Protestants: The 1500 yrs

[nhylan]

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 see your position better now thanks. Wouldn’t the very need to clarify positions in councils seem to indicate that there was indeed a difference of opinion that needed to be ironed out by those in the early church? I don’t think your depiction of the early church as completely united is entirely accurate, there were many different groups and churches. The first Archbishop of Canterbury basically brought the early Celtic Christians under the Roman Church, they existed outside of the Roman Catholic Church for a long time. Wouldn’t this constitute,by its very nature as a seperate entity that the early church was fractured? They ordained their own Bishops, kept their own calendars etc. To me, there seems to be a disconnect between your idea of the ancient church as united and the historical evidence which presents itself in written records. Is it the case that you only consider those under the Roman Pontif as true ancient Christians then how do you reconcile the fact that the Catechism says that modern Christians outside the Catholic Church are indeed what they profess and that they are indeed (though imperfectly) part of the one holy catholic and apostolic church?

Thanks for your charitable response to my first questions.

 

[GaryTaylor]

I see your position better now thanks. Wouldn’t the very need to clarify positions in councils seem to indicate that there was indeed a difference of opinion that needed to be ironed out by those in the early church? I don’t think your depiction of the early church as completely united is entirely accurate, there were many different groups and churches. The first Archbishop of Canterbury basically brought the early Celtic Christians under the Roman Church, they existed outside of the Roman Catholic Church for a long time. Wouldn’t this constitute,by its very nature as a seperate entity that the early church was fractured? They ordained their own Bishops, kept their own calendars etc. To me, there seems to be a disconnect between your idea of the ancient church as united and the historical evidence which presents itself in written records. Is it the case that you only consider those under the Roman Pontif as true ancient Christians then how do you reconcile the fact that the Catechism says that modern Christians outside the Catholic Church are indeed what they profess and that they are indeed (though imperfectly) part of the one holy catholic and apostolic church?

Thanks for your charitable response to my first questions.

How do you consider this the early church when we are already taking conversion of Europe here?

Where do get this from “Catechism says that modern Christians outside the Catholic Church are indeed what they profess and that they are indeed (though imperfectly) part of the one holy catholic and apostolic church?”

More often than not with the CCC we see many taking parts instead of complete thoughts to promote their own agenda, which seems to be the case here. This statement looks like part of the thinking on ecumenism that everyone lives on earth under one God. And the existing similarites of christians exist, but yet there are also differences which leave them not in Communion with Rome. Would have to see the entire context or at least the part relating to that paragraph.

 

[nhylan]

How do you consider this the early church when we are already taking conversion of Europe here?

Where do get this from “Catechism says that modern Christians outside the Catholic Church are indeed what they profess and that they are indeed (though imperfectly) part of the one holy catholic and apostolic church?”

More often than not with the CCC we see many taking parts instead of complete thoughts to promote their own agenda, which seems to be the case here. This statement looks like part of the thinking on ecumenism that everyone lives on earth under one God. And the existing similarites of christians exist, but yet there are also differences which leave them not in Communion with Rome. Would have to see the entire context or at least the part relating to that paragraph.

Sorry, I should have put this in a clearer way but I’m pretty sure it says that those who profess to be Christians and are validly baptised are Christians, or is that not the case?

 

[GaryTaylor]

Sorry, I should have put this in a clearer way but I’m pretty sure it says that those who profess to be Christians and are validly baptised are Christians, or is that not the case?

First off how are you nhylan?

I have to go back and read the CCC. I know it tends to get all over the map. So its could be difficult to pin down. Especially with ecumenism being so prominate in the JP-II version.

To me honestly he bounces back and forth such as with 841 and the statement with Islam, then to the idea that " Theres no Salvation Outside the Catholic Church".

Personally I believe it should be re-written and by Benedict while he’s alive. No- Pope has come along in centurys as aware of Doctrine as Him. That was his job since 81 being in charge the CC Doctrine, untill 05 and being elected Pope.

But hey that my opinion, which counts for zip at the Vatican.

 

[nhylan]

First off how are you nhylan?

I have to go back and read the CCC. I know it tends to get all over the map. So its could be difficult to pin down. Especially with ecumenism being so prominate in the JP-II version.

To me honestly he bounces back and forth such as with 841 and the statement with Islam, then to the idea that " Theres no Salvation Outside the Catholic Church".

