Protestant saying hello

[cascherman]

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?

Yes, having 23 separate rites (or cultures) that have the exact same faith and doctrine is just as bad as having a ridiculous amount (as I always say, I won’t apply a number to it) of denominations that all disagree with each other in little places here and there… You really thought that one through?

One way to be a bigot, keep in mind (I am not calling you one), is to render yourself unable to heed any argument (or harden your heart) by one certain group of people. It does not have to be a violent or verbal attack, it can be the lack of any recognition at all. Repeating an incorrect statement over and over is one way to reveal that you do not understand something you have heard many times, which shows you may not care to listen. You may just care to speak.

 

[cascherman]

But it is false to say that Peter or Paul founded the church at Rome. There is not historical evidence for it.

haha, what you mean to say is your have not seen anything in the Bible declaring it.

‘You have thus by such an admonition bound together the plantings of Peter and Paul at Rome and Corinth." Dionysius of Corinth, Epistle to Pope Soter, fragment in Eusebius’ Church History, II:25 (c. A.D. 178).

Hear the word ‘plantings’. If that tree were already growing before them maybe they would have used the word ‘trimming’. But no, to plant something is to grow from the beginning.

“Matthew also issued a written Gospel among the Hebrews in their own dialect, while Peter and Paul were preaching at Rome, and laying the foundations of the Church.” Irenaeus, Against Heresies, 3:1:1 (c. A.D. 180).

This one requires very little explanation. But also see that they were laying the foundations of the Church in Rome.

There is not historical evidence for it.

This is hardly a lack of historical evidence as you claim. I hardly believe you of all the protestants on this forum have not seen these quotes before, and they fly in the face of what you said. Can we get to a point where we can not have to show you over and over?

 

[steve_b]

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).

That doesn’t prove a thing. Given the testimony of the ECF’s, NO ONE denies Peter was in Rome. He just may have been away at the time Paul writes to the Church of Rome.

asking:

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.

ECF’s testimony that Peter and Paul labored in Rome.

Primary sources from contemporaries of the apostles and those taught by them, arry more weight than commentaries 20 centuries later that just contradict primary sources…

asking:

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].

Fitzmyer is stating his opinion.

asking:

What do catholics do with traditions that don’t square with the facts?

Fitzmyer is not stating fact he is stating an opinion.

What about the rest of the post that you skipped?

 

[jmcrae]

Not so. Its in the details many times we see the errors. We need to pay attention to them.

Atheists say the same thing about the Bible. Does the fact that the writer of the Book of Daniel get the King’s name wrong mean that the Book of Daniel should be thrown out of the Bible, too? Or do we overlook the small error in fact to the greater spiritual truths that are being conveyed, in that book, which are much more important than the name of the King?

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.

Just as it is today, and just as it is in every other Diocese and Rite in the Church. The Pope is our unifying leader, but he’s not like a dictator or anything - he has lots of other people around him, too. (I suppose you’re about to find that “shocking” as well, are you?)

 

[Protestant101]

When you use the words “your church”, ja4, it leaves the reader with the impression that you are not aware that there is only One Church, and One Body, and that all who are in Christ are members of it.

Well; there again, we see a use of words and word sense, that does not apply. There are many “churches” which collectively form “the church.” You know…three Persons, ONE God, the Bible shows a number of examples where plural elements make up, collectively, a single element. “The Lord He is one God.” (Deut.6:4). So it’s not wrong to say “My Church.”

 

[Protestant101]

Yes, having 23 separate rites (or cultures) that have the exact same faith and doctrine is just as bad as having a ridiculous amount (as I always say, I won’t apply a number to it) of denominations that all disagree with each other in little places here and there… You really thought that one through?

Oh no! You wouldn’t be calling me a bigot, would you. :bigyikes:

But have you really thought it through; how that the different “Rites” actually do not have ‘THE EXACT SAME FAITH AND DOCTRINE?’ They have some things in common; but certainly not all :banghead:

 

[jmcrae]

Oh no! You wouldn’t be calling me a bigot, would you. :bigyikes:

But have you really thought it through; how that the different “Rites” actually do not have ‘THE EXACT SAME FAITH AND DOCTRINE?’ They have some things in common; but certainly not all :banghead:

All of them are in full communion with the Pope, and teach all of the same doctrines and moral principles that we find in the Scriptures and in the Catechism. We have differences in discipline and in cultural self-expression. Nothing like the differences that exist among Protestants, who can’t even worship in the same spaces together without losing something that at least one side considers “essential.”

