start off with only a couple of quotations as this would be much too long to deal with everything at once. "For neither does any of us set himself up as a bishop of bishops, nor by tyrannical terror does any compel his colleague to the necessity of obedience; since every bishop, according to the allowance of his liberty and power, has his own proper right of judgment, and can no more be judged by another than he himself can judge another. But let us all wait for the judgment of our Lord Jesus Christ, who is the only one that has the power both of preferring us in the government of His Church, and of judging us in our conduct there." – The Seventh Council of Carthage (http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/0508.htm) Here, I’m not certain as to the context of what is being said. What I do know is that Cyprian did leave the catholic church only to be reconciled back into it prior to his death. What could be important here, in my opinion, is the statement against the position of bishop of bishops. But this mearly supports the position of "archbishop" and not "bishop of the catholic church" as such.In other words, could this simply have meant that there was no need for a superior position above that of the bishop, "as long as the bishop was in unity with the teachings which came from Rome?" For Cyprian clearly speaks of Rome as being the See of Peter, where the unity of the church was to be found. "But who can fail to be aware that the sacred canon of Scripture, both of the Old and New Testament, is confined within its own limits, and that it stands so absolutely in a superior position to all later letters of the bishops, that about it we can hold no manner of doubt or disputation whether what is confessedly contained in it is right and true; but that all the letters of bishops which have been written, or are being written, since the closing of the canon, are liable to be refuted if there be anything contained in them which strays from the truth, either by the discourse of some one who happens to be wiser in the matter than themselves, or by the weightier authority and more learned experience of other bishops, by the authority of Councils; and further, that the Councils themselves, which are held in the several districts and provinces, must yield, beyond all possibility of doubt, to the authority of plenary Councils which are formed for the whole Christian world; and that even of the plenary Councils, the earlier are often corrected by those which follow them" – Augustine (On Baptism, Against the Donatists, 2:3) So, here, Augustine simply states that writings of christian bishops and apologetics are liable to having errors within, and are not to be read as the scriptures are read, or accepted as truth as the scriptures are accepted as truth. This is a Roman Catholic teaching. Notice afterwards, when something is in doubt of being erronious, a certain proceeding, clearly showing a hiarchical structured church, is mentioned by Augustine. First, the error can simply be faced by a wise person, if not, then by a higher authority such as a bishop. If there is still doubt as to whether the new teaching(or a new explanation of a certain teaching) is to be accepted as being either worthy of belief or heretical, then a regional council of bishops can be held, but notice "very importantly that a desision from the"catholic council", or "plenary council"as mentioned by Augustine "overides" the decision of "any regional councils". This is truly a Catholic Church teaching and maybe part of the problem as to why sometimes there seems to be some regional conflics between church teachings. ….I will continue along the same issue. Here’s Irenaeus explaining the non-papal reasons for the Roman church’s importance: "Since, however, it would be very tedious, in such a volume as this, to reckon up the successions of all the Churches, we do put to confusion all those who, in whatever manner, whether by an evil self-pleasing, by vainglory, or by blindness and perverse opinion, assemble in unauthorized meetings; we do this, I say, by indicating that tradition derived from the apostles, of the very great, the very ancient, and universally known Church founded and organized at Rome by the two most glorious apostles, Peter and Paul; as also by pointing out the faith preached to men, which comes down to our time by means of the successions of the bishops. For it is a matter of necessity that every Church should agree with this Church, on account of its preeminent authority — that is, the faithful everywhere — inasmuch as the Apostolic Tradition has been preserved continuously by those who are everywhere. The blessed apostles, then, having founded and built up the Church, committed into the hands of Linus the office of the episcopate….But Polycarp also was not only instructed by apostles, and conversed with many who had seen Christ, but was also, by apostles in Asia, appointed bishop of the Church in Smyrna, whom I also saw in my early youth, for he tarried on earth a very long time, and, when a very old man, gloriously and most nobly suffering martyrdom, departed this life, having always taught the things which he had learned from the apostles, and which the Church has handed down, and which alone are true. To these things all the Asiatic Churches testify, as do also those men who have succeeded Polycarp down to the present time — a man who was of much greater weight, and a more stedfast witness of truth, than Valentinus, and Marcion, and the rest of the heretics….There is also a very powerful Epistle of Polycarp written to the Philippians, from which those who choose to do so, and are anxious about their salvation, can learn the character of his faith, and the preaching of the truth. Then, again, the Church in Ephesus, founded by Paul, and having John remaining among them permanently until the times of Trajan, is a true witness of the tradition of the apostles." (Against Heresies, 3:3:2-4) Here, Irenaeus,as well as others, such as Tertullian (while still a catholic), write of the importance of the "Apostolic succession of bishops". No, it didn’t matter from which apostle, but the the succession of the Apostle Peter,such as the Roman Church, many confirming as being from whom the church has been built upon, is seen as being special, not due to it being luckily situated where every roads meet, but because it was the See of Peter from where the unity of the Church would be found. Cyprian clearly speaks of it. "For it is a matter of necessity that every Church should agree with this Church, on account of its preeminent authority — that is, the faithful everywhere — Every Church needs to agree with this Church, not because it happens to be the only church who has "luckily" received the apostolic tradition, but because of it’s pre emiment authority, it is the church which "judges" as to whether the teaching is to be accepted as apostolic or not and preserves it.Remember what Augustine wrote, "…and further, that the Councils themselves, which are held in the several districts and provinces, must yield, beyond all possibility of doubt, to the authority of plenary Councils which are formed for the whole Christian world; and that even of the plenary Councils, the earlier are often corrected by those which follow them" – Augustine (On Baptism, Against the Donatists, 2:3)" "… inasmuch as the Apostolic Tradition has been preserved continuously by those who are everywhere" Which Apostolic tradition? He continues… The blessed apostles, then, having founded and built up the Church, committed into the hands of Linus the office of the episcopate….to him succeded Anacletus,and afterwards, Clement…."In this order and succession, the ecclesiastical tradition from the apostles,and the preaching of the truth, have come down to us." Andre
Response:
Were the church fathers Roman Catholic?
Yes. Did people like Polycarp, Irenaeus, and Augustine believe what Roman Catholicism teaches?
Yes. BAM
Response:
Were the church fathers Roman Catholic? Did people like Polycarp, Irenaeus, and Augustine believe what Roman Catholicism teaches? A couple of years ago, I began a series of posts at the New Testament Research Ministries web site (http://www.ntrmin.org ) documenting hundreds of examples of the church fathers disagreeing with Roman Catholicism. You can access archives of the series at:
Probably snippets taken out of context, like a true Protestant. Take it elsewhere "Rev’rend" -Tony — For fairly troll free Catholic discussion, join on the web at: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/romancatholic/ "Rome has spoken, the debate is ended." — St. Augustine
Response:
Were the church fathers Roman Catholic? Did people like Polycarp, Irenaeus, and Augustine believe what Roman Catholicism teaches? A couple of years ago, I began a series of posts at the New Testament Research Ministries web site (http://www.ntrmin.org ) documenting hundreds of examples of the church fathers disagreeing with Roman Catholicism. You can access archives of the series at: http://www.ntrmin.org/catholic_but_not_roman_catholic_index.htm Jason Engwer http://members.aol.com/jasonte New Testament Research Ministries http://www.ntrmin.org
If you like this post and would like to receive updates from this blog, please subscribe our feed.