B
Beth_Martin
Guest
Sounds like a very broad road with many people entering it; I’ll stay on that narrow road with just a few on it. To each his own I say.
- Status
B
Beth_Martin
Guest
Frist of all, your source is not authoritative and not very confounded.
Second of all, since the Bible is the Scripture and is the Word of God you already contradict yourself and prove my point that the Church is of its own authority apart from the Scripture, but that is your faith and a great one; just not my faith.
Third of all, the numerous errors in the DC’s cannot be from God can they?
J
JustaServant
Guest
Lets try this again.
Please provide evidence of the above statement.
B
Beth_Martin
Guest
You add works to that claim to earn saving grace to the cross of Christ. I adhere to it is all of grace by faoth alone in Jesus Christ alone; not of any meritorious works or of anythng that I have done or are capable of doing to gain saving grace before God. I hold onto the doctrine of election or predestination that the sins of the righteous are imputed from Jesus account to my account and that is the sole basis for my salvation. I do not hold that one can just keep on sinning intentionally because to believe and fully trust in Jesus one must recognize HIs Lordship over their lives as well as accepting the free gift of justification. I do not mix sanctification with justification which is the crux of the matter and the difference to what you adhere as to what i adhere and it is the core issue that seperates us.
B
Beth_Martin
Guest
Augustine is a fallible man and even he made distinctions between canons; meaning he made distinction in degrees of Canon and the DC’s were not of the Canon equal to Scripture. So yes you should listen to him.Hi Beth!
We don’t say anything different:
“[T]he living teaching office of the Church, whose authority is exercised in the name of Jesus Christ,] is not above the word of God, but serves it, teaching only what has been handed on, listening to it devoutly, guarding it scrupulously and explaining it faithfully in accord with a divine commission and with the help of the Holy Spirit” (Dei Verbum).
We don’t say anything different:
“These books the church holds to be sacred and canonical not because she subsequently approved them by her authority after they had been composed by unaided human skill, nor simply because they contain revelation without error, but because, being written under the inspiration of the holy Spirit, they have God as their author, and were as such committed to the church” (First Vatican Council).
Jerome was free in his day to hold his opinion on these books of the Old Testament. He was wrong and Augustine was right. But to deny the canonicity of what is here called the OT Apocrypha was anathematized by Trent. Henceforth, whoever rejects their canonicity holds a heretical opinion. “And if he refuses to listen even to the church, let him be to you as a Gentile and a tax collector” (Matt 18:17).
If Jerome were alive today, he would repudiate his own opinion for that which is taught definitively by the Church. He would not leave you without this exhortation: “I meantime keep crying: ‘He who clings to the chair of Peter is accepted by me’” (Letter 16). Neither would he spare you: “To one thing only I cannot consent; that is, to spare the heretics” (Apology Against Rufinus, Bk. 3, No. 43).
All of the links I had provided there were to the writings of one man, Augustine.But I’ve seen you call both paul c and inkaneer “Pete,” so I see how you might have gotten confused.
I invite you once again to spend some time getting to know Augustine. He won’t let you down!
Beth, I don’t think I’ll have time to continue our conversation. So please let me know if you really want me to reply to your subsequent responses. If you don’t explicitly make the request, I’ll probably just let you say your piece. Have a blessed evening!
By the grace and love towards man of our Lord Jesus Christ,
Pete
J
JustaServant
Guest
Ya know Beth, when you make a comment like you did about “it is around the time of Constantine that all this begins to mainifest itself”, I assume you have the proof to back it up. I mean, you wouldn’t want to spread slander the history of the Church would you?
So, please provide the proof.
So, please provide the proof.
J
JustaServant
Guest
Another greenhorn kid runs out the bat wing doors.
The grizzled old gunfighter returns to his drink…
The grizzled old gunfighter returns to his drink…
F
fxcc
Guest
Is it just me or are there two distinct conversations happening in this thread?
One with someone who reckons she knows Christianity better than most mainstream Christians in the world and is interested only to engage others in unending debate (with such complex therories and pointless technical arguments it’d make 99.99% of Christians excuse themselves from the scene) and another with others who are asking sincere questions in a genuine attempt to understand what Catholics believe and why.
