Question:
– Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – Yup, it’s called the Bible. Try reading it sometime. The mind of God is revealed to each man through the personal interpretation of Scripture? What a postively Protestant idea. See, I KNEW you were a protestant. :-) You wish I was, they are easily defeated in a debate, since they are so far removed from the Truth. So is that your only come back for being illiterate of the Bible?
Show where I am "illiterate (sic) of the Bible". It did once. It chose worldly power and and wealth over Truth. You can’t serve both God and mammon. Interesting on how you use the paste tense in your words.
And…..? You used to be a Baptist or a Pentecostal, I’d bet. That’s one of their favorite codewords. Don’t bet the farm yet, you missed the obvious that used that word, because it seems you would be more familiar with it. I’m a "Womb to tomb" Roman Catholic.
That’s all right. You can still come home, I know many ex-Latins in the Church. (Including my priest.) 
Just because you are ignorant of history, don’t assume everyone else is. You’ll wish I was. When it comes to you rewriting history, you’ll find historical buffs like me, to be your worst nightmare.
Dream on……. In XC, Bari Stepanovich IC XC –+– "Lord Jesus Christ, Son of God, have mercy on me, a sinner." NI KA
Response:
– Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – Well hey, thanks for proving my point, "only the weak of mind could fall for such Protestant deceptions." it is so clear that you have read books that are considered jokes in purist historian circles.< By ‘purist’ I think you may mean ‘Catholic’. If there are factual errors in this account, then it should be easy for you to point them out. I personally have yet to find a Catholic ‘historian’ who did not reinvent history, and it is not in the least surprising that Catholics are surprised by the truth. b. Actually, atheistic circles, that could care a less about any religion. The love for accurate history is what drives them. The ironic part is they mostly attack the Catholic Church (Crusades, Inquisitions, etc), but the one thing they have proven is only the Catholic Church has a direct lineage back to Jesus, all other Christian Churches are pale (at best) imitations of the Catholic Church.<
Perhaps you would supply some quotes. b.
Response:
<snip but the one thing they have proven is only the Catholic Church has a direct lineage back to Jesus Wrong. Well wrong in the since that your religion has to go through mine to get to Jesus.
I have to "go through your religion to get to Jesus"? ROTFL!!! I can’t wait to see you try and explain this bit of nonsense posted in anger. You wanna retract it now that you’ve had time to cool off? Want me to post my Church’s "direct lineage" and prove you to be full of hot air? Sure, with it’s source cited.
Here you are: 1 45-53 The Episcopacy of St. Peter, the Apostle, in Antioch. 2 53 The Episcopacy of Eudoius in Antioch. 3 68 The Episcopacy of St. Ignatius (d. 107) in Antioch. 4 100 The Episcopacy of Heros in Antioch. 5 127 The Episcopacy of Cornelius in Antioch. 6 151 The Episcopacy of Heros II in Antioch. 7 169 The Episcopacy of Theophilus (d. 181/182) in Antioch. 8 188 The Episcopacy of Maximianus (d. 190/191) in Antioch. 9 191-212 The Episcopacy of Serapion in Antioch. 10 212-218 The Episcopacy of Aslipiades in Antioch. 11 218-231 The Episcopacy of Philetus in Antioch. 12 232 The Episcopacy of Zebinus (a.k.a. Zenobius) in Antioch. 13 240 The Episcopacy of St. Babylas in Antioch. 14 253 The Episcopacy of Fabius in Antioch. 15 256 The Episcopacy of Demetrian in Antioch. 16 263 The Episcopacy of Amphilochius in Antioch. 17 267 The Episcopacy of Paul of Samosata in Antioch. 18 270 The Episcopacy of Dmonus in Antioch. 19 273 The Episcopacy of Timaeus in Antioch. 20 277 The Episcopacy of Cyril in Antioch. 21 299 The Episcopacy of Tyrannion in Antioch. 22 308 The Episcopacy of Vitalius in Antioch. 23 314 The Episcopacy of Philogonius in Antioch. 24 324 The Episcopacy of Paulinus in Antioch. 25 325 The Episcopacy of Eustathius in Antioch. 26 332 The Episcopacy of Paulinus in Antioch. 27 332 The Episcopacy of Eulalius (5 months) in Antioch. 28 333 The Episcopacy of Euphronius in Antioch. 29 334 The Episcopacy of Placentius in Antioch. 30 341 The Episcopacy of Stephanus in Antioch. 31 345 The Episcopacy of Leontius in Antioch. 32 350 The Episcopacy of Eudoxius in Antioch. 33 354 The Episcopacy of Meletius in Antioch. 34 354 The Episcopacy of Eudoxius in Antioch. 35 357 The Episcopacy of Annias (a.k.a. Ammianus) in Antioch. 36 360 The Episcopacy of Eudozius in Antioch. 37 370 The Episcopacy of Dorotheus in Antioch. 38 371 The Episcopacy of Paulinus in Antioch. 39 376 The Episcopacy of Vitalius in Antioch. 40 384 The Episcopacy of Flavian in Antioch. 41 404 The Episcopacy of Porphyrius in Antioch. 42 408 The Episcopacy of Alexander in Antioch. 43 418 The Episcopacy of Theodotus in Antioch. 44 427 The Episcopacy of John in Antioch. 45 443 The Episcopacy of Domnus II in Antioch. 46 450 The Episcopacy of Maximus in Antioch. See elevated to dignity of a Patriarchate by the Council of Chalcedon in 451 47 459 The Patriarchate of Basil in Antioch. 48 459 The Patriarchate of Acacius in Antioch. 49 461 The Patriarchate of Martyrius in Antioch. 50 465 The Patriarchate of Peter the Fuller in Antioch. 51 466 The Patriarchate of Julian in Antioch. 52 474 The Patriarchate of Peter the Fuller in Antioch. 53 475 The Patriarchate of John II in Antioch. 54 490 The Patriarchate of Stephen II in Antioch. 55 493 The Patriarchate of Stephen III in Antioch. 56 495 The Patriarchate of Callandion in Antioch. 57 495 The Patriarchate of John Codonatus in Antioch. 58 497 The Patriarchate of Palladius in Antioch. 59 505 The Patriarchate of Flavian II in Antioch. 60 513 The Patriarchate of Severus in Antioch. 61 518 The Patriarchate of Paul II in Antioch. 62 521 The Patriarchate of Euphrasius in Antioch. 63 526 The Patriarchate of Ephraim in Antioch. 64 546 The Patriarchate of Domnus III in Antioch. 65 561 The Patriarchate of Anastasius the Sinaite in Antioch. 66 571 The Patriarchate of Gregory in Antioch. 67 594 The Patriarchate of Anastasius the Sinaite in Antioch. 68 599 The Patriarchate of Anastasius II in Antioch. 69 610 The Patriarchate of Gregory II, in Antioch. 70 620 The Patriarchate of Anastasius III in Antioch. 71 628 The Patriarchate of Macedonius in Antioch. 72 640 The Patriarchate of George in Antioch. 73 656 The Patriarchate of Macarius in Antioch. 74 681 The Patriarchate of Theophanes in Antioch. 75 687 The Patriarchate of Sebastian in Antioch. 76 690 The Patriarchate of George II in Antioch. 77 695 The Patriarchate of Alexander in Antioch. 78 742 The Patriarchate of Stephen IV in Antioch. 79 748 The Patriarchate of Theophylact in Antioch. 80 767 The Patriarchate of Theodore in Antioch. 81 797 The Patriarchate of John IV in Antioch. 82 810 The Patriarchate of Job in Antioch. 83 826 The Patriarchate of Nicholas in Antioch. 84 834 The Patriarchate of Simeon in Antioch. 