Protestants and Mary

[CWBetts]

**Originally Posted by Canaus
What heresies were there that necessitated the Catholic church to pronounce the rest of the Marian dogmas?

I guess what I mean is that the heresies being refuted are absolutely irrelevant. The reasons that the Church promulgates teachings matters not. What matters is that they are promulgated, and we are bound to her teachings, as the Church is the governing authority of His Kingdom. As a subject of the King, I am to be obedient to the authority Church. It makes no sense to claim Christ as your king, and then willingly remain outside of the Kingdom.

 

[elvisman]

Well, given the extremely confident manner in which you make declarations regarding history I would think you must be very well read and would know the names already …tell you what, I’ll make this fairly easy for you. I note you have made certain claims in this thread concerning tracing the Pope all the way back to Peter. Here is an article that examines (and quotes) what certain Catholic scholars think about your claim that Christ created in St. Peter the office of supreme pastor of the Church and that Peter, being the first Pope at Rome passed that office on to Linus etc… (I don’t agree with all of Dr Thiel’s views, but I think this article is good enough at showing that Catholic scholars and you differ substantially).

This is rubbish.
First of all, you want me to take seriously, a guy who claims Irenaeus was a heretic? This site, cogwriter.com is run by a whack-job named, Bob Thiel (from Living Church of God) who can’t even get his history straight – much less anything else.

---

Secondly, he quotes F.A. Sullivan, who is hardly a serious Catholic theologian or historian. He moved from Gregorian University in Rome to the much more theologically bastardized Boston College – not exactly a bastion of Catholic thinking.
Just because Sullivan is technically a Catholic doesn’t meant that the Catholic Church agrees with him.

---

**Thiel says, *“**The fact that there is nothing in the early writings that proves there were any bishops of Rome prior to the middle of the second century is known by all scholars—not just those of us in the COGs *****(Living Church of God).”
Hmmmm . . . is that so? How about Scott Butler, Warren Carroll, David Hess, Norman Dahlgren, Philip Blosser, Scott Hahn and Fr. Mitchell Pacwa, SJ? These are a few who DON’T agree with his ridiculous statement.

---

Finally – Sullivan’s ideas about the Early Church are contradicted by a** LOT**** of Catholic – AND Protestant theologians.**
PRETTY WEAK*** Radical.***

Now, please provide the names of modern Catholic scholars (published in the last 20 years) that support your position and a citation or two demonstrating their support (in each case).

Here is another weak, unsubstantiated claim made on Thiel’s site:
“It is comparatively seldom that the Fathers, when speaking of the power of the keys, make any reference to the supremacy of St. Peter.”
**Oh, REALLY?? ****Clement of Rome, Ignatius of Antioch, Irenaeus, Clement of Alexandria, Tertullian, Cyprian, Cyril of Jerusalem, Optatus, Ambrose of Milan and Augustine ALL wrote about and taught St. Peter’s Supremacy and Roman residence.

---

No, my friend – it is incumbent upon YOU to provide some reputable names of Catholic theologians who agree with your false claims. I could easily provide you with false claims from “historians” with unsubstantiated opinions - as you have - but I’d rather have charitable dialogue.

 

[Radical]

Just because Sullivan is technically a Catholic doesn’t meant that the Catholic Church agrees with him.

That is exactly my point…people who want to consider themselves Catholic acknowledge that the historical record does not support the CC’s claims…

---

**Thiel says, *“****The fact that there is nothing in the early writings that proves there were any bishops of Rome prior to the middle of the second century is known by all scholars—not just those of us in the COGs ***(Living Church of God).”
**Hmmmm . . . is that so? How about Scott Butler, Warren Carroll, David Hess, Norman Dahlgren, Philip Blosser, Scott Hahn and Fr. Mitchell Pacwa, SJ? ** so give me a quote from one of these saying that they have an early writing dating from before 150 AD that proves there was a bishop in Rome

Finally – Sullivan’s ideas about the Early Church are contradicted by a

** LOT**** of Catholic – AND Protestant theologians.** Names of those Protestant theologians please…

Here is another weak, unsubstantiated

claim made on Thiel’s site:
“It is comparatively seldom that the Fathers, when speaking of the power of the keys, make any reference to the supremacy of St. Peter.”
Oh, REALLY?? **Clement of Rome, Ignatius of Antioch, Irenaeus, Clement of Alexandria, Tertullian,… ** OK, where did these Fathers connect the “power of the keys” to Petrine supremacy?

