A
adrift
Guest
Yep!
Please give me the name of the man, or men, that founded the Catholic Church, and when...
- Status
E
elvisman
Guest
I just got home and started readin the posts. Gee - I was going to respond but Cat Herder is doing such a masterful job at debunking your bizarre reasoning that I think I’ll just make some popcorn and sit on the sidelines for a while . . .
Talk to you tomorrow.**
G
guanophore
Guest
You know Brian, I am perfectly happy to concede the point that Peter was not a bishop. In my mind, the role of Apostle outranked the role of Bishop. Even so, I am very confused about your arguement here. Are you really suggesting that Peter and Paul did not have authority over the Church in Rome? Whether you call Peter “bishop” or “apostle”, he was still in Rome,and he still had authority.
Clearly you are rejected the consistent thread in all the accounts, which was that Peter and Paul were in Rome, built up the Church, then left Linus in charge.
Why is this so difficult to accept?
G
guanophore
Guest
OK, perhaps you will be kind enough to explain what the difference is between an apostle, and a bishop.
Did the apostles Peter and Paul have authority? Did this authority die with them? I think that is the real question here. You are bickering over the word “bishop”, but the issue is really the apostolic succession - the passing on of the responsibility to feed and care for the flock.
P
Petergee
Guest
But you said before that you’re perfectly open to the idea that God uses the Catholic Church to His glory, and you asserted that the church that Jesus inaugurated is far bigger than the Catholic Church. You’re contradicting yourself quite a lot.
Ok so you say God, not you, decides what the essential doctrines are and who’s in and who’s out. So how do you know that some doctrines are essential and some are not? And how can you possibly know what’s in the hearts of all those people to be able to say that the number of people who believe all the essential doctrines and are “in"the invisible"CHURCH” as you call it, is “far greater” than the 1.2 billion (living) people who are in the Catholic Church?
Hey, wait. You just said that the decision is up to God. Now in the same breath you are laying down the law about which doctrines are essential and to deny them is heresy, and which doctrines are totally optional and in fact two people can both be “in” the “CHURCH” you’re talking about when they flatly contradict each other about one of these doctrines, e.g. one says baptism in the name of Jesus is the only valid baptism, one says baptism in the name of the father son and holy spirit is the only valid baptism. (Heck I would have thought baptism is a pretty important thing to get right, but OK.)
But at least we’re getting somewhere now. You’ve told us ONE doctrine which is essential. Whgat are the other essential doctrines?
And how do you know which doctrines are essential and which are optional?
E
elvisman
Guest
I’m not - not by a LONG shot.
Peter’s Episcopacy is testified to by many Early Church Writings. It is spoken of by some Pre-Nicene Fathers and explicitly attested to by others after Nicaea.
Brian** is typical of those anti-Catholics who, unless it is in writing before the council of Nicaea – it doesn’t count, as if Nicaea is where Christianity fell of the tracks. If some Catholic position* IS* in a pre-Nicene document, they dismiss it because it is not explicit in Scripture. Brian simply hides his head in the sand when hard evidence is presented before him rather than conced that the Catholic Church might be right about anything. This is neither charitable NOR logical.**
You can’t win with these people because they are constantly raising the bar – and pulling out completely in some cases. This is a preposterous position as there are many quotes from the Fathers attesting to the Chair of Peter in Rome:
The Poem Against the Marcionites**, AD 267 (PRE-NICENE)**
"In this chair in which he himself had sat, Peter in mighty Rome commanded Linus, the first elected, to sit down."
**Eusebius. **quoting from The Little Labyrinth, AD 211 (PRE-NICENE)
**Victor . . . was the thirteenth bishop of Rome from Peter." **
Cyprian of Carthage** (PRE-NICENE)**
With a false bishop appointed for themselves by heretics, they dare even to set sail and carry letters from schismatics and blasphemers to the Chair of Peter and to the principal church [at Rome], in which sacerdotal unity has its source" (Epistle to Cornelius [Bishop of Rome] 59:14 A.D. 252]).
Cyprian of Carthage (PRE-NICENE**)
The Lord says to Peter: “I say to you,” he says, “that you are Peter, and upon this rock I will build my Church” . . . On him he builds the Church, and to him he gives the command to feed the sheep John 21:17], and although he assigns a like power to all the apostles, yet he founded a single chair [cathedra], and he established by his own authority a source and an intrinsic reason for that unity. Indeed, the others were that also which Peter was , but a primacy is given to Peter, whereby it is made clear that there is but one Church and one chair. (The Unity of the Catholic Church 4 A.D. 251]).
Optatus
In the city of Rome the Episcopal chair was given first to Peter, the chair in which Peter sat, the same who was head** — that is why he is also called Cephas — of all the apostles, the one chair in which unity is maintained by all. (The Schism of the Donatists** 2:2 [circa A.D. 367]).
Augustine
"Number the bishops from the See of Peter itself. And in that order of Fathers see who succeeded whom**. This is the rock which the gates of hell do not prevail." (Psalmus contr. Partem Donati, str. 18) **
NO** concession here . . .**
G
guanophore
Guest
The list is right there next to the list of books that belong to the Bible, the definitition of the word “Trinity”, and the instructions that we should have Church on Sundays.
E
East_Anglican
Guest
Absolute nonsense!
G
guanophore
Guest
Yes, it is clear that this is about authority, and the validity of the Apsostolic Succession. What I don’t get is how anyone can read the documents and think that Peter was not an authority when he was in Rome. Even if Peter jointly had episkopal oversight with Paul, the line of bishops emanates from Peter.
I am having a lot of trouble following the logic. What difference does it make whether you call Peter an Apostle, or a bishop? Is he not still the highest authority present? Brian did concede that those present would defer to an Apostle, no matter how many bishops may be present. It is a mystery.