85 840 The Patriarchate of Elias in Antioch. 86 852 The Patriarchate of Theodosius in Antioch. 87 860 The Patriarchate of Nicholas II in Antioch. 88 879 The Patriarchate of Michael in Antioch. 89 890 The Patriarchate of Zacharias in Antioch. 90 902 The Patriarchate of George III in Antioch. 91 917 The Patriarchate of Job II in Antioch. 92 939 The Patriarchate of Eustratius in Antioch. 93 960 The Patriarchate of Christopher in Antioch. 94 966 The Patriarchate of Theodorus II in Antioch. 95 977 The Patriarchate of Agapius in Antioch. 96 995 The Patriarchate of John IV in Antioch. 97 1000 The Patriarchate of Nicholas III in Antioch. 98 1003 The Patriarchate of Elias II in Antioch. 99 1010 The Patriarchate of George Lascaris in Antioch. 100 1015 The Patriarchate of Macarius the Virtuous in Antioch. 101 1023 The Patriarchate of Eleutherius in Antioch. 102 1028 The Patriarchate of Peter III in Antioch. 103 1051 The Patriarchate of John VI in Antioch. 104 1062 The Patriarchate of Aemilian in Antioch. 105 1075 The Patriarchate of Theodosius II in Antioch. 106 1084 The Patriarchate of Nicephorus in Antioch. 107 1090 The Patriarchate of John VII in Antioch. 108 1155 The Patriarchate of John IX in Antioch. 109 1159 The Patriarchate of Euthymius in Antioch. 110 1164 The Patriarchate of Macarius in Antioch. 111 1166 The Patriarchate of Athanasius in Antioch. 112 1180 The Patriarchate of Theodosius III in Antioch. 113 1182 The Patriarchate of Elias III in Antioch. 114 1184 The Patriarchate of Christopher II in Antioch. 115 1185 The Patriarchate of Theodore IV (Balsamon) in exile in Constantinople. 116 1199 The Patriarchate of Joachim in exile in Constantinople. 117 1219 The Patriarchate of Dorotheus in exile in Constantinople. 118 1245 The Patriarchate of Simeon II in exile in Constantinople. 119 1268 The Patriarchate of Euthymius II in exile in Constantinople. 120 1269 The Patriarchate of Theodosius IV in Antioch. 121 1276 The Patriarchate of Theodosius V in Antioch. 122 1285 The Patriarchate of Arsenius in Antioch. 123 1293 The Patriarchate of Dionysius in Antioch. 124 1308 The Patriarchate of Mark in Antioch. Patriarchal See transferred to Damascus in 1342 125 1342 The Patriarchate of Ignatius II in Damascus. 127 1386 The Patriarchate of Pachomius in Damascus. 128 1393 The Patriarchate of Nilus in Damascus. 129 1401 The Patriarchate of Michael III in Damascus. 130 1410 The Patriarchate of Pachomius II in Damascus. 131 1411 The Patriarchate of Joachim II in Damascus. 132 1426 The Patriarchate of Mark III in Damascus. 133 1436 The Patriarchate of Dorotheus II in Damascus. 134 1454 The Patriarchate of Michael IV in Damascus. 135 1476 The Patriarchate of Mark IV in Damascus. 136 1476 The Patriarchate of Joachim III in Damascus. 137 1483 The Patriarchate of Gregory III in Damascus. 139 1497-1523 The Patriarchate of Dorotheus III in Damascus. 140 1523-1541 The Patriarchate of Michael V in Damascus. 141 1541-1543 The Patriarchate of Dorotheus IV in Damascus. 142 1543-1576 The Patriarchate of Joachim IV (Ibn Juma) in Damascus. 143 1577-1581 The Patriarchate of Michael VI (Sabbagh) in Damascus. 144 1581-1592 The Patriarchate of Joachim V in Damascus. 145 1593-1604 The Patriarchate of Joachim VI in Damascus. 146 1604-1611 The Patriarchate of Dorotheus V in Damascus. 147 1611-1619 The Patriarchate of Athanasius III (Dabbas) in Damascus. 148 1619-1631 The Patriarchate of Ignatius III (Attiyah) in Damascus. 149 1635-1636 The Patriarchate of Euthymius III in Damascus. 150 1636-1648 The Patriarchate of Euthymius IV in Damascus. 151 1648-1672 The Patriarchate of Michael III (Zaim) in Damascus. 152 1674-1684 The Patriarchate of Neophytos I in Damascus. 153 1686-1694 The Patriarchate of Athanasius IV (Dabbas) in Damascus. 154 1694-1720 The Patriarchate of Cyril III (Zaim) in Damascus. 155 1720-1724 The Patriarchate of Athanasius IV (Dabbas) in Damascus. Separation of the Melkites. The Greek Patriarchs 156 1724-1766 The Patriarchate of Sylvester I in Damascus. 157 1766-1767 The Patriarchate of Philemon I in Damascus. 158 1767-1791 The Patriarchate of Daniel I in Damascus. 159 1792-1813 The Patriarchate of Euthymius I in Damascus. 160 1813-1823 The Patriarchate of Seraphim I in Damascus. 161 1843-1859 The Patriarchate of Methodius I in Damascus. 162 1850-1885 The Patriarchate of Hierotheos I in Damascus. 163 1885-1891 The Patriarchate of Gerasimos I in Damascus. 164 1892-1898 The Patriarchate of Spyridon I in Damascus. Restoration of the Arab Patriarchs 165 1899-1906 The Patriarchate of Meletius II (Doumani) in Damascus. 166 1906-1928 The Patriarchate of Gregory IV(Haddad) in Damascus. 167 1928-1958 The Patriarchate of Alexander III (Tahan) in Damascus. 168 1958-1970 The Patriarchate of Theodosius VI (Abourjaily) in Damascus. 169 1970-1979 The Patriarchate of Elias IV (Muawad) in Damascus. 170 1979- The Patriarchate of Ignatius IV (Hazim, 1921- ) in Damascus From the Apostle Peter to … read more »
Response:
Actually, atheistic circles, that could care a less about any religion. The love for accurate history is what drives them. The ironic part is they mostly attack the Catholic Church (Crusades, Inquisitions, etc),
The Inquisition and the Crusades were excusable? For what reason, pray tell? but the one thing they have proven is only the Catholic Church has a direct lineage back to Jesus
Wrong. Want me to post my Church’s "direct lineage" and prove you to be full of hot air? , all other Christian Churches are pale (at best) imitations of the Catholic Church.
Rather the Roman church is an imitation of the real thing. It’s close, closer than the rest of the protestant world for the most part, but still not Catholic. In XC, Bari Stepanovich IC XC –+– "Lord Jesus Christ, Son of God, have mercy on me, a sinner." NI KA
Response:
While the Pope and the Holy Roman Catholic Church keep seeking a reunion form the Great Schism, as Christ wants, you have just proven that you are not with Christ, or His plans. Yup, it’s called the Bible. Try reading it sometime.
The mind of God is revealed to each man through the personal interpretation of Scripture? What a postively Protestant idea. See, I KNEW you were a protestant. :-) Rome would just love to try to subjugate the Church in it’s neverending desire for more ecclesiastical power, but that can never happen. If the "gates of Hell" won’t prevail against the Church, the papists certainly won’t. It doesn’t have to try for more power, it has the Holy Spirit with it, and there is no higher power.
It did once. It chose worldly power and and wealth over Truth. You can’t serve both God and mammon. The Schism will be repaired when the bishop of Rome and all of his followers renounce their heresies and rejoin with the Church. Only then will the Roman church be "Catholic" again. No more supreme papacy, no more "infallibility", no more universal jurisdiction. The pope will become just another bishop. Just the way it once was. Good grief, you really do need to read the Bible. Though I’m starting to get the feeling that even those of your own religion see you as backslidden, and wrong.
