Protestants: The 1500 yrs

[benedictus2]

**Friend, you must read more than the Vatican handouts on the subject! **

Petal, you must read the Vatican handouts then hopefully your posts will have some lucidity, coherence and clarity. And you will finally learn something in the process.

You remain in this cocoon of misinformation and it is stopping you from actually exercising your intellectual faculties to start thinking for yourself.

I asked you earlier to make your own case as to why “Peter’s faith is the Rock” and you have remained silent on this. For a protestant, it seems you don’t feel confident enough that the Holy Spirit will guide your own exegesis.

Further Trent added to the Creed, the Nicaene Creed that is, which as I understand is totally forbidden.

What has Trent added that must not be there or that is erroneous.

Please list them and explain why they are so.

Even so they didn’t try to foist a spurious Vicar of Christ on the Church as did Rome.

Since Christ was the one who “foisted” that on the faithful then we are quite pleased that that was “foisted” on us.

As for Homosexuals, you must ask the parishioners in the next town to where I live, their priest went to jail for six years for homosexual deeds with his young parishioners, whilst the Dean of that are was retired out to grass, for turning a blind eye to his subordinates activities.

True there are homosexual priests and deviant priests. But the Church does not say it is okay.

Let me put this in an analogy.

A father may be a paedophile and philanderer but so long as he tells his son that being a paedophile and philanderer is not acceptable then all that he is being is a hypocrite.

Contrast that with a father who says that paedophilia and philandering is all good and part of a good exercise of the Christian life.

Get the drift?

You pays your money and takes your turn, it seems.
What Canterbury did, was to forget Tradition and its palce in the Church.

And a lot of other things besides. No wonder it is imploding as we speak.

The question of Women, should have gone to a Council of Bishops for discussion, seeing the great trauma it caused.

So now someone in the Anglican Church has spoken infallibly and bypassed the Council of Bishops?Horror.

Rome became a sect for adding Jurisdiction and Infallibility to the Faith.

My friend. Do the statistics and tell me which one classifies as a sect. And for that matter, try to get a definition of "sect"then do the statistics.

If you will peel your eyes away from all that anti-Catholic propaganda and actually start thinking, you will really learn something.

I have a feeling though that you are afraid that you just might do that (if you read the issues from the Vatican Press). I mean - learn something.

Get a hold of Jesus of Nazareth vols 1 and 2 by Pope Benedict.

 

[GaryTaylor]

Originally Posted by GaryTaylor
Early Church Fathers? The Bishop of Rome as the head of the Church is denied exactly where?

He is not denied anywhere by the `Church Fathers, because he was already a grandee, the Bishop of Rome, he was not however the Head of the Church! he was simply the Head of a Particular Catholic Church.

The above quotations show nowhere the position of the Bishop of Rome, I can’t find one that mentions him even…

…
…

What do suppose Ignatius is referring to here: "Shortly after the death of the apostle John, his disciple, Ignatius of Antioch, referred to the Church as the Catholic Church. In his Letter to the Smyrnaeans he wrote: {“Where the bishop is present, there is the Catholic Church”}

That would be the Bishop of Rome he is referring to since at the time of writting these letters in Rome. . He is not referring to “Bishop” as in plural. He is referrring to “THE BISHOP”

Irenaeus…{and the distinctive manifestation of the body of Christ according to the successions of the bishops, by which they have handed down that Church which exists in every place i.e., the Catholic Church}"

What in the world do you suppose “Irenaeus” is referring to? What is “Apostolic Sucession?” Where did it start from? PETER right? I guess we need to go from A to B to C to D and connect the DOTs to figure this out for you?

Never mind the Council of Nicaea 325 defines the Bishop of Rome as the “proto” a term immediatly acceptable by the Orthodox Church. And discussed in detail in Benedicts “Light of the World”

God Bless, Gary

 

[GaryTaylor]

Petal, you must read the Vatican handouts then hopefully your posts will have some lucidity, coherence and clarity. And you will finally learn something in the process.

You remain in this cocoon of misinformation and it is stopping you from actually exercising your intellectual faculties to start thinking for yourself.

I asked you earlier to make your own case as to why “Peter’s faith is the Rock” and you have remained silent on this. For a protestant, it seems you don’t feel confident enough that the Holy Spirit will guide your own exegesis.

What has Trent added that must not be there or that is erroneous.

Please list them and explain why they are so.
Since Christ was the one who “foisted” that on the faithful then we are quite pleased that that was “foisted” on us.
True there are homosexual priests and deviant priests. But the Church does not say it is okay.

Let me put this in an analogy.

A father may be a paedophile and philanderer but so long as he tells his son that being a paedophile and philanderer is not acceptable then all that he is being is a hypocrite.

