History of the Roman Catholic Church

[brkn1]

No, not anyone - just those who are, well, “moved by the spirit of Satan!” LOL!

But my point, basically, is this:

That anyone, no matter how ignorant or immoral, can quote Scripture, can grunt the words, “Evangel, God’s word, faith, Christ, and spirit” etc, and / or claim to be enlightened and guided by the Holy Spirit.

Simple as that!

Now Erasmus understood this and was merely sharing his impression of those individuals whom he had encountered in his day and who were obviously corrupt, but who, nevertheless, always had the words of Scripture ever on their lips.

Now who would dare to compare those swinish followers of Luther and Calvin with the holy and celibate apostle??!!

Dear blessed God, what an untrue and unjust accusations you make!

I see ever more clearly why Erasmus was compelled to say of those committed to “evangelical” principles:

– To Conradus Goclenius, Basel, April 2, 1524.

Collected Works or Erasmus, vol. 10, The Correspondence of Erasmus, Letters 1356 to 1524, (A.D 1523 to 1524), tr. R.A.B. Mynores and Alexander Dalzell, University of Toronto Press, ISBN 0802059767 p. 225.

Well, there’s another untrue and unjust accusation! But I forgive.

But now, tell me my friend, what are you insisting on? What really is your theological difficulty?

Is it just that your interpretation only of Scripture must be permitted to gain the day? But *that *is precisely what the dictator Calvin (and he was) and the violent Luther (and he was) wanted! You see, they too wanted to be Lord of the Scripture, and heaven help any who dared put a different interpretation on their cherished passages!

Now just for the record, just because I’m critical, doesn’t mean I’m angry. I’m not! Matter of fact, I’m very much enjoying our conversation. But I do wish you would get to the point. I do wish you would just come out and say exactly what it is that you are trying to get across here. I mean, you complain about tradition and just keep saying Word of God this and Word of God that, and Word of God something else, but never say why you believe your interpretation should be preferred to that of anyone else.

If you could just clarify this one thing, it would help immensely.

Anyway, for now, I’ll just leave you to ponder these words of Erasmus from his Hyperaspistes (or Warrior shielding). His words are directed toward Luther:

Collected Works of Erasmus, (1999), Vol. 76: Controversies: De Libero Arbitrio / Hyperaspistes, Charles Trinkaus (Editor) University of Toronto Press; Volume 76 edition, pp. 204-205.
ISBN-10: 0802043178 ISBN-13: 978-0802043177

God bless!

I do not insist on others following my interpretation, which could be wrong, if it does not line up with what the Scripture says.
Jesus said that His disciples were not to act as lords, but servants and ministers.
Jesus did promise the Holy Spirit, Who would guide believers (the elect) unto the Truth. Some take that as meaning only they have such promised guidance and all others must obey and follow their interpretation.

You probably dismiss the Berean’s searching of Scripture, but we are told in Scripture to beware of the leaven of the Pharisees and those who teach “for doctrines the commandments of men.” (Matt.15:9)

We are warned not to be carried about by “divers and strange doctrines”, so the only reference that I can go to in order to verify doctrine is Scripture. You might consider Erasmus to also be a good source, but I prefer God’s Word and not man’s. To each his own. There are also some here that claim God’s Word is their sole possession and right to verify as to what is valid. I find Scripture able to validate itself, without any real contradictions. The Gospel is simple too, if one doesn’t let other men complicate it. A child could understand it.

 

[Ferde_Rombola]

I do not insist on others following my interpretation, which could be wrong, if it does not line up with what the Scripture says.

Which could be wrong if it doesn’t line up with what Scripture says?? Do you mean it could be right if it differs from Scripture??

Jesus did promise the Holy Spirit, Who would guide believers (the elect) unto the Truth. Some take that as meaning only they have such promised guidance and all others must obey and follow their interpretation.

Who do you mean by “some?” Some individuals like Luther and Calvin or the Church Jesus came to build? Seems to me, by what you post here, you think the Spirit is talking to you personally. Reminds me of what Luther said when he finally caught on that his little experiment wasnt’ working quite the way he intended. He said, and I paraphrase, ‘Now any ignorant dolt can read Scripture and is certain the Holy Spirit is whispering in his ear.’

I find Scripture able to validate itself, without any real contradictions. The Gospel is simple too, if one doesn’t let other men complicate it. A child could understand it.

You don’t know how right you are! Indeed, some passages of Scripture are so clear and unambiguous a child can understand them, but the learned and the wise are confused and befuddled. For example, “If you do not eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink His blood, you have no life in you, for my flesh is real food and my blood real drink.” Which leads to, “This is my body…This is my blood.” No ambiguity there at all, yet millions, who swear they will take the word of God before they take the word of men, deny those words and say they don’t mean what they say. You’re one of them.