You used to be a Baptist or a Pentecostal, I’d bet. That’s one of their favorite codewords. Just because you are ignorant of history, don’t assume everyone else is. In XC, Bari Stepanovich IC XC –+– "Lord Jesus Christ, Son of God, have mercy on me, a sinner." NI KA
Response:
Yup, it’s called the Bible. Try reading it sometime. The mind of God is revealed to each man through the personal interpretation of Scripture? What a postively Protestant idea. See, I KNEW you were a protestant. :-)
You wish I was, they are easily defeated in a debate, since they are so far removed from the Truth. So is that your only come back for being illiterate of the Bible? It did once. It chose worldly power and and wealth over Truth. You can’t serve both God and mammon.
Interesting on how you use the paste tense in your words. You used to be a Baptist or a Pentecostal, I’d bet. That’s one of their favorite codewords.
Don’t bet the farm yet, you missed the obvious that used that word, because it seems you would be more familiar with it. I’m a "Womb to tomb" Roman Catholic. Just because you are ignorant of history, don’t assume everyone else is.
You’ll wish I was. When it comes to you rewriting history, you’ll find historical buffs like me, to be your worst nightmare.
Response:
Actually, atheistic circles, that could care a less about any religion. The love for accurate history is what drives them. The ironic part is they mostly attack the Catholic Church (Crusades, Inquisitions, etc), The Inquisition and the Crusades were excusable? For what reason, pray tell?
Who said they were excusable? I was making the point that the historical references I studied, where no where near Pro Roman Catholic, and yet they still support my end of this debate, and not yours. but the one thing they have proven is only the Catholic Church has a direct lineage back to Jesus Wrong.
Well wrong in the since that your religion has to go through mine to get to Jesus. Want me to post my Church’s "direct lineage" and prove you to be full of hot air?
Sure, with it’s source cited. , all other Christian Churches are pale (at best) imitations of the Catholic Church. Rather the Roman church is an imitation of the real thing. It’s close, closer than the rest of the protestant world for the most part, but still not Catholic.
Well with your limited knowledge of history, I can see you making such a statement.
Response:
Brachypodium, I am not going to further attempt to discern the why’s on why Protestants don’t follow the Pope, or any particular body for determining questions of Scripture. It seems quite evident that private interpretation is NOT a good way to run a Church, however. < That is exactly why Protestants of all sorts, and the Old Catholics too, will not accept the RCC and its papal infallibility.
Regarding Orthodox Catholics, the main reason for the split was secular politics. There are a few differences in doctrine, but they are minor. (at least to my layman’s eyes) As for Protestants, I would greatly appreciate you showing me the advantage to private interpretation over a unified doctrine? – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – I find it difficult to believe that Jesus, who we (including Protestants) say is/was God, but did not instill in His new founded Church any unity of principles or doctrines. When one looks at history, it becomes evident that the Catholic Church is the not the author, nor consequently can she be their arbiter; she is only their depositary and their interpreter of such doctrines. When one reads about the formation of doctrine (Newman), one can very readily see the need for Papal rule. As to "rule of the Holy Spirit", I find this a crutch that Protestants overruse. One needs only to look at the 40,000 some denominations of Protestants and compare with the Catholic Church, the depositary and interpreter of the Word of God for 2000 years. Unless you are prescribing 40,000 seperate Holy Spirits?< If you will look around this NG you will find a good answer to that. It does seem quite extraordinary how RCs new to a NG turn up just in time to miss something.
I apologize that I am a "Johnny come lately" regarding the Catholic faith and this NG. However, if you could be so kind as to explain your point again? There is nothing whatever that any pope can tell Christians, because the Holy Spirit goes far beyond anything that a pope can say, and much more reliably too. The least of the Christians will condemn the best of the popes.
You haven’t said anything new here. Please show me the advantages of having thousands of seperate "divinely inspired" doctrines that turn into 40,000 different religions… I think it is easier to believe that the Holy Spirit inspires one man (pope) rather than 40,000 seperate Holy Spirits. I don’t care to fathom your motives. I am human, and cannot judge you. However, I find your arguments weak and unconvincing regarding the "false security and much too lax, the rule of the Holy Spirit being much safer". This doesn’t follow when looking at the history of Christianity. I think you would find a lot of people would disagree with you very heartily!
That goes without saying. But one can expect that everyone does not know the truth. Otherwise, there is no need of faith. Sincerely, Joe Kussey
Response:
The Prots would have to explain why the Holy Spirit waited 1,500+ years after Jesus to start a Church going. He didn’t have to wait. That Church was and is alive and well. Your ancestors left it (officially) in 1054.
Well thanks for PROVING that you are not one with Christ. While the Pope and the Holy Roman Catholic Church keep seeking a reunion form the Great Schism, as Christ wants, you have just proven that you are not with Christ, or His plans. Basically, only the weak of mind could fall for such Protestant deceptions. You should talk….. You’ve swallowed a fabricated papal "history" hook, line and sinker.
Spoken like a true Protestant. Too bad I went to secular, some atheistic, historical resources to do my learning, and you’re way off.
Response:
– Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – The Prots would have to explain why the Holy Spirit waited 1,500+ years after Jesus to start a Church going. He didn’t have to wait. That Church was and is alive and well. Your ancestors left it (officially) in 1054. Well thanks for PROVING that you are not one with Christ. I have no need to prove anything to you.
Dang straight Skippy, and since you can’t prove your hogwash, don’t bother trying either. While the Pope and the Holy Roman Catholic Church keep seeking a reunion form the Great Schism, as Christ wants, you have just proven that you are not with Christ, or His plans.
Yup, it’s called the Bible. Try reading it sometime. Rome would just love to try to subjugate the Church in it’s neverending desire for more ecclesiastical power, but that can never happen. If the "gates of Hell" won’t prevail against the Church, the papists certainly won’t.
It doesn’t have to try for more power, it has the Holy Spirit with it, and there is no higher power. The Schism will be repaired when the bishop of Rome and all of his followers renounce their heresies and rejoin with the Church. Only then will the Roman church be "Catholic" again. No more supreme papacy, no more "infallibility", no more universal jurisdiction. The pope will become just another bishop. Just the way it once was.
Good grief, you really do need to read the Bible. Though I’m starting to get the feeling that even those of your own religion see you as backslidden, and wrong. In XC, Bari Stepanovich
* – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – IC XC –+– "Lord Jesus Christ, Son of God, have mercy on me, a sinner." NI KA
Response:
– Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – Well hey, thanks for proving my point, "only the weak of mind could fall for such Protestant deceptions." it is so clear that you have read books that are considered jokes in purist historian circles.< By ‘purist’ I think you may mean ‘Catholic’. If there are factual errors in this account, then it should be easy for you to point them out. I personally have yet to find a Catholic ‘historian’ who did not reinvent history, and it is not in the least surprising that Catholics are surprised by the truth. b.
Actually, atheistic circles, that could care a less about any religion. The love for accurate history is what drives them. The ironic part is they mostly attack the Catholic Church (Crusades, Inquisitions, etc), but the one thing they have proven is only the Catholic Church has a direct lineage back to Jesus, all other Christian Churches are pale (at best) imitations of the Catholic Church.
Response:
– Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – The Prots would have to explain why the Holy Spirit waited 1,500+ years after Jesus to start a Church going. He didn’t have to wait. That Church was and is alive and well. Your ancestors left it (officially) in 1054. Well thanks for PROVING that you are not one with Christ.
I have no need to prove anything to you. While the Pope and the Holy Roman Catholic Church keep seeking a reunion form the Great Schism, as Christ wants, you have just proven that you are not with Christ, or His plans.
