Here is your chance Protestants!

[oriel36]

reggie:

One other thing, Jesus could be quite harsh and angry when He was not understood. He threw the money changers out of the temple, He let the disciples go from Him who could not accept His talk of eating His flesh and He admonished Peter, saying, “Get behind me Satan! You are a stumbling block to me; for you are setting your mind not on divine things but on human things.”

When you know the truth and do not declare it, you are guilty of not only your own sins, but those of the ones whom you did not teach the truth.

You are homogenising texts from John and Matthew with no remorse and flinging words like ‘truth’ around like a madman.

Would you suffer humiliation and scorn which is just as much the body and blood of Christ as the Eucharist and celebrate both as a gift of Jesus.

"How dare you turn my Father’s house into a market!”

17His disciples remembered that it is written: “Zeal for your house will consume me.”**(“http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?book_id=50&chapter=2&version=31#fen-NIV-26103b”)]

18Then the Jews demanded of him, “What miraculous sign can you show us to prove your authority to do all this?”

19Jesus answered them, “Destroy this temple, and I will raise it again in three days.” 20The Jews replied, “It has taken fortysix years to build this temple, and you are going to raise it in three days?” 21But the temple he had spoken of was his body. 22After he was raised from the dead, his disciples recalled what he had said. Then they believed the Scripture and the words that Jesus had spoken. "

Those who are on the Christian Way know the temple is the body of Christ,for you it is a historical building.

 

[dennisknapp]

oriel36:

Read on and understand.

I am the resurrection and the life. He who believes in me will live, even though he dies; 26and whoever lives and believes in me will never die. Do you believe this?”

biblegateway.com/passage/?book_id=50&chapter=11&version=31

There are two types of Christian present,just as I said.

Do you understand this or not.

Two types of Christians?

Do you mean by this that there will always be two types of Christians?

What about three types? For there are three branches of Christianity–Catholic, Orthodox and Protestant. How does your system deal with this?

Peace

 

[oriel36]

dennisknapp:

One question:

Should Protestants convert to Catholicism?

Peace

When are you going to convert to Christianity ?.

 

[dennisknapp]

oriel36:

When are you going to convert to Christianity ?.

If it is the confusion you are proclaiming here–never.

If it is the Church that Christ established through his life, death and resurrection–already have converted.

When are you going to convert to Catholicism?

When will you come to believe the Truth?

Peace

 

[oriel36]

dennisknapp:

Two types of Christians?

Do you mean by this that there will always be two types of Christians?

What about three types? For there are three branches of Christianity–Catholic, Orthodox and Protestant. How does your system deal with this?

Peace

"I am the resurrection and the life. He who believes in me will live, even though he dies; and whoever lives and believes in me will never die. Do you believe this?”

This is Jesus who asks this and I believe both the former and the latter.

Do not answer if you do not understand.

 

[dennisknapp]

"I am the resurrection and the life. He who believes in me will live, even though he dies; and whoever lives and believes in me will never die. Do you believe this?”

This is Jesus who asks this and I believe both the former and the latter.

Do not answer if you do not understand.

You believe the former and the latter of what exactly?

And if I am having a hard time understanding it is because of the teacher and not the student.

Peace

 

[dennisknapp]

"I am the resurrection and the life. He who believes in me will live, even though he dies; and whoever lives and believes in me will never die. Do you believe this?”

This is Jesus who asks this and I believe both the former and the latter.

Do not answer if you do not understand.

BTW where is any of the stuff you are teaching in the Catechism of the Catholic Church, Church Councils, or papal declarations?

Is anything you are saying official Church Teaching? I would not want our Protestant brothers and sisters getting confused.

Peace

 

[banjo]

wabrams:

But at that time there were 5 centers of Christianity, Rome was just one of them. It really wasn’t until 452 AD that anyone paid attention to the authority of the Bishop of Rome outside of Rome. History attests that after Pope Leo “convinced” Attilla the Hun to cease is campaign through Italy; this was used as a propaganda tool that showed the Bishop of Rome as the true head of the Church. 1st thru 3rd century scholars might have written about his authority before this event, but it seems very few cared or took notice until 452AD.

