S
Sarah_Jane
Guest
For me, it’s the opposite
- Status
L
Lillith
Guest
Sooo…you believe that the early Church was Episcopalian??
Bwahahahaha
M
MonicaC
Guest
I am not really sure what you are talking about but my bible says
Maybe your bible reads something like this :
Lets hope not!
T
TNT
Guest
Thank God they got it up and running in time to decide the NT Books at the End of the 4th century…Nick o’ time I say.
Otherwise we would have had to wait til M. Luther showed up!
T
TNT
Guest
This is one of my favorite OXYMORONS.
“feed MY sheep…Feed MY lambs…Feed MY Sheep…first among equals, of course.”
“I will give to YOU the keys to the kingdom…the first keys among equal keys, of course.”
Gotta love the Prot “bibles”
R
Rand_Al_Thor
Guest
Peace be with you!
Yes, and Steve Ray addresses and disproves the claims of both William Webster and James White. Ray even wrote a 250 page response to William Webster’s critic of his book, as well as James White’s.
In Christ,
Rand
A
Atreyu
Guest
Hey David, I understand that you probably feel like you’re beating your head against a brick wall right now… But anyway, I was interested to know what you think happened to the various churches that Peter set up? You admitted that he set up churches in a lot of places, and from the verse “the gates of hell shall not prevail against it [the church]” it would seem that those churches would have to be correct, for evermore. Well, at least one of those churches, anyway. It certainly seems to me as if there must be a continuous line of… something! So, following this logic (which I certainly haven’t proved of course), it would seem that only the Catholic or the Orthodox churches could be correct.
The above paragraph is a bit convoluted, so I’ll try to summarize: the verse “the gates of hell shall not prevail against it” implies a continuous line of the “catholic church” whatever that is, so how could a Protestant church - which was formed 1500 years after the death of Jesus - fulfill this criterion? Also, if you don’t believe this statement is logical, what happened to the churches that the Apostles did set up?
I look forward to your response, God bless
The above paragraph is a bit convoluted, so I’ll try to summarize: the verse “the gates of hell shall not prevail against it” implies a continuous line of the “catholic church” whatever that is, so how could a Protestant church - which was formed 1500 years after the death of Jesus - fulfill this criterion? Also, if you don’t believe this statement is logical, what happened to the churches that the Apostles did set up?
I look forward to your response, God bless
C
ComradeAndrei
Guest
Even if we say that we have in the Pope a “first among equals” than the only equals he has are in the bishops with authentic apostolic succession-Catholics and Orthodox (plus schismatic sects like that Spanish heretic church of “Pope” Gregory XVIII). That still leaves out the protestants, who’s only authority is themselves and their “paper pope” that every body and his brother supposedly has the authority to interpret. 
That makes no sense, what do we do with bishops that are heretical or schismatic? Just say, “Fine, believe whatever you want…”?
The only logical way to keep a Church up and running, free of error, would be to have one supreme universal head-the Pope.
That makes no sense, what do we do with bishops that are heretical or schismatic? Just say, “Fine, believe whatever you want…”?
The only logical way to keep a Church up and running, free of error, would be to have one supreme universal head-the Pope.
R
Roman_Army
Guest
Monica C:
“18 “And I tell you that you are Peter, but on the Bible, not you, I will build my church, and the gates of Hades will overcome it almost immediately, and the truth will be lost until the Reformation.”
**
lol, so true, the physical Bible says one thing, but the heretic’s mental Bible says another.:whacky: **
“18 “And I tell you that you are Peter, but on the Bible, not you, I will build my church, and the gates of Hades will overcome it almost immediately, and the truth will be lost until the Reformation.”
**
lol, so true, the physical Bible says one thing, but the heretic’s mental Bible says another.:whacky: **
C
Church_Militant
Guest
Man you sure can twist the story to suit your own ends… The history is there as well as Acts of the Apostles. Sure is strange that no one held this opinion prior to 1517.
We just can’t be right can we…oh yeah, we’re the Catholic Church.
C
Church_Militant
Guest
It doesn’t matter what facts show you David you’ve got your mind all made up and it fits the doctrines that you like.
Look you don’t like the papacy…fine.
You can plainly see the fact that the early church called itself by the name Catholic and the fact that the papacy developed over the early church history is there all over the place. You reject it to suit yourself, but the fact is that in all the time that you’ve been on this forum I have yet to see you agree with a blessed thing that Catholics believe.
If we say it’s blue…you say it’s black, and none of your arguments are new or original and you’ve already proved that you’re a student of anti-Catholicism from the sources you quote and espouse. In short, did you bring us a blessing or just another guy who argues over everything we believe?
D
DavidFilmer
Guest
Sigh. Not again. OK, Ric - where is the Church that Jesus started? Where can we find that Church today? Is it the Evangelical Christian Church (whatever that is)? Or did Our Lord’s Church cease to exist, despite His promise that his Church would prevail forever?
