Peter's successors?

[JaneFrances]

Fredricks:

I have provided proof of what people said. I have not intentionally tried to leave anything out. I have asked you guys to prove the Papacy over the whole church from 50 CE to 200 CE

Actually, Fred, while you keep saying all you want is “proof,” you are AGAIN narrowing your definition of “proof” to mean the production of a direct quotation, cited from the years 50 through 200, which would specifically say something to include all of the following:

“Peter, the same fisherman who Jesus renamed and who appears as a predominant personage in the New Testament texts, was the Bishop of Rome. By virtue of his Roman episcopacy, he was the first Pope. The Bishop of Rome has always been considered the prime seat of authority in the Church and his successors will retain that prime authority.”

And when no one can seem to produce such a “proof”-worthy quotation, within your 150 year specification, which does all this for you, you fancy that you have succeeded in your pursuit of disproving papal succession and Roman primacy.

Surely, you see the absurdity of this schematic.

As several other posters have pointed out, you are demanding of us (the Catholic Church) a burden of proof which you can not possibly apply in any practical way to your own belief system—whatever that may be.

Plenty of “proof” has already been provided, yet you reject it because it doesn’t fit your narrow rubric. And while you keep appealing to early Church history, you also tend to draw convenient, yet entirely subjectively determinant dates for when something SHOULD have been said explicitly for it to have been universally held.

The point of the matter is that there is a cache of early Church quotations (within the first and second century time frame you favor) which would implicitly provide all the proof needed for Western and Eastern Church Fathers such as St. Cyprian, St. Athanasius, St. Basil, St. Ambrose , St. Jerome, St. Augustine, St. Ephraim, St. Basil the Great, and St. John Chrysostom to deduce what you simply “can not see.”

 

[Mickey]

The Lord Jesus Christ Himself said that He was building His Church on the rock Peter. And thus we believe.

 

[jim1130]

Fredricks:

I have provided proof of what people said. I have not intentionally tried to leave anything out. I have asked you guys to prove the Papacy over the whole church from 50 CE to 200 CE

Peace.

Although my interpretation of your efforts indicate your persistence is not about genuinely seeking the truth, but about being right (hence the reason for dismissing many strong posts and wrapping yourself in a blanket of semantics) this Web site may be helpful (if not for you then perhaps someone else who is more earnestly and sincerely pursuing the truth).

bringyou.to/apologetics/a87.htm

Peace.

 

[Fredricks]

Jane
As you well know, what I am asking for is not at all unreasonable. This goes back 1700 years as Rome began to assert itself in a way that other Bishops did not agree with. You have tried to frame this as some kind of radical statement. What I am asking for is at the core of the Orthodox/Catholic split, is it not? At the core of this debate, is my request that Catholicism prove its claim of Papal supremacy. Everyone knows this is the primary issue that caused a massive split 1000 years ago. This is not a Fredricks invention. Reasonable people disagreed then and now. Do you think the Orthodox church is absurd as well for not believing this? I keep mentioning the Orthodox because most scholars in this particular area of the Papacy tend to be Catholic or Orthodox. For most Protestants, who are content with a simplistic petra/petros argument, they never investigate further.

This is not a Fredricks argument. It is a debate that has raged on for 1700 to 1800 years, This stance of Catholicism must be proven. It has no room for development by your own decrees:
I have shown you quotes that show how the early Church viewed this. Some of said my argument is too narrow. I have provided quote after quote of how they viewed this. Remember, this doctrine does not develop according to your beliefs but has always been there.

First Vatican Council
"That which the Prince of Shepherds and great Shepherd of the sheep, Jesus Christ our Lord, established in the person of the blessed Apostle Peter to secure the perpetual welfare and lasting good of the Church, must, by the same institution, necessarily remain unceasingly in the Church; which, being founded upon the Rock, will stand firm to the end of the world. For none can doubt, and it is known to all ages, that the holy and blessed Peter, the Prince and Chief of the Apostles, the pillar of the faith and foundation of the Catholic Church, received the keys of the kingdom from our Lord Jesus Christ, the Saviour and Redeemer of mankind, and lives presides and judges, to this day and always, in his successors the Bishops of the Holy See of Rome, which was founded by him and consecrated by his blood. Whence, whosoever succeeds to Peter in this See, does by the institution of Christ himself obtain the Primacy of Peter over the whole Church"

 

[Fredricks]

jim1130:

Peace.