 

[elvisman]

That is exactly my point…people who want to consider themselves Catholic acknowledge that the historical record does not support the CC’s claims…

No** – all it means is that there are some so-called “Catholic” hacks out there – just as there are “Protestant” hacks.**

so give me a quote from one of these saying that they have an early writing dating from before 150 AD that proves there was a bishop in Rome

Here’s a letter from the FIRST century that shows Apostolic Succession:
Pope Clement I in the year A.D. 80:
**"Our apostles knew through our Lord Jesus Christ that there would be strife for the office of bishop. For this reason, therefore, having received perfect foreknowledge, they appointed those who have already been mentioned and afterwards added the further provision that, if they should die, other approved men should succeed to their ministry" (Letter to the Corinthians 42:4–5, 44:1–3 [A.D. 80]).
You’re getting off-topic – which is a common anti-Catholic tactic when their argument is dying. What does this have to do with Mary?

Names of those Protestant theologians please…

NOPE**.**
First – YOU give me some credible Catholic Theologians (you said there were a number of them) who support YOUR claim. YOU do some homework to prove your claims before demanding that I do it all for you.
I asked YOU first . . .

OK, where did these Fathers connect the “power of the keys” to Petrine supremacy?

I’ll show you:
Clement of Alexandria
[T]he blessed Peter, the chosen, the preeminent, the first among the disciples, for whom alone with himself the Savior paid the tribute*** [Matt. 17:27], quickly grasped and understood their meaning. And what does he say? “Behold, we have left all and have followed you” [Matt. 19:2 7, Mark 10:28] (Who is the Rich Man That is Saved?* 21:3-5 [A.D. 200]).**

Tertullian
***[T]he Lord said to Peter, "On this rock I will build my Church, I have given you the keys of the kingdom of heaven [and] whatever you shall have bound or loosed on earth will be bound or loosed in heaven" [Matt. 16:18-19]. … Upon you, he says, I will build my Church; and I will give to you the keys, not to the Church; and whatever you shall have bound or you shall have loosed, not what they shall have bound or they shall have loosed (*Modesty 21:9-10 [A.D. 220]).

 

[elvisman]

OK, where did these Fathers connect the “power of the keys” to Petrine supremacy?

Here are a couple more . . .

Cyprian
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]).
***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. ***If someone does not hold fast to this unity of Peter, can he imagine that he still holds the faith?If he [should] desert the chair of Peter upon whom the Church was built, can he still be confident that he is in the Church? (The Unity of the Catholic Church 4 [A.D. 251]).

---

Cyril of Jerusalem
In the power of the same Holy Spirit, Peter, both the chief of the apostles and the keeper of the keys of the kingdom of heaven, in the name of Christ healed Aeneas the paralytic at Lydda, which is now called Diospolis [Acts 9 ;3 2-3 4] (Catechetical Lectures 17;27 [A.D. 350]).

Now - I have done MY homework and have provided you with WAY MORE than enough credible documentation to prove MY points.

Now - it’s YOUR turn . . .**

 

[Dokimas]

Ummmmm . . . name ANOTHER Christian body of believers that came before the Catholic Church.
The only reason this seems like circular reasoning to you is because you don’t like it.

It WAS Linus. Clement came after Cletus *(also called Anacletus, who was after *Linus). Do your homework and you’ll see that history backs this up.

As for the title of pope - you have to be kidding me. This is fairly common knowledge. It was a term of endearment, meaning "papa" or “father”. If you’re going to come to a Catholic forum to argue - at least come equipped.

Now - answer a question for ME:
Can you prove me wrong?