Personally I believe it should be re-written and by Benedict while he’s alive. No- Pope has come along in centurys as aware of Doctrine as Him. That was his job since 81 being in charge the CC Doctrine, untill 05 and being elected Pope.

But hey that my opinion, which counts for zip at the Vatican.

I’m pretty good thanks for asking. Under a lot of stress right now because my wife and I are 6 days away from purchasing our first house, hopefully we’ll get through this week without any major bumps in the road. How have you been?

I do have to agree regardless of which way the CCC would be edited its not the most lucid of documents.

 

[benedictus2]

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"…

Yes it is important to remember that when God said be fruitful and multiply He was not exactly referring to our imagination.

 

[seamusmohr]

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!

None of the quotes I have seen even relate to the ECF and the papacy!
All three of you use terms , such as Catholic and catholic Church as buzz words and youread in to them all you want.
Now! Please quote me scripture, or Holy Tradition that mentions the Bishop of Rome gaining the leadership of the Catholic Church! I don’t want a URL to the Vatican Printing House mind you .
"
You who would indulge a better curiosity, if you would apply it to the business of your own salvation, run over the apostolic churches, in which the very thrones of the apostles are still pre-eminent in their places,in which there own authentic writings are still read, uttering the voice and representing the face of each of them severally. Achaia is very near you, in which you find Corinth. Since you are not far from Macedonia, you have Phillipi; and there too you have the Thessalonians. Since you are able to cross to Asia, you get Ephesus. Since moreover , you are close to Italy, you have Rome, from which there comes even in our own hands, the very authority of the apostles . How happy is the Church on which apostles poured all their doctrine along with their blood. Where Peter endures a passion like his Lords! Where Paul Paul wins his crown in a death like John’s where the Apostle John was first plunged, unhurt in to boiling oil and thence remitted to his island -exile.
See what she has learned, what taught, what fellowship has had with even our churches in Africa! One Lord God she does acknowledge , the Creator of the universe and Christ Jesus born of Mary." (The prescription against heretics.36 Tertullian…)

Here is the attitude of the early Fathers; the Church of Rome one amongst many and is mentioned as part of the Catholic Church and no more. The Bishop of Rome is not even mentioned or alluded to. It was simply a reference to the’ Suburbicarian Church of Rome," at this time simply a group of Churches within a short distance of the Capital City. later it spread from Rome to the sea and later took in the three Islands. It was a , ‘Particular Church,’ within the Body of Christ!
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.

BTW Launoy is lost and in error.
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.

and the Pope was simply the Emperor’s running boy! Remember the Councils also gave the same authority
to the Bishop of Constantinople as New Rome!
GT

 

[seamusmohr]

I’ve already given you that answer! Do read the mail.It was custom and practice!
Every King in Europe was head of the Church in his own Country. As a republican I find that distasteful, but it is a fact of history! They were simply following the path of the Roman Emperor right up to 1453! Constantine showed firmly who was Head of the Church in the Roman Empire and henry continued to use what means he had inherited to rule his dominion. Henry , was thwarted by the Pope and his court in some very underhand business, money passed hands, the French King had gained his lustful way through buying the pope’s authority, Henry was doing no more than the custom at that time. Unfortunately, the papacy was unable to come across on its part of the dreadful business, he was a prisoner of the Queens uncle.

There is a great deal of literature regarding the attitude of the Church to this matter when I quoted some from a Catholic source, you sneered, I suppose it covered a gap in your understanding so I’ll say no more. GKC, explained the matter quite well, I thought, did you bother to read it?
The fact is all the Bishops of the Church accepted this attitude, they had very few choices! But it as well to understand that Henry, in his thieving, and ghastly behaviour towards women in particular and his subjects in general was not doing anything that had not been done throughout Europe since the Saxon Monarchy, i.e. since 1066!
You will notice, that Henry had the support of his people over the business of the papacy?, They were tired of the papacy using the Catholic Church as a source of cash to fight his dynastic wars in Northern Italy!

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

It didn’t, it had nothing to do with the subject, From 1066, and before, the Popes were banned from using their ecclesiatical authority in England, their spiritual endevours were not restricted!
If you read your histories, you will notice that certainly from about 800 ad, the papal pretensions were being debated throughout the Church. The Latin Councils of the Middle Ages, discussed the matter and Popes , were disciplined by the Councils, some fled and others were put under restriction. The Eastern Catholics, split from Rome, all henry did was to point out that the Bishop of Rome had no authority outside his own Patriarchy!
The pope sulked and cut off communication with Henry, more or less, but it wasn’t till 1571, that the Romans, or Trentists, as John Evelyn terms them, broke with England!

