Q
qui_est_ce
Guest
You would do well to also et time aside to 5pint’s link if you want the whole truth.
How can people believe Peter is the rock but still not be Catholic?
- Status
S
sandusky
Guest
Have you read either of them?You would do well to also et time aside to 5pint’s link if you want the whole truth.
Q
qui_est_ce
Guest
kaycee,
I see you are a senior member, so I’m sure the REALChurch Fathers have already been quoted to you, but I’ll post them just in case.
St. Irenaeus: Against HeresiesBook III, Chapter 2-3
***2. Since, however, it would be very tedious, in such a volume as this, to reckon up the successions of all the Churches, we do put to confusion all those who, in whatever manner, whether by an evil self-pleasing, by vainglory, or by blindness and perverse opinion, assemble in unauthorized meetings; [we do this, I say,] by indicating that tradition derived from the apostles, of the very great, the very ancient, and universally known Church founded and organized at Rome **by the two most glorious apostles, Peter and Paul; as also [by pointing out] the faith preached to men, which comes down to our time by means of the successions of the bishops. For it is a matter of necessity that every Church should agree with this Church, on account of its preeminent authority, that is, the faithful everywhere, inasmuch as the apostolical tradition has been preserved continuously by those [faithful men] who exist everywhere.
- The blessed apostles, then, having founded and built up the Church, committed into the hands of Linus the office of the episcopate. Of this Linus, Paul makes mention in the Epistles to Timothy. To him succeeded Anacletus; and after him, in the third place from the apostles, Clement was allotted the bishopric. This man, as he had seen the blessed apostles, and had been conversant with them, might be said to have the preaching of the apostles still echoing [in his ears], and their traditions before his eyes. Nor was he alone [in this], for there were many still remaining who had received instructions from the apostles. In the time of this Clement, no small dissension having occurred among the brethren at Corinth, the Church in Rome despatched a most powerful letter to the Corinthians, exhorting them to peace, renewing their faith, and declaring the tradition which it had lately received from the apostles, proclaiming the one God, omnipotent, the Maker of heaven and earth, the Creator of man, who brought on the deluge, and called Abraham, who led the people from the land of Egypt, spoke with Moses, set forth the law, sent the prophets, and who has prepared fire for the devil and his angels. From this document, whosoever chooses to do so, may learn that He, the Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, was preached by the Churches, and may also understand the apostolical tradition of the Church, since this Epistle is of older date than these men who are now propagating falsehood, and who conjure into existence another god beyond the Creator and the Maker of all existing things. To this Clement there succeeded Evaristus. Alexander followed Evaristus; then, sixth from the apostles, Sixtus was appointed; after him, Telephorus, who was gloriously martyred; then Hyginus; after him, Pius; then after him, Anicetus. Soter having succeeded Anicetus, Eleutherius does now, in the twelfth place from the apostles, hold the inheritance of the episcopate. In this order, and by this succession, the ecclesiastical tradition from the apostles, and the preaching of the truth, have come down to us. And this is most abundant proof that there is one and the same vivifying faith, which has been preserved in the Church from the apostles until now, and handed down in truth.*
Q
qui_est_ce
Guest
Yes I have.
K
kaycee
Guest
I can see that civil concourse and debate of the issues is almost over.
Ad homs do not an argument make.Not sure how you poisoning the well is at all relevant to a discussion you apparently do not wish to maintain.I’m not fond of “mud-slinging” scholars, and take what they say with a huge grain of salt. Svendsen, as well as White both are making money by belittling anyone who is not of the Reformed faith and who is not on the “anti-Catholic” bandwagon. Even White’s sister saw the rage in his eyes, and converted to Catholicism.