If you mean by Catholic Church, the universal church of Jesus Christ, then there wasn’t any. If you mean the RCC with it’s incorrect understandings, then the apostles and their converts came a few hundred yrs before your RCC.​

Linus was ‘ordained’ by Paul. Looks like Paul was the head of Rome’s Church before Peter.​

BTW, you didn’t answer my question. I ask which RCC church leader took on the titly of Pope first?​

Prove you wrong about what?​

I guess you’ve not been reading in your Bible lately about being kind and loving.

 

[lil_flower_luv]

Lil, could you explain how the verse reveals Jesus was telling us that Mary was our mother?

…“behold your Mother.” Jesus placed her in John’s care…and placed us in her care. (Through her prayers and graces.) How could it not be more clear? If you guys don’t want to read up on more…I mean, you can only stretch the rope so far.

When you tell Radical that you’re correcting her/him, are you correcting according to your understanding, according to what the RCC teaches or directly according to what the Bible says?

Well the Churches teachings have become what I believe, obey, and defend, so it is also my understanding. I won’t go farther than that…

As far a interpretation is concerned, the straight forward answer is so often the correct interpretation.

Ah, yes, but Truth isn’t always “straight forward” now is it? God doesn’t make all things straight forward, but He doesn’t leave us in the dark either.

 

[Radical]

No** – all it means is that there are some so-called “Catholic” hacks out there – just as there are “Protestant” hacks.**

yep, Phd hacks teaching at places such as Boston College…obviously a 'hack" would be anyone that disagrees with Elvisman’s slant on history

Here’s a letter from the FIRST century that shows Apostolic Succession:
Pope Clement I in the year A.D. 80:
**"Our apostles knew through our Lord Jesus Christ that there would be strife for the office of bishop. For this reason, therefore, having received perfect foreknowledge, they appointed those who have already been mentioned and afterwards added the further provision that, if they should die, other approved men should succeed to their ministry" (Letter to the Corinthians 42:4–5, 44:1–3 [A.D. 80]).

Nice try…but you claimed Dr Thiel made a mistake …and then you provided a quote from him. Let’s find that quote in the article and see if your bit from Clement proves an error by Thiel.

You’re getting off-topic – which is a common anti-Catholic tactic when their argument is dying. What does this have to do with Mary?

It is all inter-related b/c of your love of the circular argument: According to the teaching of the CC, the CC can’t officially teach any error. As this is an official teaching of the CC, it must be true b/c the CC can’t officially teach any error. One of the main reasons Catholics will claim that their Mariology is valid is b/c they base it on the assumption that the CC can’t err…show an error in another matter and that assumption is shown as false. I note that you were happy to talk about the Papacy earlier…it wouldn’t be you that is trying to change the topic now?

I asked YOU first . . .

Well I guess such a school yard rejoinder is consistent with your approach

I’ll show you:
Clement of Alexandria
[T]he blessed Peter, the chosen, the preeminent, the first among the disciples, for whom alone with himself the Savior paid the tribute*** [Matt. 17:27], quickly grasped and understood their meaning. And what does he say? “Behold, we have left all and have followed you” [Matt. 19:2 7, Mark 10:28] (Who is the Rich Man That is Saved?*** 21:3-5 [A.D. 200]).

Tertullian
***[T]he Lord said to Peter, "On this rock I will build my Church, I have given you the keys of the kingdom of heaven [and] whatever you shall have bound or loosed on earth will be bound or loosed in heaven" [Matt. 16:18-19]. … Upon you, he says, I will build my Church; and I will give to you the keys, not to the Church; and whatever you shall have bound or you shall have loosed, not what they shall have bound or they shall have loosed (*Modesty ****21:9-10 [A.D. 220]).

Again, you claimed that Dr Thiel had made a mistake by saying, "It is comparatively seldom that the Fathers, when speaking of the power of the keys, make any reference to the supremacy of St. Peter.”

Where in the quotes that you provided do you think that a connection was made by either Clement of Alexandria or Tertullian between the “keys” and Petrine Supremacy?

 

[lil_flower_luv]

It is all inter-related b/c of your love of the circular argument: According to the teaching of the CC, the CC can’t officially teach any error. As this is an official teaching of the CC, it must be true b/c the CC can’t officially teach any error. One of the main reasons Catholics will claim that their Mariology is valid is b/c they base it on the assumption that the CC can’t err…show an error in another matter and that assumption is shown as false.

