Here is your chance Protestants!

[wabrams]

Mickey:

I agree with you Dennis. What bias could the early Church Fathers possibly have? There were disagreements that were settled by Church Councils–but bias? Perhaps wabrams feels that the early heretics were forerunners of the modern day protestants?

Anyone who writes from the inside has a bias. If you write an autobiography, you’re more biased than someone else writing your biography, right? Same thing here.

And where in the world are you getting the idea that I think early heretics were forerunners of Protestants? That’s a real stretch.

 

[dennisknapp]

oriel36:

I am of couse an Apostolic Christian,love my Church and Catholic community and very proud of the late Pope.In the context of two complimentary Christian co-existing in the early Church as representative of Peter and John most people already know that the Johaninne Christianity was absorbed into Apostolic Christianity while retaining its identity.There is nothing amiss in St Augustine’s commentary of John in respect to what the Rock is but don’t go bananas over the apparent dilution in status of Peter or set it against the general Matthean commision of “go forth…”.

" For petra (rock) is not derived from Peter, but Peter from petra; just as Christ is not called so from the Christian, but the Christian from Christ. For on this very account the Lord said, “On this rock will I build my Church,” because Peter had said, “Thou art the Christ, the Son of the living God.” On this rock, therefore, He said, which thou hast confessed. I will build my Church. For the Rock (Petra) was Christ; and on this foundation was Peter himself also built. For other foundation can no man lay than that is laid, which is Christ Jesus."

newadvent.org/fathers/1701124.htm

So, what did this Johaninne Christianity look like? What did it believe?

What does this have to do with Peter? Or the modern Church for that matter?

I am not sure I understand your point.

Peace

 

[dennisknapp]

wabrams:

Anyone who writes from the inside has a bias. If you write an autobiography, you’re more biased than someone else writing your biography, right? Same thing here.

And where in the world are you getting the idea that I think early heretics were forerunners of Protestants? That’s a real stretch.

But you are infering malicious intent. You know, the old “history is written by the winners” argument.

But what if there were no losers?

What if it was just written?

Peace

 

[Ignatius]

wabrams:

ANd what people are you referring to?

The people who taught you all of your false beliefs!

 

[wabrams]

dennisknapp:

But you are infering malicious intent. You know, the old “history is written by the winners” argument.

But what if there were no losers?

What if it was just written?

Peace

I’m not saying there was any malicious intent, though now that you mention it, anything is possible. I think to study it accurately, one needs to look at all sources; inside the church and outside sources.

There is always winners and there is always losers.

 

[wabrams]

Ignatius:

The people who taught you all of your false beliefs!

What false beliefs are those?

 

[dennisknapp]

wabrams:

I’m not saying there was any malicious intent, though now that you mention it, anything is possible. I think to study it accurately, one needs to look at all sources; inside the church and outside sources.

There is always winners and there is always losers.

So, what exactly was the intent of people who were willing to die for what they believed? In what way were they winners?

Peace

 

[Ignatius]

wabrams:

Ignatius:

Originally Posted by Ignatius

*Please provide the following:

Quote:

1. A Protestant assessment of Church history.
2. Evidence that backs the assessment up*

how biased was their writing?

We know they had the Truth because They were chosen and taught directly by the Apostles.

**What’s your next question, How do we know the Apostles weren’t biased?
**
BTW,yu still answer the two initial questions. Don’t have an answer?
If you pray about it and ask the Holy Spirit to show you the answers, He will.

May the love of God the Father, the peace of Jesus Christ His Son, and the fellowship of the Holy Spirit be with you.

May the Holy Spirit descend upon you, open your eys and lead you to the Pillar and Foundation of Truth. Ephphatha!

 

[oriel36]

dennisknapp:

So, what did this Johaninne Christianity look like? What did it believe?

What does this have to do with Peter? Or the modern Church for that matter?

I am not sure I understand your point.

Peace

Why are you asking me something which is before your eyes in the Johaninne corpus of writings.The Bible is a library of books but only one begins with a very pronounced difference -

In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.

The Johaninne work is less symbolic than the other Christian writings and is more direct,it is impossible to practice my Catholicism in a denominational setting without it but I cannot do without the balances of Christian community either.

All this garbage of faith and works is an inherited nightmare for people who find more reason to divide Christianity than to work towards healing the split.Christ is the foundation of my Church,any Catholic who believes otherwise is no Catholic.

 

[wabrams]

dennisknapp:

So, what exactly was the intent of people who were willing to die for what they believed? In what way were they winners?

Peace

Simple: to spread the word of God. In some since of the word they were winners b/c we still have it today.

 

[Mickey]

wabrams:

Anyone who writes from the inside has a bias. If you write an autobiography, you’re more biased than someone else writing your biography, right? Same thing here.

And where in the world are you getting the idea that I think early heretics were forerunners of Protestants? That’s a real stretch.

Biased against what!!! This makes no sense. What were the early Fathers biased against? It certainly wasn’t protestantism–that didn’t exist yet. That is why I asked if you thought that the early heretics were forerunners of the modern day protestants–because I’m wondering what you think the Church Fathers were biased against. No need to be disturbed–I’m just trying to decipher what you are referring to?

 

[wabrams]

Ignatius:

We know they had the Truth because They were chosen and taught directly by the Apostles.

No one is questioning the Truth.

Ignatius:

**What’s your next question, How do we know the Apostles weren’t biased? **

Stupid questions b/c I haven’t been talking about the Apostles.

Ignatius:

BTW,yu still answer the two initial questions. Don’t have an answer?
If you pray about it and ask the Holy Spirit to show you the answers, He will.

