We Catholics Are Dead Sure The Church Is The One Church Of Christ And That All Others Are Mistaken

[distracted]

You are by far the most judgemental pharisee I have ever had the pleasure to meet via forum.

thank you.

:thankyou:

 

[distracted]

You are by far the most judgemental pharisee I have ever had the pleasure to meet via forum.

Pleasure??

hmmm… :coffeeread:

you’re not… uh… being … like uh…* sarcastic*, are you??

 

[distracted]

I do love all christians no matter what their denomination, this is the reason why i try to give you the truth of the Catholic church!

No you don’t… Stop lying…

If you loved them, you would - HElllllooooooooooooooooo!!!

***agree *** with them!!

 

[Louie1983]

No you don’t… Stop lying…

If you loved them, you would - HElllllooooooooooooooooo!!!

***agree *** with them!!

Cheeky!

 

[distracted]

Cheeky!

what does that mean? Is it some English saying? Sounds like it… Those darned Brittish…

but that’s another story…

My point (in case you missed it) was that… well, some posters here act like if you don’t agree with things they say that you are … something’s wrong with you… you’re not “loving enough”…

whatever the h-- that means…

loving… that words means virtually nothing…

if we loved our neighbors… well, never mind…

too to “go there”…

 

[Louie1983]

what does that mean? Is it some English saying? Sounds like it… Those darned Brittish…

but that’s another story…

My point (in case you missed it) was that… well, some posters here act like if you don’t agree with things they say that you are … something’s wrong with you… you’re not “loving enough”…

whatever the h-- that means…

loving… that words means virtually nothing…

if we loved our neighbors… well, never mind…

too to “go there”…

I thought you were being sarcastic when you said “stop lying” weren’t you?

I’m Australian by the way, not Brittish.

Why do you say loving means nothing? That’s not true.

But i know where your coming from…kinda…

 

[distracted]

I thought you were being sarcastic when you said “stop lying” weren’t you?

I’m Australian by the way, not Brittish.

Why do you say loving means nothing? That’s not true.

But i know where your coming from…kinda…

no saracasm… just joking around…

loving means nothing because there is so little real love in the world today… lots of sex, but not much love (as in total commitment, etc.).

however, in my life there is none of EITHER… :crying:

guess its my own fault… but i was mostly speaking of agape love… (so lacking…)

reminds me of that scirptre psg about how in the last days, because of iniquity, the love of many will grow cold…

anyhow… are we digressing here???

i don’t care if you don’t…

 

[Louie1983]

no saracasm… just joking around…

loving means nothing because there is so little real love in the world today… lots of sex, but not much love (as in total commitment, etc.).

however, in my life there is none of EITHER… :crying:

guess its my own fault… but i was mostly speaking of agape love… (so lacking…)

reminds me of that scirptre psg about how in the last days, because of iniquity, the love of many will grow cold…

anyhow… are we digressing here???

i don’t care if you don’t…

Ok good, thought so.

I think we might be digressing here, i’ll email you privately and tell you what i think about your comments.

 

[motstraumen]

motstraumen;5333563:

That is simply messing up historical fact, Peter was the first bishop and Pope as soon as Jesus gave him the keys to the kingdom of heaven. Peter was known as the first among equals, none of the other disciples received this title, they didn;t receive the title “the rock” either. They didn’t have their name changed to demonstrate their new authority did they? This only happened to Peter.

The apostles had authority to forgive and loose sin but Jesus only chose one of them to be leader of his church here on earth. Peter.

Yet he didn’t stay in that position for long. Many scholars agree that he fell out with the leaders of the Jerusalem church, probably because he ate with Gentiles. He lost his see and was sent out from there. He had to defer to James in doctrinal questions. First among equals is one thing, and would be quite acceptable, but first period is not. Are you denying the Holy Spirit at act in the early church when James became the unquestioned leader of the fledgling group? I mess up no historical fact. I look at them objectively.

 

[Louie1983]

Louie1983;5333608:

Yet he didn’t stay in that position for long. Many scholars agree that he fell out with the leaders of the Jerusalem church, probably because he ate with Gentiles. He lost his see and was sent out from there. He had to defer to James in doctrinal questions. First among equals is one thing, and would be quite acceptable, but first period is not. Are you denying the Holy Spirit at act in the early church when James became the unquestioned leader of the fledgling group? I mess up no historical fact. I look at them objectively.

