a question for "Bible Only" churches

[Prodigal_Son1]

If I were you I’d refuse to answer my question too. Good stragegy on your part; dodge and avoid and do it justifing your position against mine. Okay, but we’re at a standstill again.

No, it’s not a standstill and it’s not a dodge. It was a misrepresentation of something you cannot do. I reread your post and it was stated, ‘If I could…’, which obviously you can’t. That’s all I need to know now and I’m sure it reveals a lot to people reading this thread. :tsktsk:

That took the integrity of this discussion down a few notches in my opinion.

 

[CWBetts]

Sorry to say but there’s at least one other posibility and that DO NOT include Jesus being wrong. Of course having your presupposition about the CC being that church, sure you can only come up with the two options you came up with. If your presupposition is wrong, there’s at least one more option as I’ve pointed out.

No protestant community can trace it leadership back to Jesus Christ. NOT ONE. However, the Catholic Church can. Try again. Either you are wrong, or Jesus is. Well there is the option that you think you know more than Jesus…

 

[Dokimas]

No, it’s not a standstill and it’s not a dodge. It was a misrepresentation of something you cannot do. I reread your post and it was stated, ‘If I could…’ That’s all I need to know now and I’m sure it reveals a lot to people reading this thread. :tsktsk:

Oh, make no mistake about it, there’s historical record that tells a different tale that your record does. The ‘if I could’ refers to time, energy, posting space and desire.​

So, IMO, you’re wrong again about me.

 

[Dokimas]

No protestant community can trace it leadership back to Jesus Christ. NOT ONE. However, the Catholic Church can. Try again. Either you are wrong, or Jesus is. Well there is the option that you think you know more than Jesus…

Nice try but no cigar.

 

[wmscott]

Sorry I missed your link. Post it again and I’ll try to see it and look and respond.

The combination “the Catholic Church” (he katholike ekklesia) is found for the first time in the letter of St. Ignatius to the Smyrnaeans (LINK), written about the year 110

Chapter 8. Let nothing be done without the bishop

See that you all follow the bishop, even as Jesus Christ does the Father, and the presbytery as you would the apostles; and reverence the deacons, as being the institution of God. Let no man do anything connected with the Church without the bishop. Let that be deemed a proper Eucharist, which is [administered] either by the bishop, or by one to whom he has entrusted it. Wherever the bishop shall appear, there let the multitude [of the people] also be; even as, wherever Jesus Christ is, there is the Catholic Church. It is not lawful without the bishop either to baptize or to celebrate a love-feast; but whatsoever he shall approve of, that is also pleasing to God, so that everything that is done may be secure and valid.

So being written in 110 AD, do you suppose the term “Catholic Church” just popped up out of thin air at that point in time? Or is it a term that was being used long before then.

 

[jmcrae]

I don’t decern them. I respect their right to their opinion and their personal relationship to Jesus.

You accept without question the opinion of the Bible that was given to you by Pope Innocent I, and the Councils of Hippo, Carthage, and Rome, while rejecting without question the findings (opinions?) of the Council of Ephesus regarding Mary the Mother of Jesus.

On what basis do you accept the one, and reject the other, apart from the fact that you already happen to agree with the one, and disagree with the other?

 

[Prodigal_Son1]

Oh, make no mistake about it, there’s historical record that tells a different tale that your record does. The ‘if I could’ refers to time, energy, posting space and desire.​

So, IMO, you’re wrong again about me.

Sorry, you have taken away from a lot of credibility from your posts now, in my opinion.

In fact, you’ve not responded to the points I made about non-Christian history, that can be found easily.

The bias rings loud and clear now…

 

[CWBetts]

Nice try but no cigar.

“We seem to be at an impasse. I am no match for your physical skill, and you are no match for my intellect” I am sorry…I saw an opening to quote the greatest movie of all time and I took it…

 

[PJM]

=Dokimas;6456104]-
I make no issue about if or when the CC lost the true faith. I believe the CC started in the 300s with Constantine and the true church is made up of ALL true believers (followers) of Jesus the Chrsit, the Son of the Living God, God in Human flesh.​

I do not accept those writings you mentioned as part of the inspired Word of God, the Bible.

***OK, I’ll bite.

So for 313 years after Jesus founded the Church [Mt. 16: 15-19, Eph. 2:14-19] ]it just kinda hung out in the background waiting fro Constantine to permit FREE religious practice of the Faith [of His Mother by the way] and then returning to this [according to you] mystical church [which you say never existed] all of there property?

Friend read the actual words of the Edict of Milan* You can GOOGLE it.

Please forgive my ignorance; but where do you folks come up with these ideas?**

What possible evidence do you have to support such an unusual position

I look foward to learning something I don’t frankly understand.