Strange how the arguments from protestants here all sound the same, and our theology is almost exactly the same. Huh, shouldnt there be 35,000 different arguments
Q
qui_est_ce
Guest
Actually, I’ve seen quite a diversity. I’ve seen Sola Scriptura, OSAS, “Predestination” (5-point Calvinism?), Lutherans believe in Real Presence and Infant Baptism. Some believe in Baptism only after recitation of Sinner’s prayer. Some believe baptism is merely symbolic, others believe it is necessary. Some believe John 6 refers to symbolic presence. Some have rituals, some not. Lutherans and Catholics share same liturgical year readings, and much of the liturgy is identical.Strange how the arguments from protestants here all sound the same, and our theology is almost exactly the same. Huh, shouldnt there be 35,000 different arguments
For you to “shoot the messenger” with ad hominem attacks when he was just pointing out facts is intellectual dishonesty.
5
5pintLutheran
Guest
Ad hominem was absent from my argument that these two men, even though they are great speakers, aren’t quite the “scholars” that presupposes the title “Dr”. I was merely pointing out that they like to sling mud, even though they deny it. I’ve been to White’s website at aomin.org/ and have seen the way that he treats other theologians… Especially Roman Catholics.I can see that civil concourse and debate of the issues is almost over.
Not sure how you poisoning the well is at all relevant to a discussion you apparently do not wish to maintain.
Strange how the arguments from protestants here all sound the same, and our theology is almost exactly the same. Huh, shouldnt there be 35,000 different arguments
If I “poisoned the well”… I did so unintentionally, but isn’t that an Ad Hominem as well? To be fair, I would ask what authority (Historical, or otherwise) would you consider an authentic “authority” on the matter? Whose view of the divisions within Christianity do you adhere to? I’m asking so that I may examine that persons claim that proposes to be “the authority.”
You have to see the arguments from a neutral point of view, then make your conclusions, or otherwise you are being manipulated by one and ignoring the other. But this isn’t a good answer either, b/c you have to lean to one side sooner or later.
I no longer consider myself Protestant, but I’m not Catholic… Yet.
It seems to me that the only thing that the Protestant faith utilizes to a great extent is rebellion. Rebellion has become the new “Tradition”.:coffeeread:
“To become deep in history, is to cease to be Protestant”
- Cardinal Newman
5
5pintLutheran
Guest
The ELCA is liturgical when it wants, or contemporary, allows women to be pastors, and is taking no action on homosexuality. The WELS is the americanized version of Lutheranism (no vestments, almost no liturgy). The LCMS is bracing itself for another schism due to liberal and conservative views.
Sometimes you just get fed up. I would ask that… Even if there are only 90 something divisions within the Christian community, it’s too many. But that’s not the case… There are about 1-200 new denomination “factions” that aren’t in unity with one another, and it’s very heart breaking.
K
kaycee
Guest
It is an awsome read! Some very good quotes from the ECF’s, like this from Pope Gregory.
In his letter to the Emperor, Gregory devotes himself to refuting the argument that was drawn from the insignificance of this honorary title, to which they pretended, at Constantinople, not to attach any great importance. “I pray your Imperial Piety,” be says, Book VII. Ep. 33. "to observe that there are some frivolous things that are inoffensive, but also some others that are very hurtful. When Antichrist shall come and call himself God, it will be in itself a perfectly frivolous thing, but a very pernicious one. If we only choose to consider the number of syllables in this word, we find but two, (De-us) but if we conceive the weight of iniquity of this title, we shall find it enormous. I say it without the least hesitation, whoever calls himself the universal bishop, or desires this title, is, by his pride, THE PRECURSOR OF ANTICHRIST, because he thus attempts to raise himself above the others. The errour into which he falls springs from pride equal to that of Antichrist; for as that Wicked One wished to be regarded as exalted above other men, like a god, so likewise whoever would be called sole bishop exalteth himself above others
5
5pintLutheran
Guest
Right. Check this link out (It can explain better than I can):
bringyou.to/apologetics/num7.htm:thumbsup:
C
catholic1seeks
Guest
Kaycee, I know you are trying to give some emphasis on sola fide(faith alone) with Romans 10:9 (located in your signature)
*
For if thou confess with thy mouth the Lord Jesus and believe in thy heart that God hath raised him up from the dead, thou shalt be saved.*(Romans 10:9)
But to confess the Lord Jesus, and to call upon the name of the Lord (to accept Him as Lord and Savior) is not barely the professing a belief in the person of Christ; but moreover, implies a belief of his whole doctrine, and an obedience to his law; without which, the calling him Lord will save no man.