Contrast that with a father who says that paedophilia and philandering is all good and part of a good exercise of the Christian life.

Get the drift?

And a lot of other things besides. No wonder it is imploding as we speak.
So now someone in the Anglican Church has spoken infallibly and bypassed the Council of Bishops?Horror.
My friend. Do the statistics and tell me which one classifies as a sect. And for that matter, try to get a definition of "sect"then do the statistics.

If you will peel your eyes away from all that anti-Catholic propaganda and actually start thinking, you will really learn something.

I have a feeling though that you are afraid that you just might do that (if you read the issues from the Vatican Press). I mean - learn something.

Get a hold of Jesus of Nazareth vols 1 and 2 by Pope Benedict.

I just finished Part II “Jesus of Narareth”, Cory. Geez what a fantastic thinker Benedict XVI is? I agree to grasp the depth of this man you have to seriously read. These quick Google Sights might be fine for forums and a fast understanding. But you won’t gain the depth or insight into the mind of an individual this way. Theologians on the level with Benedict? You could probly count them on your fingers and thats being generous.

Your right about the Dark Ages also, medieval and your thinking would have been more in line. Actually my thinking was that the Three Wars being fought and an outbreak of the Plague, was the delay of Trent. No so much defining the era, my error.

But again speaking of Trent, I’m just failing see the significance of the Protestant thinking here. Maybe its me speed reading through this. I’m not seeing the “exact” issue?

God Bless, Gary

 

[GaryTaylor]

Maybe the idea of Catholic Bishops as opposed to Apostolic Succession is stumbling block for you seamusmohr ? Could we say all Catholic Bishops have authority? Most definately, But I’m sure if you read the scripture quotes I posted on page 31 I believe you’ll see the Primacy of Peter as first among the apostles.

Anyway this you may also find of interest.

The principle underlying the Roman claim is contained in the idea of apostolic succession. “To succeed” is to be the successor of, especially to be the heir of, or to occupy an official position just after, as Victoria succeeded William IV. Now the Roman Pontiffs come immediately after, occupy the position, and perform the functions of St. Peter; they are, therefore, his successors. We must prove

that St. Peter came to Rome, and ended there his pontificate;
that the Bishops of Rome who came after him held his official position in the Church.
As soon as the problem of St. Peter’s coming to Rome passed from theologians writing pro domo suâ into the hands of unprejudiced historians, i.e. within the last half century, it received a solution which no scholar now dares to contradict; the researches of German professors like A. Harnack and Weizsaecker, of the Anglican Bishop Lightfoot, and those of archaeologists like De Rossi and Lanciani, of Duchesne and Barnes, have all come to the same conclusion: St. Peter did reside and die in Rome. Beginning with the middle of the second century, there exists a universal consensus as to Peter’s martyrdom in Rome;

Dionysius of Corinth speaks for Greece,
Irenaeus for Gaul,
Clement and Origen for Alexandria,
Tertullian for Africa.

In the third century the popes claim authority from the fact that they are St. Peter’s successors, and no one objects to this claim, no one raises a counter-claim.
No city boasts the tomb of the Apostle but Rome.
There he died, there he left his inheritance; the fact is never questioned in the controversies between East and West. This argument, however, has a weak point: it leaves about one hundred years for the formation of historical legends, of which Peter’s presence in Rome may be one just as much as his conflict with Simon Magus. We have then to go farther back into antiquity.

About 150 the Roman presbyter “Caius” offers to show to the heretic Procius the trophies of the Apostles: “If you will got the Vatican, and to the Via Ostiensis, you will find the monuments of those who have founded this Church.” Can Caius and the Romans for whom he speaks have been in error on a point so vital to their Church?

Next we come to “Papias” (c. 138-150). From him we only get a faint indication that he places Peter’s preaching in Rome, for he states that Mark wrote down what Peter preached, and he makes him write in Rome. Weizsaecker himself holds that this inference from Papias has some weight in the cumulative argument we are constructing.
Earlier than Papias is “Ignatius” Martyr (before 117) as I mentionmed, who, on his way to martyrdom, writes to the Romans: “I do not command you as did Peter and Paul; they were Apostles, I am a disciple”, words which according to Lightfoot have no sense if Ignatius did not believe Peter and Paul to have been preaching in Rome.

Earlier still is Clement of Rome writing to the Corinthians, probably in 96, certainly before the end of the first century. He cites Peter’s and Paul’s martyrdom as an example of the sad fruits of fanaticism and envy. They have suffered “amongst us” he says, and Weizsaecker rightly sees here another proof for our thesis.
The Gospel of St. John, written about the same time as the letter Clement to the Corinthians, also contains a clear allusion to the martyrdom by crucifixion of St. Peter, without, however, locating it (John 21:18, 19).