Peter was invested with a special authority by Christ in the giving of the keys of the kingdom, in instructing Peter to strengthen his brothers and in feeding and tending his (Christ’s) sheep. Clearly, Peter was the chief apostle and where Peter went his authority went with him. He died in Rome, hence, his successor inherits Peter’s authority and leadership. I believe this is so on at least two counts. First, Christ knew the Church would continue for centuries after Peter’s death; why would he invest Peter with such authority if that authority was to die with Peter allowing the Church to flounder without a leader after Peter’s departure, as Scott Butler et al put in in Jesus, Peter & the Keys? Second, I think the primacy of Rome was recognized before 452 AD. Here are a few brief evidences of that…"Certainly by the second century, Rome was recognized as the plumb line to keep Christianity straight. "For with this Church, wrote St. Irenaeus of Lyons, “all other churches must bring themselves into line, on account of its superior authority.” In the third century, St. Cyprian affirmed, “To be in communion with the bishop of Rome is to be in communion with the Catholic Church.” (Triumph The Power and Glory of the Catholic Church H.W. Crocker III Also, the councils of Hippo, 393 AD, and Carthage 397 AD and 419 AD the decrees establishing the canon of the New Testament had to be sent to Bishop of Rome to be confirmed and made binding on the whole Church. As Henry G. Graham put it, “Rome had spoken.” The primacy of Rome rests in the fact that it was the See of Peter and the authority given to Peter passes to whomever is the bishop of Rome.

 

[Kevan]

reggie:

In these forums, and others like them, as Catholics, we are to “hold the feet of protestants to the fire” so to speak.

Are you aware of the origin of this expression?

 

[Shibboleth]

banjo:

Second, I think the primacy of Rome was recognized before 452 AD. Here are a few brief evidences of that…"Certainly by the second century, Rome was recognized as the plumb line to keep Christianity straight. "For with this Church, wrote St. Irenaeus of Lyons, “all other churches must bring themselves into line, on account of its superior authority.” In the third century, St. Cyprian affirmed, “To be in communion with the bishop of Rome is to be in communion with the Catholic Church.” (Triumph The Power and Glory of the Catholic Church H.W. Crocker III Also, the councils of Hippo, 393 AD, and Carthage 397 AD and 419 AD the decrees establishing the canon of the New Testament had to be sent to Bishop of Rome to be confirmed and made binding on the whole Church. As Henry G. Graham put it, “Rome had spoken.” The primacy of Rome rests in the fact that it was the See of Peter and the authority given to Peter passes to whomever is the bishop of Rome.

Each one of these can be refuted on one level or another but I will begin with what most people recognize as the first document that supposedly displays the Authority of the Roman Bishop.

This document is a letter by St. Clement to the Corinthians. With this letter certain people wish to show that the Pope was utilizing his Papal power to make the Corinthians comply. There is a problem here though… the note states that it is written after a persecution - some people want to say that it was after the 95-96 persecution of Domitian; however, the letter also speaks of Jewish sacrifices still occurring in the Temple of Jerusalem. The Temple of Jerusalem was torn down by Titus in 70 A.D. so the letter must have been written after the persecution of Nero from 64-68 that only leaves the year of 69 that the letter could have been written.

Considering that Clement didn’t become the Bishop of Rome till the twentieth year of Domitian’s reign this letter was written 24 YEARS before Clement was the Bishop of Rome - HE HAD NO AUTHORITY!

Now that we understand how people wrote back then even without authority that opens up our understanding of future documents. I will continue from here when I get time.

 

[CatherineofA]

dennisknapp:

What are you asking? That I defend what is already historical fact? What the Catholic Church teaches about Church history anyone can read in any history book, in any bookstore, in any university.

What I am asking is for a Protestant understanding on this information.

The historical record states that the Catholic Church is the Church that Christ established (included in this are the Eastern Churches). They have a succession straight back to Christ and the Apostles, have seven Sacraments, etc. The early Church was Catholic; the early record shows this.

But what is the Protestant interpretation of this record? How do they account for a historical record that is in favor of Catholicism?

This is all I am asking.

Peace

You are asking Protestants to give historical evidence with documentation to demonstrate that their beliefs have a root in early Christianity that is equal to, or superior to, the Catholic Church. I am stating that in a true debate, the facts presented in an challenge cannot be one sided. If you are asking for the opposing view to present a documented case, you also have to present a documented case proving your own point for the Catholic Church. You asked if I should ask you to defend what is historical fact. If you are asking that, you are no better than Protestants who cannot answer the question you have presented. This is double talk and avoiding evidence to back up your half of the debate. You say that anyone can read about history in a history book or bookstore. A Protestant could use that argument and it would be dancing around the question. If you know what is presented in history books about your own faith, you should be able to outline that belief without links or book references. If you cannot, can you accuse Protestants of not knowing the history of Christianity or what the roots of Protestantism is as it relates to early Christian history?
You are asking for Protestant understanding. I am asking for yours. You are the other side of the debate. Answer your own question from the Catholic Church point of view. We have to have each side to present a debate. Otherwise, you could shoot down any examples without proof.
What is your account of the historical record? What is your evidence? If you know the history of your church, list the evidence with examples. Thanks!

