Protestants: The 1500 yrs

[benedictus2]

Ok. It says “Of course. But if you follow the Glastonbury, or the Celtic Church lines, you get a whole lot of argument”.

I will now consider it… (musing music in background)…

Nope. You will have to connect the dots.

GKC

**I said: **Whether organized or not, the Church in England from the fledgling Church in the 4th century to the full blown organized one in 16th was united to Rome. After all, one of the Popes was English. My point.

You said: : Of course. But if you follow the Glastonbury, or the Celtic Church lines, you get a whole lot of argument.

So I said: And where did the Glastonbury and Celtic Church come from? Were they founded from the Eastern Church?

Furthermore, back in the 3rd century, even though there were three patriarchates, Rome always had primacy. It was not as if this patriarchates were somehow separate churches.

Then Gurney said: I don’t understand this argument or the constant question harkening to whether or not the Celtic Church or early English church was Eastern or not? Of course it was not. But the universal supremacy and infallibility of the pope was hardly believed at the time these early Briton churches were founded so I can’t understand the point?

So I said: I did not bring it up.GKC did.

My point? I did not bring up the Celts and Glastonbury. You did.

 

[GKC]

**I said: **Whether organized or not, the Church in England from the fledgling Church in the 4th century to the full blown organized one in 16th was united to Rome. After all, one of the Popes was English. My point.

You said: : Of course. But if you follow the Glastonbury, or the Celtic Church lines, you get a whole lot of argument.

So I said: And where did the Glastonbury and Celtic Church come from? Were they founded from the Eastern Church?

Furthermore, back in the 3rd century, even though there were three patriarchates, Rome always had primacy. It was not as if this patriarchates were somehow separate churches.

Then Gurney said: I don’t understand this argument or the constant question harkening to whether or not the Celtic Church or early English church was Eastern or not? Of course it was not. But the universal supremacy and infallibility of the pope was hardly believed at the time these early Briton churches were founded so I can’t understand the point?

So I said: I did not bring it up.GKC did.

My point? I did not bring up the Celts and Glastonbury. You did.

And who brought up “Eastern”?

GKC

 

[seamusmohr]

You have to disprove Matthew verse by verse which you have ignored since you started posting. We laid it all 10-20 times including the Apostolic Succession. Wheres the link for your church that leads to Peter?

Do you have one, or are you still blowing smoke?

GT

As far as I am concerned you have not proved one of your points, you have stoned walled, twisted and avoided a real answer and any positive discussion!
I realise this is because you have not the requisite knowledge needed to sustain an interesting discussion. You are by your Romanist Canons obliged to read Scripture through the writings of the Fathers, tell me what they say, prove your comments and I’ll take you seriously!

 

[GaryTaylor]

As far as I am concerned you have not proved one of your points, you have stoned walled, twisted and avoided a real answer and any positive discussion!
I realise this is because you have not the requisite knowledge needed to sustain an interesting discussion. You are by your Romanist Canons obliged to read Scripture through the writings of the Fathers, tell me what they say, prove your comments and I’ll take you seriously!

We are still still waiting for you to define Matthew 16:16 to19 as I’ve laid it out. You’ve said zero:shrug:

Till we can move past that Apostolic Succession you have failed to provide anything but rhetoric.

You have a lack of understanding of scripture, history, and archaelogy. All which prove Peter to Benedict.

I won’t talk about your eduction that would make me as ignorant as you.

God Bless, Gary

 

[gurneyhalleck1]

Benedictus. I’m still trying to figure out why? I haven’t heard you make the point that the Eastern Orthodox sent the first missionaries to the British Isles so I’m stumped here?

And who brought up “Eastern”?

GKC

 

[Bluegoat]

I may be way off, but I think GKC is pointing out that if the Glastonbury dating of Christianity in Rome is accurate, so placing it around 40AD, it had to have come from the East.

 

[Bluegoat]

Hi, Bluegoat,

Backing up these statements of yours would be really appreciated.

What historical evidence that Anglican orders were valid after Henry, and Edward, and Elizabeth and James?

What ‘old Catholics’ are you talking about - especially the ‘loonier’ ones?