Although my interpretation of your efforts indicate your persistence is not about genuinely seeking the truth, but about being right (hence the reason for dismissing many strong posts and wrapping yourself in a blanket of semantics) this Web site may be helpful (if not for you then perhaps someone else who is more earnestly and sincerely pursuing the truth).

bringyou.to/apologetics/a87.htm

Peace.

Jim no one has provided a quote from the first 150 years that said that the Bishop of Rome is the head the universal church. No one. They have provided additional quotes that show my point. They have tried to say my burden of proof is unreasonable. What you are really saying is the most fundamental of your beliefs do not have a shred, a shred of historical proof for hundreds of years. Thats not good guys.

 

[DeFide]

Fredricks:

Jane
As you well know, what I am asking for is not at all unreasonable. This goes back 1700 years as Rome began to assert itself in a way that other Bishops did not agree with. You have tried to frame this as some kind of radical statement. What I am asking for is at the core of the Orthodox/Catholic split, is it not? At the core of this debate, is my request that Catholicism prove its claim of Papal supremacy. …

These quotes all precede the Orthodox Schism:
catholic.com/library/Peter_Primacy.asp

Besides, if early bishops disagreed with the role of Peter’s successor, how did they come to a final decision? Hmmm… Let’s see:

‘If your brother sins against you, go and tell him his fault, between you and him alone. . . . But if he does not listen, take one or two others along with you. . . . If he refuses to listen . . . tell it to the church; and if he refuses to listen even to the church, let him be to you as a Gentile and a tax collector’ (Mt 18:15-17).

"The Bible is very clear to me about what to do if we have a disagreement with one another over some issue pertaining to the Faith. And please remember: To lead someone into heresy is a grievous sin against your brother according to Galatians 5:19-21! The Bible tells us that the Church, not the Bible, is the final court of appeal.

Now, how did the the Church resolve divisions, if they existed? It should be obvious, but for example, in the case of the Arian heresy, there was a final, supreme authority, that preserved Church from teaching error. Guess who it was. It wasn’t a ballot box.

catholic.com/thisrock/1997/9706eaw.asp

 

[Fredricks]

‘If your brother sins against you, go and tell him his fault, between you and him alone. . . . But if he does not listen, take one or two others along with you. . . . If he refuses to listen . . . tell it to the church; and if he refuses to listen even to the church, let him be to you as a Gentile and a tax collector’ (Mt 18:15-17).
Are you equating “the church” in this with the Pope? This sounds like a local assembly, would you not agree?

"The Bible is very clear to me about what to do if we have a disagreement with one another over some issue pertaining to the Faith. And please remember: To lead someone into heresy is a grievous sin against your brother according to Galatians 5:19-21! The Bible tells us that the Church, not the Bible, is the final court of appeal.

I sense you are getting off topic. I have discussed scripture and tradition elsewhere.

Now, how did the the Church resolve divisions, if they existed? It should be obvious, but for example, in the case of the Arian heresy, there was a final, supreme authority, that preserved Church from teaching error. Guess who it was. It wasn’t a ballot box.

How did the church resolve divisions the first 1000 years? Interesting topic but not what I am talking about.

 

[DianJo]

Fredricks:

Jim no one has provided a quote from the first 150 years that said that the Bishop of Rome is the head the universal church. No one. They have provided additional quotes that show my point. They have tried to say my burden of proof is unreasonable. What you are really saying is the most fundamental of your beliefs do not have a shred, a shred of historical proof for hundreds of years. Thats not good guys.

I have been following this debate from the beginning and I don’t mean to chime in here at this point in the debate but I just cannot help myself.

I have sat here at my computer and have mareled in utter amazement at the lack of - I don’t know what to call - it on Fredricks part!

Fredrick, you have been provided indisputable proof from the quotes, during the time frame you have restricted us to, that assert that the Bishop of Rome (in the Universal Catholic Church as it was the only one around at the time!) had a preeminent place above the other bishoprics and that that Bishop of Rome had the authority to guide and counsel the other churches in times of chaos and/or dispute.

If you cannot see or understand or better yet - refuse to understand (which it really seems you are trying to do), then I don’t see that there is anything else anyone can offer you; except to say that your eyes have scales over them that the Lord has not seen fit to remove from you yet.