One with someone who reckons she knows Christianity better than most mainstream Christians in the world and is interested only to engage others in unending debate (with such complex therories and pointless technical arguments it’d make 99.99% of Christians excuse themselves from the scene) and another with others who are asking sincere questions in a genuine attempt to understand what Catholics believe and why.
I
inkaneer
Guest
Quote:
Originally Posted by inkaneer
Quite the contrary it is easy to show that Peter was indeed the bishop of Rome. We have the testimony of the early christian writers on that very point. For instance the early church historian Eusebius bishop of Caesarea writes:
“[In the second] year of the two hundredth and fifth Olympiad [A.D. 42]: The apostle Peter, after he has established the church in Antioch, is sent to Rome, where he remains as a bishop of that city, preaching the gospel for twenty-five years” (The Chronicle [A.D. 303]).
Then there was Optatus who wrote in 367 AD:
“You cannot deny that you are aware that in the city of Rome the episcopal chair was given first to Peter; the chair in which Peter sat, the same who was head—that is why he is also called Cephas ‘Rock’]—of all the apostles; the one chair in which unity is maintained by all” (The Schism of the Donatists 2:2 [A.D. 367]).
There is also the The Poem Against the Marcionites
"In this chair in which he himself had sat, Peter in mighty Rome commanded Linus, the first elected, to sit down. After him, Cletus too accepted the flock of the fold. As his successor, Anacletus was elected by lot. Clement follows him, well-known to apostolic men. After him Evaristus ruled the flock without crime. Alexander, sixth in succession, commends the fold to Sixtus. After his illustrious times were completed, he passed it on to Telesphorus. He was excellent, a faithful martyr . . . " (Poem Against the Marcionites 276–284 [A.D. 267]).
And there is this from The Little Labyrinth:
“Victor . . . was the thirteenth bishop of Rome from Peter” (The Little Labyrinth [A.D. 211], in Eusebius, Church History 5:28:3).
Many of the writers also write of Peter’s death in Rome also but I’ll save them.
Originally Posted by inkaneer
Quite the contrary it is easy to show that Peter was indeed the bishop of Rome. We have the testimony of the early christian writers on that very point. For instance the early church historian Eusebius bishop of Caesarea writes:
“[In the second] year of the two hundredth and fifth Olympiad [A.D. 42]: The apostle Peter, after he has established the church in Antioch, is sent to Rome, where he remains as a bishop of that city, preaching the gospel for twenty-five years” (The Chronicle [A.D. 303]).
Then there was Optatus who wrote in 367 AD:
“You cannot deny that you are aware that in the city of Rome the episcopal chair was given first to Peter; the chair in which Peter sat, the same who was head—that is why he is also called Cephas ‘Rock’]—of all the apostles; the one chair in which unity is maintained by all” (The Schism of the Donatists 2:2 [A.D. 367]).
There is also the The Poem Against the Marcionites
"In this chair in which he himself had sat, Peter in mighty Rome commanded Linus, the first elected, to sit down. After him, Cletus too accepted the flock of the fold. As his successor, Anacletus was elected by lot. Clement follows him, well-known to apostolic men. After him Evaristus ruled the flock without crime. Alexander, sixth in succession, commends the fold to Sixtus. After his illustrious times were completed, he passed it on to Telesphorus. He was excellent, a faithful martyr . . . " (Poem Against the Marcionites 276–284 [A.D. 267]).
And there is this from The Little Labyrinth:
“Victor . . . was the thirteenth bishop of Rome from Peter” (The Little Labyrinth [A.D. 211], in Eusebius, Church History 5:28:3).
Many of the writers also write of Peter’s death in Rome also but I’ll save them.