The very oldest evidence comes from St. Peter himself, if he be the author of the First Epistle of Peter, of if not, from a writer nearly of his own time: “The Church that is in Babylon saluteth you, and so doth my son Mark” (1 Peter 5:13). That Babylon stands for Rome, as usual amongst pious Jews, and not for the real Babylon, then without Christians, is admitted by common consent (cf. F.J.A. Hort, “Judaistic Christianity”, London, 1895, 155).
This chain of documentary evidence, having its first link in Scripture itself, and broken nowhere, puts the sojourn of St. Peter in Rome among the best-ascertained facts in history. It is further strengthened by a similar chain of monumental evidence, which Lanciani, the prince of Roman topographers, sums up as follows:

“For the archaeologist the presence and execution of Sts. Peter and Paul in Rome are facts established beyond a shadow of doubt, by purely monumental evidence!” (Pagan and Christian Rome, 123). “New Advent exert”

And as I said if you look at the Biblical verse in context which I have posted on this thread. The postion of Peter in not in question it is Biblical and imposed upon Peter by God himself.

We have also been through the Greek translations which are in error. Since the actual conversation would have been Aramaic which Christ spoke on the Cross. So the whole Rock theory really becomes a pretentiuos futile meaningless debate. Especially when there are at least 20-other scripture verse’s which support the words of Jesus Christ, Again as Cory mentioned above reading Benedicts XVI “Jesus of Narareth Part II” would be enlightening on this topic since he spends a great deal of time on the Last Supper and the time period in Scripture in question.

God Bless, Gary

 

[seamusmohr]

f we are talking about the Petrine Primacy, or, the way that the promacy was shed on to the Bishop of Rome’s shoulders, I have nothing to prove,I do not bekieve that it ever did, in my estimation it was an addative from the Middle Ages!
As I see it as far as the Catholic Church teaches, it is not a part of the Deposit of faith. More over your ignoring my requests for enlightenment over the course of this correspondence leads me to think that you have no answer! You talk about ‘the plain text of scripture’? Where is it? What does it say?
Regarding my query as to S.Vincent of Lerins and his statement, which contradicts all you say about the papacy, ? It is as well to remember that Vincentian Canon has neen a basic belief of the Catholic Church for some nearly two thousand years study it well and leave the handouts from the convent and the Vatican Library alone!

is there any Church Father or general council of the Church who has decreed that a king may form his own church and this church will be valid?

**Firstly, Your query is not a response to anything I have asked or stated!
Unlike you I believe questions should be debated and will answer to the best of my abilituy.

The truth is as far as I can tell, the answer is no! Now you tell me, whoever said they did?
Of all the great Seven Ecumenical Councils, which with the Bench of Bishops constitute the Magisterium , in an earthly form none of them were organised by the Pope, all he had to do was take his place to affirm his belief in their discussion and findings.

Interestingly the Emperor played a large part in the life of the Church at the time of the great councils. It was Constantine who called the First and Greatest Council, Niceae , organised it and paid for it, as well as sending out a general invitation to all Catholic Bishops. The Bishop of Rome was not even consulted about it. Neither did the Bishop of Rome take any great part till S.Leo,[the polis man,] put forward his Tome, which the Council after a debate, agreed was acceptable to the faith. Only then was it accepted!**

 

[tqualey]

Hi, Seamusmohr,

It looks like you missed the excellent work of post #702 by Gary Taylor. Sometimes posts just ‘cross in the mail’ … but, maybe now that you have had a chance to read it … you will favor us with a response.

Ah, and in your enthusiasm for responding, I would be interested in your insights into one of Henry VIII’s more famous works, “Assertio Septem Sacramentorum”. This work, written in 1521, single-hanbdedly takes on Luther’s attacks of the Catholic Church, recognizes the Pope as the true head of the Church - and Henry even dedicates his work to Pope Leo X.

After reading your post, one could get the idea that Henry was really a Protesant of the turest sort - but, this was only after he was not granted the divorce from Catherine he wanted. Unfortunately, Henry’s recorded history was one of a Catholic Prince - and one who expressed loyalty to the Catholic Church against those who would attack her.

By declaring himself the head of his own church - Henry broke with every rule there was. But murdering those (like Thomas More) who refused to acknowledge the king as having the powers he was now claiming - he showed himself to be a real tyrant and one with a real streak for opportunism and vindictiveness (as in murdering the family of Cardinal Pole).

Henry VIII is a classic example of power corrupting - absolutely.