In the link provided to you from jim1130, there are plenty of quotes from the Early Church Fathers that prove your original question. The writers of these quotes (letters) obviously didn’t imagine that the people of our time would expect such obvious wording as you require. The fact is, is that the people of that time knew that the Bishop of Rome had the authority of Peter as head of the Church - they spelled it out for the people in the letters in the way that the people of that time would understand. When they said “the Church,” they meant what we call today “the Catholic Church.” Everyone knew that then. They knew the Bishop of Rome had primacy and authority. They didn’t need to say “the Bishop of Rome/the successor of Peter who was the first Pope has authority over you!” Read the quotes provided in the link given to you by jim1130!

My suggestion is that you move on to another topic because obviously you are unwilling to see the proof that has been provided to you. Just because the Orthodox don’t see eye to eye with these same quotes doesn’t mean the truth does not exist - it just means you and they refuse to see it.

I don’t mean to be harsh but watching you discount every quote that provides the proof you are seeking is extremely frustrating!
Open your eyes - it’s so obvious it hurts!

 

[jim1130]

Fredricks:

Jim no one has provided a quote from the first 150 years that said that the Bishop of Rome is the head the universal church. No one. They have provided additional quotes that show my point. They have tried to say my burden of proof is unreasonable. What you are really saying is the most fundamental of your beliefs do not have a shred, a shred of historical proof for hundreds of years. Thats not good guys.

Peace.

I think there has been quite a bit of evidence, and that this evidence has been presented to you, but you are playing the semantics game because it is not what you want to see in black-and-white.

I did a newspaper archive search to see if there was anything from the Roman Daily News with a headline or sidebar story, or even a photograph, about succession in the words that you would understand, but it seems none of the local libraries have a copy. I am of the opinion you equate written communiqués of ancient time to be similar in style and format with modern times. Obviously, that is not a fair comparison. Just go back to newspaper reports of the Civil War to see how the presentation of information was offered and you will notice (well, maybe not) the difference of styles. Of course, it is understood that 2,000 years ago most of the followers of that time had an understanding of what was occurring (for examples, The Letters in the NT) and may not have had the inclination toward historical precedence that you obsess over by creating some form of parliamentary procedures or initiation rites.

You remind me of my uncle: It is not the truth or facts he cares about; it is about being right.

I do not know what your agenda is, but I can speculate.

Peace.

 

[Fredricks]

DianJo:

I have been following this debate from the beginning and I don’t mean to chime in here at this point in the debate but I just cannot help myself.

I have sat here at my computer and have mareled in utter amazement at the lack of - I don’t know what to call - it on Fredricks part!

Fredrick, you have been provided indisputable proof from the quotes, during the time frame you have restricted us to, that assert that the Bishop of Rome (in the Universal Catholic Church as it was the only one around at the time!) had a preeminent place above the other bishoprics and that that Bishop of Rome had the authority to guide and counsel the other churches in times of chaos and/or dispute.

If you cannot see or understand or better yet - refuse to understand (which it really seems you are trying to do), then I don’t see that there is anything else anyone can offer you; except to say that your eyes have scales over them that the Lord has not seen fit to remove from you yet.

In the link provided to you from jim1130, there are plenty of quotes from the Early Church Fathers that prove your original question.
My suggestion is that you move on to another topic because obviously you are unwilling to see the proof that has been provided to you. Just because the Orthodox don’t see eye to eye with these same quotes doesn’t mean the truth does not exist - it just means you and they refuse to see it.

I don’t mean to be harsh but watching you discount every quote that provides the proof you are seeking is extremely frustrating!
Open your eyes - it’s so obvious it hurts!

No, tell you what take any quote and show me what you mean. Show me that Peter had a successor and that person led the church for the first 150 years. How you guys cannot see this is beyond me actually. Clement said himself who Corinth should submit to AND IT WAS NOT HIM. I will not move on. The only quotes from the first two hundred years do not point to Peter having a successor that led the church, just show me one quote at a time and lets talk about it. How is that?

 

[Fredricks]

jim1130:

Peace.

I think there has been quite a bit of evidence, and that this evidence has been presented to you, but you are playing the semantics game because it is not what you want to see in black-and-white.

I did a newspaper archive search to see if there was anything from the Roman Daily News with a headline or sidebar story, or even a photograph, about succession in the words that you would understand, but it seems none of the local libraries have a copy. I am of the opinion you equate written communiqués of ancient time to be similar in style and format with modern times. Obviously, that is not a fair comparison. Just go back to newspaper reports of the Civil War to see how the presentation of information was offered and you will notice (well, maybe not) the difference of styles. Of course, it is understood that 2,000 years ago most of the followers of that time had an understanding of what was occurring (for examples, The Letters in the NT) and may not have had the inclination toward historical precedence that you obsess over by creating some form of parliamentary procedures or initiation rites.

