Were the NT churches independent or One?

[Randy_Carson]

Early Church Fathers on Infant Baptism

---

Polycarp (69-155 AD)

“Eighty and six years have I served the Lord Christ” (*Martyrdom of Polycarp *9: 3)

Irenaeus (c.120-c.200 AD)

“For He came to save all through means of Himself all, I say, who through Him are born again to God, infants, and children, and boys, and youths, and old men” (*Against Heresies *2:22:4).

“‘And [Naaman] dipped himself . . . seven times in the Jordan’ [2 Kgs. 5:14]. It was not for nothing that Naaman of old, when suffering from leprosy, was purified upon his being baptized, but [this served] as an indication to us. For as we are lepers in sin, we are made clean, by means of the sacred water and the invocation of the Lord, from our old transgressions, being spiritually regenerated as newborn babes, even as the Lord has declared: ‘Except a man be born again through water and the Spirit, he shall not enter into the kingdom of heaven’ [John 3:5]” (*Fragment *34 [A.D. 190]).

**Justin Martyr (100-166 AD) **

“Many, both men and women, who have been Christ’s disciples since childhood, remain pure at the age of sixty or seventy years” (Apology 1: 15).

Hippolytus (170-236 AD)

“And first baptize the little ones; and if they can speak for themselves, they shall do so; if not, their parents or other relatives shall speak for them.” (*The Apostolic Tradition *21:16 [A.D. 215]).

Origen

“The Church has received from the apostles the custom of administering baptism even to infants. For those who have been entrusted with the secrets of divine mysteries, knew very well that all are tainted with the stain of original sin, which must be washed off by water and spirit” (Commentary on Romans, 5.9).

“Every soul that is born into flesh is soiled by the filth of wickedness and sin. . . . In the Church, baptism is given for the remission of sins, and, according to the usage of the Church, baptism is given even to infants. If there were nothing in infants which required the remission of sins and nothing in them pertinent to forgiveness, the grace of baptism would seem superfluous” (*Homilies on Leviticus *8:3 [A.D. 248]).

“The Church received from the apostles the tradition of giving baptism even to infants. The apostles, to whom were committed the secrets of the divine sacraments, knew there are in everyone innate strains of [original] sin, which must be washed away through water and the Spirit” (*Commentaries on Romans *5:9 [A.D. 248]).

Council of Carthage (254 AD)

“We ought not hinder any person from Baptism and the grace of God… especially infants. . . those newly born.”

Cyprian

“Should we wait until the eighth day as did the Jews in circumcision? No, the child should be baptized as soon as it is born.” (To Fidus 1: 2).

“In respect of the case of infants, which you say ought not to be baptized within the second or third day after birth, and that the law of ancient circumcision should be regarded, so that you think that one who is just born should not be baptized and sanctified within the eighth day, we all thought very differently in our council. For in this course which you thought was to be taken, no one agreed; but we all rather judge that the mercy and grace of God is not to be refused to any one born of man… Spiritual circumcision ought not to be hindered by carnal circumcision… we ought to shrink from hindering an infant, who, being lately born, has not sinned, except in that, being born after the flesh according to Adam, he has contracted the contagion of the ancient death at its earliest birth, who approaches the more easily on this very account to the reception of the forgiveness of sins - that to him are remitted, not his own sins, but the sins of another” (Letter 58 to Fidus).

“As to what pertains to the case of infants: You [Fidus] said that they ought not to be baptized within the second or third day after their birth, that the old law of circumcision must be taken into consideration, and that you did not think that one should be baptized and sanctified within the eighth day after his birth. In our council it seemed to us far otherwise. No one agreed to the course which you thought should be taken. Rather, we all judge that the mercy and grace of God ought to be denied to no man born” (*Letters *64:2 [A.D. 253]).

“If, in the case of the worst sinners and those who formerly sinned much against God, when afterwards they believe, the remission of their sins is granted and no one is held back from baptism and grace, how much more, then, should an infant not be held back, who, having but recently been born, has done no sin, except that, born of the flesh according to Adam, he has contracted the contagion of that old death from his first being born. For this very reason does he [an infant] approach more easily to receive the remission of sins: because the sins forgiven him are not his own but those of another” (ibid., 64:5).

(cont.)