 

[GaryTaylor]

None of the quotes I have seen even relate to the ECF and the papacy!
All three of you use terms , such as Catholic and catholic Church as buzz words and youread in to them all you want.
Now! Please quote me scripture, or Holy Tradition that mentions the Bishop of Rome gaining the leadership of the Catholic Church! I don’t want a URL to the Vatican Printing House mind you .
"
You who would indulge a better curiosity, if you would apply it to the business of your own salvation, run over the apostolic churches, in which the very thrones of the apostles are still pre-eminent in their places,in which there own authentic writings are still read, uttering the voice and representing the face of each of them severally. Achaia is very near you, in which you find Corinth. Since you are not far from Macedonia, you have Phillipi; and there too you have the Thessalonians. Since you are able to cross to Asia, you get Ephesus. Since moreover , you are close to Italy, you have Rome, from which there comes even in our own hands, the very authority of the apostles . How happy is the Church on which apostles poured all their doctrine along with their blood. Where Peter endures a passion like his Lords! Where Paul Paul wins his crown in a death like John’s where the Apostle John was first plunged, unhurt in to boiling oil and thence remitted to his island -exile.
See what she has learned, what taught, what fellowship has had with even our churches in Africa! One Lord God she does acknowledge , the Creator of the universe and Christ Jesus born of Mary." (The prescription against heretics.36 Tertullian…)

Here is the attitude of the early Fathers; the Church of Rome one amongst many and is mentioned as part of the Catholic Church and no more. The Bishop of Rome is not even mentioned or alluded to. It was simply a reference to the’ Suburbicarian Church of Rome," at this time simply a group of Churches within a short distance of the Capital City. later it spread from Rome to the sea and later took in the three Islands. It was a , ‘Particular Church,’ within the Body of Christ!
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.

This is a Strawman agruement with you, the only one with no eveidence to support your cliam is YOU!.

In concert with His redemptive act, Jesus did three things that established the framework of His Church. First, He chose humans to carry out His work. He appointed Peter to be the visible head of the Church. Jesus said to Peter, “You are Rock and on this rock I will build my Church.” (Matthew 16: 18) Jesus said “build,” as in to create a structure. Jesus built His structure on specifically chosen human beings Peter and the apostles.

Second, Jesus gave Peter and the apostles the power and authority to carry out His work. “Whatever you bind on earth will be bound in heaven.”(Matthew 16:19; 18:18) “Receive the Holy Spirit, whose sins you forgive, they are forgiven, whose sins you retain, they are retained.”(John 20:23)

Third, Jesus gave Peter and the apostles commands as to what that work should be. At the last supper, He commanded, “Do this in memory of Me.” (Luke 22:19) He commanded them to “Make disciples of all nations” (Matthew 28:19), and to “Go into the whole world and proclaim the Gospel to every creature.” (Mark 16:15)

The early Church was structured in a hierarchical manner as it is today. We see in Acts, chapter 15 how the apostles and the elders came together under the leadership of St. Peter to decide the question of what was required of Gentiles. We also see how St. Peter was regarded as the head of the Church when St. Paul, “Went up to Jerusalem to confer with Kephas [Peter] and remained with him fifteen days.” (Galatians 1:18) There is no Scriptural evidence of independent local churches.

The Catholic Church is the only church that can claim to have been founded by Christ personally. Every other church traces its lineage back to a mere human person such as Martin Luther or John Wesley. The Catholic Church can trace its lineage back to Jesus Christ who appointed St. Peter as the first pope. This line of popes has continued unbroken for almost 2,000 years.

God rules

 

[GaryTaylor]

Here’s the Scripture verse’s which also add to the FACT of apostolic succession.

Matthew 16:19
“I will give you the keys of the kingdom of heaven; whatever you bind on earth will be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth will be loosed in heaven.”

Isaiah 22:22 " I will place on his shoulder the key to the house of David; what he opens no one can shut, and what he shuts no one can open."

Matthew 18:18 "I tell you the truth, whatever you bind on earth will be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth will be loosed in heaven.

John 20:23 “If you forgive anyone his sins, they are forgiven; if you do not forgive them, they are not forgiven.”