Hehe, “circular argument.” That gives me the giggles. You wonder why it keeps coming around? **It is the truth! ** The Church cannot error in matters of faith and morals. It is the Pillar of Truth, the Rock of all Ages. And even though it’s loyalties have been divided, because we can error, it has stood firm. And always shall. I will praise the day the Lord shows you that.

catholic.com/library/Papal_Infallibility.asp

 

[CWBetts]

If you mean by Catholic Church, the universal church of Jesus Christ, then there wasn’t any. If you mean the RCC with it’s incorrect understandings, then the apostles and their converts came a few hundred yrs before your RCC.​

Linus was ‘ordained’ by Paul. Looks like Paul was the head of Rome’s Church before Peter.​

BTW, you didn’t answer my question. I ask which RCC church leader took on the titly of Pope first?​

Prove you wrong about what?​

I guess you’ve not been reading in your Bible lately about being kind and loving.

You keep making these same claims. The New Testament Church was Catholic.
The Catholic Church is more than just Roman Catholic, you are marginalizing all the Eastern Rites.
Pope comes from Greek. It simply means “Father.” Who used the term first is irrelevant. What is relevant is the primacy of St. Peter among the Apostles.
The Catholic liturgy contains more Scriptures than a dozen non-denominational services so can the snarky comments. And besides, what is more uncharitable than making unsubstantiated clims?

 

[elvisman]

yep, Phd hacks teaching at places such as Boston College…obviously a 'hack" would be anyone that disagrees with Elvisman’s slant on history

**There are hacks in every walk of life with degrees that mean nothing. – especially when they have an agenda as Sullivan seems to. ****Don’t **be so impressed because somebody has a degree. Instead have faith.
I know a certain President with a Law degree that I wouldn’t trust to clean my cat’s litter box, let alone do some of the things he’s proposing.

Nice try…but you claimed Dr Thiel made a mistake …and then you provided a quote from him. Let’s find that quote in the article and see if your bit from Clement proves an error by Thiel.

HUH***???***
Sorry – but you lost me there . . .

It is all inter-related b/c of your love of the circular argument: According to the teaching of the CC, the CC can’t officially teach any error. As this is an official teaching of the CC, it must be true b/c the CC can’t officially teach any error. One of the main reasons Catholics will claim that their Mariology is valid is b/c they base it on the assumption that the CC can’t err…show an error in another matter and that assumption is shown as false. I note that you were happy to talk about the Papacy earlier…it wouldn’t be you that is trying to change the topic now?

I have no love for the circular argument. It’s all about whether or not you believe in the promises of our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ (Matt. 16:19).

Look – if you don’t believe what he said – just say so and be done with it. All of this rationalizing for fear that the Church might be right really is tiresome.
As I’ve always said about rationalization: You can tell me it’s raining and I can prove that it’s not – even though I’m being soaked by the storm.

Well I guess such a school yard rejoinder is consistent with your approach

No – it’s just that I grow weary of doing your homework for you and answering all of your challenges – while you offer nothing but false claims, opinions and arrogance . . .

Again, you claimed that Dr Thiel had made a mistake by saying, "It is comparatively seldom that the Fathers, when speaking of the power of the keys, make any reference to the supremacy of St. Peter.”
Where in the quotes that you provided do you think that a connection was made by either Clement of Alexandria or Tertullian between the “keys” and Petrine Supremacy?

Are you blind or do you simply have a difficult time reading mutli-syllabic words? I provided this quote from Tertullian on the last post – and here it is again. I’ll enlarge the fine points for your reading pleasesure:

Tertullian
[T]he Lord said to Peter, "On this rock I will build my Church, I have givenyouthe keys of the kingdom of heaven [and] whatever youshall have bound or loosed on earth will be bound or loosed in heaven"[Matt. 16:18-19]. *… Uponyou****, he says, I will build my Church; and I will give to you the keys******, not to the Church*; and whateveryoushall have bound oryoushall have loosed,not what they shall have bound or they shall have loosed (Modesty 21:9-10 [A.D. 220]).**

Is that any clearer, my confused friend?