 

[Randy_Carson]

Early Church Fathers on the Assumption of Mary

---

Pseudo-Melito

If therefore it might come to pass by the power of your grace, it has appeared right to us your servants that, as you, having overcome death, do reign in glory, so you should raise up the body of your Mother and take her with you, rejoicing, into heaven. Then said the Savior [Jesus]: “Be it done according to your will” (The Passing of the Virgin 16:2-17 A.D. 300]).

---

Epiphanius (d.403)

“If the Holy Virgin had died and was buried, her falling asleep would have been surrounded with honour, death would have found her pure, and her crown would have been a virginal one…Had she been martyred according to what is written: ‘Thine own soul a sword shall pierce’, then she would shine gloriously among the martyrs, and her holy body would have been declared blessed; for by her, did light come to the world.” (Panarion,78:23(A.D. 377),in PG 42:737)

(Epiphanius is on the border of your arbitrary cut-off point, but he obviously learned this doctrine from those who were younger than he was and this is evidence that the doctrine was held prior to 325.)

****(cont.)

 

[Randy_Carson]

**Early Church Fathers on the Immaculate Conception

---

Hippolytus

He [Jesus] was the ark formed of incorruptible wood. For by this is signified that His tabernacle [Mary] was exempt from defilement and corruption (*Orat. In Illud, Dominus pascit me, in Gallandi, Bibl. Patrum, II, 496 *ante [A.D. 235]).

---

Origen

This Virgin Mother of the Only-begotten of God is called Mary, worthy of God, immaculate of the immaculate, one of the one (Homily 1 [A.D. 244]).

---

St. Ambrose of Milan (340-397)

Come, then, and search out Your sheep, not through Your servants or hired men, but do it Yourself. Lift me up bodily and in the flesh, which is fallen in Adam. Lift me up not from Sara but from Mary, a Virgin not only undefiled but a Virgin whom grace has made inviolate, free from every stain of sin (ut incorrupta sit virgo, sed virgo per gratium ab omni integra labe peccati)." (Commentary on Psalm 118, 22-30, 387 A.D.)

(I have some earlier quotes, but these are stronger.)

(cont.)

 

[crazzeto]

Oh yeah Randy??? There was no Catholic Church until at least 33 A.D… HA! They were all independant then!

j/k

 

[Randy_Carson]

Early Church Fathers on the Real Presence of Christ in the Eucharist

(I have too many quotes on this to even begin to sample, but here are a few.)

THE DIDACHE
“Let no one eat and drink of your Eucharist but those baptized in the name of the Lord; to this, too the saying of the Lord is applicable: ‘Do not give to dogs what is sacred’”. (Ch. 9:5)

“On the Lord’s own day, assemble in common to break bread and offer thanks; but first confess your sins, so that your sacrifice may be pure. However, no one quarreling with his brother may join your meeting until they are reconciled; your sacrifice must not be defiled. For here we have the saying of the Lord: ‘In every place and time offer me a pure sacrifice; for I am a mighty King, says the Lord; and my name spreads terror among the nations.’” (Ch 14)

ST. CLEMENT OF ROME

“Since then these things are manifest to us, and we have looked into the depths of the divine knowledge, we ought to do in order all things which the Master commanded us to perform at appointed times. He commanded us to celebrate sacrifices and services, and that it should not be thoughtlessly or disorderly, but at fixed times and hours. He has Himself fixed by His supreme will the places and persons whom He desires for these celebrations, in order that all things may be done piously according to His good pleasure, and be acceptable to His will. So then those who offer their oblations at the appointed seasons are acceptable and blessed, but they follow the laws of the Master and do not sin. For to the high priest his proper ministrations are allotted, and to the priests the proper place has been appointed, and on Levites their proper services have been imposed. The layman is bound by the ordinances for the laity.” (St. Clement, bishop of Rome, 80 A.D., to the Corinthians)

“Our sin will not be small if we eject from the episcopate those who blamelessly and holily have offered its Sacrifices.” (Letter to the Corinthians, [44,4] )

ST. IGNATIUS OF ANTIOCH

“Consider how contrary to the mind of God are the heterodox in regard to the grace of God which has come to us. They have no regard for charity, none for the widow, the orphan, the oppressed, none for the man in prison, the hungry or the thirsty. They abstain from the Eucharist and from prayer, because they do not admit that the Eucharist is the flesh of our Savior Jesus Christ, the flesh which suffered for our sins and which the Father, in His graciousness, raised from the dead.” (Letter to the Smyrnaeans, paragraph 6. circa 80-110 A.D.).