Revelations 1:18 “I am the Living One; I was dead, and behold I am alive for ever and ever! And I hold the keys of death and Hades”

Revelations 3:7 “To the angel of the church in Philadelphia write: These are the words of him who is holy and true, who holds the key of David. What he opens no one can shut, and what he shuts no one can open.”

…

Matthew 16:18 “And I say to thee: That thou art Peter; and upon this rock I will build my church, and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it.”

Ephesians 2:20 “built on the foundation of the apostles and prophets, with Christ Jesus himself as the chief cornerstone”

Acts 20:28 “Keep watch over yourselves and all the flock of which the Holy Spirit has made you overseers. Be shepherds of the church of God, which he bought with his own blood”

Revelation 21:14 “And the wall of the city had twelve foundations, and on them were the twelve names of the twelve apostles of the Lamb.”

I thought I had all these scripture verse’s together but apparently not. My intention here is just to place them all in one place for view. Sorry

It now becomes your responsibility instead of claiming “denial” “denial” to prove through the ECF that the Church wasn’t given to Peter by Christ as the leader of the Apostles. Your claim brings no fact just denial? And give authority to who the King? Let us be serious here now. Its been fun playing with you but reality is in the drivers seat. Now of which YOU can prove.

God Bless, Gary

 

[GaryTaylor]

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”}

What does this mean? It means the Bishops of the Catholic Church are the Catholic Church. And there was only ONE CHURCH and as written by Ignatius it is the Catholic Church. Its long been estastablished through Bible that Peter is the one who the Catholic Church is given and becomes the Bishop of Rome.

That would be the Bishop of Rome he is referring to since at the time of writting these letters are written in Rome. . He is not referring to “Bishop” as in plural. He is referrring to “THE BISHOP” Regardless where the Bisphop of Rome in apostolic succession moves to, be it the United States, he still sits in the chair or Peter the “proto” as defined in Nicaea.

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. As does the 4th Council in the mid 400’s. Which defines the Bishop of Rome as the “First Among Equals”. Tpday this isn’y immediatly acceptable to the CC. But it nonetheless is documented at the 4th Ecumenical Council. And discussed in detail in Benedicts “Light of the World”

What is it you are not grasping about the abundant evidence aside from the “denial” in you mind.

How about you explain to us, how the Catholic Church started from Scripture to the ECF who immediatly proceeded the Apostles? LIke Irenaeus, or Ignatius. You do realize Ignatius if you count Peter is the forth Bishop of Antioch. Peter the “first”.

How you suppose the happened in “your” mind. The letters of Ignatius not only define the Apsotolic Succession but define the church chain of command. Otherwise there would have Bishops everywhere with no charge and no control. And as we see from the early Coucils with Arianism,

The history of Jesus Christ and Peter and the Apostles as established by Jesus Christ is understood by all “true” followers of Chistianity.

God Bless, Gary

 

[GaryTaylor]

Theodoret Bishop of Cyrus

For assuredly our Lord does not wish us to throw ourselves into obvious peril; and this is taught us by deed as well as by word, for more than once He avoided the murderous violence of the Jews.

“And the great Peter, first of the Apostles”, when he was loosed from his chains and had escaped from the hands of Herod, came to the house of John, who was surnamed Mark, and after removing the anxiety of his friends by his visit and bidding them maintain silence, betook himself to another house in the endeavour to conceal himself more effectually by the removal.11 And we shall find just the same kind of wisdom in the old Testament, for the famous Moses, after playing the man in his struggle with the Egyptian and finding out the next day that the homicide had become known, ran away, travelled a long journey, and arrived at the land of Midian.

Fact is I could go on all day with ECF and there is not one who does not reconize “The Great Peter, as the First of the Apsotles”.

The time has caome for “you” to supply us with ECF who are in contrary to this belief. Yor denial and and it isn’t so because I say so simply hold no water.

Prove your point now, the Catholic Church point as been abundantly proven. There isn’t a writting from any ECF which denys what was just posted here?

God Bless Gary

 

[tqualey]

Hi, Seasmusmohr,

Are you back to howling again when given a specific rebuttal and then claim because the words you wish to hear are not used? Get a grip!

And, while you are getting that grip - return to Post 715 … the one I challenged you on specific to Henry VIII defending the Sacraments, the Papacy and the Pope. Yes, that one. For whatever reason, you have chosen to evade this item … and for one who howls… this is most unbecoming.