 

[elvisman]

If you mean by Catholic Church, the universal church of Jesus Christ, then there wasn’t any. If you mean the RCC with it’s incorrect understandings, then the apostles and their converts came a few hundred yrs before your RCC.

There wasn’t a universal Church?
As for the Roman" Catholic Church - you can thank on of your Protestant heroes for that name because it certainly isn’t an official title of the Catholic Church which has many rites.
You see - after Henry VIII split with the Church and basically outlawed the Catholic church in England - adding “Roman” to the title of the Church was a way to differentiate whether or not you belonged to the Catholic Church based in Rome or what he considered the “Catholic Church” based in England. A rudimentery study of history will give you the answers . . .

Linus was ‘ordained’ by Paul. Looks like Paul was the head of Rome’s Church before Peter.

How do you come to that conclusion?

BTW, you didn’t answer my question. I ask which RCC church leader took on the titly of Pope first?

Again - Pope is a term of eandearment. Peter was the first Pope.

Prove you wrong about what?

**You keep issuing challenges and I keep answering them. Prove me wrong about what I’m telling you - or stop issuing challenges and do your own homework.

I guess you’ve not been reading in your Bible lately about being kind and loving.

I’m being kind and loving by rebuking you and Radical about speaking falsely of the Church. I would be sinning if I didn’t.

 

[MissLDCruz]

Mary was a special woman. We can learn a lot from her if we pay attention to what she said and how she responded to the situations in her life. Outside Jesus, I think she is one of those we should look to as an example of how to respond when life throws us ‘curves’.​

However, she was chosen out from among all of us. She was not better than we are. She was a sinner.​

Have you ever looked at the Scriptures telling us how Jesus interacted with Mary? At least twice her, speaking to her, called her woman not mother (or mom). Once when He was brought news that His mothers and brothers had come to see Him, He responded saying, “My mother and My brothers are these who hear the word of God and do it.”​

Maybe Jesus knew that people would one day misunderstand Mary’s role and make her out to be a person not intended by God. My guess is that Mary, if she’s paying attention to us from Heaven, cringes when she is exalted by us. I’ll bet she says, “NO, DON"T look to me, look to my Son. I’m just like you; I’ve needed saving and my Son saved me for all that calls upon the Name of the Lord will be saved. I called upon Him. Will you?”

He called her Woman out of respect, because the Father called her woman as seen in Genesis 3:15. I will put enmity between thee and the woman (The Blessed Mother), and between thy seed and her seed (Jesus); it shall bruise thy head, and thou shalt bruise his heel. The Father picked her for us from the very beginning. Truth is that the Blessed Mother plays an important role in our salvation. She is the new Eve. Through Eve’s disobedience we got death, but through the Blessed Mother’s obedience we got Jesus and through Jesus life. She acts as an intercessor, when Jesus turns the water into wine, they go to the Blessed Mother first, and she goes to Jesus, then she tell them do as he says. Jesus as I believe was very sweet and surely he would not break the comandment of Honor Thy Father and Thy Mother, by being disrespectful.

 

[Radical]

**There are hacks in every walk of life with degrees that mean nothing. – especially when they have an agenda as Sullivan seems to. **

Agenda? Hmmm sounds like an established pot calling an alleged kettle, black.

HUH***???***
Sorry – but you lost me there . . .

well, you provided an alleged quote from Thiel that wasn’t in the article….so I was wondering if you actually got his words right. So I checked….and it seems that you got that quote, not from Thiel, but from this page . If Thiel did say those words, then it is rather clear from the xCG page that it was in the context of Rome having no singular Monarchical bishop prior to the middle of the 2nd century. As such, your quote from Clement doesn’t even mention anything about a singular monarchical bishop in Rome, let alone prove the matter.

No – it’s just that I grow weary of doing your homework for you and answering all of your challenges……

You are not doing any homework….you’re paraphrasing stuff from the xCG site. Let’s compare:

from the xCG site: * Sullivan moved from the Gregorian to Boston College, an institution not exactly known these days for Catholic orthodoxy.*

…and from you: * He moved from Gregorian University in Rome to the much more theologically bastardized Boston College – not exactly a bastion of Catholic thinking.*

From the xCG site: All scholars”? …Even Warren Carroll? Even Scott Butler, Norman Dahlgren, and David Hess? Even Philip Blosser? Even Scott Hahn? Even Fr. Mitchell Pacwa, SJ?

