It's NOT in the Bible, okay?

[qui_est_ce]

1. The church called the way, or the church, which traversed the first 5 centuries alongside the Catholic church, and continued to do so for the next 11 centuries, at which point the Protestant reformation, (all offshoots of the CC) - ensued, leading to all of the man-made non-Catholic churches in the world today, built on the foundation of the 16th century Protestant reformation as opposed to the foundation of the 1st century Apostles and Prophets, to which Jesus is the Divine Cornerstone, which begs the obvious question, to which no one will answer: where is the original church (which did not codify the bible) - that existed since Pentecost, that spanned the centuries alongside the reputed 4th century man-made Catholic Church (which codified the bible) - as well as all of the man-made Protestant churches?

This is a rather modern idea, conceived in 1931 by James Milton Carroll. There is more fact to support Papal succession and Catholic practices than there is for these “Trail of Blood” churches. Unless, of course, you consider Arianism and other heresies as being these churches. In which case Protestants wouldn’t believe in the Trinity today.

The fact is, without the Catholic Church and her monks preserving the Bible and painstakingly copying it during the Dark Ages, we would have no Bible today.

BTW, feast today is Pope St Clement I. Third Pope to succeed Peter. He died a martyr’s death in 100 AD.

I know, it makes no sense to me either…

:sad_yes:

 

[Lampo]

you gotta know the protestant anwser to that, so why ask?

Do you acknowledge that the Catholic Church had a first Pope? If so, who was it and when? If you don’t believe the Catholic Church had a first Pope, please explain. All Protestant faith traditions can be traced to a sinful man as the founder. Who founded the Catholic Church?

 

[RedBert]

Do you acknowledge that the Catholic Church had a first Pope? If so, who was it and when? If you don’t believe the Catholic Church had a first Pope, please explain. All Protestant faith traditions can be traced to a sinful man as the founder. Who founded the Catholic Church?

I acknowledge that the Chuch you call Catholic calls Peter the first Pope.

I reject Peter was the head of the early Chirstian church: James, (the half -brother of Christ) was .

The Christian Church , The Universal Church , The Followers of the Way, the Tribe calling themselves Chritains, was founded by Jesus the Christ and the Holy Sspirit

 

[Philthy]

Do you acknowledge that the Catholic Church had a first Pope? If so, who was it and when? If you don’t believe the Catholic Church had a first Pope, please explain. All Protestant faith traditions can be traced to a sinful man as the founder. Who founded the Catholic Church?

Hey! This is unnecessarily inflammatory! While your point is technically true, the Catholic Church is not exempted from having a sinner being the first man for it to be built upon. I’m speaking of hat first Pope, Peter, of course. So given that, what is the point of your accusation? I dont see any good flowing from such discourse…

 

[Philthy]

Hey Red! You dodgin’ me after I stood up for you?!

Do you believe John the Apostle was part of the Catholic Church? I know you don’t, of course, but my asking relates to the following:
St Ignatious - one of his disciples - has the oldest surviving use of the word “Catholic Church” that we have in his Letter to the Smyrneans (ca 90 AD). “Wherever the bishop shall appear, there let the multitude [of the people] also be; even as, wherever Jesus Christ is, there is the Catholic Church.” Ignatious of Antioch
You can read the whole thing here: http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/0109.htm
Do you believe he was part of the Catholic Church?
Do you really believe that St Ignatious - a martyr for the faith - had a substantially different faith than the Apostle John who discipled him?

C’mon big guy - give some more honest answers here …I wont ridicule you. How do you reconcile this?

 

[nuntym]

I acknowledge that the Chuch you call Catholic calls Peter the first Pope.

I reject Peter was the head of the early Chirstian church: James, (the half -brother of Christ) was .

The Christian Church , The Universal Church , The Followers of the Way, the Tribe calling themselves Chritains, was founded by Jesus the Christ and the Holy Sspirit

Then please explain why Peter was always listed first among the apostles in the Bible? And why Peter was always speaking for the apostles?

