Protestant saying hello

  • Thread starter Thread starter redshock
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Originally Posted by justasking4
When the leader of your church insults protestants by refusing to acknowledge what they are–churches and calls them “communities” then when we are speaking of the church it is important to keep the important distinctions in mind. We are not the same thing.

Are you saying that truth should not be said because the truth is an insult to :knight2: you?
I think not.
 
what a sad theology this is to think that God is going to tell us everything we wnat to know clear and simple way. if it is not written in a way i understand than i will not accept. pretty arrogant to me. that is what i see here.
 
When the leader of your church insults protestants by refusing to acknowledge what they are–churches and calls them “communities”
It is important to recognise
  • how and why he IS the leader.
  • why Protestants aren’t churches
    You asked awhile back in this thread, give examples of apostolic Tradition. Well, here is one example
Irenaeus was born in Smyrna (today in Turkey). He was taught by Polycarp (also of Smyrna) who was a disciple of St John the apostle. Irenaeus went on to become bishop of Lyon (today in France)

From Irenaeus against heresies (177 AD) from a Protestant translation, (emphasis mine)

10 Now the Church, although scattered over the whole civilized world to the end of the earth, received from the apostles and their disciples its faith

[snip]

Having received this preaching and this faith, as I have said, the Church, although scattered in the whole world, carefully preserves it, as if living in one house. She believes these things everywhere alike, as if she had but one heart and one soul, and preaches them harmoniously, teaches them, and hands them down, as if she had but one mouth.

[snip]

the preaching of the truth shines everywhere, and illumines all men who wish to come to the knowledge of the truth

3 The tradition of the apostles, made clear in all the world, can be clearly seen in every church by those who wish to behold the truth.

[snip]

But since it would be very long in such a volume as this to enumerate the successions of all the churches, I can by pointing out the tradition which that very great, oldest, and well-known Church, founded and established at Rome by those two most glorious apostles Peter and Paul, received from the apostles, and its faith known among men, which comes down to us through the successions of bishops, put to shame all of those who in any way, either through wicked self-conceit, or through vainglory, or through blind and evil opinion, gather as they should not. For every church must be in harmony with this Church because of its outstanding pre-eminence, that is, the faithful from everywhere, since the apostolic tradition is preserved in it by those from everywhere.

3 When the blessed apostles had founded and built up the Church, they handed over the ministry of the episcopate to Linus. Paul mentions this Linus in his Epistles to Timothy. Anencletus succeeded him. After him Clement received the lot of the episcopate in the third place from the apostles: He had seen the apostles and associated with them, and still had their preaching sounding in his ears and their tradition before his eyes—and not he alone, for there were many still left in his time who had been taught by the apostles. In this Clement’s time no small discord arose among the brethren in Corinth, and the Church in Rome sent a very powerful letter to the Corinthians, leading them to peace, renewing their faith, and declaring the tradition which they had recently received from the apostles, which declared one almighty God, maker of heaven and earth and fashioner of man, who brought about the Deluge, and called Abraham; who brought out the people from the land of Egypt; who spoke with Moses; who ordained the Law and sent the Prophets; and who has prepared fire for the devil and his angels. Those who care to can learn from this Writing that he was proclaimed by the churches as the Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, and so understand the apostolic tradition of the Church,

[snip]

Evarestus succeeded to this Clement, and Alexander to Evarestus; then Xystus was installed as the sixth from the apostles, and after him Telesphorus, who met a glorious martyrdom; then Hyginus, then Pius, and after him Anicetus. Soter followed Anicetus, and Eleutherus now in the twelfth place from the apostles holds the lot of the episcopate. In this very order and succession the apostolic tradition in the Church and the preaching of the truth has come down even to us. This is a full demonstration that it is one and the same life-giving faith which had been preserved in the Church from the apostles to the present, and is handed on in truth.

http://www.ccel.org/ccel/richardson/fathers.xi.i.iii.html (Protestant source, with Protestant footnotes)

Protestantism came from the rebellion against the Church of Rome in the 16th century. And Protstantism has continued to divide at will ever since.

Read Rm 16:17-20. Paul says division from this Church (the Church of Rome) is not serving Our Lord, but those who do it serve their own appetites. And He says it’s evil. Look at how Irenaeus words follow that teaching, highlighted above in red.
 
steve b;3443916]It is important to recognise
  • how and why he IS the leader.
  • why Protestants aren’t churches
    You asked awhile back in this thread, give examples of apostolic Tradition. Well, here is one example
Irenaeus was born in Smyrna (today in Turkey). He was taught by Polycarp (also of Smyrna) who was a disciple of St John the apostle. Irenaeus went on to become bishop of Lyon (today in France)

From Irenaeus against heresies (177 AD) from a Protestant translation, (emphasis mine)

10 Now the Church, although scattered over the whole civilized world to the end of the earth, received from the apostles and their disciples its faith

[snip]

Having received this preaching and this faith, as I have said, the Church, although scattered in the whole world, carefully preserves it, as if living in one house. She believes these things everywhere alike, as if she had but one heart and one soul, and preaches them harmoniously, teaches them, and hands them down, as if she had but one mouth.