God bless

f we are talking about the Petrine Primacy, or, the way that the promacy was shed on to the Bishop of Rome’s shoulders, I have nothing to prove,I do not bekieve that it ever did, in my estimation it was an addative from the Middle Ages!
As I see it as far as the Catholic Church teaches, it is not a part of the Deposit of faith. More over your ignoring my requests for enlightenment over the course of this correspondence leads me to think that you have no answer! You talk about ‘the plain text of scripture’? Where is it? What does it say?
Regarding my query as to S.Vincent of Lerins and his statement, which contradicts all you say about the papacy, ? It is as well to remember that Vincentian Canon has neen a basic belief of the Catholic Church for some nearly two thousand years study it well and leave the handouts from the convent and the Vatican Library alone!

**Firstly, Your query is not a response to anything I have asked or stated!
Unlike you I believe questions should be debated and will answer to the best of my abilituy.

The truth is as far as I can tell, the answer is no! Now you tell me, whoever said they did?
Of all the great Seven Ecumenical Councils, which with the Bench of Bishops constitute the Magisterium , in an earthly form none of them were organised by the Pope, all he had to do was take his place to affirm his belief in their discussion and findings.

Interestingly the Emperor played a large part in the life of the Church at the time of the great councils. It was Constantine who called the First and Greatest Council, Niceae , organised it and paid for it, as well as sending out a general invitation to all Catholic Bishops. The Bishop of Rome was not even consulted about it. Neither did the Bishop of Rome take any great part till S.Leo,[the polis man,] put forward his Tome, which the Council after a debate, agreed was acceptable to the faith. Only then was it accepted!**

 

[GKC]

Hi, Seamusmohr,

It looks like you missed the excellent work of post #702 by Gary Taylor. Sometimes posts just ‘cross in the mail’ … but, maybe now that you have had a chance to read it … you will favor us with a response.

Ah, and in your enthusiasm for responding, I would be interested in your insights into one of Henry VIII’s more famous works, “Assertio Septem Sacramentorum”. This work, written in 1521, single-hanbdedly takes on Luther’s attacks of the Catholic Church, recognizes the Pope as the true head of the Church - and Henry even dedicates his work to Pope Leo X.

After reading your post, one could get the idea that Henry was really a Protesant of the turest sort - but, this was only after he was not granted the divorce from Catherine he wanted. Unfortunately, Henry’s recorded history was one of a Catholic Prince - and one who expressed loyalty to the Catholic Church against those who would attack her.

By declaring himself the head of his own church - Henry broke with every rule there was. But murdering those (like Thomas More) who refused to acknowledge the king as having the powers he was now claiming - he showed himself to be a real tyrant and one with a real streak for opportunism and vindictiveness (as in murdering the family of Cardinal Pole).

Henry VIII is a classic example of power corrupting - absolutely.

God bless

Decree of nullity.

GKC

 

[benedictus2]

f we are talking about the Petrine Primacy, or, the way that the promacy was shed on to the Bishop of Rome’s shoulders, I have nothing to prove, I do not bekieve that it ever did,

If you do not believe that it ever did, then you go against Scripture and the Doctors of the Church. I gave you several links that prove this. You have not provided one iota of defense to rebut those.

in my estimation it was an addative from the Middle Ages!

And as with the case of your estimations before, entirely wrong.

As I see it as far as the Catholic Church teaches, it is not a part of the Deposit of faith.

It seems you do not even follow your own reasoning. Or maybe you just forget what you have written. You said in an earlier post that Scripture (referring to 9 Thess which happens to be none existent) mentioned only “deposit” and the Church added “faith”.
Your responses are all over the place you are now even arguing against yourself.

More over your ignoring my requests for enlightenment over the course of this correspondence leads me to think that you have no answer!

“Request for enlightenment” on what? I have answered your posts in detail. You however have conveniently sidestepped mine. If you have no answers just say so. Actually you do not even have to say so. Your silence on the matter speaks volumes

You talk about ‘the plain text of scripture’? Where is it? What does it say?

So you do not have a Bible? How about procuring one and explaining Matthew 16 from verse 13 onwards.

Regarding my query as to S.Vincent of Lerins and his statement, which contradicts all you say about the papacy, ? It is as well to remember that Vincentian Canon has neen a basic belief of the Catholic Church for some nearly two thousand years study it well and leave the handouts from the convent and the Vatican Library alone!

And how does the Comonitorium support your argument exactly?

Firstly, Your query is not a response to anything I have asked or stated!
Unlike you I believe questions should be debated and will answer to the best of my abilituy.

Completely agree. So please do so.