By the way, I am quite confident that Benedictus2 and Gary would be interested in your response, too…

So, please, give this your best shot - you know, verifiable references, appropriate logical progression … and, maybe some subdued notes on the howls…

God bless

None of the quotes I have seen even relate to the ECF and the papacy!
All three of you use terms , such as Catholic and catholic Church as buzz words and youread in to them all you want.
Now! Please quote me scripture, or Holy Tradition that mentions the Bishop of Rome gaining the leadership of the Catholic Church! I don’t want a URL to the Vatican Printing House mind you .
"
You who would indulge a better curiosity, if you would apply it to the business of your own salvation, run over the apostolic churches, in which the very thrones of the apostles are still pre-eminent in their places,in which there own authentic writings are still read, uttering the voice and representing the face of each of them severally. Achaia is very near you, in which you find Corinth. Since you are not far from Macedonia, you have Phillipi; and there too you have the Thessalonians. Since you are able to cross to Asia, you get Ephesus. Since moreover , you are close to Italy, you have Rome, from which there comes even in our own hands, the very authority of the apostles . How happy is the Church on which apostles poured all their doctrine along with their blood. Where Peter endures a passion like his Lords! Where Paul Paul wins his crown in a death like John’s where the Apostle John was first plunged, unhurt in to boiling oil and thence remitted to his island -exile.
See what she has learned, what taught, what fellowship has had with even our churches in Africa! One Lord God she does acknowledge , the Creator of the universe and Christ Jesus born of Mary." (The prescription against heretics.36 Tertullian…)

Here is the attitude of the early Fathers; the Church of Rome one amongst many and is mentioned as part of the Catholic Church and no more. The Bishop of Rome is not even mentioned or alluded to. It was simply a reference to the’ Suburbicarian Church of Rome," at this time simply a group of Churches within a short distance of the Capital City. later it spread from Rome to the sea and later took in the three Islands. It was a , ‘Particular Church,’ within the Body of Christ!
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.

 

[tqualey]

Hi, Nhylan,

Let me address your concerns and tell me if I have clarified this matter for you.

I see your position better now thanks. Wouldn’t the very need to clarify positions in councils seem to indicate that there was indeed a difference of opinion that needed to be ironed out by those in the early church?

Indeed there was a difference of opinion in the early Catholic Church - and a several serious ones! Just a few years after Christ ascended into Heaven (c.50AD) - there arouse Jewish-Catholics who were more interested in observance of the Mosaic Law than in follow the Law of Christ and the very Church Council was called, as recorded in Acts 15. Then there were outrageous practices in the Church of Corinth that St. Paul addresses in his first letter. These Corinthians apparently did not find a law that they did not break. You can get a real sense of the disappointment Paul felt when he wrote to this truly misguided souls in the 1st Chapter of his 1st letter to the Corinthians. Yes, indeed, there was a lot of tension and dynamics with people heading off in different directions because those directions made sense to them. The problem is there is only one leader of the Catholic Church the Successor of Peter who was given the authority by Christ in Matt 16:18.

I don’t think your depiction of the early church as completely united is entirely accurate, there were many different groups and churches.

If somehow I gave you the impression that the NT is a collection of events where people held hands and sang Kumbiah (here’s a link you may enjoy: youtube.com/watch?v=p3MiD_U4CHQ ) well, that means I really dropped the ball on that one. When Christ entered the world - there was division in the Jewish faith! Pharisees, Sadducees and Essenes were at each other’s throats - the Essenes left town and went to the hills, the Pharisees (Christ had more in common with this group) and Sadducees agreed only on one thing - combine with the hated Herodians and plot to kill Christ! John the Baptist told them all that the axe had been laid to the root of the tree (Matt 3:10) - and, none of these religious leaders were happy with that news! It is into this environment that Christ establishes His Church on the Rock of Peter - and Christ tells him to bind and lose as he chooses, and gives him the Keys as a symbol of that authoriyt… and then look wha happens…

In Acts 15 we have the record of the Catholic Church’s first post-Pentecost crisis - the heresy of the Judiazers As we progress, we find St. Paul profoundly distressed at the way the Corinthians have broken every law imaginable while disrespecting the Real Presence. In 1Cor 1 we find Paul laying the ground work for identifying what it is they must do to get right with God! We have profound disagreements in the NT - and it only continues after the Apostolic Age (c100AD)

So, disagreement over established authority, over established doctrine and over God’s leadership through men has been with the Chruch from the earliest days. Sixteen centuries later this spirit will be called Protestantism … but, it is simply another label for a very old reality. Since Original Sin - man has wanted to do things his way.