[snip]

the preaching of the truth shines everywhere, and illumines all men who wish to come to the knowledge of the truth

3 The tradition of the apostles, made clear in all the world, can be clearly seen in every church by those who wish to behold the truth.

[snip]

But since it would be very long in such a volume as this to enumerate the successions of all the churches, I can by pointing out the tradition which that very great, oldest, and well-known Church, founded and established at Rome by those two most glorious apostles Peter and Paul,
The idea that Peter or Paul founded the church at Rome does not square with the historical facts. This is from a catholic scholar says:
Jesuit scholar Joseph Fitzmyer has stated,
“Paul never hints in Romans that he knows that Peter has worked in Rome or founded the Christian church there before his planned visit (cf. 15:20-23). If he refers indirectly to Peter as among the ‘superfine apostles’ who worked in Corinth (2 Cor 11:4-5), he says nothing like that about Rome in this letter. Hence the beginnings of the Roman Christian community remain shrouded in mystery. Compare 1 Thess 3:2-5; 1 Cor 3:5-9; and Col 1:7 and 4:12-13 for more or less clear references to founding apostles of other locales. Hence there is no reason to think that Peter spent any major portion of time in Rome before Paul wrote his letter, or that he was the founder of the Roman church or the missionary who first brought Christianity to Rome. For it seems highly unlikely that Luke, if he knew that Peter had gone to Rome and evangelized that city, would have omitted all mention of it in Acts.” [Joseph A. Fitzmyer, S.J., Romans, A New Translation with introduction and Commentary, The Anchor Bible Series (New York: Doubleday, 1993), p. 30].
What do catholics do with traditions that don’t square with the facts?
 
what a sad theology this is to think that God is going to tell us everything we wnat to know clear and simple way. if it is not written in a way i understand than i will not accept. pretty arrogant to me. that is what i see here.
Not sure i understand you. Can you give me an example what you mean?
 
Originally Posted by justasking4
When the leader of your church insults protestants by refusing to acknowledge what they are–churches and calls them “communities” then when we are speaking of the church it is important to keep the important distinctions in mind. We are not the same thing.

Are you saying that truth should not be said because the truth is an insult to :knight2: you?
I think not.
What a man thinks and says is not always the truth. Look at your own church.
 
Originally Posted by justasking4
Before i can answer this what is your defintion of church? What is it composed of?

Lampo
Why don’t you use scripture alone instead of my definition?
I want to be sure we are speaking about the same thing and not something different. That’s why i want to be sure i understand you.
 
The idea that Peter or Paul founded the church at Rome does not square with the historical facts.
And? The point of the letter was not to teach about who founded the church at Rome, but to point out that Rome was, in the day of St. Irenaeus, the centre of the Christian faith, and the Church with whom one must be in full communion, in order to be considered a Christian.

And the fact that he thought it had been founded by Sts. Peter and Paul means that it had been the centre of the Faith and associated with their names throughout his own lifetime and that of his parents; it was not a recent development.
 
guanophore;3442186]
Originally Posted by justasking4
Where are you getting this idea from? I have never said such a thing. What should blow your mind is that the catholic church claims to be the only authority to interpret the Scriptures and yet they have interpreted less than 20 verses. That is the mind blower.
guanophore
You have said many times that God never promised to lead them into all truth.
Go back and read John 16:13. The context is about the disciples and not the church. The church was not in existence at this point in time. That doesn’t happen until Acts.
guanophore
You have said many times that Jesus failed in His promise to remain with them until the end of the age.
Never said this either.
guanophore
I just read in another post where you said that the Church Fathers did not understand the Apostles teaching.
Do you have the reference for this?
If they “lost” it the very first generation,then that means Jesus did not watch over his word to perform it.
Not necessarily so. Although the early church devaited from the scriptures in part very early on this does not mean all was lost. What does it mean “Jesus did not watches over his word to perform it”?
Catholics interpret scripture as we were taught to do by Jesus through the Apostles. This is done according to Divine Revelation,and not peicemealing the scriptures as modern day fundamentalists have been taught.
Can you give me an example how catholics interpret scripture as taught by Jesus and the apostles?
 