Love and prayers,

Pat

 

[Dokimas]

The combination “the Catholic Church” (he katholike ekklesia) is found for the first time in the letter of St. Ignatius to the Smyrnaeans (LINK), written about the year 110

Chapter 8. Let nothing be done without the bishop

See that you all follow the bishop, even as Jesus Christ does the Father, and the presbytery as you would the apostles; and reverence the deacons, as being the institution of God. Let no man do anything connected with the Church without the bishop. Let that be deemed a proper Eucharist, which is [administered] either by the bishop, or by one to whom he has entrusted it. Wherever the bishop shall appear, there let the multitude [of the people] also be; even as, wherever Jesus Christ is, there is the Catholic Church. It is not lawful without the bishop either to baptize or to celebrate a love-feast; but whatsoever he shall approve of, that is also pleasing to God, so that everything that is done may be secure and valid.

So being written in 110 AD, do you suppose the term “Catholic Church” just popped up out of thin air at that point in time? Or is it a term that was being used long before then.

Sure looks like Ignatius used the term ‘catholic church’. I have no problem with the term ‘universal’ or ‘catholic’ church. I have a problem with how the term ‘Catholic Church’ is used and what it means today. I dare say it’s quite different that what Ignatius meant.​

You must know about the writings of Ignatius. Did he call Peter the first leader (pope) of this early ‘Catholic Church’?

 

[Nicea325]

Oh, make no mistake about it, there’s historical record that tells a different tale that your record does. The ‘if I could’ refers to time, energy, posting space and desire.​

So, IMO, you’re wrong again about me.

You make claims and cannot even back it up. There IS historical record that tekks a different tale than the CC? I have asked you and others,either provide it or stop trying to convince yourself it does exist.

As I said before,I have heard the same absurd argument from others and not one ever provided:

Oh, make no mistake about it, there’s historical record that tells a different tale that your record does

It is all hot air.

 

[Dokimas]

***OK, I’ll bite.

So for 313 years after Jesus founded the Church [Mt. 16: 15-19, Eph. 2:14-19] ]it just kinda hung out in the background waiting fro Constantine to permit FREE religious practice of the Faith [of His Mother by the way] and then returning to this [according to you] mystical church [which you say never existed] all of there property?

Friend read the actual words of the Edict of Milan*** You can GOOGLE it.

Please forgive my ignorance; but where do you folks come up with these ideas?

What possible evidence do you have to support such an unusual position

I look foward to learning something I don’t frankly understand.

Love and prayers,

Pat

If this is to me, I have no clue what you’re ‘biting’ onto? I do not understand what you think I said and what you want me to do in response to you.

 

[jmcrae]

Sure looks like Ignatius used the term ‘catholic church’. I have no problem with the term ‘universal’ or ‘catholic’ church. I have a problem with how the term ‘Catholic Church’ is used and what it means today. I dare say it’s quite different that what Ignatius meant.​

You must know about the writings of Ignatius. Did he call Peter the first leader (pope) of this early ‘Catholic Church’?

Yes, he did, since it is on the basis of his testimony that St. Irenaeus places St. Peter at the head of his list of Popes.

 

[Prodigal_Son1]

You must know about the writings of Ignatius. Did he call Peter the first leader (pope) of this early ‘Catholic Church’?

Here’s what the Church fathers spoke about the primacy position, prior to the time of Constantine.

Clement of Rome

Accept our counsel and you will have nothing to regret. . . . If anyone disobeys the things which have been said by him [Jesus] through us, let them know that they will involve themselves in no small danger. We, however, shall be innocent of this sin and will pray with entreaty and supplication that the Creator of all may keep unharmed the number of his elect (Letter to the Corinthians 58:2, 59:1[A.D. 95]).

Ignatius of Antioch

You [the See of Rome] have envied no one, but others have you taught. I desire only that what you have enjoined in your instructions may remain in force (Epistle to the Romans 3:1 [A.D. 110]).

Irenaeus

But since it would be too long to enumerate in such a volume as this the succession of all the churches, we shall confound all those who, in whatever manner, whether through self-satisfaction or vainglory, or through blindness and wicked opinion, assemble other than where it is proper, by pointing out here the successions of the bishops of the greatest and most ancient church known to all, founded and organized at Rome by the two most glorious apostles. Peter and Paul, that church which has the tradition and the faith which comes down to us after having been announced to men by the apostles. With that church, because of its superior origin, all the churches must agree, that is, all the faithful in the whole world, and it is in her that the faithful everywhere have maintained the apostolic tradition (Against Heresies 3:3:2 [inter A.D. 180-190]).

Clement of Alexandria

[T]he blessed Peter, the chosen, the preeminent, the first among the disciples, for whom alone with himself the Savior paid the tribute [Matt. 17:27], quickly grasped and understood their meaning. And what does he say? “Behold, we have left all and have followed you” [Matt. 19:2 7, Mark 10:28] (Who is the Rich Man That is Saved? 21:3-5 [A.D. 200]).