And from you: Hmmmm . . . is that so? How about Scott Butler, Warren Carroll, David Hess, Norman Dahlgren, Philip Blosser, Scott Hahn and Fr. Mitchell Pacwa, SJ?

Pretty funny actually. I suspect that the real reason that you won’t provide a list of Protestant scholars who disagree with Sullivan’s view is that the xCG site didn’t provide that list for you…it just made the claim that you repeated.

I was also wondering why you asked for more scholars when the article mentions others besides Sullivan….and your response sounded as if only Sullivan had been mentioned. Did you even read the article and note the other Catholic scholars that were mentioned?

Are you blind or do you simply have a difficult time reading mutli-syllabic words? I provided this quote from Tertullian on the last post – and here it is again. I’ll enlarge the fine points for your reading pleasesure:

Tertullian
[T]he Lord said to Peter, "On this rock I will build my Church, I have givenyouthe keys of the kingdom of heaven [and] whatever youshall have bound or loosed on earth will be bound or loosed in heaven"[Matt. 16:18-19]. … Uponyou***, he says, I will build my Church; and I will give to you the keys******, not to the Church***; and whateveryoushall have bound oryoushall have loosed,not what they shall have bound or they shall have loosed (Modesty 21:9-10 [A.D. 220]).

Is that any clearer, my confused friend?

What is clear is that you do not understand what is required. You said that Thiel made an error by saying that the ECFs rarely connected the “keys” passage to Petrine supremacy. Yes, Tertullian mentions both “Peter” and the “keys” in the same paragraph, but Tertullian sees the keys as relating to binding and loosing of sins…and not about supremacy.

Oh, BTW if you are going to borrow from other sites and rely on their opinions, you should give them the credit.

 

[elvisman]

Agenda? Hmmm sounds like an established pot calling an alleged kettle, black.

**I have no agenda to push. I’m only defending the one Church established by Jesus. **Let me ask you something:
Why are you – a Protestant – here on a Catholic forum? To push your agenda?

well, you provided an alleged quote from Thiel that wasn’t in the article….so I was wondering if you actually got his words right. So I checked ….and it seems that you got that quote, not from Thiel, but from this page. If Thiel did say those words, then it is rather clear from the xCG page that it was in the context of Rome having no singular Monarchical bishop prior to the middle of the 2nd century. As such, your quote from Clement doesn’t even mention anything about a singular monarchical bishop in Rome, let alone prove the matter.

Wrong**.**
**I already provided you with writings from the Fathers that illustrated clearly that Peter was considered was the Chief Apostle and Keeper of the Keys of the Kingdom. **The Pope is the “Servant of the Servants of the Lord” – not a dictator. His infallibility and Episcopal supremacy comes from the Holy Spirit.

You are not doing any homework….you’re paraphrasing stuff from the xCG site. Let’s compare:

from the xCG site: Sullivan moved from the Gregorian to Boston College, an institution not exactly known these days for Catholic orthodoxy.
…and from you: He moved from Gregorian University in Rome to the much more theologically bastardized Boston College – not exactly a bastion of Catholic thinking.
From the xCG site: All scholars”? …Even Warren Carroll? Even Scott Butler, Norman Dahlgren, and David Hess? Even Philip Blosser? Even Scott Hahn? Even Fr. Mitchell Pacwa, SJ?
And from you: Hmmmm . . . is that so? How about Scott Butler, Warren Carroll, David Hess, Norman Dahlgren, Philip Blosser, Scott Hahn and Fr. Mitchell Pacwa, SJ?
Pretty funny actually. I suspect that the real reason that you won’t provide a list of Protestant scholars who disagree with Sullivan’s view is that the xCG site didn’t provide that list for you…it just made the claim that you repeated.
I was also wondering why you asked for more scholars when the article mentions others besides Sullivan….and your response sounded as if only Sullivan had been mentioned. Did you even read the article and note the other Catholic scholars that were mentioned?