I hope Ric can tell us WHERE we can find the very same Church that Jesus established RIGHT NOW - TODAY. Where is it???
E
Eden
Guest
We’re still waiting for you, Ric… 
D
DavidB
Guest
Very funny. I like that.Sooo…you believe that the early Church was Episcopalian??
Bwahahahaha
M
mercygate
Guest
Those bishops were in communion with one another and they were certainly in communion with the Bishop of Rome. The universal Church is the Church of all the bishops, teaching the one faith.
If Peter is not in your house of bishops, you are missing the centerpiece. *Super hanc petram aedificabo ecclesiam meam. *
To imagine that a bishop’s authority in his own diocese somehow gave him authority to break communion with the rest of the Church – which is the upshot of what you claim – is absurd.
While the developed papacy as we know it today took some time to emerge, and arose out of evident necessity, there was certainly no doubt in the early Church that without Peter, the Church is incomplete. Ubi Petrus, ibi Ecclesia.
E
Eden
Guest
DavidB
Your arguments for the Orthodox point of view are not relevent in this thread. The assertion was made by Ric who is an Evangelical Christian that the Catholic Church began in the 4th century. This is an accusation against the legitimacy of the Orthodox as well. Until the Great Schism which is usually dated 1054, Orthodox and Catholic were one Church. We have a shared, unified history until the 11th century. While it was punctuated by disagreement from East and West from time to time, we were one Church. Now, an Orthodox view would assert that the Catholic Church broke away from the true Church of Christ in the 11th century (that’s a whole other thread). But the statement that the Catholic Church started in the 4th century is striking at the legitimacy of the Orthodox as much as it is the Catholics.
Your arguments for the Orthodox point of view are not relevent in this thread. The assertion was made by Ric who is an Evangelical Christian that the Catholic Church began in the 4th century. This is an accusation against the legitimacy of the Orthodox as well. Until the Great Schism which is usually dated 1054, Orthodox and Catholic were one Church. We have a shared, unified history until the 11th century. While it was punctuated by disagreement from East and West from time to time, we were one Church. Now, an Orthodox view would assert that the Catholic Church broke away from the true Church of Christ in the 11th century (that’s a whole other thread). But the statement that the Catholic Church started in the 4th century is striking at the legitimacy of the Orthodox as much as it is the Catholics.
A
AnAtheist
Guest
Christianity became the state religion of the Roman Empire in the 4th century. Furthermore, as there already were different views around, what Christianity means, Christianity was defined at the council of Nicäa to stop those debates. What was decided there is the basis of Protestant belief too, afaik (I am thinking of the Trinity).
The history of the RCC as an official institution can be traced back to that point, but it is also clear that it existed as unofficial institution before that. Today we would say NGO.
There were some different branches of Christianity (eg Arianism), some perhaps with their own NGO, but all that was condensed to one organisation back then. And before you Catholics all start to protest, your particular view of things can be traced back ealier, so I am not saying it was made up in the 4th century, as some Protestants suggest.
That a Bible believing sect of Christians somehow survived in the underground for 1400-1500 years is a nice conspiracy theory and thus appealing and entertaining, but has nothing to do with history.
D
DavidB
Guest
At last, some honesty. That’s exactly the attitude I’ve been hoping to encounter, but feared was completely lost. Most of the time, I get this revisionist attempt to portray the papacy as existing from the very beginning, and it’s just not historically accurate. You’re right, it did develop over time. That’s all I’ve been fighting, which is an attempt to restore the concept of what really happened and how it happened.
I can peacefully disagree with Catholics over whether or not the papacy developed as the Lord intended as compared to the way the Orthodox interpreted it (my preferred interpretation). Such as disagreement can be posted and left there without the back and forth postings. But when I see inaccurate renderings of history pretending that the authority of the papacy existed from the beginning, that gets my dander up cause it’s just not true.
David
M
mercygate
Guest
But it is true, and in more than vestigial form. Certainly the primacy of the Roman see was recognized before the year 200 A.D., as indicated in the writings of Irenaeus and others, and as has been noted in this thread. That’s a pretty early formulation. Pope St. Victor, who died in the year 198, makes an explicit assertion of the primacy of the Roman see when settling the quartodeciman conflict.
In response to the question in the OP, this puts the Catholic Church firmly in place before the Fourth Century.
I
Ignatius
Guest
He is completely mistaken. St. Ignatius of Antioch who was born in 50 A.D. was taught by the Apostles John and Peter. He was also the first martyr to be fed to the lions in the Coliseum. He said “Wherever the Jesus Christ is, there is the Catholic Church.” There are also many, many other records of the Catholic Church from the first century onward.
- Status