Here’s some advice for you. Beware of the leaven of those who teach “for doctrines the commandments of men.” (Matt.15:9). Doctrines like sola scriptura and sola fide. Doctrines which allow you to swear allegiance to the word of God while you are denying Him and His Word.

 

[Ne_OrangeKnight]

Actually; I appreciate your answer very much. Thankyou. What I would like to ask is for a reference from officially approved Catholc writings that would support your statement of 33 AD

Sure thing.

From the Catechism, #726; “[Mary] was present with the Twelve, who “with one accord devoted themselves to prayer,”** at the dawn of the “end time” which the Spirit was to inaugurate on the morning of Pentecost with the manifestation of the Church.”

** See Acts 1:14 [this note is in the Catechism, so you know]

Sam, the Neon Orange Knight

 

[luckyfredsdad]

Lucky, there is all kinds of evidence in Scripture and Tradition. If you do not see it, it is because you are reading with your anti-Catholic lenses on your face.

The Magesterium is not “of the Pope”, it is of Christ. Jesus is the one who appointed
and maintains the Teaching Authority in the Church.

You are of course correct the authority is of Christ. I would never claim anything else, neither did I do so in my previous email. But you equate the Church with the Roman Catholic Church which is a fallacy. In my honest opinion the Roman Church as we now know it is an offspring of The Council of Trent! The true Church is the Body of Christ to which we are admitted by Baptism.

The Magesterium remains valid and intact even without the presence of a Pope.
**Of course it does, it remains intact through the promise of Christ and the presence of the Holy Ghost which he promised to us.
**

And what would you consider “soundly based”? What do you think it meant when Jesus commissioned Peter to feed and care for the flock?

**I would take Peter’s commissioning as I take the commissioning of all the other apostles, that is seriously and indeed not only the apostles but of their descendants the Catholic Bishop’s also!
What I cannot find in scripture is any mention of the Bishop of Rome, or any close alliance between that Bishop and S.Peter or indeed any claim that S. Peter was a Bishop of Rome. The City of Rome is only mentioned incidentally in the scriptures and in one book, [Rev.XV11 ] she is singled out for fierce denunciation!

**

No, lucky, this is not accruate. While all these things do reflect the Authority given to the Church, they are not the Source of that Authority. Jesus is theSource. All authority was given to Him, and He gave it to their apostles, and they to their successors.

**As a Catholic I agree with you, but you are avoiding the heart of the matter which is you have to prove that the Roman Church is the Catholic Church and that the papacy has any legitimacy other than that given by the Church and that through the Councils with the guidance of the Holy Ghost. This you have signally failed to do. If constant bland repetition is sufficient to prove a case without any material to back it up the Roman Church wins hands down. But if proof is called for…?
**

No, lucky. All authority comes from God.

**Indeed it does and it is usually displayed through the Bishops in Council! Seven Ecumenical Councils are the pillar s of the Church and through them the Holy Ghost works his will.

I’m glad we agree on so many things however!

God Bless
Lucky!**

 

[luckyfredsdad]

]

There you go with that “anti-Catholic lense” trick again. It would be nice to just get a sensible answer with some references instead of denigrating those who disagree like this…

**This constant use of the word PROTESTANT by our Romanist friends is quite interesting! Classicly, as far as I know the term refers to supporters of Luther’s action at the Cathedral door.

In England, it was used by the Anglicans to protest against he political adventures and claims by the papacy. It was never used in a religious sense and in the reign of Dutch William, [1689 1702] the Anglican Convocation refused a plea by the Calvinist King, to use the word in Anglican Formularies. Convocation refused ,pointing out that they were catholics and had never admitted to , or used the term in our history.

So then, when a Romanist friend of mine described my Church as being,“Protestant,” I imagined he was being peevish to say the least.

However, when I pointed out that the only part of the Catholic Church that had claimed that term was the Roman Church in 1791 when it declared in a letter to the Lords, that they Rome] were Dissenting, Protestant Catholics, he was dismayed in turn.**

 

[raumzeitmc2]

The City of Rome is only mentioned incidentally in the scriptures and in one book, [Rev.XV11 ] she is singled out for fierce denunciation!

But you seem to be equating The *city *of Rome with the Church at Rome. But they are in fact two utterly distinct entities!

The Church of Rome, far from being condemned, was praised by the apostle!