I haven’t fully answered b/c I haven’t felt like unpacking all my history books and digging through them. Thank you for the prayer, but I believe there is more confusion about what went on between the mid 1st century and the 400’s than any other part of Christian history. 5 major centers of Christianity, not to mention the fact that most worship was done in secret. A lot can be losted or misconstrued.

 

[wabrams]

Mickey:

Biased against what!!! This makes no sense. What were the early Fathers biased against? It certainly wasn’t protestantism–that didn’t exist yet. That is why I asked if you thought that the early heretics were forerunners of the modern day protestants–because I’m wondering what you think the Church Fathers were biased against. No need to be disturbed–I’m just trying to decipher what you are referring to?

So you are saying Protestants are heretics??

 

[Mickey]

wabrams:

So you are saying Protestants are heretics??

Heretic–A person who holds controversial opinions, especially one who publicly dissents from the officially accepted dogma of the Roman Catholic Church.

The dictionary said it, not me.

 

[dennisknapp]

oriel36:

Why are you asking me something which is before your eyes in the Johaninne corpus of writings.The Bible is a library of books but only one begins with a very pronounced difference -

In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.

The Johaninne work is less symbolic than the other Christian writings and is more direct,it is impossible to practice my Catholicism in a denominational setting without it but I cannot do without the balances of Christian community either.

All this garbage of faith and works is an inherited nightmare for people who find more reason to divide Christianity than to work towards healing the split.Christ is the foundation of my Church,any Catholic who believes otherwise is no Catholic.

When did I ever bring up anything about faith/works?

And what does this Johaninne issue have to do with the topic at hand?

Would please clearly define what you are trying to say. I am not trying to be difficult I am just have a hard time understanding what you are gettting at.

Peace

 

[wabrams]

Heretic–A person who holds controversial opinions, especially one who publicly dissents from the officially accepted dogma of the Roman Catholic Church.

The dictionary said it, not me.

Or this from Merriam-Webster:

Main Entry: her·e·tic [m-w.com/images/audio.gif](javascriptopWin(’/cgi-bin/audio.pl?hereti01.wav=heretic’))
Pronunciation: 'her-&-"tik
Function: noun
1 : a dissenter from established church dogma; especially : a baptized member of the Roman Catholic Church who disavows a revealed truth
2 : one who dissents from an accepted belief or doctrine : NONCONFORMIST

What dictionary did your definition come from?

 

[Church_Militant]

Heretic–A person who holds controversial opinions, especially one who publicly dissents from the officially accepted dogma of the Roman Catholic Church.

The dictionary said it, not me.

If the definitive shoe fits…?! http://pages.prodigy.net/rogerlori1/emoticons/AN878.gif :crying: :crying:

 

[Mickey]

wabrams:

I believe there is more confusion about what went on between the mid 1st century and the 400’s than any other part of Christian history. 5 major centers of Christianity, not to mention the fact that most worship was done in secret. A lot can be lost or misconstrued.

Did you know that in the 16th century, the Portuguese discovered a thriving Christian Church on India’s southwestern coast. This Church traces it’s roots back to the apostle St Thomas, who is believed to have brought Christianity to India in the year 52. These Christians are referred to as St Thomas Christians or Mar Thoma Christians.

Up until this community was discovered, they had lived in secret isolation for about 1500 years having no contact with The Catholic Church, The Orthodox Church (after the great schism), or any of the heretics including the early protestants.

Today, most of them are either Catholic or Eastern Orthodox. But what is fascinating is that when they were discovered, their practices were vitually identical to the Catholic/Orthodox Traditions. Seven Sacraments, Real Presence, Infant Baptism, etc.

 

[jimmy]

ruzz:

If I understand the original post correctly. There is an interest to know why protestants don’t accept the history and authority of the Roman Catholic Church. Perhaps I’m mistaken.

I am only trying to illustrate where protestant doubts lie with the formation of the early church and therefore the historical succession of the papacy. Doubts about the historical presentation that has been laid out.

I don’t think the purpose of this thread is to take a tangent and get into Mat. 16:18 discussions. That’s another topic. Just where protestants are coming from with their take on church history.

Well, if you ask my opinion, I take it with a grain of salt. I don’t doubt certain sincerity, but I don’t trust completely.
For example, I wouldn’t turn to Bill Clinton’s memoirs to get an acurate depiction of his Presidency. That doesn’t mean everything he wrote is false.

My opinion. I’m not pushing it on you. But the question was asked and I thought the author was interested in the an other opinion and take on it from the RCC position.

.

Would you say that Bill Clinton could describe very well, the government when he was in office?

 

[wabrams]

Mickey:

Did you know that in the 16th century, the Portuguese discovered a thriving Christian Church on India’s southwestern coast. This Church traces it’s roots back to the apostle St Thomas, who is believed to have brought Christianity to India in the year 52. These Christians are referred to as St Thomas Christians or Mar Thoma Christians.

Up until this community was discovered, they had lived in secret isolation for about 1500 years having no contact with The Catholic Church, The Orthodox Church (after the great schism), or any of the heretics including the early protestants.

Today, most of them are either Catholic or Eastern Orthodox. But what is fascinating is that when they were discovered, their practices were vitually identical to the Catholic/Orthodox Traditions. Seven Sacraments, Real Presence, Infant Baptism, etc.

Very, very interesting.

I have not once, though, questioned the practices held by the early church vs. today’s church. I merely questioned the preiminece of the Rome of Bishop versus the other four bishops, and question their different interpretations, not their practices.

BTW, since I wasn’t baptised Roman Catholic, I really can’t be a heretic.