It's NOT in the Bible, okay?

[qui_est_ce]

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

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

Well, I am still studying!

My current Bible study is the Great Adventure Series, Bible Time Line, which Jeff Cavins developed while still a Protestant minister. Everyone should do this Study, especially those radical “Catholics” who think the priesthood should be open to women!

 

[RedBert]

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

:

of course :it is CATHOLIC.COM !!!

 

[qui_est_ce]

of course :it is CATHOLIC.COM !!!

So who is correct and why???

 

[RedBert]

““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.””"

That is bold statement that I flatly reject:

real busy at work :will provide rebuttal later

but first look at the anti-catholic website know as wiki states:

In the early Christian era, Rome and a few other cities had claims on the leadership of worldwide (“Catholic”) church. James the Just, known as “the brother of the Lord”, served as head of the Jerusalem church, which is still honored as the “Mother Church” in Orthodox tradition. Alexandria had been a center of Jewish learning and became a center of Christian learning. Rome had a large congregation early in the apostolic period whom Paul the Apostle addressed in his Epistle to the Romans, and Paul himself was martyred there.

 

[qui_est_ce]

real busy at work :will provide rebuttal later

I can respect that.

but first look at the anti-catholic website know as wiki states:

Wiki is not reliable. Give me a real historian. And don’t get me started on L. Boettner! Yes, I do read non-Catholic sources! My father was Lutheran!

 

[yankee_drifter]

**I suppose that you can say that by default, all Christians were “catholic”, but this is assuming that all Christians understood the present day conflict between Protestants and Catholic - that is clearly not the case.
**

Furthermore, no Protestant would ever call themselves Catholics. Test it! They will say something like: I am a Christian not a Catholic, as if they are 2 different things.

**Today’s Catholic Church is not the same Catholic Church of the 1st century, because it has morphed into a completely different entity.

**
You do not have the authority to make that call; as a Protestant, the bible is your one and only authority, and nowhere in the bible does it say that the Catholic Church is not the same Catholic Church of the 1st century, because it has morphed into a completely different entity. I could say the same thing about the Baptist church, but I won’t.

This is why the Reformers felt it necessary to break off from this alien concept of the Christian Church which Christ founded.

…And form the multifarious maelstrom we see today in the protestant world. Which PC in the world today, did, what Christ could NOT do, by breaking off from this alien concept of the Christian Church which Christ founded?

**There was no other church other than the one that Jesus Christ founded. **

Help me find this one church in the world today, built by Jesus Christ on the foundation of the Apostles, on Pentecost, as opposed to all the man-made churches, stemming from the reputed apostate RCC??? Is it the Baptist church?

**History shows that we referred to this church as the “Catholic” church because of the meaning of the word, “catholic” (UNIVERSAL), not because it describes the present day Catholic Church.
**

History shows that we refer to Jesus’ one church as Catholic because the CC is the only church that existed since Pentecost which has ventured out to the ends of the earth, and she was called Catholic by the turn of the 1st century for practical reasons. Many heretical movements were claiming to be the true Christian church, so the true Christian church adopted the name Catholic to establish a clear line of demarcation.

In the beginning of christian history Ignatius called us catholic. This however has nothing to do with the roman catholic religion as we know it today. The 1st and even 2nd century saw nothing of the structure, power and wealth which the RCC has. Nothing about indulgences, purgatory, NT priesthood, Marian doctrine, relics, prayers to the dead, papal infallibility, the list goes on and on. You cannot see that in order to be a biblical Christian you absolutely must adhere to all of the teachings of the Bible. You cannot add to or take away anything, or resort to other materials and place them on a level with the Holy Scriptures. Christians had no problem being referred to as catholic when it is used in the sense that it means “universal”. This was the definition Ignatius used. Protestant creeds say they believe in one holy, catholic church. But when Rome legalized Christianity via Constantine, this is when we first see the usage of roman catholic church.

It is incorrect to say that Christians believe Christianity began in the 300 AD. Roman Catholicism began then.

Yes, Christians and the Catholics of today are 2 different things. One adheres to the Holy Scriptures as their ultimate authority and all that it teaches…the other does not. The Holy Bible is our only authority because it is God’s Word. Why would any Christian deny that??

Will you tell God when you stand before Him, that His Word wasn’t enough?