Let’s again hear what God’s *inspired *Word says about the Roman Church:

“First, I give thanks to my God through Jesus Christ for all of your because your faith is heralded throughout the world.” Romans 1:8

“I myself am convinced about you, my brothers, that you yourselves are full of goodness, filled with all knowledge, and able to admonish one another.” Rom. 15:16

So you see, Scripture has nothing but praise for the Church at Rome.

And let us not forget this passage:

"All the Churches of Christ salute you." Rom. 16:16

Regarding this passage, Adam Miller makes a *crucial *point (my formatting):

At the end of the letter St. Paul gives witness to the special honor and status the Church at Rome has when he says, “all the churches of Christ salute you” (16:16). Here again we see the Roman Church and the concept of catholic (“all the churches”) associated together. If ALL Scripture is inspired –and it is- then this is not some incidental fact. It is a truth revealed for a reason. No where else in any of his letters is this greeting found. No where else in the entire New Testament are we told that other local churches have received this regard.

To no other local church is the concept of catholic associated, except Rome.1

Because the phrase “all the churches of Christ salute you” appears only once, and it is to the Church at Rome that it appears, clearly the Holy Spirit is teaching us something here concerning the special and universal status of the Church in Rome. For those who have “eyes to see and ears to hear” such biblical revelations can not be missed or ignored. They are revealed for our benefit.

The Roman Catholic Church: A Divine Institution or a Human Invention?, 2006, Adam S. Miller, Tower of David Ministries, p. 12.
lulu.com/content/335642

Millers note, 1.

In First Corinthians (16:19-20), Second Cor. (13:13), and Philippians (4:22), Paul does say either “all the saints greet you,” or “all the brethren greet you.” Yet in these passages the original wording means all those from where Paul is writing. They give no indication, as this passage in Romans does, that the* world-wide Church* -“all the churches of Christ” - sends greetings

 

[luckyfredsdad]

**[MATTHEW Ch.16/18.

The first passage is the important one. In it S.Peter had declared that Christ was the Son of God. To say the least this was a crucial development in the mind of the apostles .
Our Blessed Lord replied ,“Blessed art thou ,Simon Bar Jonah, for flesh and blood has not revealed it unto thee, but my Father which is in heaven. And I say unto thee that thou art Peter,[Petros} and upon this rock,[petra] I will build my Church; and the gates of hades will not prevail against it . I will give unto thee the keys of the Kingdom of Heaven : and whatsoever thou shall bind on earth will be bound in heaven : and whatsoever thou shall loose on earth shall be loosed in Heaven”.

What was given in the last verse it should be noted was given later to all the apostles.

The most likely meaning of all this is that the Rock was not so much Peter but the truth Peter had professed. The Church being founded on Christ. Some ancient writers such as S.Augustine believe that Christ ,Himself ,is the Rock and obviously this has scriptural parallels ,
‘Jesus Christ Himself being the chief cornerstone’. Eph. 2.20.]

‘That rock was Christ.’ [1 Cor. X,4.]

‘other foundations can no man lay than that is laid , which is Jesus Christ.’ [1st, Cor.3. 11.]

The Creed of the founding Fathers of modern Romanism, written at Trent, goes on regarding scripture,’ I will never understand or interpret it , except according to the unanimous consent of the holy Fathers,’ and this is obligatory on all who,‘Promise and swear that they will continue in obedience to the Church of Rome.’

Maldonatus, an eminent Jesuit scholar of the 16th, Cent, claims that amongst the fathers who interpret the ‘Rock,’ as the ‘Confession of faith,’ were S’s,Hilary, Gregory Nyssen, Chrysostom and Cyril of Alexander. S.Augustine claims Christ was the Rock and Origen,in his better days , claims that on ,‘this rock, that is to say, on all men who have the same faith.’
Launoy, another Romanist claimed there were 17 Fathers on favour of Peter being the Rock.
Forty four being the number of Fathers who believed it was the Faith Peter professed,
And sixteen thought it was Christ Himself.
**

T****he Roman claims are built on tablets of clay!.
Archbishop Kenrick wrote,
"From this it follows either that no argument at all, or a very feeble one , can be drawn in proof of the primacy of Peter from the words, "On this rock will I build my Church.’ He went on,“If we ought to follow the number of Fathers on this question then certainly it is to be held that we should understand by the rock, the faith professed by Peter and not Peter professing the Faith.”

---

 

[luckyfredsdad]

But you seem to be equating The *city *of Rome with the Church at Rome. But they are in fact two utterly distinct entities!

