Here is your chance Protestants!

[Aris]

Fr Ambrose:

In the “Retractions” which St Augustine wrote in his mature years to correct the theological errors in his earlier writings, he wrote that he had come to believe that Peter is NOT the Rock.

However, he also said that if others wanted to interpret the verse in that way, they had that freedom. But the fact is that the greatest theologian of the West personally denied that the Rock is Peter.

Corrections aka as Retractions must be made

Father Ambrose’s understanding of Augustine’s work is 100% out of context.

1. The correct English translation of St Augustine’s work is Retractation not Retractions as Father A would have you believe. The blessed saint has never recanted what he believed.
2. It is not a work to correct the Theological errors he has made. It would show some things he had not spoken of or dealt more clearly.
3. It is clearly not to contradict his earlier works. He himself says nothing contradictory.
4. Father Ambrose at least makes the concession here that St Augustine says the reader can believe that the Papacy was established by Christ on Peter and the believer would be none the worst. This is far from the denial the Peter is NOT the rock. In fact Christ is the Rock, Peter is the Rock and Peter’s confession is the rock has never been denied by the Catholic Church.

 

[Lumen_Gentium]

Thanks for that correction.

PAX

Aris:

Corrections aka as Retractions must be made

Father Ambrose’s understanding of Augustine’s work is 100% out of context.

1. The correct English translation of St Augustine’s work is Retractation not Retractions as Father A would have you believe. The blessed saint has never recanted what he believed.
2. It is not a work to correct the Theological errors he has made. It would show some things he had not spoken of or dealt more clearly.
3. It is clearly not to contradict his earlier works. He himself says nothing contradictory.
4. Father Ambrose at least makes the concession here that St Augustine says the reader can believe that the Papacy was established by Christ on Peter and the believer would be none the worst. This is far from the denial the Peter is NOT the rock. In fact Christ is the Rock, Peter is the Rock and Peter’s confession is the rock has never been denied by the Catholic Church.

 

[kindlylight]

dennisknapp:

Here is your chance Protestants.

Here is your chance to show us where we have gone astray.

I would like you to show us a Protestant view of Church history and how it developed after the time of the Apostles until the Reformation.

Please provide evidence for you historical assessment, for we do not want this to be just a bunch of name calling.

So, here it is.

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

Thanks,

Peace

 

[kindlylight]

The problem is Dennis, that as John Henry Newman wrote “To be deep into history is to cease to be Protestant”. A subjective creed fears the light of reason and inquiry.

 

[EA_Man]

dennisknapp:

I never said Tradition was not as valid as Scripture. I said Catholic’s don’t regard “the Traditions of the Fathers” as valid as Scripture.

Traditon as I mean it is God’s word handed down in oral form, just as Scripture is God’s word handed down in written form.

You can also call Tradition and Scripture the of deposit of faith.

Peace

Thanks for your response.

It would seem to me that there must be many oral “traditions” to choose between.

What happens if two or more Church Fathers have different statements on the same subject?

Has the RCC ever published a definitive list (a canon) of the oral traditions that they have determined to be part of the deposit of faith?

I have never heard of or seen such a listing, any help would be appreciated.

Christ’s Peace to you.

 

[Ignatius]

4. Father Ambrose at least makes the concession here that St Augustine says the reader can believe that the Papacy was established by Christ on Peter and the believer would be none the worst. This is far from the denial the Peter is NOT the rock.

It should also be kept in mind that, at the time of St. Augustine, there was no other Church. It is only because of the rise of divergent faiths that there is a need to determine which is the True Church which Jesus Christ founded. Hence, the Peterine succession is a sure norm for that determination.

 

[jasonfin]

It can’t be done.

1. Protestants have no Tradition and therefore have no history and little continuity with the apostolic faith.
2. One can find a little bit of continuity between St. Augustine and Calvin/Luther. Emphasis is only on a little, because the Reformers stepped way beyond St. Augustine.
3. If the Church is like a tree, I believe Roman Catholicism is the trunk going back to the apostles, and the protestant tradition is just a branch growing off the trunk.
4. You cannot side step 1500 years of Christian thought and claim that you have any continuity with the Apostolic church. I am sorry, you just can’t.

Oh yeah, and this is not coming from a Catholic taking a shot at evangelicalism. I am still a member and leader of an evangelical chruch, but that won’t last much longer.