 

[Lampo]

I acknowledge that the Chuch you call Catholic calls Peter the first Pope.

Do you think the first Pope of the Catholic Church could have been anything other than Catholic?

I reject Peter was the head of the early Chirstian church: James, (the half -brother of Christ) was .

Could you be wrong?

The Christian Church , The Universal Church , The Followers of the Way, the Tribe calling themselves Chritains, was founded by Jesus the Christ and the Holy Sspirit

Is this another way of saying the Catholic Church was founded by Jesus Christ? If so, why aren’t you in full communion with it or sprinting to your nearest parish and joining RCIA??!!

 

[Lampo]

Hey! This is unnecessarily inflammatory! While your point is technically true, the Catholic Church is not exempted from having a sinner being the first man for it to be built upon. I’m speaking of hat first Pope, Peter, of course. So given that, what is the point of your accusation? I dont see any good flowing from such discourse…

I am not speaking of who the Catholic Church was built upon (Peter.) I specifically said founder. Our founder is Jesus Christ. I realize that Peter and his successors were/are sinners.

 

[qui_est_ce]

Just to clarify the obvious:

Protestants don’t ascept
the Peter is the Rock interpretation
the doctrine of Apostolic Succession

So Protestants don’t accept what the first Christians believed?

The point being made is that using these doctrines to “prove” a point with a Protestant doesn’t work

So how do you reconcile the fact that Protestants don’t believe what the first Christians believed with the following in view of the fact the the CC still practices what the first Christians did?

) many Protestants see that Catholic Church has move drastically away from the first century roots of Christainity

 

[RedBert]

Then please explain why Peter was always listed first among the apostles in the Bible? And why Peter was always speaking for the apostles?

If I may be frank with you Frank, are you basing a religion on a word play on a name and the order in a list:

FYI The Gospel of Mark ( maybe the first of the synopics) wriiten by a companion of Peter… equals Peter’ versions of the events:

 

[qui_est_ce]

many Protestants see that Catholic Church has move drastically away from the first century roots of Christainity

What do you think Jesus meant when he compared the parable Kingdom of God to the mustard seed?

*The Parables of the Mustard Seed and the Yeast
31He told them another parable: “The kingdom of heaven is like a mustard seed, which a man took and planted in his field. 32Though it is the smallest of all your seeds, yet when it grows, it is the largest of garden plants and becomes a tree, so that the birds of the air come and perch in its branches.”

33He told them still another parable: “The kingdom of heaven is like yeast that a woman took and mixed into a large amount** of flour until it worked all through the dough.”

34Jesus spoke all these things to the crowd in parables; he did not say anything to them without using a parable. 35So was fulfilled what was spoken through the prophet:
“I will open my mouth in parables,
I will utter things hidden since the creation of the world.”[c*]***

 

[qui_est_ce]

If I may be frank with you Frank, are you basing a religion on a word play on a name and the order in a list:

And whose interpretation is correct and why? Why was it only at the Reformation that Papal Succession was suddenly rejected? Show me historical proof of rejection of Papal succession before 500 AD. (And not from an anti-Catholic website).

The historical record is that ALL Christianity accepted the primacy of the Bishop of Rome. There is not one shred of evidence to the contrary.

 

[nuntym]

If I may be frank with you Frank, are you basing a religion on a word play on a name and the order in a list:

FYI The Gospel of Mark ( maybe the first of the synopics) wriiten by a companion of Peter… equals Peter’ versions of the events:

If I may be frank with you RedBert, I believe in the Way, the Truth, and the Life.

The Way must be truly True before it can lead to Life. Jesus’ Way must not have a speck of falseness, or He cannot be in that way, for Jesus is Truth Itself. And without that Truth, that Way cannot lead to Life; it must lead to death.

If you, representing your version of the Way, cannot answer our questions, how will we seriously consider your version?

And why do you keep referring to the Bereans, when you don’t even do their example?

yankee_drifter: see what I mean?

 

[RedBert]

And whose interpretation is correct and why? Why was it only at the Reformation that Papal Succession was suddenly rejected? Show me historical proof of rejection of Papal succession before 500 AD. (And not from an anti-Catholic website).