 

[CatherineofA]

CatherineofA:

You are asking Protestants to give historical evidence with documentation to demonstrate that their beliefs have a root in early Christianity that is equal to, or superior to, the Catholic Church. I am stating that in a true debate, the facts presenting in an challenge cannot be one sided. If you are asking for the opposing view to present a documented case, you also have to present a documented case proving your own point for the Catholic Church. You asked if I should ask you to defend what is also historical fact. If you are asking that, you are no better than Protestants who cannot answer the question you have presented. It is doubletalk to aviod answering. It is avoiding evidence to back up your half of the debate.You say that anyone can read about history in a history book or bookstore. A Protestant could use that argument and it would be dancing around the question. If you know what is presented in history books about your own faith, you should be able to outline that belief without links or book references. If you cannot, can you accuse Protestants of not knowing the history of Christianity or what the roots of Protestantism is as it relates to early Christian history? How can you debunk the history of Protestantism if you cannot outline your own understanding of your own church’s history with facts and dates and places with evidence.
You are asking for Protestant understanding. I am asking for yours. You are the other side of the debate. Answer your own question from the Catholic Church point of view. We have to have each side to present a debate. Otherwise, you could shoot down any Protestant examples without proof.
What is your account of the historical record? What is your eindence? If you know the history of your church, list the evidence with examples. Thanks!

 

[CatherineofA]

reggie:

I really don’t think any of you are understanding what Dennis is trying to get protestants to do. It is not a question of the history of the CC but the history of protestantism. We can trace its beginning to the 1500’s but there doesn’t seem to be anything prior to that time. What I think Dennis is looking for is something that says that protestants were around from the beginning. Afterall, so many of them claim to be the church that Jesus founded. They say that they have lain dormant or been suppressed for all of these years. If that is true, then they must have something that proves these claims.

Documents, letters, official church teachings passed down, writings left behind by early proponents of their beliefs, writings from historians. Anything that shows them to have history other than that known to us today, which is only a few hundred years old and shows that their “churches” are founded by men.

I for one believe it is a legitimate question to put forth to them.

Catholics have that history. Some may dispute the facts, that doesn’t make them less true.

Of course it’s a question of the history of the Catholic Church. To challenge what Protestants see as early church history and how the Protestant faith has a legitimate claim as descendants of Christians in history, you have to be able to present the other side. If you believe that your own church holds the accurate foundations and there can be no alternatives to this history, then you have to be able to present an argument to that fact. You do because there is a focus on credibility within an argument. You cannot ask for evidence and critique responses towards a view you say you oppose as truth if you cannot present an opposing view as to why the opposing argument is false.
Now, if I am reading you correctly, you claim that some Protestants believe that they are the church Jesus founded or they were suppressed for a long time. Which Protestant churches claim that? When did they claim it?

The original question is a great one. HOWEVER, to know the accuracy of what is legitimate or evidence, you have to be able to state your own view with evidence you personally know about your own point of view. This argument is not a one sided one. For the question to be posed and for the poster to be critical of answers, he has to list his own examples and documentation. This shows he has personal knowledge and the ability to judge the Protestant answers.

 

[dennisknapp]

CatherineofA:

You are asking Protestants to give historical evidence with documentation to demonstrate that their beliefs have a root in early Christianity that is equal to, or superior to, the Catholic Church. I am stating that in a true debate, the facts presented in an challenge cannot be one sided. If you are asking for the opposing view to present a documented case, you also have to present a documented case proving your own point for the Catholic Church. You asked if I should ask you to defend what is historical fact. If you are asking that, you are no better than Protestants who cannot answer the question you have presented. This is double talk and avoiding evidence to back up your half of the debate. You say that anyone can read about history in a history book or bookstore. A Protestant could use that argument and it would be dancing around the question. If you know what is presented in history books about your own faith, you should be able to outline that belief without links or book references. If you cannot, can you accuse Protestants of not knowing the history of Christianity or what the roots of Protestantism is as it relates to early Christian history?
You are asking for Protestant understanding. I am asking for yours. You are the other side of the debate. Answer your own question from the Catholic Church point of view. We have to have each side to present a debate. Otherwise, you could shoot down any examples without proof.
What is your account of the historical record? What is your evidence? If you know the history of your church, list the evidence with examples. Thanks!

“If you know what is presented in history books about your own faith, you should be able to outline that belief without links or book references. If you cannot, can you accuse Protestants of not knowing the history of Christianity or what the roots of Protestantism is as it relates to early Christian history?”

I never said a Protestant could not show evidence through links or book references. Honestly, it would be helpful and a relief from all the side-stepping and issue avoiding.