My query addresses your position very clearly. You seem to think that it is okay for the King to declare himself head of the Church. So I ask you which Church Father or Council said that was all in keeping with Christian belief.

Secondly, you mentioned the Vincentian Canon, how exactly does Henry’s declaration that he is head of the church agree with that canon?

 

[benedictus2]

**The truth is as far as I can tell, the answer is no! Now you tell me, whoever said they did? **

Exactly. The answer is no. So therefore the king as head of the church is not decreed by any church doctor or general council hence totally invalid and totally in contravention of Christ’s will.

Of all the great Seven Ecumenical Councils, which with the Bench of Bishops constitute the Magisterium , in an earthly form none of them were organised by the Pope, all he had to do was take his place to affirm his belief in their discussion and findings.

What has that got to do with the fact that the Anglican Church is illegally constituted?

Also, who ever said that the Magisterium was organized by the Pope?

Interestingly the Emperor played a large part in the life of the Church at the time of the great councils. It was Constantine who called the First and Greatest Council, Niceae , organised it and paid for it, as well as sending out a general invitation to all Catholic Bishops.

Yes, he did but while he did plead for the bishops to gather to resolve the Arian heresy, Constantine was not the one who made a decision on the matter. It was creating a havoc in his empire so he decided to do something about it. I don’t think he was even allowed to vote during the deliberation. All he did was to beg the bishops to come to the council to resolve the Arian heresy that is a problem mainly only in the Church in Alexandria.

**The Bishop of Rome was not even consulted about it. **

There is no record to say whether he was or was not.

Neither did the Bishop of Rome take any great part till S.Leo,[the polis man,] put forward his Tome, which the Council after a debate, agreed was acceptable to the faith. Only then was it accepted!

You are truly all over the place. You cut and paste so bad that you are losing the trend even of your own thought.

The Tome of Leo came 100 years later at the Council of Chalcedon and had absolutely nothing to do with the Council of Nicea nor with Arianism.

 

[benedictus2]

Head of the Church in England. A title that lasted 20 years, until the 2nd Act of Repeals, of Mary. Replaced by the term "governor, by Elizabeth, 5 years later. And after about 50 years, a meaningless term, in that the sovereign was not in any sense, save technically, the governor or head of the CoE in any pratical sense.

GKC

And how long did he reign for? Wasn’t that title applicable to him for so long as he reigned? What happened later had no bearing on the matter since what we are concerned with is whether he did consider himself the spiritual head as well even though he may not have exercised the right.

 

[benedictus2]

I just finished Part II “Jesus of Narareth”, Cory. Geez what a fantastic thinker Benedict XVI is? I agree to grasp the depth of this man you have to seriously read.

Yes, isn’t he simply awesome???!! These days the only time I get to read is on the train to and from work and it is embarrassing sometimes because he moves me to tears.

I soooooooo loooove my German Shepherd :heaven:

 

[benedictus2]

Hi, Seamusmohr,

It looks like you missed the excellent work of post #702 by Gary Taylor. Sometimes posts just ‘cross in the mail’ … but, maybe now that you have had a chance to read it … you will favor us with a response.

Ah, and in your enthusiasm for responding, I would be interested in your insights into one of Henry VIII’s more famous works, “Assertio Septem Sacramentorum”. This work, written in 1521, single-hanbdedly takes on Luther’s attacks of the Catholic Church, recognizes the Pope as the true head of the Church - and Henry even dedicates his work to Pope Leo X.

After reading your post, one could get the idea that Henry was really a Protesant of the turest sort - but, this was only after he was not granted the divorce from Catherine he wanted. Unfortunately, Henry’s recorded history was one of a Catholic Prince - and one who expressed loyalty to the Catholic Church against those who would attack her.

By declaring himself the head of his own church - Henry broke with every rule there was. But murdering those (like Thomas More) who refused to acknowledge the king as having the powers he was now claiming - he showed himself to be a real tyrant and one with a real streak for opportunism and vindictiveness (as in murdering the family of Cardinal Pole).

Henry VIII is a classic example of power corrupting - absolutely.

God bless

Great post! Now I would truly love to see Seamus rebut that .

 

[seamusmohr]

What has that got to do with the fact that the Anglican Church is illegally constituted?

B]Who told you that? Or did it come out of a lucky bag?
The Anglican Church is no more than the ancient Catholic Church in this country, not the whole church, but a communion of Catholic Believers. S.Dorotheus of Tyre tells us that the Church was brought to Britain by S.Aristobulos who was the first bishop.

**Also, who ever said that the Magisterium was organized by the Pope? According to modern sources he is the magisterium, ‘or authority,’ . He isn’t however to traditional catholics, that is the bishop in Council, Seven Ecumenical Councils.