Rome would just love to try to subjugate the Church in it’s neverending desire for more ecclesiastical power, but that can never happen. If the "gates of Hell" won’t prevail against the Church, the papists certainly won’t. The Schism will be repaired when the bishop of Rome and all of his followers renounce their heresies and rejoin with the Church. Only then will the Roman church be "Catholic" again. No more supreme papacy, no more "infallibility", no more universal jurisdiction. The pope will become just another bishop. Just the way it once was. In XC, Bari Stepanovich IC XC –+– "Lord Jesus Christ, Son of God, have mercy on me, a sinner." NI KA
Response:
Well hey, thanks for proving my point, "only the weak of mind could fall for such Protestant deceptions." it is so clear that you have read books that are considered jokes in purist historian circles.<
By ‘purist’ I think you may mean ‘Catholic’. If there are factual errors in this account, then it should be easy for you to point them out. I personally have yet to find a Catholic ‘historian’ who did not reinvent history, and it is not in the least surprising that Catholics are surprised by the truth. b. – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – That may be so, Joe. On the other hand, it may be that some Protestants at least think that the rule of a Pope is a false security and much too lax, the rule of the Holy Spirit being much safer, if more demanding. The Prots would have to explain why the Holy Spirit waited 1,500+ years after Jesus to start a Church going. Once they got passed that, they’d have to explain why Jesus "lied" when he said the gates of hell would never prevail against His Church. Basically, only the weak of mind could fall for such Protestant deceptions.< Only a dullard could believe that the history of the RCC has any connection with the church as found in the book of Acts, except as its antithesis, as was predicted in that book and in others in the NT. Only a simpleton could believe that those who later claimed to be the descendants of faith were not somehow the inheritors of those who were the persecutors of followers of ‘the Way’, those whom Jesus said would be ‘thrown out of the synagogues’. Quite apart from glossing over the disqualifying behaviour of the RCC, its members also frequently blind themselves with a constricted view of RCC chronology. Even the recorded history of Western Europe, which, by its very nature cannot be other than hopelessly partial, does not reveal a monolithic uniformity of belief; not by a long way. There hardly a period in the West in which dissent from Romanism is not actually on record in one way or another. Papalism itself was saved only by an 8th C. political deal with a crooked and pagan tribal dynasty, whose first ‘Christian’ leader was a murderer (and approved by the ‘Church’ as such). The need of the Franks for the boost to its survival chances that a false religion could lend was met with the arrival of a man whose only chance of survival depended on finding someone with military strength who would believe his story that he somehow represented a god. Who but a complete nincompoop could believe that the God of the Red Sea Exodus, of Elijah, the Resurrection and Pentecost would have to resort to that! After the death of Charlemagne the papacy continued to exert influence, but again, not because it had spiritual virtue but because it protected vested interests. This influence was aumented by further worldly means. By virtue of probably the greatest fraud in history, the Papacy gained political control of much of Italy, which allowed it to gain the worldly power that gives it the numeric mass it has today. But the Papacy has always been subject to controversion, in practical ways if not theological; opposition to it seems to have grown with its own secular power. The confidence in Papalism certainly did not last even until 1500, even though those who disagreed had to face the certainty of coercion if they lacked protection. Luther was no forerunner, but a johnny-come-lately to misguide the protestors as far as possible, and in the end to save the RCC. Before him came Huss, Wyclif and the Lollards and other groups that had more than enough of the truth as far as the RCC was concerned. In the mid- and late14th C. there were preachers in Bohemia stressing that the Scriptures are the rule of life. In 1324 in Paris the rector of the university, Marsilius, together with John of Jandun published the view that the New Testament is the final authority in the church; that the legislative power in the church is the whole body of believers; that ‘priests’ and bishops are equivalents; that the pope has no authority over any other bishop. Before that, the King of France, Philip IV, denounced Boniface VIII as a heretic and morally depraved, and had him imprisoned. In this period there were in Germany and Switzerland the ‘friends of God’, who disdained outward appearance, ceremonies and dead works, but wrote of ‘God being born within’. What is certain is that the so-called Catholic Church was neither catholic nor the church. That does not mean that there was no real church, however. We do not know what all people alive today actually think; the Dark and Medieval ages are even more closed to us in this regard, and this is largely due to the aggressive censorship of the RCC. Whether there were those in the West who lived knowing that they were justified by their faith we do not know; it is quite likely to be so, because had there been no genuine church there would hardly have been ‘need’ for a false one. Even if it was not so, it cannot be said that God’s ways have been thwarted, or that the gates of hell have prevailed. Only a fool would suppose that. brachypodium
Response:
Well hey, thanks for proving my point, "only the weak of mind could fall for such Protestant deceptions." it is so clear that you have read books that are considered jokes in purist historian circles.
– Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – That may be so, Joe. On the other hand, it may be that some Protestants at least think that the rule of a Pope is a false security and much too lax, the rule of the Holy Spirit being much safer, if more demanding. The Prots would have to explain why the Holy Spirit waited 1,500+ years after Jesus to start a Church going. Once they got passed that, they’d have to explain why Jesus "lied" when he said the gates of hell would never prevail against His Church. Basically, only the weak of mind could fall for such Protestant deceptions.< Only a dullard could believe that the history of the RCC has any connection with the church as found in the book of Acts, except as its antithesis, as was predicted in that book and in others in the NT. Only a simpleton could believe that those who later claimed to be the descendants of faith were not somehow the inheritors of those who were the persecutors of followers of ‘the Way’, those whom Jesus said would be ‘thrown out of the synagogues’. Quite apart from glossing over the disqualifying behaviour of the RCC, its members also frequently blind themselves with a constricted view of RCC chronology. Even the recorded history of Western Europe, which, by its very nature cannot be other than hopelessly partial, does not reveal a monolithic uniformity of belief; not by a long way. There hardly a period in the West in which dissent from Romanism is not actually on record in one way or another. Papalism itself was saved only by an 8th C. political deal with a crooked and pagan tribal dynasty, whose first ‘Christian’ leader was a murderer (and approved by the ‘Church’ as such). The need of the Franks for the boost to its survival chances that a false religion could lend was met with the arrival of a man whose only chance of survival depended on finding someone with military strength who would believe his story that he somehow represented a god. Who but a complete nincompoop could believe that the God of the Red Sea Exodus, of Elijah, the Resurrection and Pentecost would have to resort to that! After the death of Charlemagne the papacy continued to exert influence, but again, not because it had spiritual virtue but because it protected vested interests. This influence was aumented by further worldly means. By virtue of probably the greatest fraud in history, the Papacy gained political control of much of Italy, which allowed it to gain the worldly power that gives it the numeric mass it has today. But the Papacy has always been subject to controversion, in practical ways if not theological; opposition to it seems to have grown with its own secular power. The confidence in Papalism certainly did not last even until 1500, even though those who disagreed had to face the certainty of coercion if they lacked protection. Luther was no forerunner, but a johnny-come-lately to misguide the protestors as far as possible, and in the end to save the RCC. Before him came Huss, Wyclif and the Lollards and other groups that had more than enough of the truth as far as the RCC was concerned. In the mid- and late14th C. there were preachers in Bohemia stressing that the Scriptures are the rule of life. In 1324 in Paris the rector of the university, Marsilius, together with John of Jandun published the view that the New Testament is the final authority in the church; that the legislative power in the church is the whole body of believers; that ‘priests’ and bishops are equivalents; that the pope has no authority over any other bishop. Before that, the King of France, Philip IV, denounced Boniface VIII as a heretic and morally depraved, and had him imprisoned. In this period there were in Germany and Switzerland the ‘friends of God’, who disdained outward appearance, ceremonies and dead works, but wrote of ‘God being born within’. What is certain is that the so-called Catholic Church was neither catholic nor the church. That does not mean that there was no real church, however. We do not know what all people alive today actually think; the Dark and Medieval ages are even more closed to us in this regard, and this is largely due to the aggressive censorship of the RCC. Whether there were those in the West who lived knowing that they were justified by their faith we do not know; it is quite likely to be so, because had there been no genuine church there would hardly have been ‘need’ for a false one. Even if it was not so, it cannot be said that God’s ways have been thwarted, or that the gates of hell have prevailed. Only a fool would suppose that. brachypodium
Response:
That may be so, Joe. On the other hand, it may be that some Protestants at least think that the rule of a Pope is a false security and much too lax, the rule of the Holy Spirit being much safer, if more demanding. The Prots would have to explain why the Holy Spirit waited 1,500+ years after Jesus to start a Church going.