The historical record is that ALL Christianity accepted the primacy of the Bishop of Rome. There is not one shred of evidence to the contrary.

you can decide for yourself whch site is “anti-catholic”

google.com/search?hl=en&rlz=1T4GGIH_enUS235US235&q=early+church+beliefs+Papal+succession&btnG=Search&aq=f&oq=&aqi=

 

[nuntym]

you can decide for yourself whch site is “anti-catholic”

google.com/search?hl=en&rlz=1T4GGIH_enUS235US235&q=early+church+beliefs+Papal+succession&btnG=Search&aq=f&oq=&aqi=

And another non-answer to some questions.

 

[qui_est_ce]

you can decide for yourself whch site is “anti-catholic”

google.com/search?hl=en&rlz=1T4GGIH_enUS235US235&q=early+church+beliefs+Papal+succession&btnG=Search&aq=f&oq=&aqi=

The first several sites all support the Catholic Church’s position on Primacy of the Bishop of Rome.

Please tell me your response to my original question:

qui:

And whose interpretation is correct and why? Why was it only at the Reformation that Papal Succession was suddenly rejected? Show me historical proof of rejection of Papal succession before 500 AD. (And not from an anti-Catholic website).

The historical record is that ALL Christianity accepted the primacy of the Bishop of Rome. There is not one shred of evidence to the contrary.

 

[nuntym]

To all the posters: Catholicism is not just about blindly accepting what the Pope and his lackey bishops hand down to us as doctrines. Catholicism is all about the tenacious search for the Truth, and embracing that Truth in our Way of life, in the firm hope that walking this Way of Truth will lead us into everlasting Life.

I found that most of the Catholics here in the Apologetics section of CAF had wrestled with not just the Scriptures as Protestants here are so proud about of, but also with history, science, Catholic doctrines, doctrines of other religions, philosophy, and their own lives. By the grace of God they had knocked loudly and wildly for so long to be given Light, and by the grace of God they found it through sweat, tears, and maybe even blood.

So to all who come here, when you post in this forum, do not expect to find spiritual babes still with milk in their mouths, for you will find battle hardened soldiers of the Church Militant here with crowns of Light on their heads.

 

[qui_est_ce]

To all the posters: Catholicism is not just about blindly accepting what the Pope and his lackey bishops hand down to us as doctrines. Catholicism is all about the tenacious search for the Truth, and embracing that Truth in our Way of life, in the firm hope that living this Truth will lead us into everlasting Life.

I found that most of the Catholics here in the Apologetics section of CAF had wrestled with not just the Scriptures as Protestants here are so proud about of, but also with history, science, Catholic doctrines, doctrines of other religions, philosophy, and their own lives. By the grace of God they had knocked loudly and wildly for so long to give them Light, and by the grace of God they found it through sweat, tears, and maybe even blood.

So to all who come here, when you post in this forum, do not expect to find spiritual babes still with milk in their mouths, for you will find battle hardened soldiers of the Church Militant here with crowns of Light on their heads.

 

[qui_est_ce]

To all the posters: Catholicism is not just about blindly accepting what the Pope and his lackey bishops hand down to us as doctrines. Catholicism is all about the tenacious search for the Truth, and embracing that Truth in our Way of life, in the firm hope that walking this Way of Truth will lead us into everlasting Life.

do not expect to find spiritual babes still th milk in their mouths, for you will find battle hardened soldiers of the Church Militant here with crowns of Light on their heads.

I suspect that when Red, yankee, Jacob, et al study the true historical record, they, like Scott Hahn, Rosalind Ross, etc. will be “Surprised by the Truth!”

 

[nuntym]

I suspect that when Red, yankee, Jacob, et al study the true historical record, they, like Scott Hahn, Rosalind Ross, etc. will be “Surprised by the Truth!”

Well in my opinion they should study more, if they are serious about their Faith.

EDIT: Red, yankee, Jacob et al, I mean