So you see the Scriptures have nothing but praise for the Church of Rome!

n**either do we for the Cjhurch 2000 yrs ago!
**
**And why should it not indeed?
The Church of Rome, as far as some commentators claim consisted of Jewish Converts and very likely the first eight popes spoke jewish.

But the words from paul to our brothers and sisters were only what you would expect from an apostle or bishop to a group of Christians in the middle of an enormous metropolis.

Yet the question remains, why did no one tell us that in this small group of Christians there was God’s Vice Regent on Earth, why were we,or they, not told that in the Roman Pope, or Bishop we had a man ‘in Christ’s Office’? Did they say to him as Vatican 1 said in its official proclamation,“We bow down before thy voice, O Holy Father,as we would before Christ Himself…in clinging to thee we cling to Christ” ?
Which again begs the question why were We left so long without this knowledge?
Why is it not in scripture or in Holy Tradition?

As Catholics we should believe in the Faith once revealed to the saints.

But in Romanism revelation is on a perennial curve!**

 

[raumzeitmc2]

Yet the question remains, why did no one tell us that in this small group of Christians there was God’s Vice Regent on Earth, why were we,or they, not told that in the Roman Pope, or Bishop we had a man ‘in Christ’s Office’?

I don’t think you read my above post very well! Please go back and read it again, especial the quote by Mr. Miller.

The main thing I was trying to show was that Scripture* praises* the Roman Church, and *never, *under any circumstances whatsoever, condemns it. Now there has to be a reason this, for Scripture singling out the Church of Rome this special way.

Further, I believe it’s absolutely essential that we establish the Roman Church’s Scriptural credentials first, before we can properly set the tone for any fruitful discussion on the question of the Papacy.

Next case:

Did they say to him as Vatican 1 said in its official proclamation,“We bow down before thy voice, O Holy Father,as we would before Christ Himself…in clinging to thee we cling to Christ” ?

Hmmm. To tell truth, that sounds suspiciously Scriptural:

“And my temptation which was in my flesh ye despised not, nor rejected; but received me as an angel of God, even as Christ Jesus.” Galatians 4:14

Which again begs the question why were We left so long without this knowledge?
Why is it not in scripture or in Holy Tradition?

Well, again Papal Primacy aside, Tradition is *filled * with references to the Church of Rome! The Roman Church has always, from the time of its founding by the apostles Peter and Paul, had an extremely prominent role in history and in the writings of the Fathers. Recognition of that basic fact is the starting point for further discussion of the papacy.

And if once you ever begin to see that, I believe you will have a much easier time of *at least * considering the possibility of the Papacy.

Now it is true that very early and explicit testimony of the Papacy, though not wanting, is not as extensive as perhaps some of us would like. But this may be accounted for by at least two important factors:

1. The Papacy grew almost “imperceptibly” as it were, during the first centuries of the Church, because, like the gospel itself, is began as a seed, and like any seed, took time to grow and develop.
2. The Church very often had to suffer great persecution during the first three centuries of her life, and as a result, was often forced to go underground. However, the documentation really begins to pick up by the fourth and especially the fifth centuries, as the terrible persecutions subside and the Church is finally allowed to come out into the open.

And remember, just as the Lord was buried underground for three days, so too *his Church * was buried underground for three centuries. But, nevertheless she, like her Lord, rose again - as it were, on the “Third Day” - glorious and triumphant!

Think of it.

 

[raumzeitmc2]

I do not insist on others following my interpretation, which could be wrong, if it does not line up with what the Scripture says.
Jesus said that His disciples were not to act as lords, but servants and ministers.
Jesus did promise the Holy Spirit, Who would guide believers (the elect) unto the Truth. Some take that as meaning only they have such promised guidance and all others must obey and follow their interpretation.

First you say:

“I do not insist on others following my interpretation, which could be wrong, if it does not line up with what the Scripture says.”

But then contradict yourself by saying:

“Jesus did promise the Holy Spirit, Who would guide believers (the elect) unto the Truth.”

(Btw, what Jesus said, is “when he comes, the Spirit of truth, he will guide you to ALL truth.” John 16:13)

But in any event, my question is: since you admit you can err, why have you not been led into ALL Truth?

 

[Ferde_Rombola]

guanophore;5003397:

You are of course correct the authority is of Christ. I would never claim anything else, neither did I do so in my previous email. But you equate the Church with the Roman Catholic Church which is a fallacy. In my honest opinion the Roman Church as we now know it is an offspring of The Council of Trent! The true Church is the Body of Christ to which we are admitted by Baptism.