It always cracks me up every time somebody gets annoyed on these forums when somebody gleans information off of the internet when it smashes their views. Do you expect everybody to argue off the top of their heads?
Ridiculous . . .
By the way I got some of that stuff off another website and am having a hard time finding it again. It was from a debate on the validity of Sullivan, Thiel and COGs views in general. One of the quotes was off of a Spanish website, translated into English.

Anyway, the point is that F.A. Sullivan – whom Thiel loves to quote is out of line with historic Catholic teaching and DOES have an agenda to push. For one - he favors female priests
Funny how Thiel doesn’t present the views of the majority of Catholic Theologians on these matters . . .

What is clear is that you do not understand what is required. You said that Thiel made an error by saying that the ECFs rarely connected the “keys” passage to Petrine supremacy. Yes, Tertullian mentions both “Peter” and the “keys” in the same paragraph, but Tertullian sees the keys as relating to binding and loosing of sins…and not about supremacy.
Oh, BTW if you are going to borrow from other sites and rely on their opinions, you should give them the credit.

Tertullian compares Peter’s supremacy with the rest of the Apostles and with the Church itself.
If the Tertullian comments on the Keys and Petrine supremacy are unclear to you – then I can only surmise that you are guilty of spiritual pride because it is as clear as can be.

PS –** when I quote another source – I always give credit where credit is due. When I glean information from many sources, without quoting – I don’t.**
If you don’t like it – do your OWN homework and stop depending on me.

 

[Radical]

B]Let me ask you something:

Why are you – a Protestant – here on a Catholic forum? To push your agenda? to learn from thinking Catholics and to explain my protestant beliefs so that thinking Catholics have a better understanding of where the differences lie.

**It always cracks me up every time somebody gets annoyed on these forums when somebody gleans information off of the internet … **

I was, and still am, quite amused by it, but I was never annoyed.

**Do you expect everybody to argue off the top of their **heads

what I would expect is that you admit that you “don’t know”, or that you take the time to educate yourself or that you say that “this is what someone else had to say” or that it appears that such and such is the case…You, however, present yourself as an authority (declaring what is the case), but in reality you do not appear to have the knowledge of history upon which to formulate or make such declarations. As such, I have come to the conclusion that I can’t learn anything from you and, given your conduct, I am quite sure that I can’t help you understand anything either.

Cheers.

 

[Radical]

Hehe, “circular argument.” That gives me the giggles. You wonder why it keeps coming around? It is the truth! The Church cannot error in matters of faith and morals. It is the Pillar of Truth, the Rock of all Ages.

I understand that for you it is not a circular argument…it is not an argument at all. Rather it is simply your faith. That is something I can respect.

And even though it’s loyalties have been divided, because we can error, it has stood firm. And always shall. I will praise the day the Lord shows you that.

Thanks…and I will hope that God leads you to a closer walk with him (either w/i or outside of the CC)

Bless you.

 

[CWBetts]

I understand that for you it is not a circular argument…it is not an argument at all. Rather it is simply your faith. That is something I can respect.

Thanks…and I will hope that God leads you to a closer walk with him (either w/i or outside of the CC)

Bless you.

A closer walk with God will NEVER lead someone outside of the Catholic Church. It is impossible to be a a full member of God’s family if you reject the Church as your mother.

 

[Radical]

A closer walk with God will NEVER lead someone outside of the Catholic Church. It is impossible to be a a full member of God’s family if you reject the Church as your mother.

I understand that such is your faith (and it would be lil_flower_luv’s as well), but it ain’t mine …and so, I hope that God also draws you closer to him (either w/i or outside of the CC). Bless you.

 

[CWBetts]

I understand that such is your faith (and it would be lil_flower_luv’s as well), but it ain’t mine …and so, I hope that God also draws you closer to him (either w/i or outside of the CC). Bless you.

Without a mother, the covenant language is incomplete, as a covenant is the extension of kinship through oath. Then there are the Parables of the Kingdom, wherein Jesus identifies the Church with the Kingdom of God