 

[jasonfin]

Personally, I think Protestants have been influenced by Gnosticism, Docetism, and Manichaeism. So if you want me to find some continuity throughout church history for Protestants, I think you can find protestant roots in those heretical sects.

yes, that may be very harsh, but prove to me it’s not true!

 

[RedDeathsMask]

jasonfin:

Oh yeah, and this is not coming from a Catholic taking a shot at evangelicalism. I am still a member and leader of an evangelical chruch, but that won’t last much longer.

Welcome to the Church of Jesus Christ! O, there has been an Evangelical Pastor around these forums who might take you on. That would be interesting.

 

[CatherineofA]

dennisknapp:

If I have, please provide proof.

Peace

Ok, so that makes 8 or 9 of about 18 on the list. So, about half are Catholic oriented.

A professor associated with Columbia University (the same History Channel scholar) also recommended The Christian Tradition by J. Pelikan. It comes in volumes.

The person recommending the books is a learned historian on early church history. He is also a priest of the Orthodox Church.

 

[CatherineofA]

cyprian:

We know our history, how many more volumes can we read? We are purplexed that protestants to this day, so far removed from the reformation, won’t give the historical, welcoming, beautiful Church a look-see. How many saints, encyclicals, scripture and so forth can we read…that all converge…and not want this truth for all of our separated brethren? Dennis asks the unanswerable, why? because people have hardened their hearts to what is right in front of them. We love you and only want the fulness of it all for you.Like our new pope said …adult faith, not the whims of your own selves.(paraphrase)

Peace and love

I am more than happy to learn about the history of the Catholic faith and that is the discussion I have participated in here. However, asking for evidence or imformation supported by the community of historians at large is reasonable and what should be done.

 

[CatherineofA]

kindlylight:

The problem is Dennis, that as John Henry Newman wrote “To be deep into history is to cease to be Protestant”. A subjective creed fears the light of reason and inquiry.

Then why do some Protestants present an alternate presentation of historical events in some cases? I have known many a seminary graduate who took church history courses and none came out stating that the Catholic Church was the church set up by Christ. I wish I had paid attention more to what they said when their comments were made! I will be asking about them soon when I see them again!

 

[CatherineofA]

RedDeathsMask:

Welcome to the Church of Jesus Christ! O, there has been an Evangelical Pastor around these forums who might take you on. That would be interesting.

Which user ID is the evangelical pastor?

 

[Timothy888]

I will answer this, though it takes time and at the moment i’m going to study the Roman Catholic side of things, partly because of you, and Church Millitant, the catholic answer forum team and partly because there is much truely hateful stuff against catholics in general, whether Roman or other denominations, but especially against Roman catholics by people who never went there, or know much about their teachings, it’s been more than 25 years since i went regularly to a Roman catholic church, then i became anglican, though as i have told you i do still go once in a while now, still i do need refreshing on the teachings, so i’ll start with milk again and work up, otherwise i can’t give answers, with the knowledge of your teachings today, maybe they haven’t changed, yet they are apparently better explained today than ever before, the father i had (before father Tom came along) was rather fond of people being in the dark, so he only gave glimpses of the light. I left before father Tom was my teacher, did talk to him though a couple of times, someone i would call a Christian.

Here’s a link for you, though i don’t advise anybody who isn’t certain of their faith to read it, it’ll only confuse.
doctrinesofchrist.com/The%20Heresy%20Of%20The%20Nicolaitans.htm

This Guy seems to be a Pentecostal, most of what he says is right, though i’d truely like your oppinion on this (a little ripping appart), it does have something to do with the string, though i’m not sure this guy isn’t a latter rain type, they really missed it!

Oh i do meet together with christians as often as i can, only i’m not denominational anymore, my basic beliefs would probably be the same as yours, except there is nowhere in the Holy Script about believing in the Church as a building or organization. The Church is the Christians, bride to Christ. Today the word church brings up a totally different meaning, a building.

God bless you and stay well.