And what ‘old Catholic’ was ordained and did not believe in the Resurrection at the time of his ordination?

There is this deluge of opinions that adds nothing except more opinin.

God bless

Why would I try to prove that, it has nothing to do with my statement. Are you unaware that Anglicans consider their own orders valid, while Catholics say they are not?

If you want to know about Old Catholics, you can educate yourself with google. The fellow in question is a personal acquaintance, and I doubt he’d send you a note confirming his beliefs.

I’m beginning to think you are a troll. That seems the only explanation for such a bizarre request.

 

[GKC]

I may be way off, but I think GKC is pointing out that if the Glastonbury dating of Christianity in Rome is accurate, so placing it around 40AD, it had to have come from the East.

If it were AD 37-40 (and that’s around the earliest the legends assign to it, based on a statement in Gildas), it would have to predate the organized Church, anywhere. In its most common form, it assumes an origin with (pick one or several) St. Joseph of Arimathea, St. Paul, who first sent Aristobolus as bishop, (seamus can tell of him), perhaps St. Barnabus, St. Simon Zelotes, who knows.

I do recommend Harvey’s book, for a feel for it all.

GKC

 

[tqualey]

Hi, Jnpl,

I had really thought Guanophore was right on target - but, that is just my opinion. I do have one comment and question about one of your comments.

As for the sacraments, Luthereventually pitched them because they could not be supported by the authority of scripture. Of course a Catholic will argue this…

This issue I had with your comment dealt with your distinction between “official” and some radical and unauthorized perversion of actual doctrine by wolves in the sheepfold. The sale of indulgences was always wrong.

Somehow Luther managed to get rid of the Sacrament of Penance notwithstanding Christ own words in John 20.19-23.

**19
On the evening of that first day of the week, when the doors were locked, where the disciples were, for fear of the Jews, Jesus came and stood in their midst and said to them, “Peace be with you.”
20
When he had said this, he showed them his hands and his side. The disciples rejoiced when they saw the Lord.
21
(Jesus) said to them again, “Peace be with you. As the Father has sent me, so I send you.”
22
And when he had said this, he breathed on them and said to them, “Receive the holy Spirit.
23
Whose sins you forgive are forgiven them, and whose sins you retain are retained.” **

This clearly states that God delegated tothe first Bishops of the Catholic Church - The Apostles- the power to forgive or retain sins. Yet in Luther’s religion, he apparently found that Christ’s words were wanting or lacking in authority… or at least the authority he aspired to in determining the content and meaning of Scripture.

God bless

 

[tqualey]

That’s the old Bluegoat!

Quite a response for merely asking you to back up what you say. Now, to paraphrase and tweek David Farragut’s famous quote… “Damn the references - full opinions ahead!” It would appear that there is no end to your opinions on how the Catholic Church has done somethign wrong.

Tell you what, continue to spout forth … and I will contiue to ask you to back up what really appears to be unsubstantiated claims that assault both logic and patience.

God bless

Why would I try to prove that, it has nothing to do with my statement. Are you unaware that Anglicans consider their own orders valid, while Catholics say they are not?

If you want to know about Old Catholics, you can educate yourself with google. The fellow in question is a personal acquaintance, and I doubt he’d send you a note confirming his beliefs.

I’m beginning to think you are a troll. That seems the only explanation for such a bizarre request.

 

[tqualey]

Hi, Gurneyhalleck,

Maybe I can help…

It seems like there is this idea that the Catholic Church had nothing to do with founding of the Catholic Faith in early England. Since the Pope obviously did not send any missionaries - he has no control over them. Ooooooooh … it gets better … and since there were some who were not happy with the Pope - well, they are now free to disregard what Rome says.

And, that seems to be why this has an interest. At least for some. Ultimately - and without argument - th Catholic Faith was brought to England and the authority of Rome was acknowledged.

In reality, the Pope’s authority is not be dependent on those who agree with him… it rests entirely on the Power of God for His Church.

Hopefully, this will explain the matter.

God bless

I don’t understand this argument or the constant question harkening to whether or not the Celtic Church or early English church was Eastern or not? Of course it was not. But the universal supremacy and infallibility of the pope was hardly believed at the time these early Briton churches were founded so I can’t understand the point?