I respect the fact that you admit what you state above is your opinion. It’s mistaken. There is abundant evidence the Catholic Church and the Church in Rome are synonymous. Here’s the 3rd Century theologian Tertullian on the subject:

“Where was [the heretic] Marcion, that shipmaster of Pontus, the zealous student of Stoicism? Where was Valentinus, the disciple of Platonism? For it is evident that those men lived not so long ago—in the reign of Antonius for the most part—and that they at first were **believers in the doctrine of the Catholic Church, in the church of Rome **under the episcopate of the blessed Eleutherius, until on account of their ever restless curiosity, with which they even infected the brethren, they were more than once expelled” (Demurrer Against the Heretics 30 [A.D. 200])."

I would take Peter’s commissioning as I take the commissioning of all the other apostles,

Did the Lord say to any Apostle but Peter, “Feed my sheep.”? Did the Lord give the keys to the kingdom to any Apostle but Peter? Did the Lord command any Apostle but Peter to strengthen his brothers? It is convenient for protestants to deny anything and everything the Catholic Church teaches and believes, but all of them lack the proof of what they say. In this entire message you have not offered a single citation in support of your opinions.

[What I cannot find in scripture is any mention of the Bishop of Rome, or any close alliance between that Bishop and S.Peter or indeed any claim that S. Peter was a Bishop of Rome.

Why should you find such a reference? The Church wasn’t prominent in Rome when the NT was written. Do you find any mention in Scripture of Henry VIII? Or of King James? Or Martin Luther or the Church of England or Anglicanism or protestantism? Or, for that matter, to sola scriptura, sola fide or any of the other protestant inventions? What’s your point?

As a Catholic I agree with you,

It is a handy conceit for Anglicans to refer to themselve as Catholics, but it’s a rather empty boast and a direct contradication. The Catholic Church does not ordain women. She does not ordain as bishops professed practicing homosexuals and she is most certainly not led by the likes of your namby-pamby Rowan Williams. You have a long way to go before you can legitimately refer to yourself as a Catholic. I hope you’ll make the trip.

but you are avoiding the heart of the matter which is you have to prove that the Roman Church is the Catholic Church and that the papacy has any legitimacy other than that given by the Church and that through the Councils with the guidance of the Holy Ghost.

We don’t have to prove any such thing. What you deny are matters of history and your denial does nothing to change history. All it does is show you have some studying to do.
[/quote]

 

[brkn1]

First you say:

“I do not insist on others following my interpretation, which could be wrong, if it does not line up with what the Scripture says.”

But then contradict yourself by saying:

“Jesus did promise the Holy Spirit, Who would guide believers (the elect) unto the Truth.”

(Btw, what Jesus said, is “when he comes, the Spirit of truth, he will guide you to ALL truth.” John 16:13)

But in any event, my question is: since you admit you can err, why have you not been led into ALL Truth?

I have been led into THE Truth, Which is Christ. (John 14:6) “I am…the Truth”
The Word of God is confirmed by Jesus, when He said, “Sanctify them through thy truth: thy word is truth.”.

ALL Truth is speaking of the full knowledge of all the doctrines of the Gospel. This full knowledge does not include unnecessary knowledge, which some might include as part of “ALL”.

 

[Ferde_Rombola]

This constant use of the word PROTESTANT by our Romanist friends is quite interesting! Classicly, as far as I know the term refers to supporters of Luther’s action at the Cathedral door.

The word ‘protestant’ says nothing about Luther or his heresy. The word is derived from the word “protest” and has always been taken to mean those who protest against the teachings of the Catholic Church. People like yourself.

Your phrase “Romanist friends” is intended to be insulting, isn’t it? We are not Romans unless we live in Rome. We exist all over the world. I am an American Catholic, not a Roman.

However, when I pointed out that the only part of the Catholic Church that had claimed that term was the Roman Church in 1791 when it declared in a letter to the Lords, that they Rome] were Dissenting, Protestant Catholics, he was dismayed in turn.

That’s absurd. Another one of your opinions, is it? “Protestant Catholics” is about as risible an oxymoron as you could invent.

 

[luckyfredsdad]

**believers in the doctrine of the Catholic Church, in the church of Rome under the episcopate of the blessed Eleutherius,

**all this quote shows is that the people named were simply in a particular Church that held,[at that time,] the true Catholic Faith. Nothing more. If this isn’t so why does he have to mention the Roman Catholic Church at all.He is simply pointing out that the people under discussion are in an orthodox community!
**

It is convenient for protestants to deny anything a In this entire message you have not offered a single citation in support of your opinions.