Certainly not me, possibly a figment of your fertile imagination!**

Yes, he did but while he did plead for the bishops to gather to resolve the Arian heresy, Constantine was not the one who made a decision on the matter. It was creating a havoc in his empire so he decided to do something about it. I don’t think he was even allowed to vote during the deliberation. All he did was to beg the bishops to come to the council to resolve the Arian heresy that is a problem mainly only in the Church in Alexandria

No one said Constantine voted! Again you’r setting up dollies , just to knock them down

The Tome of Leo came 100 years later at the Council of Chalcedon and had absolutely nothing to do with the Council of Nicea nor with Arianism.

But it was at an
Ecumenical Council and the Tome had to be scrutinised, studied and officialy accepted by the Catholic Bishops before it could be published as Catholic Doctrine! The fact that Leo, The Polisman,] had written bore no weight, he was just another bishop!

You still refuse to answer in a valid form any of the questions posed. Nit picking errors
such as you mention will not serve, it only emphasises the barrenness of modern Roman Scholarship at least at this level!

Again , I ask you where is the proof that the Papacy inherited the mantle of S.Peter, in any other way than was common to all Catholic Bishops,Certainly the early fathers d,on the whole didn’t believe it, I have quoted you Launoy, a Jesuit on the subject, but from yourself and friends, NOTHING!

 

[seamusmohr]

What has that got to do with the fact that the Anglican Church is illegally constituted?

B]Who told you that? Or did it come out of a lucky bag?
The Anglican Church is no more than the ancient Catholic Church in this country, not the whole church, but a communion of Catholic Believers. S.Dorotheus of Tyre tells us that the Church was brought to Britain by S.Aristobulos who was the first bishop.

**Also, who ever said that the Magisterium was organized by the Pope? According to modern sources he is the magisterium, ‘or authority,’ . He isn’t however to traditional catholics, that is the bishop in Council, Seven Ecumenical Councils.

Certainly not me, possibly a figment of your fertile imagination!**

Yes, he did but while he did plead for the bishops to gather to resolve the Arian heresy, Constantine was not the one who made a decision on the matter. It was creating a havoc in his empire so he decided to do something about it. I don’t think he was even allowed to vote during the deliberation. All he did was to beg the bishops to come to the council to resolve the Arian heresy that is a problem mainly only in the Church in Alexandria

No one said Constantine voted! Again you’r setting up dollies , just to knock them down

The Tome of Leo came 100 years later at the Council of Chalcedon and had absolutely nothing to do with the Council of Nicea nor with Arianism.

But it was at an
Ecumenical Council and the Tome had to be scrutinised, studied and officialy accepted by the Catholic Bishops before it could be published as Catholic Doctrine! The fact that Leo, The Polisman,] had written bore no weight, he was just another bishop!

You still refuse to answer in a valid form any of the questions posed. Nit picking errors
such as you mention will not serve, it only emphasises the barrenness of modern Roman Scholarship at least at this level!

Again , I ask you where is the proof that the Papacy inherited the mantle of S.Peter, in any other way than was common to all Catholic Bishops,Certainly the early fathers d,on the whole didn’t believe it, I have quoted you Launoy, a Jesuit on the subject, but from yourself and friends, NOTHING!

 

[GaryTaylor]

B]
Again , I ask you where is the proof that the Papacy inherited the mantle of S.Peter, in any other way than was common to all Catholic Bishops,Certainly the early fathers d,on the whole didn’t believe it, I have quoted you Launoy, a Jesuit on the subject, but from yourself and friends, NOTHING!

Are you actually serious? You’ve been given Bible Quotes at least 20, ECF quotes, links to support the ECF. Quotes from Roman Historians, Jewish Historians. Obviously you just are not trying to hear any of it… Its called a closed mind!

The fact is your in denial and the reason your in denial is to promote your own agenda of thinking. Which is obviously in error.

Keep reading the truth and reality will dawn on you sooner or later.

BTW Launoy is lost and in error. Read the Jesuit monthy news report. There is no denial from the Society of Jesus on Apostolic Succession. The only issue which ever arose was during the JP-II papacy with Arrupe, who was General of JS at the time. And the issues which arose over Marxism in South America. Which then caused others like Fr Malichi Martin to produce works of contempt against the church.

But there has “never” been any denial of the roots of the CC, the seat of Peter, Bishop of Rome as “defined” at NIcaea or Apostolic Succession.

The Jesuits are called “The Popes Men” they are all Catholics. The fact that a heretic appears now and again is not new. You found a needle in the haystack and want to claim the abomination as the norm? Pleaze! You’ll have to do much better that that.