Sorry incorrect again, he stayed in that position until his death! No i don’t disagree with the holy spirit i actually support it, i’m about to provide quotes from the early church fathers that prove he was the first pope and taught infallibly! Are you saying that the early church fathers were incorrect about this? are you denying the holy spirit? There it is again that whole “many scholars agreed” quote, yes there were some people who disgreed with church teaching but it’s the church that has the power and authority from christ himself! Here are some quotes from early church fathers supporting the primacy of Peter:

• ”The reason for your absence was both honorable and imperative, that the schismatic wolves might not rob and plunder by stealth nor the heretical dogs bark madly in the rapid fury nor the very serpent, the devil, discharge his blasphemous venom. So it seems to us right and altogether fitting that priests of the Lord from each and every province should report to their head, that is, **to the See of Peter, the Apostle." Council of Sardica, To Pope Julius (A.D. 342). **
• “You cannot deny that you know that in the city of Rome the Chair was first conferred on Peter,** in which the prince of all the Apostles, Peter, sat**…in which Chair unity should be preserved by all, so that he should now be a schismatic and a sinner who should set up another Chair against that unique one.” Optatus of Mileve, The Schism of Donatists, 2:2-3 (c. A.D. 367).
• “For the good of unity Blessed Peter deserved to be preferred before the rest, **and alone received the keys of the Kingdom of Heaven, that he might communicate them to the rest.” **Optatus of Mileve, The Schism of Donatists, 7:3 (c.A.D. 367).
• “Number the bishops from the See of Peter itself. And in that order of Fathers see who has succeeded whom. That is the rock against which the gates of hell do not prevail” Augustine, Psalm against the Party of Donatus, 18 (A.D. 393).

God bless.

 

[motstraumen]

motstraumen;5334406:

Sorry incorrect again, he stayed in that position until his death! No i don’t disagree with the holy spirit i actually support it, i’m about to provide quotes from the early church fathers that prove he was the first pope and taught infallibly! Are you saying that the early church fathers were incorrect about this? are you denying the holy spirit? There it is again that whole “many scholars agreed” quote, yes there were some people who disgreed with church teaching but it’s the church that has the power and authority from christ himself! Here are some quotes from early church fathers supporting the primacy of Peter:

• ”The reason for your absence was both honorable and imperative, that the schismatic wolves might not rob and plunder by stealth nor the heretical dogs bark madly in the rapid fury nor the very serpent, the devil, discharge his blasphemous venom. So it seems to us right and altogether fitting that priests of the Lord from each and every province should report to their head, that is, **to the See of Peter, the Apostle." Council of Sardica, To Pope Julius (A.D. 342). **

• “You cannot deny that you know that in the city of Rome the Chair was first conferred on Peter,** in which the prince of all the Apostles, Peter, sat**…in which Chair unity should be preserved by all, so that he should now be a schismatic and a sinner who should set up another Chair against that unique one.” Optatus of Mileve, The Schism of Donatists, 2:2-3 (c. A.D. 367).
• “For the good of unity Blessed Peter deserved to be preferred before the rest, **and alone received the keys of the Kingdom of Heaven, that he might communicate them to the rest.” **Optatus of Mileve, The Schism of Donatists, 7:3 (c.A.D. 367).
• “Number the bishops from the See of Peter itself. And in that order of Fathers see who has succeeded whom. That is the rock against which the gates of hell do not prevail” Augustine, Psalm against the Party of Donatus, 18 (A.D. 393).

God bless.

Oooo, I waited and I waited and all you can come up with are quotes from the Fourth century…Hmmmmmmmmmmm???

 

[Louie1983]

Louie1983;5334487:

Oooo, I waited and I waited and all you can come up with are quotes from the Fourth century…Hmmmmmmmmmmm???

Yep, typical response of someone who can’t accept when they have been proven wrong. You seem to have a short memory. On post #407 i actually provided you with quotes that were from the 1st, 2nd, 3rd century on this very topic.

I will pray for you Motstraumen i honestly thought you were a Christian who knew his stuff but the last several posts you have shown has demonstrated to me that you in fact don’t. Just to put your mind at ease, here are some “earlier” church father quotes:

• “The church of God which sojourns at Rome to the church of God which sojourns at Corinth … But if any disobey the words spoken by him through us, let them know that they will involve themselves in transgression and in no small danger.” Clement of Rome, Pope, 1st Epistle to the Corinthians, 1,59:1 (c. A.D. 96).
• “Ignatius, who is also called Theophorus, to the Church which has obtained mercy, through the majesty of the Mast High God the Father, and of Jesus Christ, His only-begotten Son; the Church which is sanctified and enlightened by the will of God, who farmed all things that are according to the faith and love of Jesus Christ, our God and Saviour; the Church which presides in the place of the region of the Romans, and which is worthy of God, worthy of honour, worthy of the highest happiness, worthy of praise, worthy of credit, worthy of being deemed holy, and which presides over love…” Ignatius of Antioch, Epistle to the Romans, Prologue (A.D. 110).
• “After such things as these, moreover, they still dare–a false bishop having been appointed for them by, heretics–to set sail and to bear letters from schismatic and profane persons to the throne of Peter, and to the chief church whence priestly unity takes its source; and not to consider that these were the Romans whose faith was praised in the preaching of the apostle, to whom faithlessness could have no access.” Cyprian, To Cornelius, Epistle 54/59:14 (A.D. 252).