First of all my name isn’t Pete. As for the dates it is not only possible but highly probable. Assuming Jesus was crucified in 33 AD and Paul’s conversion in 37 AD. Paul spends 3 years in Arabia before He goes to Jerusalem to meet with Peter. All the Apostles except James have dispersed. Paul then starts his missionary journeys and Peter goes to Antioch and does missionary work in Asia Minor. Thereafter, Peter leaves Antioch and goes to Rome in 42 AD. He continues his missionary forays returning to Jerusalem from time to time. In about 49-51 AD Peter and the other Apostles are back in Jerusalem for the Council of Jerusalem. The Orthodox church claims they were assembled by the Holy Spirit for the dormition of Mary. Well maybe but maybe not too. They then resume their missionary preaching and Peter goes back to Rome. Herod then martyrs James in Jerusalem in about 53 AD. Sometime around 58-61 AD Paul journeys to Rome as a prisoner. He is acquitted and some say he goes to Spain and England. He is beheaded during the reign of Nero sometime between 62 and 68 AD. Peter is then executed by Nero in 67 or 68 AD also. Nero dies in June, 68 AD. As for the rest of your allegations there is no evidentiary support to them.
M
mpjw2
Guest
Hi Beth
when I saw you post this , one scripyure came to mind…
Matthew 7:13
“Enter by the narrow gate; for wide is the gate and broad is the way that leads to destruction, and there are many who go in by it.
I
inkaneer
Guest
Maybe you should read all of it carefullly because it does not say what you think it does. Here is the entire paragraph which you, not surprisingly chopped off the last part.
“In the first quarter of the century (about 220) Tertullian (On Modesty 21) mentions Callistus’s claim that Peter’s power to forgive sins had descended in a special manner to him. Had the Roman Church been merely founded by Peter and not reckoned him as its first bishop, there could have been no ground for such a contention. Tertullian, like Firmilian, had every motive to deny the claim. Moreover, he had himself resided at Rome, and would have been well aware if the idea of a Roman episcopate of Peter had been, as is contended by its opponents, a novelty dating from the first years of the third century, supplanting the older tradition according to which Peter and Paul were co-founders, and Linus first bishop.”
In other words Tertullian was in a position to refute any claim that Peter was bishop of Rome because Tertullian resided at Rome and would know. But He didn’t. You obviously failed to notice the first paragraph in that section which I will quoute here:
"Primacy of the Roman See
We have shown in the last section that Christ conferred upon St. Peter the office of chief pastor, and that the permanence of that office is essential to the very being of the Church. It must now be established that it belongs of right to the Roman See. The proof will fall into two parts:
•that St. Peter was Bishop of Rome, and
•that those who succeed him in that see succeed him also in the supreme headship."
It then lists the proofs of which Tertullian is one. Face it Beth, YOU BLEW IT ! ! !! ! ! ! ! !
Beth you blew it. Your whole argument went up in smoke right before your eyes and if it wasn’t apparent to you before it should be now. By the way, Beth, Constnatine ruled Rome in the early fourth century. Yet long before Constantine was even born we have witnesses that rebuke you. For instance The Poem Against the Marcionites:
"In this chair in which he himself had sat, Peter in mighty Rome commanded Linus, the first elected, to sit down. After him, Cletus too accepted the flock of the fold. As his successor, Anacletus was elected by lot. Clement follows him, well-known to apostolic men. After him Evaristus ruled the flock without crime. Alexander, sixth in succession, commends the fold to Sixtus. After his illustrious times were completed, he passed it on to Telesphorus. He was excellent, a faithful martyr . . . " (Poem Against the Marcionites 276–284 [A.D. 267]).
Notice the date, 267 AD, that was before Constantine.
M
mpjw2
Guest
i am the second serching for answers to my curiosityIs it just me or are there two distinct conversations happening in this thread?
One with someone who reckons she knows Christianity better than most mainstream Christians in the world and is interested only to engage others in unending debate (with such complex therories and pointless technical arguments it’d make 99.99% of Christians excuse themselves from the scene) and another with others who are asking sincere questions in a genuine attempt to understand what Catholics believe and why.
by the way I appreciate all your answers, you been a great help
P
Pete_Holter
Guest
Perhaps you are misunderstanding something you’ve read. Perhaps it was William Webster’s, The Authority of Scripture. I could see how this could be misunderstood because he seems to almost imply that Augustine did not personally hold to their full canonical status.
Augustine was certainly aware that not all Christians shared his view, this is true; but he personally held to their full canonical status and used them to prove doctrine just the same as the rest of Scripture. That is why Cajetan said (this is prior to Trent) that “the words as well of councils as of doctors are to be reduced to the correction of Jerome” and went on to give mention of Augustine and Carthage on the other side against Jerome. “Corrected,” because the two sides did not agree with one another.