GT

 

[GKC]

And how long did he reign for? Wasn’t that title applicable to him for so long as he reigned? What happened later had no bearing on the matter since what we are concerned with is whether he did consider himself the spiritual head as well even though he may not have exercised the right.

Hank held the tile for 14 years. From the Act of 1534 until his death in 1547. And he did indeed consider himself head of the Church in England; that was a part of his theory of the role, the royal sovereignty, of a Christian prince, that God set no higher authority in a Christian realm than the sovereign. But he was not primarily concerned with what the Church believed, as what it did, politically. And in that the Church, pre-Henry, had conflicted directly with the throne for centuries, resulting in those acts and decrees I’ve mentioned. Such a conflict was inevitable, to the extent that the Church functioned in the secular realm, politically.

It is possible we are talking past each other.

GKC

 

[tqualey]

Hi, Seamusmohr,

I think the last thing Benedictus2 has done is to set up dollies (is that British for ‘straw man’? ) Anyway - here is a solid brick coming through your opaque glass argument: the saints that founded the Catholic Church in England - were all Catholics who were loyal to the Pope who sent them there. There are two things missing from your post - the first is a genuine sense of the history you are waving around - there really weren’t any Protestants back then. Honest.

My favorite English saint is Thomas Becket - who had a personal knowledge of how the crown really operated and chose to follow the Pope. Here is a link you may not have read: newadvent.org/cathen/14676a.htm The king was convinced that he was in charge of church and had Becket murdered - but, you know that did not change anything - except the king confessed to the crime, did the penance the Pope had identified and ultimately backed away from trying to be the spiritual head of the Church (a position already occupied by the Pope).

My second favorite English saint is John Cardinal Newman who had quite a profound sense of history and the role of the Catholic Church throughout the world - and especially in England. Here is a link you may enjoy: newadvent.org/cathen/10794a.htm

The second thing your posts have been missing is a response about Henry VIIIs defense of the Catholic Church, the Sacraments, the Pope and his role in actually combating Protestantism (specifically as identified by Luther) when it was just starting. The Pope was quite impressed with the king’s writings - and, actually, I submit, you should be equally impressed. While I do not expect the favorable impression to go for the content - the amazement would be more focused on what hubris can produce when Henry did not get his way. And, really, I think that is an important point that needs to be presented in trying to understand what it was that was driving Henry from loyal Catholic Prince - to despotic and murdering attempted usurper of religion and belief in his kingdom.

In my opinion, there needs to be more light than heat in your presentation. How about beginning with some documentation that we can access on the net to substantiate that Protestants really formed the Catholic Church in England - right under the Pope’s nose! Now, that is an example of a major “…figment of your fertile imagination”…

According to one historical source, “Catholic Christianity was established in what are now England and Wales in the 1st centuries AD, and in 597, the first authoritative papal mission, establishing a direct link from the Kingdom of Kent to Rome and to the Benedictine form of monasticism, was carried into effect by Augustine of Canterbury.” And, here is the link: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Catholic_Church_in_England_and_Wales. As I see it, the burden of proof lies with you to substantiate your position in a meaningful manner and not just howl about called upon to do so.

I am looking forward to hearing from you.

God bless

B]Who told you that? Or did it come out of a lucky bag?
The Anglican Church is no more than the ancient Catholic Church in this country, not the whole church, but a communion of Catholic Believers. S.Dorotheus of Tyre tells us that the Church was brought to Britain by S.Aristobulos who was the first bishop.

**Also, who ever said that the Magisterium was organized by the Pope? According to modern sources he is the magisterium, ‘or authority,’ . He isn’t however to traditional catholics, that is the bishop in Council, Seven Ecumenical Councils.

Certainly not me, possibly a figment of your fertile imagination!**

No one said Constantine voted! Again you’r setting up dollies , just to knock them down

But it was at an
Ecumenical Council and the Tome had to be scrutinised, studied and officialy accepted by the Catholic Bishops before it could be published as Catholic Doctrine! The fact that Leo, The Polisman,] had written bore no weight, he was just another bishop!

You still refuse to answer in a valid form any of the questions posed. Nit picking errors
such as you mention will not serve, it only emphasises the barrenness of modern Roman Scholarship at least at this level!

Again , I ask you where is the proof that the Papacy inherited the mantle of S.Peter, in any other way than was common to all Catholic Bishops,Certainly the early fathers d,on the whole didn’t believe it, I have quoted you Launoy, a Jesuit on the subject, but from yourself and friends, NOTHING!