“Come together in common, one and all without exception in charity, in one faith and in one Jesus Christ, who is of the race of David according to the flesh, the son of man, and the Son of God, so that with undivided mind you may obey the bishop and the priests, and break one Bread which is the medicine of immortality and the antidote against death, enabling us to live forever in Jesus Christ.”

-“Letter to the Ephesians”, paragraph 20, c. 80-110 A.D.​

“I have no taste for the food that perishes nor for the pleasures of this life. I want the Bread of God which is the Flesh of Christ, who was the seed of David; and for drink I desire His Blood which is love that cannot be destroyed.”

-“Letter to the Romans”, paragraph 7, circa 80-110 A.D.​

“Take care, then who belong to God and to Jesus Christ - they are with the bishop. And those who repent and come to the unity of the Church - they too shall be of God, and will be living according to Jesus Christ. Do not err, my brethren: if anyone follow a schismatic, he will not inherit the Kingdom of God. If any man walk about with strange doctrine, he cannot lie down with the passion. Take care, then, to use one Eucharist, so that whatever you do, you do according to God: for there is one Flesh of our Lord Jesus Christ, and one cup in the union of His Blood; one altar, as there is one bishop with the presbytery and my fellow servants, the deacons.”

-Epistle to the Philadelphians, 3:2-4:1, 110 A.D.​

ST. JUSTIN MARTYR

“This food we call the Eucharist, of which no one is allowed to partake except one who believes that the things we teach are true, and has received the washing for forgiveness of sins and for rebirth, and who lives as Christ handed down to us. For we do not receive these things as common bread or common drink; but as Jesus Christ our Savior being incarnate by God’s Word took flesh and blood for our salvation, so also we have been taught that the food consecrated by the Word of prayer which comes from him, from which our flesh and blood are nourished by transformation, is the flesh and blood of that incarnate Jesus.”

" First Apology", Ch. 66, inter A.D. 148-155.​

“God has therefore announced in advance that all the sacrifices offered in His name, which Jesus Christ offered, that is, in the Eucharist of the Bread and of the Chalice, which are offered by us Christians in every part of the world, are pleasing to Him.”

“Dialogue with Trypho”, Ch. 117, circa 130-160 A.D.​

 

[Randy_Carson]

Early Church Fathers on Purgatory

Clement of Alexandria

The believer through discipline divests himself of his passions and passes to the mansion which is better than the former one, passes to the greatest torment, taking with him the characteristic of repentance for the faults he may have committed after baptism. He is tortured then still more, not yet attaining what he sees others have acquired. The greatest torments are assigned to the believer, for God’s righteousness is good, and His goodness righteous, and though these punishments cease in the course of the expiation and purification of each one, “yet” etc. (Patres Groeci. IX, col. 332 A.D. 150-215]).

“Accordingly the believer, through great discipline, divesting himself of the passions, passes to the mansion which is better than the former one, viz., to the greatest torment, taking with him the characteristic of repentance from the sins he has committed after baptism. He is tortured then still more–not yet or not quite attaining what he sees others to have acquired. Besides, he is also ashamed of his transgressions. The greatest torments, indeed, are assigned to the believer. For God’s righteousness is good, and His goodness is righteous. And though the punishments cease in the course of the completion of the expiation and purification of each one, yet those have very great and permanent grief who are found worthy of the other fold, on account of not being along with those that have been glorified through righteousness.” (*Stromata, *6:14 [A.D. 202]).

Origen

If a man departs this life with lighter faults, he is condemned to fire which burns away the lighter materials, and prepares the soul for the kingdom of God, where nothing defiled may enter. For if on the foundation of Christ you have built not only gold and silver and precious stones (I Cor., 3); but also wood and hay and stubble, what do you expect when the soul shall be separated from the body? Would you enter into heaven with your wood and hay and stubble and thus defile the kingdom of God; or on account of these hindrances would you remain without and receive no reward for your gold and silver and precious stones? Neither is this just. It remains then that you be committed to the fire which will burn the light materials; for our God to those who can comprehend heavenly things is called a cleansing fire. But this fire consumes not the creature, but what the creature has himself built, wood, and hay and stubble. It is manifest that the fire destroys the wood of our transgressions and then returns to us the reward of our great works. (Patres Groeci. XIII, col. 445, 448 A.D. 185-232]).