In case it was William Webster’s essay that caused your confusion, it may help you to see that he elsewhere wrote plainly that “Thomas Aquinas, in the thirteenth century, also followed Augustine in accepting the full canonical status of the Apocrypha” (The Old Testament Canon and the Apocrypha, Part 3).
For an example, see how Sirach 18:1 drives Augustine’s interpretation of Genesis. Also:
“And since these things are so, the judgment of the book of Wisdom ought not to be repudiated, since for so long a course of years that book has deserved to be read in the Church of Christ from the station of the readers of the Church of Christ, and to be heard by all Christians, from bishops downwards, even to the lowest lay believers, penitents, and catechumens, with the veneration paid to divine authority” (St. Augustine, , Ch. 27On the Predestination of the Saints).
Saint Francis de Sales, Doctor of the Church (A.D. 1594-1596):
“That, in one word, is what all these reformers want─to take Scripture as judge. And to this we answer Amen: but we say that our difference is not there; it is here, that in the disagreements which we shall have over the interpretation, and which will occur at every two words, we shall need a judge. They answer that we must decide the interpretation of Scripture by collating passage with passage and the whole with the Symbol of faith. Amen, Amen, we say: but we do not ask how we ought to interpret the Scripture, but─who shall be the judge? For after having compared passages with passages, and the whole with the Symbol of the faith, we find by this passage: Thou art Peter, and upon this rock I shall build my Church, and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it, and I will give to thee the keys of the kingdom of heaven (Matt. xvi.), that S. Peter has been chief minister and supreme steward in the Church of God: you say, on your side that this passage: The kings of the nations lord it over them … but you not so (Luke xxii.), or this other (for they are all so weak that I know not what may be your main authority): No one can lay another foundation, &c. (1 Cor. iii. 11), compared with the other passages and the analogy of the faith makes you detest a chief minister. The two of us follow one same way in our enquiry concerning the truth in this question─namely, whether there is in the Church a Vicar General of Our Lord─and yet I have arrived at the affirmative and you, you have ended in the negative; who now shall judge of our difference? Here lies the essential point as between you and me.
…]
“Recognise, Christians, the spirit of division: your people send you to the Scriptures;─we are there before you came into the world, and what we believe, we find there clear and plain. But,─it must be properly understood, adapting passage to passage, the whole to the Creed;─we are at this now fifteen hundred years and more” (, pp 151-152The Catholic Controversy).
I wish you well, Beth! I no longer have time to correspond with you, and it does not seem fruitful anymore. I will pray for you that you are able to find your way into the safe harbor of the Catholic Church.
With love in Christ,
Pete
D
Des
Guest
Not at all. The verses I give regarding sin leading one to hell can always be reconciled through the blood of Christ once we repent.
However, you simply say that sin is a part of you because you’re in your earthly sinful body and God will understand if you die in that state because Jesus will save you since you’re a self proclaimed elect of Heaven. This totally contradicts what Christ said "Whosoever committeth sin is the servant of sin. And the servant abideth not in the house for ever"
If sin is a part of you, and we know a servant of sin can’t abideth in the house forever, then it MUST be removed before one is to become the son again. How is this done. REPENT!!!
Beth, each and everytime you sin, you are NOT actively participating in the things God has ordained for you. You’ve made a choice to be disobedient to His will. You separated yourself and it needs to be repaired through reconciliation since it is ONLY THOSE WHO DO HIS WILL that will inherit eternal life.
If you, in this state of being ordained can sin, then you certainly can walk away from Him forever. If you respond by telling me that I limit God’s power through His Son’s Sacrifice by saying this, then I will tell you that you believe the Holy Spirit is too weak to keep you from sinning forever. That the Sanctification of Christ is not strong enough to overcome the sins against God. Now it’s either His being unable to overcome evil during times of your life in your sinful body, or it’s YOU who’s sinning and YOU who should be held accountable for it each and every time.