Maybe the actual facts of history throw such a wrench that it can hardly be grasped? Like Neo, getting flushed out of virtual reality into the “real world” it is difficult to adjust to the shock?
I gues, for reasons I am unable to understand, if that “chair” or “see” or “line of bishops” coming from him does not name Peter a bishop, it does not count?
I thought the best illustration was about the Superbowl I read on this thread last night. It was not called a Superbowl, but is accepted as the first one.
C
Cat_Herder
Guest
Encyclopedia Britannica:
The break with the Roman papacy and the establishment of an independent Church of England came during the reign of Henry VIII (1509–47).
G
guanophore
Guest
When do you think it started?
S
sweetangel2128
Guest
That’s easy, non-catholicsSum, please read the OP again. He is looking for answers from those who DONT believe this.
It probably came about from Lutherans since they were the first ones to break away from the Catholic church. The only reason I say non-catholics is because I know a lot of Protestants who don’t believe Jesus built the Catholic church which is probably thanks to Martin Luther.
D
Dokimas
Guest
I’m impressed.
D
Dokimas
Guest
The church is people; the CC is people. Sorry I’m not smart enough to see a contradiction.
Set aside the fact you’re being very argumentative, let me respond that the Bible makes it clear at least some of the essentials. I’m sure your church teaches essentials, doesn’t it?
In spite of your argumentative tone, the Bible is God’s word. It give us definition for salvation. Teaching the Bible, if done correctly, lays down NO law, it’s just repeating God’s Words for whomever will listen. God sees hearts and if the judge of who knows the correct Jesus.
Being the smart individual you seem to be, you don’t need my help in discovering the essentials for salvation. If you have trouble finding them, private message me and I’ll see if I can help. This seems to be off topic, thus not the place for it.
C
Cat_Herder
Guest
The Catholic Church is a Body. Your church is a group of Ears.
[BIBLEDRB]1 Cor 12:13-25[/BIBLEDRB]
I hope you were listening to that last verse, my brother Ear.
[BIBLEDRB]1 Cor 12:25[/BIBLEDRB]
Not so fast. Jesus is God’s Word. God has only one Word, so the Bible is the written Word of God only insofar as it derives from Jesus. As stated above, Jesus has a Body; that Body is the Church; and it was the Church that decided what alleged scriptures were really inspired by God.
If your Bible has red letters you really ought to pay attention to them.
[BIBLEDRB]Matthew 5:17-20[/BIBLEDRB]
Again, that last verse.
[BIBLEDRB]Matthew 5:20[/BIBLEDRB]
This “we teach the essentials” is a race to the bottom. You want to get rid of all the smells and bells because they’re too Catholic. So you make baptism optional because you think faith is what saves. Then you make Communion optional because you think it’s just a symbol. You ditched the other Sacraments a long time ago—except marriage.
Marriage is the one you realize you can’t get rid of because of the force of natural law; and also you may know what happens to those who commit premarital sex according to Revelation 21:8. So you recognize that SOMETHING supernatural happens during the marriage ritual that makes the marital act legal in God’s eyes.
It’s a ritual. It does something supernatural.
That’s a Sacrament.
In your church.
:newidea:
B
Brian_Culliton
Guest
And he was in Corinth, Antioch, etc. He was an apostle. The apostles were called to lay the foundation of the church, to preach the Good News. They most certainly did have authority over the church in Rome. Where did I suggest they didn’t?
You must have me mixed up with someone else.
B
Brian_Culliton
Guest
Well, maybe you should tell me which of the following “hard evidence” (all of which is apparently believed by you) the Catholic Church endorses and which it rejects.
Irenaeus:
Peter and Paul co-founded the church in Rome, organized it, and appointed Linus the first bishop of Rome.
Tertullian:
Peter ordained Clement to the episcopate around 92 AD.
Eusebius:
Linus was appointed bishop of Rome after the martyrdom of Peter and Paul.
Augustine:
**Clement preceded Linus **in the succession from Peter. And Paul seems to have vanished from the picture.
C
Cat_Herder
Guest
Are you ready for some football? Apparently not… or else you are ignoring me.
P
Petergee
Guest
Argumentative? I just want you to explain your contradictory assertions. You’re the one who’s throwing block capitals around and refusing to answer the question of when and by whom you think the Catholic Church started, as you’ve avoided answerring all my questions. Ok, you don’t have to answer them here in writing if it makes you uncomfortable. But I urge you to at least think about them. The fate of your soul could depend on what answers you come up with.
P
Prodigal_Son1
Guest
It’s not an argumentative tone. It’s statements of Catholic beliefs, in defense of our faith since it’s being challenged. Either side can be taken as argumentative and either way I’m sure you know the answer to your question of ‘…your Church teaches essentials, doesn’t it?’ It makes one wonder the purpose of such a question.
Repeatedly, we’ve told you that we accept the Bible as God’s inspired word. The problem lies in who is doing the teaching. There are multiple interpretations being taught which leaves us to understand that someone is teaching incorrectly. If one questions their own teaching maybe they should reconsider teaching, rather than risk teaching incorrectly.
The Bible, specifically the gospels, tells us of Christ’s ministry. There were times Christ preached to the multitudes and times recorded that Christ only addressed His Apostles, that He said He chose and appointed. Some readers read all of it as being spoken to themselves. Why does God’s word relay the difference of who is being addressed? Why is it acceptable to ignore the difference? It seems to me that some are assuming an authority established by Christ and the lesson is to recognize that He established the authority and did not give ‘blanket’ authority to all the multitudes as some are taking it today.
- Status