(cont.)

 

[Randy_Carson]

More on Purgatory

Tertullian

“[T]hat allegory of the Lord which is extremely clear and simple in its meaning, and ought to be from the first understood in its plain and natural sense…Then, again, should you be disposed to apply the term ‘adversary’ to the devil, you are advised by the (Lord’s) injunction, while you are in the way with him, 'to make even with him such a compact as may be deemed compatible with the requirements of your true faith. Now the compact you have made respecting him is to renounce him, and his pomp, and his angels. Such is your agreement in this matter. Now the friendly understanding you will have to carry out must arise from your observance of the compact: you must never think of getting back any of the things which you have abjured, and have restored to him, lest he should summon you as a fraudulent man, and a transgressor of your agreement, before God the Judge (for in this light do we read of him, in another passage, as ‘the accuser of the brethren,’ or saints, where reference is made to the actual practice of legal prosecution); and lest this Judge deliver you over to the angel who is to execute the sentence, and he commit you to the prison of hell, out of which there will be no dismissal until the smallest even of your delinquencies be paid off in the period before the resurrection. What can be a more fitting sense than this? What a truer interpretation?” **(***A Treatise on the Soul, *35 [A.D. 210]).

“All souls, therefore; are shut up within Hades: do you admit this? It is true, whether you say yes or no: moreover, there are already experienced there punishments and consolations; and there you have a poor man and a rich…Moreover, the soul executes not all its operations with the ministration of the flesh; for the judgment of God pursues even simple cogitations and the merest volitions. ‘Whosoever looketh on a woman to lust after her, hath committed adultery with her already in his heart.’ Therefore, even for this cause it is most fitting that the soul, without at all waiting for the flesh, should be punished for what it has done without the partnership of the flesh. So, on the same principle, in return for the pious and kindly thoughts in which it shared not the help of the flesh, shall it without the flesh receive its consolation. In short, inasmuch as we understand ‘the prison’ pointed out in the Gospel to be Hades, and as we also interpret ‘the uttermost farthing’ to mean the very smallest offence which has to be recompensed there before the resurrection, no one will hesitate to believe that the soul undergoes in Hades some compensatory discipline, without prejudice to the full process of the resurrection, when the recompense will be administered through the flesh besides.” (*A Treatise on the Soul, ***58 [A.D. 210]). **

“As often as the anniversary comes round, we make offerings for the dead as birthday honours.” (*The Chaplut, ***3 [A.D. 211]). **

“[A] woman is more bound when her husband is dead…Indeed, she prays for his soul, and requests refreshment for him meanwhile, and fellowship (with him) in the first resurrection; and she offers (her sacrifice) on the anniversary of his falling asleep.” (*On Monogamy, ***10 [A.D. 216]). **

 

[Randy_Carson]

You didn’t mention confession, but I’m throwing this in as bonus…another example of what the ECF’s would realize your “church” does not have.

---

ECF’s on Confession to a Priest
Origen

“[The repentant sinner] does not shrink from declaring his sin to a priest of the Lord." (Homilies on Leviticus, [AD 244]).

Cyprian of Carthage

“Finally, of how much greater faith and more salutary fear are they who…confess to the priests of God in a straightforward manner and in sorrow, making an open declaration of conscience” (The Lapsed, [AD 251]).

**Firmilian **

“But what is his error and how great his blindness…who does not remain on the foundation of the one true Church which was founded upon the rock by Christ, can be learned from this, which Christ said to Peter alone, ‘Whatever things you shall bind on earth shall also be bound in heaven; and whatever you loose on earth, they shall also be loosed in heaven’; and by this, again in the Gospel, when Christ breathed upon the apostles alone, saying to them, ‘Receive the Holy Spirit. If you forgive any man his sins they shall be forgiven, and if you retain any man’s sins they shall be retained.’ The power of forgiving sins was given to the apostles and the churches which these men, sent by Christ, established and to the bishops who succeeded them by being ordained in their place” (Epistle to Cyprian 75:16 [Inter A.D. 255-256]).