Again, not if you understand what the Church preaches on this. Of course it’s God’s who gives us the strength to persevere. But we have to willingly receive this gift of strength. So again, I will ask you why in Mark, it said that only he that endures till the end will be saved IF it is God that does all the enduring for us? It fits our beliefs perfectly but not yours. Our enduring comes from God but we make a choice on whether to continue to repent, and continue obtain His Graces through His Sacraments.
Not at all. I have shown you how these are all linked within the beliefs of Catholicism. Now you tell me why in Mark, Christ who was specifically talking about Christians at the time, said that only he who endures till the end is saved if a ‘saved Christian’ person will always endure.
See what I wrote above. Doesn’t contradict Catholic teaching at all.
*God deals with you as with sons; for what son is there whom {his} father does not discipline? **
**Ironic that you used this verse when it actually helps with my point instead of yours. **
Paul is actually telling them to accept their difficulties as from God because it’s for their benefit. He’s wanting them not to give up. He is trying to exhort his readers to persevere. So again, why is He even preaching this since you and the rest of the elect will do so regardless since you’re already saved. Because Paul knew many Christians will not do so and eventually lose faith.
And even to end that chapter it says this: "Therefore receiving an immoveable kingdom, we have grace; whereby let us serve, pleasing God, with fear and reverence."
Notice how He’s still telling us serve in a way that’s pleasing to God, when according to your sanctified self, you wouldn’t need to hear this peaching since a truly ‘saved’ person would always be trying to please God.
And in the next chapter. Paul is giving a warning to those Married that it is to be kept undefiled. “For fornicators and adulterers God will judge.” Seems like He’s giving an awful lot of warnings to the saved doesn’t it. Telling us to always please God and to endure His trials and even a warning to the Married couples.
That verse does nothing to help your case. Catholics have confidence Beth. However what you suggest is you’re not only confident, but without a doubt in you mind, 10, 30, or even 50 years from now, if you’re still alive, you’ll still feel you’re the good God fearing little Christian that you believe yourself to be.
M
Michael_Francis
Guest
***Over 60 posts have been either deleted or split off to make a new thread on salvation.
It can be found here.
***SPLIT: How is a Catholic saved?
It can be found here.
***SPLIT: How is a Catholic saved?
F
fxcc
Guest
Thank you Beth, for reminding us of these several things that Jesus said and the many things that He did not say.
Unfortunately, in the process, you clean forgot to address the import of the nine specific words of Jesus, “the gates of hell shall not prevail against it”, which I drew to your attention, to refute the heresy that the Catholic Church is not infallible.
Oh, never mind. Amnesia happens, even to the best of disputers. Whoops, I mean, debaters.
F
fxcc
Guest
“And I, if I be lifted up from the earth, will draw **all **things to myself.” John 12:32
So the fact of the matter Beth, is exactly the opposite of your wild, infantile and arrogant claim. The reason **more **and **more **people are entering the Church is that God’s plan of salvation is coming to fruition (how could it not?), in **exactly **the way He designed it - through the **ministry **and **faithful **proclamation of the Good News by the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church, which He founded, to go and teach **all **nations.
The Christ was indeed lifted up. And He is indeed drawing **all **men to Himself - right before the eyes of the world! **More **and **more **people are discovering the redeeming Light **in the Catholic Church ** despite the unceasing (and increasingly desperate) efforts of all her enemies. Even in the middle of all the ruckus, the Catholic Church has quietly and majestically grown, as is her divinely ordained destiny, some 11% in the past 8 years alone. And she will continue on her mission of gathering all who have eyes to see and ears to hear under her fold. We realise how much dismay this must cause to those who hope and work so assiduously for the true Church’s demise, preaching as they do the preposterous lie that only somewhere outside of the walls of the Great City, in some dark and obscure wilderness, discernible only by their sixth senses, lies the narrow track that leads to salvation! Ha! Give us a break, will you? We’re sorry to have to burst your “privileged” bubble, but the road to salvation is neither invisible nor inaccessible to the majority of God’s children, in favour of “just a few”.
*"… the Lord’s house shall be established in the top of the mountains, and shall be exalted above the hills; and **all *nations shall flow unto it… for out of Zion shall go forth the law, and the word of the Lord from Jerusalem. ” (Isa 2:2)
It is the Lord who speaks. The Kingdom of God is at hand. Repent and be baptised.