The first Archbishop of Canterbury basically brought the early Celtic Christians under the Roman Church, they existed outside of the Roman Catholic Church for a long time. Wouldn’t this constitute,by its very nature as a seperate entity that the early church was fractured?

This is somewhat similar, in my opinion, to asking a Protestant where the Bible came from. You will hardly ever hear anyone say, from the Catholic Church. Just where do you think the missionaries came from that went to England? They were sent from Rome - from the Catholic Church headquartered in Rome - from the Church under the authority of the Bishop of Rome - the Pope. And, while we are at it… these missionaries made reports back to Rome on how things were going. It isn’t like one day a bunch of guys get off a boat and set up shop on their own. It isn’t like things just happen. There really was a beginning plan for establishing the Catholic Faith throughout the world - and England was just one of those places.

Let me stop there and get some feed back from you on this.

God bless

 

[GKC]

Hi, Seasmusmohr,

Are you back to howling again when given a specific rebuttal and then claim because the words you wish to hear are not used? Get a grip!

And, while you are getting that grip - return to Post 715 … the one I challenged you on specific to Henry VIII defending the Sacraments, the Papacy and the Pope. Yes, that one. For whatever reason, you have chosen to evade this item … and for one who howls… this is most unbecoming.

By the way, I am quite confident that Benedictus2 and Gary would be interested in your response, too…

So, please, give this your best shot - you know, verifiable references, appropriate logical progression … and, maybe some subdued notes on the howls…

God bless

Not to intrude, but you are aware that Hank didn’t write the whole of the* Assertio*?

Not that it didn’t reflect his opinion and certainly Luther really irritated him. but other than the first 2 (probably) sections, the author(s) were something of a mystery, though names have been advanced.

Carry on.

GKC

 

[Bluegoat]

There is no evidence that a Pope sent a missionary to Britain in that period - in fact there is little evidence of Popes doing much of that kind of thing at all, it is an anachronistic claim IMO. Christianity appeared in Britain quite early, perhaps as early as it was in Rome. Some think it came from the East directly, or perhaps with the Roman soldiers that Claudius sent around 47AD.

 

[GKC]

There is no evidence that a Pope sent a missionary to Britain in that period - in fact there is little evidence of Popes doing much of that kind of thing at all, it is an anachronistic claim IMO. Christianity appeared in Britain quite early, perhaps as early as it was in Rome. Some think it came from the East directly, or perhaps with the Roman soldiers that Claudius sent around 47AD.

A murky subject.

GKC

 

[GaryTaylor]

There is no evidence that a Pope sent a missionary to Britain in that period - in fact there is little evidence of Popes doing much of that kind of thing at all, it is an anachronistic claim IMO. Christianity appeared in Britain quite early, perhaps as early as it was in Rome. Some think it came from the East directly, or perhaps with the Roman soldiers that Claudius sent around 47AD.

When the Reformation occured, then the path the reformers chose to take became their responsibilility and way to deal with the present Catholic Church situation. Luther was a Catholic

This has nothing to do with Church Scripture, Apostolic Succession, and Peter as the Apostle chosen by Jesus Christ per Bible.

The Catholic Church, the Eastern Orthodox churches, Oriental Orthodox churches, the Anglican Communion and some Lutheran churches are the predominant proponents of this doctrine. To them, present-day bishops, as the successors of previous bishops, going back to the early days of Christianity, have spiritual and ecclesiastical power by this unbroken chain of ordinations stemming from the Apostles. This link with the Apostles guarantees for them their authority in matters of faith, morals and the valid administration of sacraments. This is reaffirmed every Sunday in the reciting of the Nicene Creed by priests and congregants, with the words, “We believe in one holy and catholic and apostolic Church…” All adherents view proper consecration of bishops as essential to maintaining apostolic succession.

The Catholic Church additionally believes that a bishop’s authority on matters of faith and morals is infallible when what he teaches is universally taught by all the college of bishops in communion with the Bishop of Rome (the Pope), who in turn is seen as the successor of Saint Peter the Apostle and the Vicar of Christ on Earth. Nevertheless, Apostolic succession is to be distinguished from the Petrine supremacy (see Papacy and Coptic Pope).