 

[cascherman]

Oh no! You wouldn’t be calling me a bigot, would you. :bigyikes:

I was not calling you a bigot, as I said in the post. I was merely saying there is more than the direct way of being a bigot. Personally, I don’t care if you are a bigot or not.

But have you really thought it through; how that the different “Rites” actually do not have ‘THE EXACT SAME FAITH AND DOCTRINE?’ They have some things in common; but certainly not all :banghead:

well lets hear them. I’m interested.
edit- oh and if you are going to bring up our differences in liturgy, save your keystrokes, that is not doctrine. Anything that would be considered culturally handed down by those local Churches is not considered doctrine.

Anything that disagrees from the Catechism of the Catholic Church is considered fair game, as the previous poster has said.

 

[guanophore]

What a man thinks and says is not always the truth. Look at your own church.

I am sorry, ja4. but you are misinformed. The Head of the Church is Christ, who is not merely man, but God as well. He ALWAYS speaks the truth. The Soul of the Church is the HS, who cannot err. This is why the Church is infallible. Not because of the infallible members of Her, but because of the Divinity within Her.

Not so. Its in the details many times we see the errors. We need to pay attention to them.

i am glad you are paying attention to the details, ja4. These are what brought me home too.

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.

Absolutely, and that is the case since the time of St.Peter unto the present day. Peter always acted in unison with the other Apostles and elders, even though he held the keys. So today, the successor of Peter always acts in unison with the Magesterium, even though he holds the keys.

I often think, though, that there was no love lost between Peter and Paul, and I think it was no accident that they ended up in the same city, laying foundation together.

 

[guanophore]

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.

I agree, it is unfortunate, but I really don’t blame ja4. I believe, based on his many postings that I have read, that he has never known the truth, and that he is completely influenced by anti-Catholic teaching that has been fed to him. I recognize it, because I was on a diet of it for many years. He is only being faithful to what he was taught.

It’s not “wrong” for people to not realize in all this “fulness” you keep saying you guys have.

I agree 100%! It is not any fault of his own that he has not realized the fullness of truth. On the contrary, I commend him for hanging in here, and learning. He has learned a great deal, just in the last year since I started having exchange with him. His writing has improved, he is doing his research, and he is exploring the history of his faith.

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?

I do not limit God. The Rites of which I speak are all in unity of doctrine. However, I agree with you that even though there are many denominations separated by differences in doctrine, God works through them all to bring people to himself.

Oh no! You wouldn’t be calling me a bigot, would you. :bigyikes:

But have you really thought it through; how that the different “Rites” actually do not have ‘THE EXACT SAME FAITH AND DOCTRINE?’ They have some things in common; but certainly not all :banghead:

I haven’t made up my mind about you, yet. Initially, many of your posts seem bigoted, yes. However, I will reserve judgement.

The “things” they have in common are the Apostolic Teaching. They share the same creed, and the same doctrine. They differ in language, culture, and practices. If you put an Egyptian Coptic together with a Polish Catholic they could agree, but they might have trouble understanding the readings at Mass.

I was not calling you a bigot, as I said in the post. I was merely saying there is more than the direct way of being a bigot. Personally, I don’t care if you are a bigot or not.

I care! CAF is not here to provide a venue for anti-Catholic bigotry. I will not suffer it to live here!

 

[guanophore]

The idea that Peter or Paul founded the church at Rome does not square with the historical facts.

What the Bishop is saying is that both Peter and Paul ended up in Rome and taught there prior to their martyrdom. Of course, there were Christians there before the Apostles came, as is clearly demonstrated in the letter of Paul to the Romans. But the Church there was not the recipient of Apostolic Teaching until Peter and Paul came there. As the NT says the Church is built on the foundations of the Apostles and Prophets. It was their teaching there prior to their martyrdom that built a strong foundation for the Christians that lived there.