He didn’t have to wait. That Church was and is alive and well. Your ancestors left it (officially) in 1054. Once they got passed that, they’d have to explain why Jesus "lied" when he said the gates of hell would never prevail against His Church.
And, praise God, they have not. The Church has withstood the attacks of Pagans, Muslims, papist crusaders and Soviets (among others). It will continue on until Christ returns. Basically, only the weak of mind could fall for such Protestant deceptions.
You should talk….. You’ve swallowed a fabricated papal "history" hook, line and sinker. In XC, Bari Stepanovich IC XC –+– "Lord Jesus Christ, Son of God, have mercy on me, a sinner." NI KA
Response:
– Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – Brachpodium, Also, it is quite clear in Early Christian writings that Peter had the pre-eminent position. Unfortunately, many Protestants disregard all of this as they don’t like the Pope dictating scripture or rules to them.< That may be so, Joe. On the other hand, it may be that some Protestants at least think that the rule of a Pope is a false security and much too lax, the rule of the Holy Spirit being much safer, if more demanding. I am not going to further attempt to discern the why’s on why Protestants don’t follow the Pope, or any particular body for determining questions of Scripture. It seems quite evident that private interpretation is NOT a good way to run a Church, however. <
That is exactly why Protestants of all sorts, and the Old Catholics too, will not accept the RCC and its papal infallibility. I find it difficult to believe that Jesus, – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – who we (including Protestants) say is/was God, but did not instill in His new founded Church any unity of principles or doctrines. When one looks at history, it becomes evident that the Catholic Church is the not the author, nor consequently can she be their arbiter; she is only their depositary and their interpreter of such doctrines. When one reads about the formation of doctrine (Newman), one can very readily see the need for Papal rule. As to "rule of the Holy Spirit", I find this a crutch that Protestants overruse. One needs only to look at the 40,000 some denominations of Protestants and compare with the Catholic Church, the depositary and interpreter of the Word of God for 2000 years. Unless you are prescribing 40,000 seperate Holy Spirits?<
If you will look around this NG you will find a good answer to that. It does seem quite extraordinary how RCs new to a NG turn up just in time to miss something. As to being "too lax", this is certainly a joke. Protestants are the ones abandoning crucial morale stands, such as birth control and homosexuality, stands that have stood the test of time in the Catholic Church to this day, despite obvious society decay.<
‘Protestant’ is by no means synonymous with ‘Christian’. The evangelical movement was born out of the worldliness of Lutheranism that seemed to have slipped back into the worldly standards of Catholicism. There is nothing whatever that any pope can tell Christians, because the Holy Spirit goes far beyond anything that a pope can say, and much more reliably too. The least of the Christians will condemn the best of the popes. I don’t care to fathom your motives. I am human, and cannot judge you. However, I find your arguments weak and unconvincing regarding the "false security and much too lax, the rule of the Holy Spirit being much safer". This doesn’t follow when looking at the history of Christianity.
I think you would find a lot of people would disagree with you very heartily! brachypodium
Response:
– Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – That may be so, Joe. On the other hand, it may be that some Protestants at least think that the rule of a Pope is a false security and much too lax, the rule of the Holy Spirit being much safer, if more demanding. The Prots would have to explain why the Holy Spirit waited 1,500+ years after Jesus to start a Church going. Once they got passed that, they’d have to explain why Jesus "lied" when he said the gates of hell would never prevail against His Church. Basically, only the weak of mind could fall for such Protestant deceptions.<
Only a dullard could believe that the history of the RCC has any connection with the church as found in the book of Acts, except as its antithesis, as was predicted in that book and in others in the NT. Only a simpleton could believe that those who later claimed to be the descendants of faith were not somehow the inheritors of those who were the persecutors of followers of ‘the Way’, those whom Jesus said would be ‘thrown out of the synagogues’. Quite apart from glossing over the disqualifying behaviour of the RCC, its members also frequently blind themselves with a constricted view of RCC chronology. Even the recorded history of Western Europe, which, by its very nature cannot be other than hopelessly partial, does not reveal a monolithic uniformity of belief; not by a long way. There hardly a period in the West in which dissent from Romanism is not actually on record in one way or another. Papalism itself was saved only by an 8th C. political deal with a crooked and pagan tribal dynasty, whose first ‘Christian’ leader was a murderer (and approved by the ‘Church’ as such). The need of the Franks for the boost to its survival chances that a false religion could lend was met with the arrival of a man whose only chance of survival depended on finding someone with military strength who would believe his story that he somehow represented a god. Who but a complete nincompoop could believe that the God of the Red Sea Exodus, of Elijah, the Resurrection and Pentecost would have to resort to that! After the death of Charlemagne the papacy continued to exert influence, but again, not because it had spiritual virtue but because it protected vested interests. This influence was aumented by further worldly means. By virtue of probably the greatest fraud in history, the Papacy gained political control of much of Italy, which allowed it to gain the worldly power that gives it the numeric mass it has today. But the Papacy has always been subject to controversion, in practical ways if not theological; opposition to it seems to have grown with its own secular power. The confidence in Papalism certainly did not last even until 1500, even though those who disagreed had to face the certainty of coercion if they lacked protection. Luther was no forerunner, but a johnny-come-lately to misguide the protestors as far as possible, and in the end to save the RCC. Before him came Huss, Wyclif and the Lollards and other groups that had more than enough of the truth as far as the RCC was concerned. In the mid- and late14th C. there were preachers in Bohemia stressing that the Scriptures are the rule of life. In 1324 in Paris the rector of the university, Marsilius, together with John of Jandun published the view that the New Testament is the final authority in the church; that the legislative power in the church is the whole body of believers; that ‘priests’ and bishops are equivalents; that the pope has no authority over any other bishop. Before that, the King of France, Philip IV, denounced Boniface VIII as a heretic and morally depraved, and had him imprisoned. In this period there were in Germany and Switzerland the ‘friends of God’, who disdained outward appearance, ceremonies and dead works, but wrote of ‘God being born within’. What is certain is that the so-called Catholic Church was neither catholic nor the church. That does not mean that there was no real church, however. We do not know what all people alive today actually think; the Dark and Medieval ages are even more closed to us in this regard, and this is largely due to the aggressive censorship of the RCC. Whether there were those in the West who lived knowing that they were justified by their faith we do not know; it is quite likely to be so, because had there been no genuine church there would hardly have been ‘need’ for a false one. Even if it was not so, it cannot be said that God’s ways have been thwarted, or that the gates of hell have prevailed. Only a fool would suppose that. brachypodium
Response:
Brachpodium, Also, it is quite clear in Early Christian writings that Peter had the pre-eminent position. Unfortunately, many Protestants disregard all of this as they don’t like the Pope dictating scripture or rules to them.< That may be so, Joe. On the other hand, it may be that some Protestants at least think that the rule of a Pope is a false security and much too lax, the rule of the Holy Spirit being much safer, if more demanding.