I also provided you with scripture quotes which you ignored with your “simply don’t agree with” line. So i won’t repeat those unless you want me to?

 

[DorianGregorian]

Louie1983;5334487:

Oooo, I waited and I waited and all you can come up with are quotes from the Fourth century…Hmmmmmmmmmmm???

Isn’t Sola Scriptura based entirely on quotes from the first century??

 

[Louie1983]

motstraumen;5334621:

Isn’t Sola Scriptura based entirely on quotes from the first century??

Just to be clear, it wasn’t me that posted that it was motstraumen.

 

[greggy53]

Louie1983;5333608:

Yet he didn’t stay in that position for long. Many scholars agree that he fell out with the leaders of the Jerusalem church, probably because he ate with Gentiles. He lost his see and was sent out from there. He had to defer to James in doctrinal questions. First among equals is one thing, and would be quite acceptable, but first period is not. Are you denying the Holy Spirit at act in the early church when James became the unquestioned leader of the fledgling group? I mess up no historical fact. I look at them objectively.

Many Scholars agree? What scholars?..Protestant ones I’ll bet

 

[JonNC]

Yes, Jon and I belong to two different branches of the Lutheran Communion,he is I believe LC-MS I am ELCA. The ELCA is in fellowship with the Lutheran World Federation. Come on now beat us up over that…!

Frankly, we deserve to be beaten over the head on issues such as these. Neither your synod nor mine is being true to the confessions.
I was raised LCA/ELCA. My dad, an ELCA pastor , complained in an Op Ed to The Lutheran about the liberal trend in the synod 30 years ago.
And the LCMS is different, but no better. We refuse to sign on to perhaps the most important ecumenical document since the Reformation. Our participation in dialogue is spotty, yet we complain about the results. And there’s lots more.

Yes, my Lutheran friend, we deserve to get whacked upside the head.

Jon

EDIT: Can either of our synods honestly say we are true to the conclusion of Augsburg, which says, in part: “Only those things have been recounted whereof we thought that it was necessary to speak, in order that it might be understood that in doctrine and ceremonies nothing has been received on our part against Scripture or the Church Catholic. For it is manifest that we have taken most diligent care that no new and ungodly doctrine should creep into our churches.”

 

[motstraumen]

motstraumen;5334406:

Many Scholars agree? What scholars?..Protestant ones I’ll bet

I will just give one for now, one Eusebius from third century and fourth century as he writes of the historical tradition passed down in the church:

Eusebius (c260-c340), bishop of Caesarea, was also known as the Father of Church History. His book History of the Church is one of the major sources of the history of early Christianity. Eusebius had access to many early documents no longer extant today. Thus his magnum opus is a valuable resource for historians interested in early Christianity.
Let us begin by looking at Eusebius’ citations for James’ ascension to the leadership of the Jerusalem Church:

History of the Church 2:1:2
Then James, whom the ancients surnamed the Just on account of the excellence of his virtue, is recorded to have been the first to be made bishop of the church of Jerusalem. This James was called the brother of the Lord…
History of the Church 3:5:2
…James, the first that had obtained the episcopal seat in Jerusalem after the ascension of our Saviour…

History of the Church 2:23:4
[Quoting Hegesippus (c110-180)] “James, the brother of the Lord, succeeded to the government of the Church in conjunction with the apostles. He has been called the Just by all from the time of our Saviour to the present day; for there were many that bore the name of James.”

History of the Church 2:23:1
…James, the brother of the Lord, to whom the episcopal seat at Jerusalem had been entrusted by the apostles…

History of the Church 7:19
The chair of James, who first received the episcopate of the church at Jerusalem from the Saviour himself and the apostles, and who, as the divine records show, was called a brother of Christ, has been preserved until now…

History of the Church 2:1:3-4
(2:1:3) But Clement [c160-215] in the sixth book of his Hypotyposes writes thus: “For they say that Peter and James and John after the ascension of our Saviour, as if also preferred by our Lord, strove not after honor, but chose James the Just bishop of Jerusalem.”
(2:1:4) But the same writer, in the seventh book of the same work, relates also the following things concerning him: “The Lord after his resurrection imparted knowledge to James the Just and to John and Peter, and they imparted it to the rest of the apostles, and the rest of the apostles to the seventy, of whom Barnabas was one. But there were two Jameses: one called the Just, who was thrown from the pinnacle of the temple and was beaten to death with a club by a fuller, and another who was beheaded.”[15]

 

[motstraumen]

Frankly, we deserve to be beaten over the head on issues such as these. Neither your synod nor mine is being true to the confessions.
I was raised LCA/ELCA. My dad, an ELCA pastor , complained in an Op Ed to The Lutheran about the liberal trend in the synod 30 years ago.
And the LCMS is different, but no better. We refuse to sign on to perhaps the most important ecumenical document since the Reformation. Our participation in dialogue is spotty, yet we complain about the results. And there’s lots more.