All of the evidence has to be taken together. We believe that some of the 3000 baptized at Pentecost may have been from Rome, and took back the Teaching.

Do you not believe that Peter and Paul were in Rome?

What do catholics do with traditions that don’t square with the facts?

We know that everything squares. We may not have all the details, but we know that Peter and Paul were in Rome, and it was their Apostolic Teaching that laid the foundation for the believers there. We know that Christians were in Rome before Peter and Paul came there. We don’t know who they were, or the exact years the Apostles labored there.

Go back and read John 16:13. The context is about the disciples and not the church.

Can you please explain the difference, because I don’t get it. Did not Jesus call the disciples “out” from their lives to follow Him? Is not the ekklesia the “called out ones”?

The church was not in existence at this point in time. That doesn’t happen until Acts.

Catholics believe that the Church was born when the water and blood flowed from the side of Christ on the Cross. But even before this, Jesus trained His disciples on how to operate the Church. He instruced them, that when there was a dispute, it should be taken to the Church, not the Bible!

Never said this either.

You are saying that those to whom Jesus gave HIs promise never to leave got lost. How could this happen, unless He lied?

Do you have the reference for this?

How dare you ask me to go and find what you posted!! Be careful, or I will REALLY give references to what you have posted. You said that, just because the early Fathers were closer to what the Apostles taught, that did not mean they got it right.

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”?

Jesus promised that He would be with the disciples “until the end of the age”. He commissioned them to “teach all that I have commanded”. That Divine Deposit of Faith, (all that Jesus commanded) is what He made them responsible to teach. God provides where He guides (I learned that from a Protesant! ). God would not commission the Apostles to do something that He was not able to give them sufficient grace to do. He gave them His full Word (Isa. 55:11). He sees to it that His Word accomplishes the purpose for which He has sent it. It is not by the will of man, or by the frailty of man, but by the Power of God!

Can you give me an example how catholics interpret scripture as taught by Jesus and the apostles?

Sure! Jesus said “This Is My Body”. We believe He meant exactly what He said. Just like, when in Genesis, He said “Let There Be Light” and there was light. He is creator. He can make all things out of nothing. He give us His flesh to eat.

The church was not in existence at this point in time. That doesn't happen until Acts.

Catholics believe the Church was born from the side of Christ, when the water and the blood flowed out.

 

[Protestant101]

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.

Like I said; there’s not much to be said for the accusation of “bigotry.”

 

[steve_b]

Not so. Its in the details many times we see the errors. We need to pay attention to them.

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.

Re: details,

I gave you the quote from Irenaeus, writing in 177 AD, he only focused on the succession of ONE bishop of Rome in particular, down to Irenaeus day. Certainly there were other leaders, but the succession of ONE bishop in particular, had a primary role among other bishops.

• One bishop presides over the whole. That’s an important detail
  Ignatius of Antioch, writing 70 years earlier than Irenaeus, was already saying, among all the Churches, the Church of Rome held the presidency. As an aside, Antioch was the 1st see of Peter, and Ignatius was the bishop in that see. Yet he says only Rome is the Church with the presidency, none of the other Churches does he say that about, ( Antioch included).
• That’s an important detail
  Rome was Peter’s see after Antioch. And Rome is where Peter and Paul died.

10 years earlier than Ignatius writes, Clement of Rome, during apostolic times, (St John is still alive, and has yet to write the book of Revelation) is settling sedition in Corinth Greece, between their bishops.

• That’s an important detail
  Why,*** during*** apostolic times, is Clement of Rome writing to Greece, settling a serious dispurte there, important? John is living closer (some say Patmos, others say Ephesus) in proximity to Corinth than Clement was over in Rome. Yet it is Clement who is called on to settle the dispute.
• I would suggest that’s an important detail, in that the Church of Rome is already exercising authority over others, and speaking for the whole.

 

[mikey_b]

Mikey B BTW There is a good book out by Patrick Madrid called “Why Is That in Tradition”. He makes so many good points. A formal list was never intended because there was a concern among the Bishops that such a list would give the incorrect appearance that the list was complete. He does however have a partial list with explanations and quotes from early church fathers. I think iit would be very helpful to someone like ‘just asking’ if he truly is just asking 4 the search for truth.
He also has a book called Pope Fiction. He does mention something about St Paul not saying that Peter is in Rome because he was still alive and hence it would be very unwise to point that out to the persecuters.