I am not going to further attempt to discern the why’s on why Protestants don’t follow the Pope, or any particular body for determining questions of Scripture. It seems quite evident that private interpretation is NOT a good way to run a Church, however. I find it difficult to believe that Jesus, who we (including Protestants) say is/was God, but did not instill in His new founded Church any unity of principles or doctrines. When one looks at history, it becomes evident that the Catholic Church is the not the author, nor consequently can she be their arbiter; she is only their depositary and their interpreter of such doctrines. When one reads about the formation of doctrine (Newman), one can very readily see the need for Papal rule. As to "rule of the Holy Spirit", I find this a crutch that Protestants overruse. One needs only to look at the 40,000 some denominations of Protestants and compare with the Catholic Church, the depositary and interpreter of the Word of God for 2000 years. Unless you are prescribing 40,000 seperate Holy Spirits? As to being "too lax", this is certainly a joke. Protestants are the ones abandoning crucial morale stands, such as birth control and homosexuality, stands that have stood the test of time in the Catholic Church to this day, despite obvious society decay. I don’t care to fathom your motives. I am human, and cannot judge you. However, I find your arguments weak and unconvincing regarding the "false security and much too lax, the rule of the Holy Spirit being much safer". This doesn’t follow when looking at the history of Christianity. Sincerely, Joe Kussey
Response:
– Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – Jason, Sam did a good job with your arguments, but I would like to add my two cents also. Let’s consider the papacy as an example. Even though generations of early Christians lived and died without explicitly saying anything about a papacy in their many writings, Catholics suggest that we should see vague allusions to a papacy in some of what these people wrote. It can’t be denied that people like the apostle Paul, Ignatius, and Clement of Alexandria wrote at length on issues of Christian doctrine and church government without referring to any office of Pope. We’re told by Catholics, though, that we should see ALLUSIONS to a papacy in something like Matthew 16:18-19 or Ignatius referring to the Roman church "presiding in love". All letters, epistles, and such do not have to necessarily go through the Pope, even more so during 100 AD. Bishops are given authority to teach to their lay members, as long as they do not teach heresy. As to allusions regarding Matthew 16, I have just completed a long drawn out discussion under "Protestant Inventions". I have found that for some reason, many Protestants refuse the fact that Jesus is the builder giving authority to Peter (keys). Now, if we go to OT (Isiah) , we see that the keys are a symbol of authority. Sort of like when the owner of the house leaves, and puts the head servant in charge. The head servant has the authority to make decisions. But he is not the owner per sec. This analogy is similar to what Catholics believe regarding the Church. Jesus is the master, the Pope is the head servant on earth. This is quite clear in the OT and in Matthew. Also, it is quite clear in Early Christian writings that Peter had the pre-eminent position. Unfortunately, many Protestants disregard all of this as they don’t like the Pope dictating scripture or rules to them.<
That may be so, Joe. On the other hand, it may be that some Protestants at least think that the rule of a Pope is a false security and much too lax, the rule of the Holy Spirit being much safer, if more demanding. brachypodium
Response:
That may be so, Joe. On the other hand, it may be that some Protestants at least think that the rule of a Pope is a false security and much too lax, the rule of the Holy Spirit being much safer, if more demanding.
The Prots would have to explain why the Holy Spirit waited 1,500+ years after Jesus to start a Church going. Once they got passed that, they’d have to explain why Jesus "lied" when he said the gates of hell would never prevail against His Church. Basically, only the weak of mind could fall for such Protestant deceptions.
Response:
That may be so, Joe. On the other hand, it may be that some Protestants at least think that the rule of a Pope is a false security and much too lax, the rule of the Holy Spirit being much safer, if more demanding. The Prots would have to explain why the Holy Spirit waited 1,500+ years after Jesus to start a Church going. Once they got passed that, they’d have to explain why Jesus "lied" when he said the gates of hell would never prevail against His Church.
Errr are you ignorant from wish or do you just come naturally to it. The "Prots" you refer to are people who believed the catholic church had turned from god so they believe they were doing what god wanted and were taking the faithful back to him. Basically, only the weak of mind could fall for such Protestant deceptions.
It is children like you who will scream loudest when somebody insults catholicism. — Alan Ferris eligo, ergo sum Atheist #1211 EAC(UK)#252 Ironic Torture Div. When the only colour is black – the only sound the broken bell THEN talk to me about why. Spike Milligan www.arcerland.com ICQ UIN: 12811297
Response:
Jason, Sam did a good job with your arguments, but I would like to add my two cents also. – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – Let’s consider the papacy as an example. Even though generations of early Christians lived and died without explicitly saying anything about a papacy in their many writings, Catholics suggest that we should see vague allusions to a papacy in some of what these people wrote. It can’t be denied that people like the apostle Paul, Ignatius, and Clement of Alexandria wrote at length on issues of Christian doctrine and church government without referring to any office of Pope. We’re told by Catholics, though, that we should see ALLUSIONS to a papacy in something like Matthew 16:18-19 or Ignatius referring to the Roman church "presiding in love".
All letters, epistles, and such do not have to necessarily go through the Pope, even more so during 100 AD. Bishops are given authority to teach to their lay members, as long as they do not teach heresy. As to allusions regarding Matthew 16, I have just completed a long drawn out discussion under "Protestant Inventions". I have found that for some reason, many Protestants refuse the fact that Jesus is the builder giving authority to Peter (keys). Now, if we go to OT (Isiah) , we see that the keys are a symbol of authority. Sort of like when the owner of the house leaves, and puts the head servant in charge. The head servant has the authority to make decisions. But he is not the owner per sec. This analogy is similar to what Catholics believe regarding the Church. Jesus is the master, the Pope is the head servant on earth. This is quite clear in the OT and in Matthew. Also, it is quite clear in Early Christian writings that Peter had the pre-eminent position. Unfortunately, many Protestants disregard all of this as they don’t like the Pope dictating scripture or rules to them. This bias tends to blind them on the clearness of Papacy. Catholics wouldn’t need to appeal to a speculative interpretation of a passage like Matthew 16 in order to find alleged New Testament references to a papacy. And people like Justin Martyr and Clement of Alexandria wouldn’t write at length about Christian beliefs and practice without ever mentioning the infallible Vicar of Christ.
I disagree that Matthew 16 is speculative. Jesus specifically gives Peter authority. "I give YOU the keys…" "What YOU bind on earth…" This seems quite clear. It’s just a speculative possibility, and it’s one that the earliest post-apostolic interpreters of Matthew 16 knew nothing about. (For example, people like Tertullian, Origen, and Cyprian viewed Peter as the rock of Matthew 16 WITHOUT thereby believing in a papacy. In fact, they repeatedly contradicted the concept of the papacy.)
As to Cyprian…"Cornelius was made bishop {of Rome}by the judgement of God and of His Christ. This was by the testimony of almost all the clergy, by the election of the people who were then present, and by the assembly of ancient priests and good men…This occured when the place of Fabian, that is, when the place of Peter and the degree of the priestly chair, was vacant." I have seen some of Cyprian’s comments vs. the Bishop of Rome. He didn’t advocate doing away with the "papacy", but rather was discouraged with "Pope" Stephen’s attitude towards heretics and their Baptism. Recall the historical background at the time. Many Christians committed apostasy to avoid persecution. When these ended, many of these Christians wanted to get back in. Cyprian wanted a more reasonable stand, while others were against apostatics to be let back in. After further reading, it seems to me this was more a political disagreement with a current pope than against the office itself, as there are many statements of positive for Peter… Regarding Tertullian, Origen, and Irenaeus, they subscribed to apostolistic tradition. Origen and Irenaeus esp. believed in the basic doctrine taught by the apostles. Origen felt that a wise spiritual Christian could move beyond these simpler doctrines, as LONG AS HE DOESN’T CONTRADICT THEM (which was not Irenaeus or Terullian’s views) One must be careful citing Origen, as there was much tension between him and the Church, esp. regarding the Trinity. As a matter of fact, he was considered heretic for his views regarding the graded Trinity, as his philosophy was permeated by Platonism. So one must be careful with Origen. I didn’t see anything that Tertullian wrote against the Papacy (Bishop of Rome), so I can’t say much there. Cyprian had political dislikes, but did not dislike the actual position, and Origen felt one shouldn’t contradict when expanding on doctrine…which is why his trinity doctrine uproar surprised him. Likewise, when Ignatius refers to the Roman church "presiding in love" (or "presiding over love" – translations vary), could that be a reference to a papacy? Yes. Could it also be a reference to the Roman church exercising love in its regional (not universal) jurisdiction? Yes. Could it be a reference to the Roman church having a reputation as the most loving church, without any papacy? Yes. There are numerous ways to interpret what Ignatius wrote. The honest and thorough person will admit this.
