The Catholic Church started in the 4th Century

  • Thread starter Thread starter Eden
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
40.png
mercygate:
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.
Click to expand...
Pax Christi.
 
DavidB:
Do you think it is problematic to your own position and Christian life that you can praise Orthodox Christianity for properly structuring herself under a college of bishops properly succeeding from the apostles yet the validity of your own bishop’s episcopacy is denied any legitimacy from the Orthodox Church herself?

Peace,
Fiat
 
People tend to forget that the oak tree doesn’t look like the acorn, nor does the full grown adult look like the baby…
 
40.png
DavidB:
And I would refer you to *The Matthew 16 Controversy: Peter and the Rock *and *The Church of Rome at the Bar of History, *both authored by William Webster.

Peter also ordained bishops in other churches. That’s because it’s an episcopate and bishops lead the Church. How does that prove a papacy?

David
Click to expand...
Because it is PETER who is doing the ORDAINING…just as today the Pope determines who becomes Cardinals…And the writings from the first and second century (Iraneas in particular) support Peter’s primacy.
 
40.png
LSK:
Because it is PETER who is doing the ORDAINING…just as today the Pope determines who becomes Cardinals…And the writings from the first and second century (Iraneas in particular) support Peter’s primacy.
Click to expand...
Paul ordained more bishops than Peter and there were no such thing as Cardinals in the early church.
 
40.png
Fiat:
DavidB:
Do you think it is problematic to your own position and Christian life that you can praise Orthodox Christianity for properly structuring herself under a college of bishops properly succeeding from the apostles yet the validity of your own bishop’s episcopacy is denied any legitimacy from the Orthodox Church herself?

Peace,
Fiat
Click to expand...
No. The Orthodox have denied the legitimacy of the Pope as well, but that doesn’t mean he’s not the true bishop of Rome. Legitimacy comes from the Head, who is Christ Jesus, not from man.

David
 
40.png
DavidB:
No. The Orthodox have denied the legitimacy of the Pope as well, but that doesn’t mean he’s not the true bishop of Rome. Legitimacy comes from the Head, who is Christ Jesus, not from man.

David
Click to expand...
So according to your beliefs, can any person proclaim himself a Bishop?

Fiat
 
40.png
DavidB:
No. The Orthodox have denied the legitimacy of the Pope as well, but that doesn’t mean he’s not the true bishop of Rome. Legitimacy comes from the Head, who is Christ Jesus, not from man.

David
Click to expand...
Hi David, You keep posting on this subject. I really believe that you know the truth but yet want to reject it. Yes Our Lord is the Head, but well he is no long here on earth he ordained a man who will be the stand in head till he Jesus returns again. Again I will refer you to Matt 16: 18.
 
40.png
DavidB:
Paul ordained more bishops than Peter and there were no such thing as Cardinals in the early church.
Click to expand...
Cardinals are not part of the holy orders in the Catholic faith therefore this is a non-argument.
 
How do you explain away the apparent parrallels between Math 16 and Is. 22, and the keys?
 
40.png
MonicaC:
Hi David, You keep posting on this subject. I really believe that you know the truth but yet want to reject it. Yes Our Lord is the Head, but well he is no long here on earth he ordained a man who will be the stand in head till he Jesus returns again. Again I will refer you to Matt 16: 18.
Click to expand...
I keep posting only to address questions and comments such as this. I fully understand Matthew 16:18, much better than you think, which is why I’m confident of my beliefs.

David
 
40.png
michaelgazin:
Cardinals are not part of the holy orders in the Catholic faith therefore this is a non-argument.
Click to expand...
Exactly my point, I was responding to another poster who used “Peter” ordaining cardinals as some sort of “proof” of his primacy. If you’re going to criticize, at least take the time to follow the trail better so you criticize the right person.

David
 
40.png
michaelgazin:
How do you explain away the apparent parrallels between Math 16 and Is. 22, and the keys?
Click to expand...
I don’t have to explain anything about the “apparent” parallels. I’ve gone into this before, the “keys” ARE the power to bind and loose which were given first to Peter and then to the rest of the apostles. It’s up to YOU to explain and prove why you think differently. This has been the standard interpretation of the keys for many centuries - it’s not something I’ve made up, in fact, I first read that interpretation while reading the early church fathers.

David
 
40.png
DavidB:
Exactly my point, I was responding to another poster who used “Peter” ordaining cardinals as some sort of “proof” of his primacy. If you’re going to criticize, at least take the time to follow the trail better so you criticize the right person.

David
Click to expand...
I was not critisizing anyone, just making an objective comment, no hostility needed.
 
I fully understand Matthew 16:18, much better than you think, which is why I’m confident of my beliefs.

David
Click to expand...
I would like you to explain this further.

Well I am waiting I would like to explain how I understand it (although I am and would not ever consider myself a theologyn). And so before I start typing I will pray that the Holy Spirit well help my in my line of thought.

In the OT we see that Moses is having a hard time being everywhere at once in order to direct the people in the law so his father in law who was visiting him advised him to point out leaders who the people can go to for some of their questions, but ultimatly Moses will be the head and the **one man **all will go to for the truth. Now the way I have seen this, it is because Moses is the one man that has been ordained to serve this postion by God himself.

Well I hope this helps and if not I really hope I am not leading astray, because like I said I am not a theologyn.

Monica
 
40.png
Fiat:
So according to your beliefs, can any person proclaim himself a Bishop?

Fiat
Click to expand...
In the early church, the bishop, or overseer, was either appointed by an Apostle or was elected by the local church body - scripture is clear on that. I’m not sure what circumstances could occur to have someone “appoint himself bishop” and expect a group of people to just accept it when it’s more likely the local church asked him to be bishop.

David
 
40.png
michaelgazin:
I was not critisizing anyone, just making an objective comment, no hostility needed.
Click to expand...
Sorry, point taken. You didn’t criticize me.

David
 
Please maintain a higher charity level.

Realize that having stated your case and not convinced your “opponent” most likely means that he honestly holds his position. At which point one can let the issue go since further debate is pointless.

Your servant in Christ,
Michael Francis
 
Although St. Ingatius of Antioch did not mention the Pope, in his epistle to the Romans he did express the primacy of the Church of Rome.
 
40.png
DavidB:
In the early church, the bishop, or overseer, was either appointed by an Apostle or was elected by the local church body - scripture is clear on that.
David
Click to expand...
DavidB: Can you explain this a little further? Specifically, to whom are you referring when you say “local church body”?

Blessings
Fiat
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top