You remind me of my uncle: It is not the truth or facts he cares about; it is about being right.

I do not know what your agenda is, but I can speculate.

Peace.

Another long attempt to try to skirt the issue that Catholicism cannot prove its claim. Guys show me the proof. Quit complaining about me and lets dissect the quotes if I am so wrong, it should be very easy. Yet, no one is doing it.

 

[DianJo]

Fredricks:

No, tell you what take any quote and show me what you mean. Show me that Peter had a successor and that person led the church for the first 150 years. How you guys cannot see this is beyond me actually. Clement said himself who Corinth should submit to AND IT WAS NOT HIM. I will not move on. The only quotes from the first two hundred years do not point to Peter having a successor that led the church, just show me one quote at a time and lets talk about it. How is that?

YOU HAVE BEEN PROVIDED AN ENORMOUS AMOUNT OF INFORMATION AND I WILL NOT REHASH IT WITH YOU!

Jim1130 said it much better and succinctly than I did in his above post. Your agenda is not to really learn and understand. I don’t think you’d believe Peter himself if he came down from heaven to tell you he had a successor - “Hey, Fredrick, my successor was Linus!”

Thank you, but I’ll see if anyone else wants to continue to repeat themselves over and over.

 

[jim1130]

But you’ve dismissed this (bringyou.to/apologetics/a87.htm) and these:

“The blessed apostles [Peter and Paul], having founded and built up the church [of Rome], they handed over the office of the episcopate to Linus. Paul makes mention of this Linus in the epistle to Timothy [2 Tim. 4:21]. To him succeeded Anencletus, and after him, in the third place from the apostles, Clement was chosen for the episcopate. He had seen the blessed apostles and was acquainted with them. It might be said that he still heard the echoes of the preaching of the apostles and had their traditions before his eyes. And not only he, for there were many still remaining who had been instructed by the apostles. In the time of Clement, no small dissension having arisen among the brethren in Corinth, the Church in Rome sent a very strong letter to the Corinthians, exhorting them to peace and renewing their faith. . . To this Clement, Evaristus succeeded. . . and now, in the twelfth place after the apostles, the lot of the episcopate [of Rome] has fallen to Eleutherus. In this order, and by the teaching of the apostles handed down in the Church, the preaching of the truth has come down to us” (Against Heresies 3:3:3 [inter AD. 180-190]).

“But since it would be too long to enumerate in such a volume as this the succession of all the churches, we shall confound all those who, in whatever manner, whether through self-satisfaction or vainglory, or through blindness and wicked opinion, assemble other than where it is proper, by pointing out here the successions of the bishops of the greatest and most ancient church known to all, founded and organized at Rome by the two most glorious apostles, Peter and Paul, that church which has the tradition and the faith which comes down to us after having been announced to men by the apostles. With that church, because of its superior origin, all the churches must agree, that is, all the faithful in the whole world, and it is in her that the faithful everywhere have maintained the apostolic tradition” (ibid. 3:3:2).

“Through envy and jealousy, the greatest and most righteous pillars [of the Church] have been persecuted and put to death. Let us set before our eyes the illustrious apostles. Peter, through unrighteous envy, endured not one or two, but numerous labours and when he had at length suffered martyrdom, departed to the place of glory due to him.” Clement of Rome, The First Epistle of Clement, 5 (c. A.D. 96).

Hermas The Shepherd 2:4:3 (80 A.D.)
Therefore shall you [Hermas] write two little books and send one to Clement [Bishop of Rome] and one to Grapte. Clement shall then send it to the cities abroad, because that is his duty.

There are many more knowledgeable, patient, and wise people on this forum, but you have not listened.

2 Timothy 2:23-26 - “Avoid foolish and ignorant debates, for you know that they breed quarrels. A slave of the Lord should not quarrel, but should be gentle with everyone, able to teach, tolerant, correcting opponents with kindness. It may be that God will grant them repentance that leads to knowledge of the truth, and that they may return to their senses out of the devil’s snare, where they are entrapped by him, for his will.”

 

[DeFide]

Fredricks:

How did the church resolve divisions the first 1000 years? Interesting topic but not what I am talking about.

You asked about Papal primacy and I provided evidence from history. Here is part 2:

catholic.com/thisrock/1997/9711eaw.asp

It directly disproves your concilliar excuse.