Today’s Catholic Church is not the same Catholic Church of the 1st century, because it has morphed into a completely different entity.

Exactly, it no longer teaches exactly what the apostles taught. It has added and added and added and resembles nothing of Christ’s church.Therefore it can no longer claim to be apostolic.

 

[nuntym]

In the beginning of christian history Ignatius called us catholic. This however has nothing to do with the roman catholic religion as we know it today. The 1st and even 2nd century saw nothing of the structure, power and wealth which the RCC has.

:ehh: So you are accusing the Church for not being as visible as it is today in a time of Empire-wide persecution?

Are you serious?

Nothing about indulgences, purgatory,

“And after the exhibition, Tryphaena again receives her. For her daughter Falconilla had died, and said to her in a dream: Mother, thou shaft have this stranger Thecla in my place, in order that she may pray concerning me, and that I may be transferred to the place of the just.” Acts of Paul and Thecla (A.D. 160).

“Abercius by name, I am a disciple of the chaste shepherd…He taught me…faithful writings…These words, I, Abercius, standing by, ordered to be inscribed. In truth, I was in the course of my seventy-second year. Let him who understands and believes this pray fro Abercius.” Inscription of Abercius (A.D. 190).

NT priesthood,

“And thus preaching through countries and cities, they appointed the first-fruits [of their labours], having first proved them by the Spirit, to be bishops and deacons of those who should afterwards believe. Nor was this any new thing, since indeed many ages before it was written concerning bishops and deacons. For thus saith the Scripture a certain place, ‘I will appoint their bishops s in righteousness, and their deacons in faith.’… Our apostles also knew, through our Lord Jesus Christ, and there would be strife on account of the office of the episcopate. For this reason, therefore, inasmuch as they had obtained a perfect fore-knowledge of this, they appointed those [ministers] already mentioned, and afterwards gave instructions, that when these should fall asleep, other approved men should succeed them in their ministry…For our sin will not be small, if we eject from the episcopate those who have blamelessly and holily fulfilled its duties.” Pope Clement, Epistle to Corinthians, 42, 44 (A.D. 98).

“For what is the bishop but one who beyond all others possesses all power and authority, so far as it is possible for a man to possess it, who according to his ability has been made an imitator of the Christ off God? And what is the presbytery but a sacred assembly, the counselors and assessors of the bishop? And what are the deacons but imitators of the angelic powers, fulfilling a pure and blameless ministry unto him, as…Anencletus and Clement to Peter?” Ignatius, To the Trallians, 7 (A.D. 110).

“Hegesippus in the five books of Memoirs which have come down to us has left a most complete record of his own views. In them he states that on a journey to Rome he met a great many bishops, and that he received the same doctrine from all. It is fitting to hear what he says after making some remarks about the epistle of Clement to the Corinthians. His words are as follows: ‘And the church of Corinth continued in the true faith until Primus was bishop in Corinth. I conversed with them on my way to Rome, and abode with the Corinthians many days, during which we were mutually refreshed in the true doctrine. And when I had come to Rome I remained a there until Anicetus, whose deacon was Eleutherus. And Anicetus was succeeded by Soter, and he by Eleutherus. In every succession, and in every city that is held which is preached by the law and the prophets and the Lord.’” Hegesippus, Memoirs, fragment in Eusebius Ecclesiatical History, 4:22 (A.D. 180).

Marian doctrine,

“For as Eve was seduced by the word of an angel to flee from God, having rebelled against His Word, so Mary by the word of an angel received the glad tidings that she would bear God by obeying his Word. The former was seduced to disobey God, but the latter was persuaded to obey God, so that the Virgin Mary might become the advocate of the virgin Eve. As the human race was subjected to death through [the act of] a virgin, so it was saved by a virgin.” Irenaeus, Against Heresies, V:19,1 (A.D. 180).

relics,

Acts 19:11-12

prayers to the dead,

See above.

Continued…

 

[nuntym]

papal infallibility,

“The church of God which sojourns at Rome to the church of God which sojourns at Corinth … But if any disobey the words spoken by him through us, let them know that they will involve themselves in transgression and in no small danger.” Clement of Rome, Pope, 1st Epistle to the Corinthians, 1,59:1 (c. A.D. 96).

the list goes on and on.

That’s it?