To obey him would be to love one another (good works of love), to keep the commandments, and even to be baptized.
*
For if thou confess with thy mouth the Lord Jesus and believe in thy heart that God hath raised him up from the dead, thou shalt be saved.*(Romans 10:9)
But to confess the Lord Jesus, and to call upon the name of the Lord (to accept Him as Lord and Savior) is not barely the professing a belief in the person of Christ; but moreover, implies a belief of his whole doctrine, and an obedience to his law; without which, the calling him Lord will save no man.
To obey him would be to love one another (good works of love), to keep the commandments, and even to be baptized.
K
kaycee
Guest
I never said he was.
He was a brilliant historian and In 1851 six volumes of the History of the Church of France had already been published, and the author had received for it the approbation of more than forty of the French bishops. This success caused great uneasiness to the ultramontane party (Jesuits)
C
catholic1seeks
Guest
**
10 Now I beseech you, brethren, by the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, that you all speak the same thing and that there be no schisms among you: but that you be perfect in the same mind and in the same judgment. 11 For it hath been signified unto me, my brethren, of you, by them that are of the house of Chloe, that there are contentions among you. 12 Now this I say, that every one of you saith: I indeed am of Paul; and I am of Apollo; and I of Cephas; and I of Christ. 13 Is Christ divided? Was Paul then crucified for you? Or were you baptized in the name of Paul?**
How not? It’s striking that you read that(1 Cor 1:10-13) and cannot see how there was the intension of unity - unity for the Church of the time, but, as well as, unity always!
10 Now I beseech you, brethren, by the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, that you all speak the same thing and that there be no schisms among you: but that you be perfect in the same mind and in the same judgment. 11 For it hath been signified unto me, my brethren, of you, by them that are of the house of Chloe, that there are contentions among you. 12 Now this I say, that every one of you saith: I indeed am of Paul; and I am of Apollo; and I of Cephas; and I of Christ. 13 Is Christ divided? Was Paul then crucified for you? Or were you baptized in the name of Paul?**
K
kaycee
Guest
I guess then Phil Vaz on the “30,000 denoms” should be ignored outright since he only has a BA in computer scienceA person would do well to use reputable scholars if he/she would like credibility.
5
5pintLutheran
Guest
Ok, well let’s get to it then. Even if you discount all the sub-sects that branched off from larger ones, you still have disunity within the Christian community correct?I guess then Phil Vaz on the “30,000 denoms” should be ignored outright since he only has a BA in computer science
I’m not about to say “So what, we have 15 different ways of thinking about the bible… that’s what’s so great about it!”
Even one division is too many within Christ’s body.
Out of the “Handbook of Denominations in the United States” written in 2005 by Frank S. Mead, Samuel S. Hill, and Craig D. Atwood, and I hope that you approve of them as a reliable source. These are the main denominations (without sub-sects) that are out there today:
- Orthodox and Oriental Orthodox
- Catholic
- Episcopal and Anglican
- Lutheran
- Reformed, Congregationalist, and Presbyterian
- Mennonite and Anabaptist
- Friends (Quaker)
- Bretheren and Pietist
- Baptist
- Methodist
- Holiness
- Christian and Restorationist (Stone-Campbellite Tradition)
- Adventist and Sabbatarian (Hebraic)
- Pentecostal
- Native American
- Fundamentalist and Bible
- Community and New Paradigm Churches
5
5pintLutheran
Guest
I would recommend anyone who is in this ecumenical argument to check out Peter Kreeft’s take on it:
catholicaudio.blogspot.com/search/label/SPEAKER%3A%20Peter%20Kreeft
Scroll down to “Ecumenism without compromise” and listen, it’s worth it.
catholicaudio.blogspot.com/search/label/SPEAKER%3A%20Peter%20Kreeft
Scroll down to “Ecumenism without compromise” and listen, it’s worth it.