 

[Ignatius]

Fredricks:

Jane has resorted to taunting instead of answering my contentions…

Look, let’s be honest. It really doesen’t matter how much evidence we give you, you are just going ot reject it. So why should we continue to waste our time and effort?

Yours in Christ.

 

[Fredricks]

DianJo:

YOU HAVE BEEN PROVIDED AN ENORMOUS AMOUNT OF INFORMATION AND I WILL NOT REHASH IT WITH YOU!

Jim1130 said it much better and succinctly than I did in his above post. Your agenda is not to really learn and understand. I don’t think you’d believe Peter himself if he came down from heaven to tell you he had a successor - “Hey, Fredrick, my successor was Linus!”

Thank you, but I’ll see if anyone else wants to continue to repeat themselves over and over.

I guess that is a no then. I have been provided information which proves my point.

 

[jim1130]

Fredricks:

I guess that is a no then. I have been provided information which proves my point.

Peace.

And you have proven another point: Do not confuse me with facts and information since my truth is what is important.

I am glad I do not major in the minor like you.

So, what is next? Going to run to the non-Catholic forums and say that you defeated the papists?

Peace.

 

[jim1130]

(1) Tertullian (c. AD 197) speaks of Peter apart from Paul as ordaining Clement as his episcopal successor (De Praescrip Haer 32).

(2) The Poem Against Marcion (c. 200 AD) states how “Peter bad Linus to take his place and sit on the chair whereon he himself had sat” (III, 80). The word “chair” (cathedra) in ecclesiastical language always means one’s episcopal throne (i.e. the bishop’s chair).

(3) Caius of Rome (214 AD) calls Pope Victor the thirteenth bishop of Rome after Peter (Euseb HE V, 28).

(4) Hippolytus (225 AD) counts Peter as the first Bishop of Rome (Dict Christian Biog I, 577).

(5) Cyprian (in 250) speaks of Rome as “the place of Peter” (Ep ad Anton), and as “the Chair of Peter” (Ep ad Pope Cornelius).

(6) Firmilian (257) speaks of Pope Stephen’s claim to the “succession of Peter” and to the “Chair of Peter” (Ep ad Cyprian).

(7) Eusebius (314) says that Peter was “the bishop of Rome for twenty-five years” (Chron an 44), and calls Linus “first after Peter to obtain the episcopate” (Chron an 66). He also says that Victor was “the thirteenth bishop of Rome after Peter” (HE III, 4).

(8) The Council of Sardica “honors the memory of the Apostle Peter” in granting Pope Julius I the right to judge cases involving other episcopal sees under imperial Roman law (Sardica Canon IV, and Ep ad Pope Julius).

(9) Athanasius (340’s) calls Rome the “Apostolic Throne” – a reference to the Apostle Peter as the first bishop to occupy that throne (Hist Arian ad Monarch 35).

(10) Optatus (370) says that the episcopal chair of Rome was first established by Peter, “in which chair sat Peter himself.” He also says how “Peter first filled the pre-eminent chair,” which “is the first of the marks of the Church.” (Schism Donat II, 2 and II, 3).

(11) Pope Damasus (370) speaks of the “Apostolic chair” in which “the holy Apostle sitting, taught his successors how to guide the helm of the Church” (Ep ix ad Synod, Orient ap Theodoret V, 10). Damasus also states how “The first See is that of Peter the Apostle, that of the Roman church” and says how Rome received primacy not by the conciliar decisions of the other churches, but from the evangelic voice of the Lord, when He says, “Thou art Peter…” (Decree of Damasus 382).

(12) Ambrose (c. 390) speaks of Rome as “Peter’s chair” and the Roman church where “Peter, first of the Apostles, first sat” (De Poenit I, 7-32, Exp Symb ad Initiand).

(13) Jerome (c. 390) speaks of Rome as the “chair of Peter” and the “Apostolic chair,” and states that Peter held the episcopal chair for twenty-five years at Rome (Epistle 15 and se Vir Illust I, 1).

(14) Augustine (c. 400) tells us to number the bishops of Rome from the chair of Peter itself (in Ps contra Part Donat), and speaks of “the chair of the Roman church in which Peter first sat” (Contra Lit Petil).

(15) Prudentius (405) writes how in Rome there were “the two princes of the Apostles, one the Apostle of the Gentiles, the other holding the First Chair” (Hymn II in honor of St Laurent, V).