Tertullian

[T]he Lord said to Peter, “On this rock I will build my Church, I have given you the keys of the kingdom of heaven [and] whatever you shall have bound or loosed on earth will be bound or loosed in heaven” [Matt. 16:18-19]. … Upon you, he says, I will build my Church; and I will give to you the keys, not to the Church; and whatever you shall have bound or you shall have loosed, not what they shall have bound or they shall have loosed (Modesty 21:9-10 [A.D. 220]).
Letter of Clement to James
Be it known to you, my lord, that Simon [Peter], who, for the sake of the true faith, and the most sure foundation of his doctrine, was set apart to be the foundation of the Church, and for this end was by Jesus himself, with his truthful mouth, named Peter, the first-fruits of our Lord, the first of the apostles; to whom first the Father revealed the Son; whom the Christ, with good reason, blessed; the called, and elect (Letter of Clement to James 2 [A.D, 221]).

Cyprian

With a false bishop appointed for themselves by heretics, they dare even to set sail and carry letters from schismatics and blasphemers to the Chair of Peter and to the principal church [at Rome], in which sacerdotal unity has its source" (Epistle to Cornelius [Bishop of Rome] 59:14 [A.D. 252]).
The Lord says to Peter: “I say to you,” he says, “that you are Peter, and upon this rock I will build my Church” . . . On him he builds the Church, and to him he gives the command to feed the sheep John 21:17], and although he assigns a like power to all the apostles, yet he founded a single chair [cathedra], and he established by his own authority a source and an intrinsic reason for that unity. Indeed, the others were that also which Peter was , but a primacy is given to Peter, whereby it is made clear that there is but one Church and one chair. So too, all [the apostles] are shepherds, and the flock is shown to be one, fed by all the apostles in single-minded accord. If someone does not hold fast to this unity of Peter, can he imagine that he still holds the faith? If he [should] desert the chair of Peter upon whom the Church was built, can he still be confident that he is in the Church? (The Unity of the Catholic Church 4 [A.D. 251]).

 

[Dokimas]

You make claims and cannot even back it up. There IS historical record that tekks a different tale than the CC? I have asked you and others,either provide it or stop trying to convince yourself it does exist.

As I said before,I have heard the same absurd argument from others and not one ever provided:

Oh, make no mistake about it, there’s historical record that tells a different tale that your record does

It is all hot air.

I have NO DOUBT the CC has historical records claiming what you say it does. You don’t have to convince me.​

What you have to convince me about is that you’ve read EVERY historical record about the early church. Not that I care, because, as my question was supposed to do, even if I would produce good evidence your historical record isn’t exactly accurate in it’s interpretation of the early church, you’d reject it and claim some anti-catholic, anti-God anti-Jesus reason. So, there’s no point to spend time I don’t have to bring you no satisfaction.​

And, the Bible, itself, is all we need to understand if there are some teachings that aren’t exactly correct, whether its some of the CC teaching or some of the teachings of the 39000 denominations or my own understandings.

 

[Lapey]

So it’s impossible the RCC early writers got it partly wrong?

I would trust them way before I trust the ones who call them selves reformers. They have an agenda, disprove the Catholic Church. There was only one Church before 300AD so there was no reason to try to prove the other wrong.

So yes I do believe the early writers and scripture which tells me that the RCC is the one. You don’t have to but please think before you post nonsence like the RCC was founded by Constantine.

 

[Dokimas]

Yes, he did, since it is on the basis of his testimony that St. Irenaeus places St. Peter at the head of his list of Popes.

I’d love to see the link, please.

 

[Dokimas]

I’m in a tag team match and over matched at that. ​

You all have worn me out. I’m heading to bed. Good night and God be with you all.

 

[Prodigal_Son1]

I’m in a tag team match and over matched at that.

You brought it on yourself by inferring you might have some documentation to prove Catholic history different than what it is.

There are many ‘anti-Catholics’ out there who would love to prove the Catholic Church wrong. If there was any such evidence, we’d have seen it before and alot more prominently than a forum.

Now, you’re going to show the early Church fathers were ‘Protestants’. Not going to happen. If you want to really look at their writings, you’re going to see Catholic doctrine in it’s beginning stages. Sorry, but you’re just stacking a deck against yourself.

I see you’re too tired to respond to the quotes from the early Church fathers. I’ll be looking forward to your response on them tomorrow.

 

[Prodigal_Son1]

Sure looks like Ignatius used the term ‘catholic church’. I have no problem with the term ‘universal’ or ‘catholic’ church. I have a problem with how the term ‘Catholic Church’ is used and what it means today. I dare say it’s quite different that what Ignatius meant.​

You must know about the writings of Ignatius. Did he call Peter the first leader (pope) of this early ‘Catholic Church’?

What? You claim the Catholic Church wrote a self serving history, somehow insinuating that the secular world would have allowed that to happen, then you want to use the early Church fathers, who wrote about Catholic doctrines, as proof of your view. Oh, private interpretation at work again?