T
tqualey
Guest
Dear Kaycee,
I think I understand where you are coming from - but, quibbling over numbers and using terms like ‘lockstep’ merely spread a cloud that obscures the issues rather then light we all searching for.
James’ excellent response about the first 400 years of the Church founded by Jesus Christ and the first 400 years of the churches founded by the reformers.
Merely looking at the disunity created by the lack of unified organization, fueled by private interpretations and re-invented every several years by reformers to the original reformers - must beg the only possible question: Why? As I learned in logic many years ago - error in the premise simply leads to error in the conclusion. Error is multiple, truth is singular.
Personally, I think it would be a good idea to review James’ response and try repositioning your comments against his in a dispassionate manner. I think you will be in for a pleasant surprise.
Best wishes,
I think I understand where you are coming from - but, quibbling over numbers and using terms like ‘lockstep’ merely spread a cloud that obscures the issues rather then light we all searching for.
James’ excellent response about the first 400 years of the Church founded by Jesus Christ and the first 400 years of the churches founded by the reformers.
Merely looking at the disunity created by the lack of unified organization, fueled by private interpretations and re-invented every several years by reformers to the original reformers - must beg the only possible question: Why? As I learned in logic many years ago - error in the premise simply leads to error in the conclusion. Error is multiple, truth is singular.
Personally, I think it would be a good idea to review James’ response and try repositioning your comments against his in a dispassionate manner. I think you will be in for a pleasant surprise.
Best wishes,
K
kaycee
Guest
Hmm, other than a few obvious ones I dont see more than a couple of real differences. The first 4 you mentioned are all held by the reformed. The Lutheran real presence is consubstantiation and an incidental. The only one that presents a real issue is those that believe in baptismal regeneration vs those that don’t. I guess, arguments on when to light candles and when to sing hymms does’nt represent real differences. I can certainly fellowship with most reformation protestants without a problem, because we believe in salvation by Faith. Protestants reject the notion that a universal bishop existed in the early church, so we see no need for one now.
I dont recall attacking anyone? Dissagreement is not an ad hom attack! Show me where i have attacked anyone?
M
Mickey
Guest
Oh brother. Now you are comparing Abbe Guettee to the heretic Arian!
Guettee’s work is enlightening and informative and paints a very different picture than what many Roman Catholics have been taught about the odd ultramontane doctrine of papal infallibility/supremacy.
A must read.
Q
qui_est_ce
Guest
Absolutely.
Rehashing antiCatholic rhetoric does nothing to promote unity. kaycee, you seem very bitter towards the Catholic Church. Do you harbor this kind of bitterness to other denominations? We after all all believe in the Trinity, in the Bible, in Salvation by Jesus’ death on the cross.I’m not sure what your point here is. You are quoting people who are not really credible, and expecting Catholics to listen to them, when in fact we have many well qualified theologians and history that invalidate these assertions.I guess then Phil Vaz on the “30,000 denoms” should be ignored outright since he only has a BA in computer science
Then why should I accept his opinion as Truth?
But obviously not a brilliant theologian
The essentials as taught by the CC. Baptism, Real Presence, etc. Why do you take this one quote of St.Agustine out of context? Why not reference Augustine’s writings on the Eucharist, the Bible, and heretics? Not feeling a lot of love from you!
Yes, and this divisions were deeply disturbing to them. Perhaps you are correct, there will always be divisions. This does not make it right. We should al be working to unity, not division.
See your response to 5pint when he stated a fact you didn’t like:
I can see that civil concourse and debate of the issues is almost over.
Not sure how you poisoning the well is at all relevant to a discussion you apparently do not wish to maintain.
What are you talking about? Who is bickering about this?
Then why denominations? Does it matter if you are a Baptist, Reformed, Anglican, Presbyterian, Lutheran? Why are there different Baptists (Southern, 1st, 2nd, etc.) Why are there different Lutherans (LCMS, ELCA)?
continued
- Status