 

[nhylan]

According to one historical source, “Catholic Christianity was established in what are now England and Wales in the 1st centuries AD, and in 597, the first authoritative papal mission, establishing a direct link from the Kingdom of Kent to Rome and to the Benedictine form of monasticism, was carried into effect by Augustine of Canterbury.” And, here is the link: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Catholic_Church_in_England_and_Wales. As I see it, the burden of proof lies with you to substantiate your position in a meaningful manner and not just howl about called upon to do so.

I certainly don’t agree with Seamus’s position, and this whole argument for that matter, but I do have to ask in what sense you think that the early early Christians (ie. first century Iona etc) were catholic? Do you mean Roman Catholic or the Anglican/Old Catholic/Lutheran etc etc idea of it. I would say that the early Christians of the islands were anything but the Roman Catholic definition of catholic. There wasn’t even a validly ordained (to Roman rules) Bishop on the islands until, as you said, 597.

 

[GKC]

I certainly don’t agree with Seamus’s position, and this whole argument for that matter, but I do have to ask in what sense you think that the early early Christians (ie. first century Iona etc) were catholic? Do you mean Roman Catholic or the Anglican/Old Catholic/Lutheran etc etc idea of it. I would say that the early Christians of the islands were anything but the Roman Catholic definition of catholic. There wasn’t even a validly ordained (to Roman rules) Bishop on the islands until, as you said, 597.

Few things are murkier than delving into the idea of when the Church first came to England. I’ve done it before, and don’t propose to do it again. For an account of what folks who lean to what seamus is saying here, see Harvey’s TO THE ISLES AFAR OFF or, more antiquarianlly, Lewis’ ST. JOSEPH OF ARIMATHEA AT GLASTONBURY. This is a whole 'nother area to yell at one another about.

But your last sentence is in the realm of accepted history and isn’t accurate. Valid British bishops were in attendance at the Council of Arles/314, for example.

GKC

 

[tqualey]

Hi, Nhylan,

Nice to hear from you. The real answer to your question has a degree of complexity to it and maybe I can start out with a simple and straigh-forward over-view and, if necessary, move forward.

The pubic and visible Catholic Church you see today on TV or in the newspapers does not look anything like the Church founded by Christ on Peter in Matt 16:18 by the massive rock at Caesarea Philippi. Today, Benedict XVI has his own e-mail address! There have been a lot of exterior changes - but, you know, the doctrine is consistent with what the Apostles taught. Not to put too fine a point on this, but notice that the Catholic Church still does not ordain women, does not ordain homosexuals and has removed from the priesthood and religious life those who have abused children. We see the doctrine of many organizations changing to be ‘Politically Correct’ rather than remaining faithful to God’s clearly written word.

Christ gave Peter the authority to bind and lose and gave him the Keys as a symbol of authority over the Eleven - but, Christ did not give Peter an organizational chart and policy and procedure manual on which to build His Church. We see the Apostles following the command of Christ to preach and baptize - and the Holy Spirit directed their actions.

Early on, the Church - under the direction of Peter and the Apostels carried the Word of God to distant places - like England. What is of note is that the Pope was ultimately responsible for sending out these missionaries, and for making sure that the Word was accurately preached.

It would be a mistake to look at the men in the visible Church and compare it to men of Christ’s time. There was a developmental nature to what we are seeing throughout history. A perfect example of this was the Councils of the Catholic Church. To the best of my knowledge, the early Church (and there were really only Catholics at the time) did not have any problems with believing that Christ was true God and true man, that Mary was the Mother of God and that there was only One God in Three Divine Persons. There were councils called because these beliefs were challenged by some and heresy was destroying the faith of many. The role of the various councils was to reduce to writing what was believed so that all could see and clearly understand what is correct and what isn’t.

It is only when we get to the heresies of the 16th Century that we find a curious questioning of historical and established fact that we wind up with another element of confusion. Prior to Henry VIII’s published bedroom adventures - he never made public any doubts about the Catholic Church being the True Chruch - in fact, just the opposite. In my view, this is the watershed event - when Henry decided to conform his belief to fit his very bad behavior rather then to modify his behavior to conform to the belief in the Catholic Chruch he once publicly proclaimed. This, is the watershed event and one that must be honestly addressed. Henry made a point of murdering those who disagreed with him - and fear of the crown in some measure may still be present.

I hope this helps - let me know if we need to go deeper.

God bless

I certainly don’t agree with Seamus’s position, and this whole argument for that matter, but I do have to ask in what sense you think that the early early Christians (ie. first century Iona etc) were catholic? Do you mean Roman Catholic or the Anglican/Old Catholic/Lutheran etc etc idea of it. I would say that the early Christians of the islands were anything but the Roman Catholic definition of catholic. There wasn’t even a validly ordained (to Roman rules) Bishop on the islands until, as you said, 597.