 

[tqualey]

Hi, Seamusmohr,

Let me take a moment and point out that one of your comments needs a bit more focus…

You have an erroneus belief, both you and the Church you belong to/.
There’s only one Church and that is the One, Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church, the Body of Christ. To belong to it one must have received baptism followed by confirmation from a valid bishop after being taught the Catholic faith as Revealed by Christ, recorded in scripture and being completed, interpreted and explained, by the Holy fathers in Council!
Whilst the Church is one, our union is in Christ.we are not a monolith Church , but a series of disparate organisations all holding the same beliefs.

Actually, its diversity is world wide as is on-going splintering of its schism involving homosexual clergy. Note, this is not the acts of some renegade bishop or libertine laymen having taken over the leadership - this is the very leadership that has caused such division over doctrine that is just the opposite of Scripture.

God bless

 

[Bluegoat]

That’s the old Bluegoat!

Quite a response for merely asking you to back up what you say. Now, to paraphrase and tweek David Farragut’s famous quote… “Damn the references - full opinions ahead!” It would appear that there is no end to your opinions on how the Catholic Church has done somethign wrong.

Tell you what, continue to spout forth … and I will contiue to ask you to back up what really appears to be unsubstantiated claims that assault both logic and patience.

God bless

 

[gurneyhalleck1]

As a Roman Catholic, I understand that is your point of view. That is what they teach, yes.

Hi, Gurneyhalleck,

In reality, the Pope’s authority is not be dependent on those who agree with him… it rests entirely on the Power of God for His Church.

Hopefully, this will explain the matter.

God bless

 

[tqualey]

Hold on there, Seamusmohr,

Is that you howling at the another poster I hear… and criticizing him for you yourslef have done over and over again. And, to top this off it sounds like you are taking some unjustified swings at the Early Church Fathers. In my opinion, you have really over stepped the bounds of CAF. There is no reason for this.

Luther and Calvin and Henry VIII all believed in the Primacy of Peter at one time! All three of these men were Catholic before they revolted. Prior to these three - there were other heretics who abandoned the Faith established by Christ on the Church He founded on Peter - and gave hin the Keys as a symbol of that authority. (Matt 16:18)

One of hte benefits that a number of Protestnts have found with the Early Church Fathers is that it shows how the Faith developed during periods of intense persecution and during wide-spread heresies. While the ECF are not infallible, taken as a whole they point in the direction that the Catholic Church took under the guidance of the Holy Spirit. This is the same Spirit that Christ promised His Apostles - the First Bishops of the Catholic Church (John 14:26, 15:26 and 16:13). Another remarkable thing about the ECFs is that they spanned the period from the 1st Century to the 6th Century - and the consistency of teaching from the Catolic Church on such items as these 4:

Baptism - its necessity for salvation and that infants can be baptized!
Eucharist - the Body, Blood, Human Soul and Divinity of Jesus Christ is present under the appearance of Bread and Wine.
Confession - that God delegated the power to forgive sin to men
***Primacy of Peter ***- Christ appointed Peter to lead the Apostles and his position has been passed on just like the position of bishop was passed on by the Apostles.

Maybe you should fully recover before launching another post - there has been no evidence of stonewalling or evasion on the part of those who have responded to you. Quite the contrary. This insistance that Henry VIII was justified in defying the Pope by founding a church in his own imnage and then making himself the head of it is totally novel doctirne - and found no where in Scripture. As bad as the Pharisees were - and there are a lot of verses of them being condemned for their hypocritical behavior - Christ told His folllowers to obey them for they had the seat of authority - the Chair of Moses (Matt 23:2)

Hope you are feeling better.

God bless

As far as I am concerned you have not proved one of your points, you have stoned walled, twisted and avoided a real answer and any positive discussion!
I realise this is because you have not the requisite knowledge needed to sustain an interesting discussion. You are by your Romanist Canons obliged to read Scripture through the writings of the Fathers, tell me what they say, prove your comments and I’ll take you seriously!

 

[tqualey]

Hi, Gurneyhalleck,

And what have you been taught?

God bless

As a Roman Catholic, I understand that is your point of view. That is what they teach, yes.