**Friend! It is up to you and your colleagues to prove your points regarding the Papacy,I do not have to prove a negative!
**

**Feed my sheep!
S.Peter had boasted, “If all should be offended in thee, I will never be offended!”
Shortly after he, Peter, denied Christ three times.The boast was public and so was the denial. It was apostacy!
Now Christ was restoring Peter, he was asked three times in public before his peers, "Simon, son of Jonas,lovest thou me more than these? This alludes to the boast in the upper room,
The three fold query and three fold charge, “Feed my Lambs,” simply shows that Peter had been restored to grace and could take his place within the ranks of the disciples and his Apostacy had been forgiven. **

Do you find any mention in scripture of Henry 8th, or King James?

**We are talking about the place in scripture or tradition that justifies the claims of the papacy, or The Roman Catholic Church, in the One ,Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church! Up to now you have failed to bring any proof. **

For your information, I’m not in the C.of E, neither do I, or have I ever believed in Solar Scripture. As I have repeatedly said, I believe in the Ecumenical Councils.I mentioned earlier the Only Church I know to have used the term protestant in its literature was the Roman one in 1791 to the House of Lords.

It is a handy conceit for Anglicans to refer to themselve as Catholics.

It is a truth that cannot be denied. At the very latest the Church was in England by 2**05AD and probably very much earlier to my mind.
Albanicus, or Gildas [425/512] tells “that Christ, the True Son, afforded His light, the knowledge of His precepts, to our Island in the last year, as we know, of Tiberius Caesar”.
Further prey, where does Anglicanism depart from the Catholic faith as held by the Romanists? Of course we reject your Trentine and other medieval additions and keep to the old faith.

I and the Communion I am a member of, reject Women in Orders and Homosexual Bishops,just as you, I suppose, reject child abuse and homosexuality in general!

---

 

[luckyfredsdad]

The word ‘protestant’ says nothing about Luther or his heresy. The word is derived from the word “protest”

****Oh! What was Luther doing when he nailed his thesis to the door?

**I admit that in early Stuart times the word was used by Anglicans who protested against the political claims of the papacy.

You are Romans because you are members of the Apostolic Roman Church! This was claimed right after Trent, if I wanted to be insulting I should call you a Trentist, because some people believe your church as it is known today stemmed from that Robber Council.**
You are obviously not too proud of your Church or its history or you wouldn’t deny your and its name!

 

[raumzeitmc2]

I have been led into THE Truth, Which is Christ. (John 14:6) “I am…the Truth”
The Word of God is confirmed by Jesus, when He said, “Sanctify them through thy truth: thy word is truth.”

But just because you have some sort of belief in Christ doesn’t mean that you have “all truth.” Even heretics “believe” in Christ!

ALL Truth is speaking of the full knowledge of all the doctrines of the Gospel. This full knowledge does not include unnecessary knowledge, which some might include as part of “ALL”.

Well, would you be so kind then, as to tell us just what you believe “all the doctrines of the Gospel” are?

And do you think Luther was in possession of “all truth” when, speaking of the Real Presence of Christ in the Eucharist, he said the following:

Since the institution of Christianity, the Church has never held any other doctrine, and its constant and uniform testimony ought to satisfy us, and prevent us from attending to the spirits of trouble and error. There is danger in rising up against the voice, the belief, and the teaching of the holy Church, which for sixteen centuries has never varied upon this dogma.

To doubt them, is nothing else than to disbelieve the Church, and to condemn her as false, and, with her, Christ himself the apostles and the prophets. Is it not written, “Behold I am with you all days, even to the consummation of the world.” Matt. 28:20.

And in St. Paul, 1 Tim. 3:15: “The house of God is the Church of the living God, the pillar and ground of the truth.” 2 I think, then, that since the dispute is becoming eternal, silence must be imposed on the dissentients; and it is not I only who give you this advice, but the Holy Ghost, by the mouth of the apostle.

Avoid him who is a heretic after the first or second admonition, knowing that such a one is perverted, and that he speaks like a man who condemns himself by his own judgment.

Luther’s Sendbrief Wider etliche Rottengeister an Markgraf Albrecht zu Brandenburg, , Luther’s Letter Against Some Factious Spirits (Rottengeister) to Margrave Albrecht in brandenburg, Duke of Prussia April, 1532.