 

[Timothy888]

Ok here’s a link, don’t bother visiting it unless you’re sure of your faith! It would only confuse you.
doctrinesofchrist.com/The%20Heresy%20Of%20The%20Nicolaitans.htm
Please tear it appart with reasons that are Biblical where possible!
Quotes fron others where not
I’ve seen many things online that are against Roman catholics, not just the Roman Church, and Christians in general, though of course mostly aimed at the Roman church as it is the biggest.
I’m going to take the Roman Catholic Churches study course, if they can send it all the way to Switzerland from America, that’s where i ordered it, it’s been more than 25 years since i was regularly in a Roman church, so i’m more than likely rusty, if not falling to pieces in my doctrine for this particular church.
Who’s not to say the reason i became a Christian later hasn’t got anything to do with the baptism i had as a Roman Catholic!
Though in the Bible it does say believe and then be baptised!
I do believe if you commit your children to Christ they will recieve guidance.
I am in the process of studying the church fathers, at the moment i have been given time for this, not being able to find regular work due to (phisical) sickness, nobody wants to hire a sick person!
Being here has helped me re-start my studies, so thank you all

 

[sires6]

EA_Man:

There’s alot of ‘me too’ argumentation here, but very little proof.

Two observations / recommendations:

1. If you have incontrovertible proof of early church regard for the See of Rome / Chair of Peter - then let’s ‘see it’. Citations please.
   1a) If ‘we’ regard Tradition of the Church Father’s as valid as Scripture, then to whom do we turn for ‘tiebreakers’?

Jerome for example argued against the Primacy of Rome:
“It is not the case that there is one church at Rome and another in all the world beside. Gaul and Britain, Africa and Persia, India and the East worship one Christ and observe one rule of truth. If you ask for authority, the world outweighs its capital.** Wherever there is a bishop, whether it be at Rome or at Engubium, whether it be at Constantinople or at Rhegium, whether it be at Alexandria or at Zoan, his dignity is one and his priesthood is one.** Neither the command of wealth nor the lowliness of poverty makes him more a bishop or less a bishop. All alike are successors of the apostles. But you will say, how comes it then that at Rome a presbyter is only ordained on the recommendation of a deacon? To which I reply as follows. Why do you bring forward a custom which exists in one city only? Why do you oppose to the laws of the Church a paltry exception which has given rise to arrogance and pride?” - Jerome (Letter 146:1-2)

The First Vatican Council, under the absolute monarchy of Pope Pius IX, said that the capital outweighs the world. Jerome said that the world outweighs its capital.

1. If you want Protestant (name removed by moderator)ut why not solicit it on a Protestant Forum like TheologyWeb? theologyweb.com/

Here is another quote from Jerome:

Jerome

“I follow no leader but Christ and join in communion with none but your blessedness [Pope Damasus I], that is, with the chair of Peter. I know that this is the rock on which the Church has been built. Whoever eats the Lamb outside this house is profane. Anyone who is not in the ark of Noah will perish when the flood prevails” (*Letters *15:2 [A.D. 396]).

“The church here is split into three parts, each eager to seize me for its own. . . . Meanwhile I keep crying, ‘He that is joined to the chair of Peter is accepted by me!’ . . . Therefore, I implore your blessedness [Pope Damasus I] . . . tell me by letter with whom it is that I should communicate in Syria” (ibid., 16:2).

 

[sires6]

Timothy888:

I will answer this, though it takes time and at the moment i’m going to study the Roman Catholic side of things, partly because of you, and Church Millitant, the catholic answer forum team and partly because there is much truely hateful stuff against catholics in general, whether Roman or other denominations, but especially against Roman catholics by people who never went there, or know much about their teachings, it’s been more than 25 years since i went regularly to a Roman catholic church, then i became anglican, though as i have told you i do still go once in a while now, still i do need refreshing on the teachings, so i’ll start with milk again and work up, otherwise i can’t give answers, with the knowledge of your teachings today, maybe they haven’t changed, yet they are apparently better explained today than ever before, the father i had (before father Tom came along) was rather fond of people being in the dark, so he only gave glimpses of the light. I left before father Tom was my teacher, did talk to him though a couple of times, someone i would call a Christian.

Here’s a link for you, though i don’t advise anybody who isn’t certain of their faith to read it, it’ll only confuse.
doctrinesofchrist.com/The%20Heresy%20Of%20The%20Nicolaitans.htm

This Guy seems to be a Pentecostal, most of what he says is right, though i’d truely like your oppinion on this (a little ripping appart), it does have something to do with the string, though i’m not sure this guy isn’t a latter rain type, they really missed it!

Oh i do meet together with christians as often as i can, only i’m not denominational anymore, my basic beliefs would probably be the same as yours, except there is nowhere in the Holy Script about believing in the Church as a building or organization. The Church is the Christians, bride to Christ. Today the word church brings up a totally different meaning, a building.

God bless you and stay well.