And? The point of the letter was not to teach about who founded the church at Rome, but to point out that Rome was, in the day of St. Irenaeus, the centre of the Christian faith, and the Church with whom one must be in full communion, in order to be considered a Christian.

And the fact that he thought it had been founded by Sts. Peter and Paul means that it had been the centre of the Faith and associated with their names throughout his own lifetime and that of his parents; it was not a recent development.
But it is false to say that Peter or Paul founded the church at Rome. There is not historical evidence for it.
 
But it is false to say that Peter or Paul founded the church at Rome. There is not historical evidence for it.
This is nitpicking. He thought it was. The question you want to ask yourself is, “Why, less than 100 years after the death of the last Apostle, did a prominent teacher in the Catholic Church think that the Diocese of Rome had been founded by Sts. Peter and Paul?” What would lead him to that conclusion? (Especially since Constantine was more than 200 years away from being born, yet.)

Could it be (:eek:) that the leadership of the Church had been exercised from Rome for as long as he could remember? 😃
 
Just a sidebar for JA4…I thought of another Tradition of the Church. Not that this one has anything to do with what we are talking about currently, but since you always ask for them, here ya go. It’s a Tradition of the Church that each human being has a guardian angel. You know what? You have been given numerous examples of Tradition within the Catholic Church; you said that you could compile a list of sins or prayers that are within the Bible, so I’d say it would be very easy for you to compile a list of Traditions from ones we have given you on this forum. Why don’t you go ahead and do that so you will quit asking for it?
 
jmcrae;3444203]
Originally Posted by justasking4
But it is false to say that Peter or Paul founded the church at Rome. There is not historical evidence for it.
jmcrae
This is nitpicking.
Not so. Its in the details many times we see the errors. We need to pay attention to them.
He thought it was. The question you want to ask yourself is, “Why, less than 100 years after the death of the last Apostle, did a prominent teacher in the Catholic Church think that the Diocese of Rome had been founded by Sts. Peter and Paul?” What would lead him to that conclusion? (Especially since Constantine was more than 200 years away from being born, yet.)
Could it be (:eek:) that the leadership of the Church had been exercised from Rome for as long as he could remember? 😃
Who knows. You can speculate you all you want. If anything it looks like the church in Rome was composed not of a single leader but a plurality of leaders.
 
Such statements are a mark of bigotry, and demonstrate that you still have not incorporated that the Roman Rite is only one of 23 Rites in the Catholic church. This forum is not just “Roman”. The 'Roman" doctrine is no different than the doctrine in the other Rites.
This is a very unfortunate accusation to read here. “Bigotry” is an age old charge used in varying ways of intimidation when no sound explanation or response exists. It’s not “wrong” for people to not realize in all this “fulness” you keep saying you guys have. If you had such fulness of truth; you would never have to talk to people like that. Besides; all those “Rites” are about as bad as all those “denominations” you keep gally-wagging about. Who is anyone to limit God and say he cannot work therein?
 
This is a very unfortunate accusation to read here. “Bigotry” is an age old charge used in varying ways of intimidation when no sound explanation or response exists. It’s not “wrong” for people to not realize in all this “fulness” you keep saying you guys have. If you had such fulness of truth; you would never have to talk to people like that. Besides; all those “Rites” are about as bad as all those “denominations” you keep gally-wagging about. Who is anyone to limit God and say he cannot work therein?
Get used to this term from this person. Its one that he-she uses when they don’t have good responses to your posts. Just ignore it… 🤷
Don’t let this these kinds of insults side track you… If Christ was insulted so we should expect the same…👍
 
This is a very unfortunate accusation to read here. “Bigotry” is an age old charge used in varying ways of intimidation when no sound explanation or response exists. It’s not “wrong” for people to not realize in all this “fulness” you keep saying you guys have. If you had such fulness of truth; you would never have to talk to people like that. Besides; all those “Rites” are about as bad as all those “denominations” you keep gally-wagging about. Who is anyone to limit God and say he cannot work therein?
noone here is trying to intimidate anyone. if you dont want to believe in the catholic church you dont have to. our obligation is to let everyone know the existence of the One holy catholic church. it is up to the individual to make his own decision. if you think that the catholic church is false or whatever is your choice. but do not try to prove it to us it will not work here. Father Groeschel once said: “only by the Grace of God one will be able to see this church.” so i dont expect you to come here believing or knowing this church. far from me to expect you to understand all that we believe the Saints, our Mother Mary, our Traditions, the Angels, the Sacraments, the love we have for the creation of God, the way we worship God and our Lord Jesus,our feasts, the Eucharist, and more.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top