A
Abu
Guest
The confusion expressed here is unbelievable – but typical of the misplaced selfist, personal prejudice against Christ!
How? Simple:
Christ gave us His Church and She gave us the New Testament and, through Christ’s commission, infallibly declared which writings form the Sacred Scriptures, now called the Bible. She has declared infallibly that “It is clear, therefore, that in the supremely wise arrangement of God, sacred Tradition, sacred Scripture and the Magisterium of the Church are so connected and associated that one of them cannot stand without the others.”
We know that Christ established His One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church on Peter and the ten apostles with His authority to teach all nations, with His power to bind and loose, and the Holy Spirit to bring to their minds all that He had commanded, and that He would be with His Church until the end of time.
So placing Christ in eclipse, the mirage concocted 1500 years later of pick and choose is played out today in the shredding of God’s Word, torn from His Church – hence the ridiculing of Christ’s authority and His teaching as a “stand alone” stumbling block to be chipped and chopped up, against the fullness of His truth.
About Pope Victor I’s declaration by edict, about the year 200, that any local Church that failed to conform with Rome was excluded from the union with the one Church by heresy, none other than the arch-liberal Protestant theologian Adolph von Harnack admitted that Victor I was “recognised, in his capacity of bishop of Rome, as the special guardian of the ‘common unity’… " (See And On This Rock, p 118, 1987, Trinity Communications, Fr Stanley L Jaki).
Harnack asked: “How would Victor have ventured on such an edict – though indeed he had not the power of enforcing it in every case – unless the special prerogative of Rome to determine the conditions of the ‘common unity’ in the vital questions of faith had been an acknowledged and well-established fact?”
Christians must adhere to the pope not because he is infallible; but since they must, on divine command, adhere to the pope, he has to be infallible." (Fr Stanley Jaki, The Keys of the Kingdom, Franciscan Herald Press, 1986, p 170).
You have your Bible only through the Catholic Church and yours is incomplete, that’s why you don’t know of purgatory.
You are woefully lacking in Christ’s teaching, see above.
To Peter alone:
“You are Peter and on this rock I will build My Church.” (Mt 16:18)
“The gates of hell will not prevail against it.”(Mt 16:18)
I will give you the keys of the Kingdom of heaven." ( Mt 16:19)
“Whatever you bind on earth will be bound in heaven.” (Mt 16:19)
**Sole authority: **
“Strengthen your brethren.” (Lk 22:32)
“Feed My sheep.”(Jn 21:17).
F
fxcc
Guest
I assume that’s supposed to snidely insinuate that the divinely inspired doctrines of the Catholic Church now constitute the broad road that leads to destruction? Indeed!
And that Satan inspired heresies that use twisted interpretations of God’s Word to validate themselves, is the narrow road that leads to heaven? Indeed!
Since quotes from Scripture appear to be the order of the day, here’s one:
Isaiah 5
20 Woe to those who call evil good, and good evil, who change darkness into light, and light into darkness, who change bitter into sweet, and sweet into bitter!
21 Woe to those who are wise in their own sight, and prudent in their own esteem!
And another:
Acts 5
36 Some time ago, Theudas appeared, **claiming **to be someone important, and about four hundred men joined him, but he was killed, and all those who were loyal to him were **disbanded **and came to nothing.
37 After him came Judas the Galilean at the time of the census. He also drew people after him, but he too **perished **and all who were loyal to him were scattered.
38 So now I tell you, have nothing to do with these men, and let them go. For if this endeavor or this activity is of human origin, it will **destroy **itself.
39 **But if it comes from God, you will not be able to destroy them; you may even find yourselves fighting against God." **
Seems there are many most doggedly determined to follow in the footsteps of Theudas and Judas the Galilean.
Hum haw.
M
mpjw2
Guest
you assumed incorrectly my friend…
please ask before assuming,
I posted on this thread the unbelievers far outnumber the believers
the unbeliever are traveling down the wide road, they are the ones headed for destruction.
I am sorry for not clarifying my intent, please forgive me
I believe you will know for sure where I am coming from after seeing my next post
God bless
mpjw
- Status