You cannot see that in order to be a biblical Christian you absolutely must adhere to all of the teachings of the Bible. You cannot add to or take away anything, or resort to other materials and place them on a level with the Holy Scriptures.

Even in a time when the Bible was not compiled?

Christians had no problem being referred to as catholic when it is used in the sense that it means “universal”. This was the definition Ignatius used. Protestant creeds say they believe in one holy, catholic church. But when Rome legalized Christianity via Constantine, this is when we first see the usage of roman catholic church.

It is incorrect to say that Christians believe Christianity began in the 300 AD. Roman Catholicism began then.

And your proof?

Yes, Christians and the Catholics of today are 2 different things. One adheres to the Holy Scriptures as their ultimate authority and all that it teaches…the other does not. The Holy Bible is our only authority because it is God’s Word. Why would any Christian deny that??

Will you tell God when you stand before Him, that His Word wasn’t enough?

Actually, I think it is the Protestants who will be asked that and cannot answer.

Exactly, it no longer teaches exactly what the apostles taught. It has added and added and added and resembles nothing of Christ’s church.Therefore it can no longer claim to be apostolic.

Uh huh.

 

[qui_est_ce]

In the beginning of christian history Ignatius called us catholic. [snip]You cannot add to or take away anything, or resort to other materials and place them on a level with the Holy Scriptures. Christians had no problem being referred to as catholic when it is used in the sense that it means “universal”.
Exactly, it no longer teaches exactly what the apostles taught. It has added and added and added and resembles nothing of Christ’s church.Therefore it can no longer claim to be apostolic.

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*]***
yankee_drifter;5972462:

This was the definition Ignatius used. Protestant creeds say they believe in one holy, catholic church.

What about the rest of what St. Ignatius of Antioch wrote about what Christians practice in 100 AD:
Chapter 7. **Let us stand aloof from such heretics
They abstain from the Eucharist and from prayer, because they confess not the Eucharist to be the flesh of our Saviour Jesus Christ, which suffered for our sins, and which the Father, of His goodness, raised up again. Those, therefore, who speak against this gift of God, incur death in the midst of their disputes. **But it were better for them to treat it with respect, that they also might rise again. It is fitting, therefore, that you should keep aloof from such persons, and not to speak of them either in private or in public, but to give heed to the prophets, and above all, to the Gospel, in which the passion [of Christ] has been revealed to us, and the resurrection has been fully proved. But avoid all divisions, as the beginning of evils.
Chapter 9. Honour the bishop
Moreover, it is in accordance with reason that we should return to soberness [of conduct], and, while yet we have opportunity, exercise repentance towards God. It is well to reverence both God and the bishop. He who honours the bishop has been honoured by God; he who does anything without the knowledge of the bishop, does [in reality] serve the devil. Let all things, then, abound to you through grace, for you are worthy. You have refreshed me in all things, and Jesus Christ [shall refresh] you. You have loved me when absent as well as when present. May God recompense you, for whose sake, while you endure all things, you shall attain unto Him.

Do you observe the Eucharist, the flesh of Christ? Do you honor the Bishop?

But when Rome legalized Christianity via Constantine, this is when we first see the usage of roman catholic church.

sigh Here we go again. It was not Rome who legitimized Christianity, rather it was Constantine.

It is incorrect to say that Christians believe Christianity began in the 300 AD. Roman Catholicism began then.

Please site your source. Roman Catholic is actually CHRISTIAN CATHOLIC, ROMAN RITE (vs Maronite Rite, Byzantine Rite, etc.).

Yes, Christians and the Catholics of today are 2 different things. One adheres to the Holy Scriptures as their ultimate authority and all that it teaches…the other does not. The Holy Bible is our only authority because it is God’s Word. Why would any Christian deny that??

That is quite an accusation to say Catholics are not Christian and they don’t adhere to God’s word. Over and over Catholics here have told you we do study the Bible. We believe the Bible to be the inspired word of God.

Please tell me where in the Bible it says the Bible is the only authority? What makes your interpretation correct and mine incorrect? Who decides?

Will you tell God when you stand before Him, that His Word wasn’t enough?

That is a good question you should ask yourself.

 

[Eric_Hilbert]

Thread has reached the 1000 post limit and has drifted off topic…again.
Thanks to all who participated.