Actually, if you go to OT History, God built his Church - The Tabernacle. He specifically called it from the people, built and had it decorated. Had Solomon make it a permanent structure. And then Had Christ Himself Worship in it… those who went against that were able to use the “no real church” idea because the early church was so prosecuted it had to worship in the mosuleums (spelling?) of their dead. Does this mean that they didn’t worship in church? No, it only meant that they feared Roman persecution since the Roman Empire required worship of Ceasar as a God. They treated Early Christianity as Treason… if you weren’t for Ceasar, you were against him, so to speak.

 

[Exporter]

wabrams:

I’m Protestant and I know the Catholic Church’s history. To me the only parts that are sketchy are from a short while after Jesus’ death until the Pope in Rome actually had influence outside of Rome (452 AD?).

---

Wabrams you have said that The Bishop of Rome had no influence outside of Rome UNTIL 425. There are more than a few letters written by the Early Fathers of The Roman Catholic Church that discus Peter settling disputes and Peter’s leading or teaching the other Bishops. Peter was certainly acting as the Pope does today.

One of these men was Ignatias , Bishop of Antioch. I believe we have three letters by Ignatias that dis cis Peter as the Pope. Your 425 is a far cry from the actual dates of Ignatias’ letters. He write between the year 70 and 117. He died in Rome in 117. Find them and you’ll be satisfied.

 

[Church_Militant]

Timothy888:

Ok here’s a link, don’t bother visiting it unless you’re sure of your faith! It would only confuse you.
doctrinesofchrist.com/The%20Heresy%20Of%20The%20Nicolaitans.htm

Please tear it appart with reasons that are Biblical where possible!
Quotes fron others where not
I’ve seen many things online that are against Roman catholics, not just the Roman Church, and Christians in general, though of course mostly aimed at the Roman church as it is the biggest.
I’m going to take the Roman Catholic Churches study course, if they can send it all the way to Switzerland from America, that’s where i ordered it, it’s been more than 25 years since i was regularly in a Roman church, so i’m more than likely rusty, if not falling to pieces in my doctrine for this particular church.
Who’s not to say the reason i became a Christian later hasn’t got anything to do with the baptism i had as a Roman Catholic!
Though in the Bible it does say believe and then be baptised!
I do believe if you commit your children to Christ they will recieve guidance.
I am in the process of studying the church fathers, at the moment i have been given time for this, not being able to find regular work due to (phisical) sickness, nobody wants to hire a sick person!
Being here has helped me re-start my studies, so thank you all

Timothy, in all honesty, have you really read that guy’s bunk? He calls Ignatius of Antioch a heretic and apostate yet offers no historical evidence of that and I can assure you that if the ECF had seen him like that there would have been a written record somewhere…but there isn’t… anywhere and he doesn’t cite one because he’s made an unfounded and biased allegation that he can’t support. It’s easy to say stuff is so … but this is just slander if he can’t prove it.

Fact is, he’s just labeled all the ECF as heretics and apostates and that’s about the most ludicrous thing I can imagine. Ignatius and Polycarp were close friends and disciples of St. John the apostle and both met horrible deaths because of their faith. So then they were deluded idiots since they gave their lives for what they believed and wouldn’t recant? Does that make the remotest kind of sense???

BTW, Catholicism IS THE original New Testament Church. I checked it out myself and so I know.

This dude’s gonna haveta try a LOT harder than that to come up with an indictment against my Catholic faith.
Pax tecum,

 

[Milliardo]

Church Militant:

Timothy, in all honesty, have you really read that guy’s bunk? He calls Ignatius of Antioch a heretic and apostate yet offers no historical evidence of that and I can assure you that if the ECF had seen him like that there would have been a written record somewhere…but there isn’t… anywhere and he doesn’t cite one because he’s made an unfounded and biased allegation that he can’t support. It’s easy to say stuff is so … but this is just slander if he can’t prove it.

Fact is, he’s just labeled all the ECF as heretics and apostates and that’s about the most ludicrous thing I can imagine. Ignatius and Polycarp were close friends and disciples of St. John the apostle and both met horrible deaths because of their faith. So then they were deluded idiots since they gave their lives for what they believed and wouldn’t recant? Does that make the remotest kind of sense???

If this guy calls them heretics, by logical conclusion all of Christianity must be in heresy, since many of the beliefs of Christianity came from them. Even Protestant scholars acknowledge this. So is this guy a heretic as well? I’d love to ask him that.