 

[guanophore]

Like I said; there’s not much to be said for the accusation of “bigotry.”

I call 'em as I see 'em. Like I said, I realize this thinking and belief system has been handed down, and it is easy to fall into thinking wrong things. However, in this case, it is so ingrained, that even repeated corrections have failed to subtitute truth for falsehood. We all have prejudices, and we can get over them best by first admitting that we have them. In this case, the person in question appears to wish to cling to the prejudice that was developed on the basis of erroneous information. Refusing to substitute error with fact is part of reinforcing bigotry.

We have just had St. Patrick’s day, and I am mindful of the bigotry the Irish had to deal with when they immigrated to this country, just because they were Catholic. Should such things be reinforced, or corrected? How can something be corrected if it is not recognized as a problem?

 

[justasking4]

what about my Church?

It would apply to yours as it would to mine.

 

[justasking4]

guanophore;3444966]
Originally Posted by justasking4
What a man thinks and says is not always the truth. Look at your own church.

guanophore;
I am sorry, ja4. but you are misinformed. The Head of the Church is Christ, who is not merely man, but God as well. He ALWAYS speaks the truth. The Soul of the Church is the HS, who cannot err. This is why the Church is infallible. Not because of the infallible members of Her, but because of the Divinity within Her.

This kind of reasoning i.e. my church cannot err since we have the Holy Spirit is what i continually encounter with Mormons and Jehovah Witnesses. I show them errors in their thinking and they essentially tell me what you just have…
The danger you are in with other catholics with this kind of thinking is that it is impossible for you ever to detect error in your own church since it will be told to you that the HS guides us and it is impossible to be wrong. This is why you cannot accept that you do have false teachers in your church even when you are presented with the facts.

Quote:
Originally Posted by justasking4
Not so. Its in the details many times we see the errors. We need to pay attention to them.

guanophore;
i am glad you are paying attention to the details, ja4. These are what brought me home too.

What details brought you “home”?

Quote:
Originally Posted by justasking4
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.

guanophore;
Absolutely, and that is the case since the time of St.Peter unto the present day. Peter always acted in unison with the other Apostles and elders, even though he held the keys.

Not so. Peter was rebuked by Paul in Galatians 2:11-14.
Was he acting in unison with the other apostles in 16:21-23?

So today, the successor of Peter always acts in unison with the Magesterium, even though he holds the keys.

I often think, though, that there was no love lost between Peter and Paul, and I think it was no accident that they ended up in the same city, laying foundation together.

 

[justasking4]

Lampo;3444217]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.

Are you sure this is a Tradition? This is what i found on the opening remark from The New Advent on this :

**That every individual soul has a guardian angel has never been defined by the Church, and is, consequently, not an article of faith; **but it is the “mind of the Church”, as St. Jerome expressed it: “how great the dignity of the soul, since each one has from his birth an angel commissioned to guard it.” (Comm. in Matt., xviii, lib. II).

Is this what is meant by Tradition?

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?

The problem with making a list of Traditions are many. For one i haven’t seen how your church defines a Sacred Tradition vs a tradition. Secondly, i have been told repeatedly that since i’m a prostentant and a bigot i can’t really know these things.

 

[justasking4]

jmcrae;3444730]
Originally Posted by justasking4
Not so. Its in the details many times we see the errors. We need to pay attention to them.

jmcrae
Atheists say the same thing about the Bible. Does the fact that the writer of the Book of Daniel get the King’s name wrong mean that the Book of Daniel should be thrown out of the Bible, too?

Have you studied this issue or just accept what they say? Lots of times when critics make these charges there are usually good answers to them.

Or do we overlook the small error in fact to the greater spiritual truths that are being conveyed, in that book, which are much more important than the name of the King?

If the scriptures can err on earthly matters such as this it becomes more difficult to trust it on eternal matters.

 

[justasking4]

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.

Let me ask you. Do you call people bigots who disagree with you?