Yes, my Lutheran friend, we deserve to get whacked upside the head.

Jon

EDIT: Can either of our synods honestly say we are true to the conclusion of Augsburg, which says, in part: “Only those things have been recounted whereof we thought that it was necessary to speak, in order that it might be understood that in doctrine and ceremonies nothing has been received on our part against Scripture or the Church Catholic. For it is manifest that we have taken most diligent care that no new and ungodly doctrine should creep into our churches.”

Fair enough, and I think a lot of us Lutherans do that ourselves. The arguments set forth as this goes to prove the followers of Luther are all “mistaken” (code I believe) and that the Roman Church has never (big word) been wrong is not productive, also my Lutheran friend (sincerely). Our main concern at Augsburg was purging the church of rites and ceremonies that were man made and could lead to a “falling away” of the faithful. Also in the conclusion it states: Bishops could easily foster obedience if they did not insist on the observance of ordinances that cannot be observed without sin…Perhaps there were some reasons for introducing them (in former times), but they are not in tune with our times." Wengert’s Translation of the German Text. Or the Latin: For many human traditions have been changed with the passing of time, as the canons themselves show. etc. Pgs. 102-103 The Book of Concord. Five hundred years have passed and some (I will agree with you that others are not for good order in the church) of the changes are due to that fact. Of course I would place the ordination of women in this area. As our church bodies the LCA and ALC studied this issue they saw biblical witness to the fact that women in the earliest church functioned in the role of deacon and apostle, the injunctions against women speaking were to the specific contexts of those various churches Paul wrote to, not all of them. Therefore they saw it acceptable to lift this man-made tradition.

 

[greggy53]

greggy53;5335284:

I will just give one for now, one Eusebius from third century and fourth century as he writes of the historical tradition passed down in the church:

Eusebius (c260-c340), bishop of Caesarea, was also known as the Father of Church History. His book History of the Church is one of the major sources of the history of early Christianity. Eusebius had access to many early documents no longer extant today. Thus his magnum opus is a valuable resource for historians interested in early Christianity.
Let us begin by looking at Eusebius’ citations for James’ ascension to the leadership of the Jerusalem Church:

History of the Church 2:1:2
Then James, whom the ancients surnamed the Just on account of the excellence of his virtue, is recorded to have been the first to be made bishop of the church of Jerusalem. This James was called the brother of the Lord…
History of the Church 3:5:2
…James, the first that had obtained the episcopal seat in Jerusalem after the ascension of our Saviour…

History of the Church 2:23:4
[Quoting Hegesippus (c110-180)] “James, the brother of the Lord, succeeded to the government of the Church in conjunction with the apostles. He has been called the Just by all from the time of our Saviour to the present day; for there were many that bore the name of James.”

History of the Church 2:23:1
…James, the brother of the Lord, to whom the episcopal seat at Jerusalem had been entrusted by the apostles…

History of the Church 7:19
The chair of James, who first received the episcopate of the church at Jerusalem from the Saviour himself and the apostles, and who, as the divine records show, was called a brother of Christ, has been preserved until now…

History of the Church 2:1:3-4
(2:1:3) But Clement [c160-215] in the sixth book of his Hypotyposes writes thus: “For they say that Peter and James and John after the ascension of our Saviour, as if also preferred by our Lord, strove not after honor, but chose James the Just bishop of Jerusalem.”
(2:1:4) But the same writer, in the seventh book of the same work, relates also the following things concerning him: “The Lord after his resurrection imparted knowledge to James the Just and to John and Peter, and they imparted it to the rest of the apostles, and the rest of the apostles to the seventy, of whom Barnabas was one. But there were two Jameses: one called the Just, who was thrown from the pinnacle of the temple and was beaten to death with a club by a fuller, and another who was beheaded.”[15]

Where does this state that St Peter “lost his see”. If what you quote is accurate it states that St James was made a Bishop of Jerusalem. you stated that many sholars agreed that St peter was removed from office…I don’t see that here.

 

[OneTrueCathApos]

My responses may be frustrating, but I don’t see why such tracing back to St Peter gives someone more authority to interpret scripture. Are catholics blessed by God to understand scripture better because they can trace their church back to St Peter?

Since the Catholic church is the church established by Jesus Christ, it is a capital “C” my friend. Nothing less…