Sources:

History of the Life, Writings, & Doctrines of Luther, 1854, Jean Marie Vincent Audin, William B. Turnbull, tr., London, C. Dolman; Baltimore, J. Murphy & Co, pp. 314-315.
books.google.com/books?id=6cYrAAAAYAAJ&pg=PA314&dq=%22Since+the+institution+of+Christianity,+the+Church+has+never+held+any+other+doctrine%22&lr=

Dr. Martin Luthers Briefe, Sendschreiben und Bedenken: vollständig aus den verschiedenen Ausgaben seiner Werke und Briefe, aus andern Büchern und noch unbenutzten Handschriften gesammelt, kritish und historisch bearbeitet, 1827, W.M.L. De Wette, ed, Berlin: Georg Reimer, vol. 4, pp. 354-55.
books.google.com/books?id=6LQPAAAAQAAJ&pg=PA354&dq=%22euch+bis+an+der+Welt+Ende%22+%22de+wette%22&lr=&as_brr=0&as_pt=ALLTYPES#PPA355,M1

 

[Ferde_Rombola]

…and that they at first were believers in the doctrine of the Catholic Church, in the church of Rome under the episcopate of the blessed Eleutherius,

all this quote shows is that the people named were simply in a particular Church that held,[at that time,] the true Catholic Faith. Nothing more. If this isn’t so why does he have to mention the Roman Catholic Church at all. He is simply pointing out that the people under discussion are in an orthodox community!
That’s what it shows under your protestant revision. Does he say ‘the Roman Catholic Church’ or does he say ‘the Catholic Church’? Otherwise, it shows what it says. The people spoken of were once believers of the doctrine of the Catholic Church (the Church Jesus came to build,) and became, like millions, heretics and the victims of satan.
luckyfredsdad;5012290:

FR incomplete quote: "…it is convenient for protestants to deny anything a (sic) In this entire message you have not offered a single citation in support of your opinions.

Friend! It is up to you and your colleagues to prove your points regarding the Papacy,I do not have to prove a negative!

A very convenient standard you have set up for yourself. That’s what athiests do. They declare there is no God and say believers have to prove there is a God and they don’t have to prove a negative. I have news for you. When you allege the modern Catholic Church was created by the Council of Trent, you are making an affirmative statement and the burden is on you to prove it. The same for your claim there is no justification for the papacy.

In that regard, I’m not sure what you’re getting at when you say I have to prove my points regarding the papacy. What points? That the Bishop of Rome is the the leader of the Catholic Church and is infallible in matters of faith and morals? The proof is in the 2000 year history of the Church and in the Gospels, which you reject. You are free to reject the word of the Lord if you wish, of course, but don’t say the proof isn’t there. Unless you can find some other meaning for “Whatever you bind on earth, etc.”

…Feed my sheep! S.Peter had boasted, “If all should be offended in thee, I will never be offended!” Shortly after he, Peter, denied Christ three times.The boast was public and so was the denial. It was apostacy! Now Christ was restoring Peter, he was asked three times in public before his peers, "Simon, son of Jonas,lovest thou me more than these? This alludes to the boast in the upper room,
The three fold query and three fold charge, “Feed my Lambs,” simply shows that Peter had been restored to grace and could take his place within the ranks of the disciples and his Apostacy had been forgiven.

I wish I had a dime for every time I’ve seen that bit of protestant fantasy. It’s absurd on its face. Jesus is the shepherd. It is the shepherd’s primary responsibility to pasture his sheep, i.e., to feed them. As the Lord gave Peter the keys to the kingdom, He is now giving him the responsibility to pasture His sheep. A child could understand that from the words of the text. It’s only in the hysteria of protestant denial that we see the kind of nonsense you believe.

FR: …Do you find any mention in scripture of Henry 8th, or King James?

We are talking about the place in scripture or tradition that justifies the claims of the papacy, or The Roman Catholic Church, in the One ,Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church! Up to now you have failed to bring any proof.

We are? I wasn’t talking about that. You said you can’t find “Bishop of Rome” in Scripture, meaning if it were legitimate, it would be in Scripture. I asked you where you find your protestant ikons in Scripture. If that’s the standard of proof you set up, it’s a legitimate question. Are you having a hard time following the conversation here, or do you prefer the cheap protestant trick of twisting things around when it’s not going your way?

…For your information, I’m not in the C.of E, neither do I, or have I ever believed in Solar Scripture.

It’s my mistake, then. I was under the impression ‘Anglican’ meant the Church of England. I know the Archbishop of Canterbury is head of the Anglican Communion and it seems to follow that Anglicans are C of E. Anglicans are not Catholics. How can you be an Anglican and a Catholic at the same time? How can you be an Anglican and not be an Anglican?

At the very latest the Church was in England by 205AD and probably very much earlier to my mind.

By ‘the Church’ you mean the Catholic Church, of course.

Further prey, where does Anglicanism depart from the Catholic faith as held by the Romanists?