 

[gurneyhalleck1]

You have been taught that the Pope has a supreme jurisdiction over all Christendom over all bishops and that he is infallible, that only he holds the Keys, and that the Bishop of Rome has more than a primacy of honor, but a universal primacy.

Hi, Gurneyhalleck,

And what have you been taught?

God bless

 

[fred_conty]

You have been taught that the Pope has a supreme jurisdiction over all Christendom over all bishops and that he is infallible, that only he holds the Keys, and that the Bishop of Rome has more than a primacy of honor, but a universal primacy.

Hi,
Maybe this will help.

Quote from St. Irenaeus(140-202), disciple of St. Polycarp, disciple of St. John the Apostle.

The anti-Nicene Fathers (New York: 1890), V, 415-416

It is within the power of all, therefore, in every Church, who may wish to see the truth, to contemplate clearly the tradition of the apostles manifested thoughout the whole world… We do put to confusion all those who, in whatever manner… assemble in unauthorized meetings by indicating that tradition derived from the apostles, of the very great, the very ancient, and universally known Church founded and organized at Rome by the two most glorious apostles, Peter and Paul, as also (by pointing out) the faith preached to men, which comes down to our time by means of the successions of the bishops. For it is a matter of necessity that every Church should agree with this Church, on account of its pre-eminent authority, that is, the faithful everywhere, inasmuch as the apostolical tradition has been preserved continuously by those who exist everywhere.

The blessed apostles, then, having founded and built up the Church, committed into the hands of Linus the office of the episcopate. Of this Linus, Paul makes mention in the Epistles to Timothy. To him succeeded Anacletus; and after him, in the third place from the apostles, Clement was allotted the bishopric… In the time of this Clement, no small dissension having occurred among the brethren at Corinth, the Church in Rome dispatched a most powerful letter to the Corinthians, exhorting them to peace, renewing their faith, and declaring the tradition which it had lately received from the apostles… To this Clement there succeeded Evaristus. Alexander followed Evaristus; then, sixth from the apostles, Sextus was appointed; after him, Telesphorus, who was gloriously martyred; then Hyginus; after him, Pius, then after him, Anicetus. Soter having succeeded Anicetus, Eleutherius does now, in the twelfth place from the apostles, hold the inheritance of the episcopate. In this order, and by this succession, the ecclesiastical tradition from the apostles, and the preaching fo the truth, have come down to us.
And this is most abundant proof that there is one and the same vivifying faith, which has been preserved in the Church from the apostles until now, and handed down in truth.

 

[GaryTaylor]

You have been taught that the Pope has a supreme jurisdiction over all Christendom over all bishops and that he is infallible, that only he holds the Keys, and that the Bishop of Rome has more than a primacy of honor, but a universal primacy.

And you have been taught that 100’s of denomination of Gods church is just fine and dandy? Not sure what your saying?

The problem is that none are part of the Mystical Body of Jesus Christ. Its a living Cell outside of the Body. A Church nonetheless, but not in communion, You may like the party better. But how you arrive at the conclusion God is somehow served better I’d love to hear?

EO or the CC? You have to inform me how one serves Gods Will better than the other?

Sounds to me like you are in the mist of listening to others, observing and deciding in your mind what you believe is correct in Gods Universe.

How does this apply to History and Scripture?

God Bless, Gary

 

[gurneyhalleck1]

Being a cradle Catholic and lifetime Catholic I’m wondering why you are insinuating I’ve been fed this 100’s of denominations stuff?

I’d appreciate it, Gary, if you’d refrain from evaluating my spirituality. I never evaluate yours. I just converse. Thanks.

And you have been taught that 100’s of denomination of Gods church is just fine and dandy? Not sure what your saying?

The problem is that none are part of the Mystical Body of Jesus Christ. Its a living Cell outside of the Body. A Church nonetheless, but not in communion, You may like the party better. But how you arrive at the conclusion God is somehow served better I’d love to hear?

EO or the CC? You have to inform me how one serves Gods Will better than the other?

Sounds to me like you are in the mist of listening to others, observing and deciding in your mind what you believe is correct in Gods Universe.

How does this apply to History and Scripture?

God Bless, Gary