GT

 

[GaryTaylor]

The Pope is the visible leader of the Catholic Church, successor to St. Peter, who was appointed by Christ to shepherd His Church until His return. Many non-Catholics have argued against the primacy of Peter, the notion that Jesus singled him out to lead in His absence. But this is clearly shown from Scripture, which I have shown starting with Matthew 16:18:

“And I say to thee: That thou art Peter; and upon this rock I will build my church, and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it.“ Some deny that there was anything special about Peter, that he wasn’t singled out for a special leadership role by Jesus, but the entirety of the New Testament argues against this: Peter is mentioned 195 times. The next most frequent mention is John, who is referred to only 29 times. If you add up all the Apostles, the total is around 130. Clearly Peter held favor not only with Jesus, but with the others as well, and whenever the Apostles are listed, his name comes first.

Thus did Jesus give Peter the “keys to the Kingdom of Heaven,” making him the first pope. And there’s been an unbroken line of shepherds guiding our church since then, which you can view here. Peter’s name change is interesting: in the Bible, whenever God bestows a special promise upon someone, he often changes their name: Abram/Abraham, “father of multitudes;” Sarai/Sarah, “the princess;” Jacob/Israel, “prince of God;” and of course Simon becomes Peter, “the rock.”

Here, many Protestants dismiss the title of Peter with verbal gymnastics: “Peter means pebble in Greek, not rock,” they say, but this does not hold up to scrutiny. These passages were written in the Koine dialect, not classical Hellenistic Attic Greek, and for petra or petros there’s no distinction between “pebble” and “large rock.” But there doesn’t need to be, because where small rocks are specifically referred to, as in Matthew 4:3, John 10:31, or 1 Peter 2:5, the word used is “litho” or its plural, “lithoi”, which does specifically mean “pebble” and is plain to see from reading the passages in their full context.

It’s also worth noting Matthew’s Gospel, because it was written in Aramaic and then translated to Greek. In it, Peter’s Cephas (a transliteration of the Aramaic Kepha, which means “rock”, not “pebble”) appears eight times: John 1:42; 1 Corinthians 1:12, 3:22, 9:5, and 15:5; and Galatians 2:9, 11, and 14. Peter is a rock, quod erat demonstrandum.

We should also take into account people’s reaction to Peter when he spoke. At the Council of Jerusalem (the Church’s first council), which is related in Acts 15, there was a lot of bickering going on until Peter stood and began talking, at which point “the whole assembly became silent” (NIV). Obviously the council recognized St. Peter’s authority, and considered it final.

So too did the Roman Emperors, who ruthlessly pursued and destroyed any perceived rival to the throne, for every pope of the first 200 years except one or two was martyred. They knew who to target. After executing Pope Fabian in 250 A.D., the Emperor Decius is said to have declared: “I would far rather receive news of a rival to the throne than of another bishop of Rome.”

The Catholic Church

God Bless, Gary

 

[tqualey]

Hi, GKC,

No intrusion at all… Yes, there is a strong suspicion that St. Thomas More may have added a new meaning to ‘Ghost Writer’ here … but, the bottom line is that ‘Hank’ did not share the page of authoriship (or, anything else for that matter) with anyone - and, if there were other writers, they had the good sense not to mention it. The DF awarded by the Pope for ‘Hanks’ writing this rebuttal against those leading the revolt was Henry’s alone. And, at least for me, there lies the rub. His entire approach appears to be that since he can not have his way - he will act like this is his ‘ball’ and he tries to tuck it under his arm and walk off the field.

Unlike a later English monarch, King James (who, to the best of my knowledged did not lift a pen to write any of the pages known as the King James Bible) who was honored by having this English translantion named after him - Henry really did claim authorship.

Considering how he repudiated the Catholic Church, the Papacy and the Pope - one just has to wonder if he was lying when he claimed to have written Assertio or lying when he claimed to be head of his own church. And, then how would one really know?

God bless

Not to intrude, but you are aware that Hank didn’t write the whole of the* Assertio*?

Not that it didn’t reflect his opinion and certainly Luther really irritated him. but other than the first 2 (probably) sections, the author(s) were something of a mystery, though names have been advanced.

Carry on.

GKC