(16) Bachiarius (420) speaks of Rome as “the chair of Peter, the seat of faith” (De Fide 2).

(17) Prosper of Aquitaine (429) calls Rome “the Apostolic See” and the “Chair of the Apostle Peter” (Carm de Ingratis).

(18) The Roman legates at the Council of Ephesus (431) declare how “it is a matter doubtful to none that Peter lived and exercised judgement in his successors” and how “the holy and most blessed [Pope] Celestine, according to due order, is his successor and holds his place” (Acta Councilia, session 3, tom III, col 621).

(19) Peter Chrysologus (440) speaks of “blessed Peter living and presiding in his own see” (Ep ad Eutech).

(20) Pope Leo the Great (440) says how “the whole Church acknowledges Peter in the See of Peter (Rome)” (Serm II, 2).

(21) At the Council of Chalcedon (451), the assembled bishops respond to the teaching of Pope Leo the Great by crying out, “Peter has spoken through Leo.” The sentence of the council is pronounced by the legates “in the name of Leo, the Council, and St. Peter” (Canons of Chalcedon).

(22) The Synodical Letter to Pope Leo from Chalcedon calls the Pope “the interpreter of Peter’s voice.”

(23) Emperors Theodosius and Valentinian III (450) speak of “the primacy of the Apostolic See (Rome), made firm on account of the merits of Peter, Chief of the Corona of Bishops” (Inter ep Leon I, Vol XI, col 637).

Matthew 10:14 And whosoever shall not receive you, nor hear your words: going forth out of that house or city shake off the dust from your feet.

 

[Fredricks]

jim1130:

But you’ve dismissed this (bringyou.to/apologetics/a87.htm) and these:

"The blessed apostles [Peter and Paul], having founded and built up the church [of Rome], they handed over the office of the episcopate to Linus.

They, Peter and Paul, not just Peter, hand it to Linus. What do they hand? The Bishop of Rome. Thats all, nothing more.

"

But since it would be too long to enumerate in such a volume as this the succession of all the churches, we shall confound all those who, in whatever manner, whether through self-satisfaction or vainglory, or through blindness and wicked opinion, assemble other than where it is proper, by pointing out here the successions of the bishops of the greatest and most ancient church known to all, founded and organized at Rome by the two most glorious apostles, Peter and Paul, that church which has the tradition and the faith which comes down to us after having been announced to men by the apostles. With that church, because of its superior origin, all the churches must agree, that is, all the faithful in the whole world, and it is in her that the faithful everywhere have maintained the apostolic tradition" (ibid. 3:3:2).

Proof right there. Thank you, Rome has a special place because
of its adherence to the teachings of the Apostles. Not one word about Peter having a successor as head of the church. Not one word.

“Through envy and jealousy, the greatest and most righteous pillars [of the Church] have been persecuted and put to death. Let us set before our eyes the illustrious apostles. Peter, through unrighteous envy, endured not one or two, but numerous labours and when he had at length suffered martyrdom, departed to the place of glory due to him.” Clement of Rome, The First Epistle of Clement, 5 (c. A.D. 96).

What does this prove again? No one is arguing against Peter??

Hermas The Shepherd 2:4:3 (80 A.D.)
Therefore shall you [Hermas] write two little books and send one to Clement [Bishop of Rome] and one to Grapte. Clement shall then send it to the cities abroad, because that is his duty.

Why do you only quote part of this
Once again here i go
"You will write therefore two books, and you will send the one to Clemens and the other to Grapte. And Clemens will send his to foreign countries, for permission has been granted to him to do so. And Grapte will admonish the widows and the orphans. But you will read the words in this city, along with the presbyters who preside over the Church. "

There are many more knowledgeable, patient, and wise people on this forum, but you have not listened.

2 Timothy 2:23-26 - "Avoid foolish and ignorant debates, for you know that they breed quarrels. A slave of the Lord should not quarrel, but should be gentle with everyone, able to teach, tolerant, correcting opponents with kindness. It may be that God will grant them repentance that leads to knowledge of the truth, and that they may return to their senses out of the devil’s snare, where they are entrapped by him, for his will.

Devils snare? Because I ask that you prove your contention and you cannot?

 

[Fredricks]

QUOTE=jim1130]Peace.

And you have proven another point: Do not confuse me with facts and information since my truth is what is important.

I am glad I do not major in the minor like you.

So, what is next? Going to run to the non-Catholic forums and say that you defeated the papists?

Peace.

Impugn my motives instead of disproving me. Once again.