Taking one instance and ignoring the rest of the evidence makes your point seem correct. However, Catholics, at least the apologists, tend to take the whole picture. Mt. 16, the majority of Church writings on the subject, and other evidence in Scripture (such as Jesus telling Peter to feed my sheep, etc…) But Catholic apologists DESIRE to find a reference to a papacy in early church documents. Thus, alternate interpretations of somebody like Ignatius, even much more reasonable interpretations, are overlooked in favor of an unproven assumption that Ignatius MUST have been referring to a papacy. In reality, if Ignatius had actually believed in a papacy, we would expect him to explicitly mention it.
The term "Papacy" wasn’t in vogue like it is today. Just like transubstantiation wasn’t until some 1200. But the non-existence of terminology and dogma doesn’t mean the non-existence of the idea well before dogma made it into law accepted by the Church. From the earliest days, Peter was given pre-eminent status. There are some 40 different verses I could give you to detail this. Mt. 16 has Jesus giving Peter temporal powers over Church teachings. The Bishop of Rome quickly became the accepted leader of the Church. So to not find the term "papacy" in Ignatius teachings reaches a false conclusion. Sincerely, Joe Kussey
Response:
When defending Roman Catholic doctrine, Catholics often use arguments that they wouldn’t accept from their opponents.
Funny, I’ve noticed the same thing about Protestants, especially in their defense of the twin doctrines of sola scriptura and private interpretation. Even though a doctrine like the papacy, the Immaculate Conception, or the Assumption of Mary is absent or contradicted for hundreds of years, Catholics will use speculative, unverifiable arguments to suggest that we should accept those doctrines
anyway. Actually, Catholics have no need to defend these doctrines at all. Believing, however, that all should have the opportunity to come to the fullness of truth, they present support for those doctrines utilizing bases for arguments that those with a Bible-alone mentality are most likely to find cogent, in the hope that they will come to recognize the truth. They’ll say that a papacy is ALLUDED TO in a passage in Ignatius, or that an immaculate conception of Mary MIGHT exist in SEED form in something Justin Martyr wrote, for example. But what if an Eastern Orthodox, an Anglican, or a Mormon was to use similar logic to defend doctrines that Catholics reject? Would Catholics find such logic convincing?
Probably not, but your argument presupposes that Catholics are dependent upon such arguments for their own beliefs, which is a false assumption. – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – Let’s consider the papacy as an example. Even though generations of early Christians lived and died without explicitly saying anything about a papacy in their many writings, Catholics suggest that we should see vague allusions to a papacy in some of what these people wrote. It can’t be denied that people like the apostle Paul, Ignatius, and Clement of Alexandria wrote at length on issues of Christian doctrine and church government without referring to any office of Pope. We’re told by Catholics, though, that we should see ALLUSIONS to a papacy in something like Matthew 16:18-19 or Ignatius referring to the Roman church "presiding in love".
Actualy, the Matthew 16 passage is far more than an "allusion," it is a direct delegation of authority. As to the strength of these historical arguments, they are based on the recognition that there is no reason whatsoever to believe that the papacy, at its inception, would resemble the "mature" papacy of later centuries. – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – There are some problems with this Catholic argument, however: 1.) The RCC has taught that a papacy with universal jurisdiction was universally recognized as such as early as the time of Peter (First Vatican Council, session 4, chapters 1-3; Catechism of the Catholic Church, 834). The First Vatican Council even makes the absurd claim that the papacy is a CLEAR doctrine of scripture EVER understood by the Christian church, one which only the PERVERSE would deny (session 4, chapter 1). If these claims of the RCC were actually true, we wouldn’t see dozens of passages on church government in the New Testament without any of them referring to an office of Pope.
This argument makes the mistake of assuming that Catholics do not recognize development in the office of the papacy. The first century Church was the mustard seed that grew into today’s Church; just as we would not expect the mustard seed to resemble the mature plant, so we should not expect the nascent Church to embody all of the fully-developed characteristics of today’s Church. Catholics wouldn’t need to appeal to a speculative interpretation of a passage like Matthew 16 in order to find alleged New Testament references to a papacy. And people like Justin Martyr and Clement of Alexandria wouldn’t write at length about Christian beliefs and practice without ever mentioning the infallible Vicar of Christ.
Catholics don’t need to appeal to anything whatsoever to justify the Church. That they do so is a measure of their desire to bring the truth to all in terms that all can understand. 2.) When Catholics cite something like Matthew 16 or quote what Ignatius said about the Roman church, they’re citing evidence that can reasonably be interpreted in numerous ways. Is it possible that Peter could be the rock of Matthew 16 by serving as a Pope? Yes. Is it also possible that he could be a rock in the same way as the other apostles (Ephesians 2:20)? Yes. Is it possible that Peter could be a rock in other ways as well, such as by playing a prominent role in the establishing of the Christian church, as we see in the early chapters of Acts? Yes.
Sure, Peter could easily be, and probably was, a rock in all these senses. In fact, all believers are "rocks" or "stones" in the building of the Body of Christ. Peter was also and primarily, however, the rock upon which Jesus stated He would build His Church; in addition, Peter was the only one among the Apostles to whom Jesus promised the keys of the Kingdom, adding a delegation of authority inconsistent with Protestant interpretations of the Matthew passage. The papal interpretation of Matthew 16 is far from conclusive. It’s not even probable.
It’s the most probable interpretation. If you want to start a separate thread to discuss this, I’ll be glad to respond. – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – It’s just a speculative possibility, and it’s one that the earliest post-apostolic interpreters of Matthew 16 knew nothing about. (For example, people like Tertullian, Origen, and Cyprian viewed Peter as the rock of Matthew 16 WITHOUT thereby believing in a papacy. In fact, they repeatedly contradicted the concept of the papacy.) Likewise, when Ignatius refers to the Roman church "presiding in love" (or "presiding over love" – translations vary), could that be a reference to a papacy? Yes. Could it also be a reference to the Roman church exercising love in its regional (not universal) jurisdiction? Yes. Could it be a reference to the Roman church having a reputation as the most loving church, without any papacy? Yes. There are numerous ways to interpret what Ignatius wrote. The honest and thorough person will admit this.
This proves nothing, other than that the early evidence outside the Bible is equivocal. This should hardly be surprising, since there is, contrary to what you write further above, nothing in Catholic belief requiring that the early papacy be identical to the later papacy; latent but inherent authority is still authority, even though not exercised. But Catholic apologists DESIRE to find a reference to a papacy in early church documents. Thus, alternate interpretations of somebody like Ignatius, even much more reasonable interpretations, are overlooked in favor of an unproven assumption that Ignatius MUST have been referring to a papacy. In reality, if Ignatius had actually believed in a papacy, we would expect him to explicitly mention it. After all, he repeatedly and explicitly wrote about OTHER church offices. Church government was one of his most emphasized themes in his letters. Yet, he never mentions a papacy.