Protestants can provide all the evidence they want. Any link or book is alright with me. When did I ever say they could not use these sources?

The historical facts are clear. If you want me to quote early Church sources I will. If you want me to recommend books I will.

What I am asking you to do (and I can’t believe this is so hard) is to give me your understanding of it.

The Catholic Church sees the early Church as Apostolic, as the evidence shows. Do you agree with this?

The Catholic Church sees the early Church holding to Christ being truely present in the Eucharist, as the evidence shows. Do you agree with this?

The Catholic Church sees the early Church holding to baptismal regeneration, as the evidence shows. Do you agree with this?

Peace

 

[Ignatius]

oriel36:

It is easier to shout insults at someone than to find

I have read this thread and didn’t see that. Would you please cite the postings from this thread that are shouting insults?

 

[Ignatius]

CatherineofA:

You are asking Protestants to give historical evidence with documentation to demonstrate that their beliefs have a root in early Christianity that is equal to, or superior to, the Catholic Church.

The Catholic side has been criticized to the nth degree. I’d like to see what kind of evidence the protestants have that they have some root in early christianity other then through the Catholic Church.

 

[CatherineofA]

“If you know what is presented in history books about your own faith, you should be able to outline that belief without links or book references. If you cannot, can you accuse Protestants of not knowing the history of Christianity or what the roots of Protestantism is as it relates to early Christian history?”

I never said a Protestant could not show evidence through links or book references. Honestly, it would be helpful and a relief from all the side-stepping and issue avoiding.

Protestants can provide all the evidence they want. Any link or book is alright with me. When did I ever say they could not use these sources?

The historical facts are clear. If you want me to quote early Church sources I will. If you want me to recommend books I will.

What I am asking you to do (and I can’t believe this is so hard) is to give me your understanding of it.

The Catholic Church sees the early Church as Apostolic, as the evidence shows. Do you agree with this?

The Catholic Church sees the early Church holding to Christ being truely present in the Eucharist, as the evidence shows. Do you agree with this?

The Catholic Church sees the early Church holding to baptismal regeneration, as the evidence shows. Do you agree with this?

Peace

Again, I am asking you to discuss references ( not links) and present an overview of historical periods and events that support your point of view. Your intial statement is presented in such a way that there is most likely not an answer that exists for Protestants. Therefore, one can assume it doesn’t exist. because of this, you have to present why the Catholic point of view is historically accurate. Why is it historically accurate and the only theologically sound group? You have to present the Catholic point of view. Why does the Protestant faith have no foundation historically?

 

[CatherineofA]

Ignatius:

The Catholic side has been criticized to the nth degree. I’d like to see what kind of evidence the protestants have that they have some root in early christianity other then through the Catholic Church.

On the other side, what is your evidence that Protestants cannot have had any other roots other than Catholicism? Why couldn’t they have had any other roots? I am not critisizing the Catholic side and often critisize the Protestants and their ignorance to history. if youa re so sure as to their error, you have to have evidence that shows why they are in error.

 

[oriel36]

Ignatius:

I have read this thread and didn’t see that. Would you please cite the postings from this thread that are shouting insults?

It appears that the only things you see are those which will generate plenty of argumentative heat but no Spiritual light and I am proud to see a fellow Christian like CatherineofA undermine the basis of these dismal contentions with the courage I have yet to see from a fellow Catholic.

The early Church recognised a very specific group of people known as the ‘Alogi’ or those ‘without reason’ and for those who get into senseless denominational baiting the term certainly applies here.

newadvent.org/cathen/01331b.htm

 

[oriel36]

dennisknapp:

BTW where is any of the stuff you are teaching in the Catechism of the Catholic Church, Church Councils, or papal declarations?

Is anything you are saying official Church Teaching? I would not want our Protestant brothers and sisters getting confused.

Peace

Even if Jesus Himself were to appear before you and shake you by the scruff of the neck it is clear that your love of generalised denominational differences and the racket it produces has more value for you than what is common and good among Christians with the Word at the center.

The early Christian author who was a disciple of ther original apostles expresses all that is good about a heritage which is neither Catholic nor Protestant,at least not as empty can numbskulls would have it.

God forbid that you would learn things such as flexibility and common sense or that people who excuse themselves in remaining silent when amid this Catholic/Protestant racket they imagine they praise God by their absence.Again,there is a good fellow Christian here who has more in common with the exquisite thinking of the early Apostolic Church than a blinkered denominational view which goes nowhere and does nothing.

You want to know how early Apostolic Christians thought -

“I do not speak of things strange to me, nor do I aim at anything inconsistent with right reason; but having been a disciple of the Apostles, I am become a teacher of the Gentiles.”

newadvent.org/fathers/0101.htm