Do you mean by Catholics? I think that’s what you mean. Anglicanism departed from the Catholic faith when the Catholic King of England, Henry VIII rejected the authority of the Pope and declared himself head of his own Church, which became the Church of England. I thought everybody knew that.

…Of course we reject your Trentine and other medieval additions and keep to the old faith.

Of course. It’s a protestant specialty to reject the true Church in favor of their heresies and create new, not faiths, but sects. It’s what makes protestants protestants. What you call ‘the old faith’ is the Catholic Faith, almost 2000 years old, which will still be here at the end of the world just as the Lord promised.

 

[GKC]

“t’s my mistake, then. I was under the impression ‘Anglican’ meant the Church of England. I know the Archbishop of Canterbury is head of the Anglican Communion and it seems to follow that Anglicans are C of E. Anglicans are not Catholics. How can you be an Anglican and a Catholic at the same time? How can you be an Anglican and not be an Anglican?”

CoE is Anglican. Not all Anglicans are CoE. Or are in the Anglican Communion. It’s complicated, I know. It involves history, and how the CoE spread, folowing the Empire, and what happened thereafter.

Some, but not all Anglicans speak of themselves as Catholic, the distinction being that they retain apostolic succession. But are not in communion with Rome. I’m one of those. Yes. I know you don’t.

Have fun with LFD.

GKC

 

[Ferde_Rombola]

CoE is Anglican. Not all Anglicans are CoE. Or are in the Anglican Communion. It’s complicated, I know. It involves history, and how the CoE spread, folowing the Empire, and what happened thereafter.

But it’s post-16th Century, right? And they’re a sub-set of the C of E. It’s not merely complicated, it’s confusing. The term “Anglican” originated with the C of E. How can they break with them, say they are not C of E and say they are still Anglican? AND Catholic!! Sounds like la-la land to me.

…Some, but not all Anglicans speak of themselves as Catholic, the distinction being that they retain apostolic succession. But are not in communion with Rome.

That’s an oxymoron if I ever heard one. They do not retain Apostolic Succession. They cannot be ‘not in communion with Rome’ and have Apostolic Succession. Once a group leaves the Catholic and/or the Orthodox Church, it separates itself from Apostolic Succession. It’s like excommunication. You do it to yourself. I understand the desire to be in Apostolic Succession, but it’s not a matter of desire. You can’t just claim it and have it be true. Apostolic Succession is what makes the Catholic Church the authentic repository of the Christian faith on this planet. There is no other.

Have fun with LFD.

What was that? Have fun sticking toothpicks in my eyes?

 

[GKC]

“But it’s post-16th Century, right? And they’re a sub-set of the C of E. It’s not merely complicated, it’s confusing. The term “Anglican” originated with the C of E. How can they break with them, say they are not C of E and say they are still Anglican? AND Catholic!! Sounds like la-la land to me.”

Right.

Certainly it’s confusing. As I said, it involves history.

Anglican and CoE were once synonymous, back right after Henry took the Church in England private. As the British expanded their Empire, the Church of England expanded with it, as colonial outposts of the CoE, at first under the Bishop of London. History happened, and the colonial outposts became colonial sees, then became established as independent, self-governing Churches, with the blessings of the CoE. Usually they can be spotted by the term “Anglican” in their name: the Anglican Church of Canada, of South Africa, of Australia. A couple of such use "Episcopal, as in this country, or in Scotland. And there are 1-2 other oddly named ones. In total, the independent offspring of the Church of England, officially, total 38, and they form the official world-wide Anglican Communion. The mark of the Communion is that all such Churches, though autocephelous, are in communion with the Archbishop of Canterbury. It’s a little like the British Commonwealth, a sort of social club of independent and equal members.

All such churches (and others) are Anglican; they have their roots in the CoE. Thus, the CoE itself is Anglican, but not all Anglicans are CoE. This does not address the current situation, of Anglican churches that broke from the Communion, over doctrinal issues during the last 40 + years, or the fracturing of the Episcopal Church in this country over similar doctrinal matters, more recently, a related event. But all these folks are Anglican; rooted in the CoE.

To an Anglican, Catholicity enheres in apostolic succession, and not in communion with the See of Rome. Hence, you’ll find Anglicans who refer to us, you, the Orthdox, one-offs like the OCs and the PNCC, and the occasional Swedish Lutheran, as Catholic. As I said above, yes, I know you don’t. However, we do, and it’s we’uns I’m talking about. Retaining apostolic succession is what permits schismatic bishops, such as the OCs or PNCC, to transmit valid orders.

It’s all complicated, I know. Don’t expect to grasp it at once.

And, as to LFD … play nice.

GKC