Your argument is anachronistic. The papacy is of little practical importance when you are writing about the government of local churches, especially in an age when communications were slow and unreliable, and the Church was "underground" and subject to periodic persecution. The papacy became more "important" when its external circumstances changed and questions arose that were of importance to the whole Church. The papacy, for example, played a major part in the first ecumenical Council, Nicaea. – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – In my next post, I want to illustrate how the logic Catholics use to argue for an early papacy could also be used to reach other absurd conclusions. Was the apostle Paul a Pope? Jason http://members.aol.com/jasonte
Response:
– Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – When defending Roman Catholic doctrine, Catholics often use arguments that they wouldn’t accept from their opponents. Even though a doctrine like the papacy, the Immaculate Conception, or the Assumption of Mary is absent or contradicted for hundreds of years, Catholics will use speculative, unverifiable arguments to suggest that we should accept those doctrines anyway. They’ll say that a papacy is ALLUDED TO in a passage in Ignatius, or that an immaculate conception of Mary MIGHT exist in SEED form in something Justin Martyr wrote, for example. But what if an Eastern Orthodox, an Anglican, or a Mormon was to use similar logic to defend doctrines that Catholics reject? Would Catholics find such logic convincing? Let’s consider the papacy as an example. Even though generations of early Christians lived and died without explicitly saying anything about a papacy in their many writings, Catholics suggest that we should see vague allusions to a papacy in some of what these people wrote. It can’t be denied that people like the apostle Paul, Ignatius, and Clement of Alexandria wrote at length on issues of Christian doctrine and church government without referring to any office of Pope. We’re told by Catholics, though, that we should see ALLUSIONS to a papacy in something like Matthew 16:18-19 or Ignatius referring to the Roman church "presiding in love". There are some problems with this Catholic argument, however: 1.) The RCC has taught that a papacy with universal jurisdiction was universally recognized as such as early as the time of Peter (First Vatican Council, session 4, chapters 1-3; Catechism of the Catholic Church, 834). The First Vatican Council even makes the absurd claim that the papacy is a CLEAR doctrine of scripture EVER understood by the Christian church, one which only the PERVERSE would deny (session 4, chapter 1). If these claims of the RCC were actually true, we wouldn’t see dozens of passages on church government in the New Testament without any of them referring to an office of Pope. Catholics wouldn’t need to appeal to a speculative interpretation of a passage like Matthew 16 in order to find alleged New Testament references to a papacy. And people like Justin Martyr and Clement of Alexandria wouldn’t write at length about Christian beliefs and practice without ever mentioning the infallible Vicar of Christ. 2.) When Catholics cite something like Matthew 16 or quote what Ignatius said about the Roman church, they’re citing evidence that can reasonably be interpreted in numerous ways. Is it possible that Peter could be the rock of Matthew 16 by serving as a Pope? Yes. Is it also possible that he could be a rock in the same way as the other apostles (Ephesians 2:20)? Yes. Is it possible that Peter could be a rock in other ways as well, such as by playing a prominent role in the establishing of the Christian church, as we see in the early chapters of Acts? Yes. The papal interpretation of Matthew 16 is far from conclusive. It’s not even probable. It’s just a speculative possibility, and it’s one that the earliest post-apostolic interpreters of Matthew 16 knew nothing about. (For example, people like Tertullian, Origen, and Cyprian viewed Peter as the rock of Matthew 16 WITHOUT thereby believing in a papacy. In fact, they repeatedly contradicted the concept of the papacy.) Likewise, when Ignatius refers to the Roman church "presiding in love" (or "presiding over love" – translations vary), could that be a reference to a papacy? Yes. Could it also be a reference to the Roman church exercising love in its regional (not universal) jurisdiction? Yes. Could it be a reference to the Roman church having a reputation as the most loving church, without any papacy? Yes. There are numerous ways to interpret what Ignatius wrote. The honest and thorough person will admit this. But Catholic apologists DESIRE to find a reference to a papacy in early church documents. Thus, alternate interpretations of somebody like Ignatius, even much more reasonable interpretations, are overlooked in favor of an unproven assumption that Ignatius MUST have been referring to a papacy. In reality, if Ignatius had actually believed in a papacy, we would expect him to explicitly mention it. After all, he repeatedly and explicitly wrote about OTHER church offices. Church government was one of his most emphasized themes in his letters. Yet, he never mentions a papacy. In my next post, I want to illustrate how the logic Catholics use to argue for an early papacy could also be used to reach other absurd conclusions. Was the apostle Paul a Pope?
Maybe you should take another attempt at this topic? Your argument was weak at best, arrogant at worst. +JMJ; M. – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text -Jason http://members.aol.com/jasonte
Response:
When defending Roman Catholic doctrine, Catholics often use arguments that they wouldn’t accept from their opponents. Even though a doctrine like the papacy, the Immaculate Conception, or the Assumption of Mary is absent or contradicted for hundreds of years, Catholics will use speculative, unverifiable arguments to suggest that we should accept those doctrines anyway. They’ll say that a papacy is ALLUDED TO in a passage in Ignatius, or that an immaculate conception of Mary MIGHT exist in SEED form in something Justin Martyr wrote, for example. But what if an Eastern Orthodox, an Anglican, or a Mormon was to use similar logic to defend doctrines that Catholics reject? Would Catholics find such logic convincing? Let’s consider the papacy as an example. Even though generations of early Christians lived and died without explicitly saying anything about a papacy in their many writings, Catholics suggest that we should see vague allusions to a papacy in some of what these people wrote. It can’t be denied that people like the apostle Paul, Ignatius, and Clement of Alexandria wrote at length on issues of Christian doctrine and church government without referring to any office of Pope. We’re told by Catholics, though, that we should see ALLUSIONS to a papacy in something like Matthew 16:18-19 or Ignatius referring to the Roman church "presiding in love". There are some problems with this Catholic argument, however: 1.) The RCC has taught that a papacy with universal jurisdiction was universally recognized as such as early as the time of Peter (First Vatican Council, session 4, chapters 1-3; Catechism of the Catholic Church, 834). The First Vatican Council even makes the absurd claim that the papacy is a CLEAR doctrine of scripture EVER understood by the Christian church, one which only the PERVERSE would deny (session 4, chapter 1). If these claims of the RCC were actually true, we wouldn’t see dozens of passages on church government in the New Testament without any of them referring to an office of Pope. Catholics wouldn’t need to appeal to a speculative interpretation of a passage like Matthew 16 in order to find alleged New Testament references to a papacy. And people like Justin Martyr and Clement of Alexandria wouldn’t write at length about Christian beliefs and practice without ever mentioning the infallible Vicar of Christ. 2.) When Catholics cite something like Matthew 16 or quote what Ignatius said about the Roman church, they’re citing evidence that can reasonably be interpreted in numerous ways. Is it possible that Peter could be the rock of Matthew 16 by serving as a Pope? Yes. Is it also possible that he could be a rock in the same way as the other apostles (Ephesians 2:20)? Yes. Is it possible that Peter could be a rock in other ways as well, such as by playing a prominent role in the establishing of the Christian church, as we see in the early chapters of Acts? Yes. The papal interpretation of Matthew 16 is far from conclusive. It’s not even probable. It’s just a speculative possibility, and it’s one that the earliest post-apostolic interpreters of Matthew 16 knew nothing about. (For example, people like Tertullian, Origen, and Cyprian viewed Peter as the rock of Matthew 16 WITHOUT thereby believing in a papacy. In fact, they repeatedly contradicted the concept of the papacy.) Likewise, when Ignatius refers to the Roman church "presiding in love" (or "presiding over love" – translations vary), could that be a reference to a papacy? Yes. Could it also be a reference to the Roman church exercising love in its regional (not universal) jurisdiction? Yes. Could it be a reference to the Roman church having a reputation as the most loving church, without any papacy? Yes. There are numerous ways to interpret what Ignatius wrote. The honest and thorough person will admit this. But Catholic apologists DESIRE to find a reference to a papacy in early church documents. Thus, alternate interpretations of somebody like Ignatius, even much more reasonable interpretations, are overlooked in favor of an unproven assumption that Ignatius MUST have been referring to a papacy. In reality, if Ignatius had actually believed in a papacy, we would expect him to explicitly mention it. After all, he repeatedly and explicitly wrote about OTHER church offices. Church government was one of his most emphasized themes in his letters. Yet, he never mentions a papacy. In my next post, I want to illustrate how the logic Catholics use to argue for an early papacy could also be used to reach other absurd conclusions. Was the apostle Paul a Pope? Jason http://members.aol.com/jasonte
If you like this post and would like to receive updates from this blog, please subscribe our feed.