Aphraates

“If anyone uncovers his wound before you, give him the remedy of repentance. And he that is ashamed to make known his weakness, encourage him so that he will not hide it from you. And when he has revealed it to you, do not make it public” (Treatises 7:4, [ca. 300’s]).

 

[Randy_Carson]

In the OP, Yankee-drifter was quoted as follows:

When Clement wrote of the “catholic” church, (note the small “c”) he was referring to the meaning of “universal” which is what catholic means. He was talking about the Universal Church that Christ built. The very Church which consists of the body of true believers whom Christ Himself is coming back for. When the RCC formed and organized under Constantine’s rule, who made it possible for buildings to be erected, the Roman Church adopted the use of the word “catholic.”

We have already seen that it was Ignatius of ANTIOCH, not Ignatius of ROME, whose writing contains the first recorded use of the term “Catholic Church”. Thus, it was not the “Roman Church” but the Church at Antioch which may be said to have given us the name by which “the Church that Jesus built” is known to this very day. Moreover, since Ignatius wrote in 107 AD, there is ample reason to believe that the name was in use during the lifetime of the last living apostle, John, loooooooong before Constantine and any “cut-off date” ca. 325 A.D.

Early Church Fathers on the “Catholic” Church

Ignatius of Antioch

“You must all follow the bishop as Jesus Christ follows the Father, and the presbytery as you would the Apostles. Let no one do anything of concern to the Church without the bishop. Wherever the bishop appears, let the people be there; just as wherever Jesus Christ is, there is the Catholic Church.” (Letter to the Smyrnaeans, A.D. 107, [8,1])

The Martyrdom of Polycarp

“When at last he had finished his prayer, in which he remembered all who had met with him ant any time, both small and great, both those with and those without renown, and the whole Catholic Church throughout the world.” (The Martyrdom of Polycarp, 8:1, [A.D. 156]).

“And certainly the most admirable Polycarp was one of these [elect], in whose times among us he showed himself an apostolic and prophetic teacher and bishop of the Catholic Church in Smyrna.”(The Martyrdom of Polycarp, 16:2, [A.D. 156]).

Irenaeus

The Catholic Church possesses one and the same faith throughout the whole world, as we have already said (Against Heresies 1:10 [A.D. 189]).

“But since it would be too long to enumerate in such a volume as this the succession of all the churches, we shall confound all those who, in whatever manner, whether through self-satisfaction or vainglory, or through blindness and wicked opinion, assemble other than where it is proper, by pointing out here the successions of the bishops of the greatest and most ancient church known to all, founded and organized at Rome by the two most glorious apostles, Peter and Paul, that church which has the tradition and the faith which comes down to us after having been announced to men by the apostles. With that church, because of its superior origin, all the churches must agree, that is, all the faithful in the whole world, and it is in her that the faithful everywhere have maintained the apostolic tradition” (ibid. 3:3:2).
Tertullian

“Where was [the heretic] Marcian, that shipmaster of Pontus, the zealous student of Stoicism? Where was Valentinus, the disciple of Platonism? For it is evident that those men lived not so long ago – in the reign of Antoninus [AD 138-161] for the most part – and that they at first were believers in the doctrine of the Catholic Church, in the church of Rome under the episcopate of the blessed Eleutherus [AD 175-189], until on account of their ever restless curiosity, with which they even infected the brethren, they were more than once expelled. . . . Afterward . . . Marcian professed repentance and agreed to the conditions granted to him – that he should receive reconciliation if he restored to the Church all the others whom he had been training for perdition; he was prevented, however, by death.” (Demurrer Against the Heretics, 20, [A.D. 200]).

Clement of Alexandria

“From what has been said, then, it seems clear to me that the true Church, that which is really ancient, is one; and in it are enrolled those who, in accord with a design, are just. . . . We say, therefore, that in substance, in concept, in origin and in eminence, the ancient and Catholic Church is alone, gathering as it does into the unity of the one faith which results from the familiar covenants, - or rather, from the one covenant in different times, by the will of the one God and through the one Lord, - those already chosen, those predestined by God who knew before the foundation of the world that they would be just.” (Stromaties 7:17:107:3 [A.D. 202]).

“… There is one true Church, the really ancient Church into which are enrolled those who are righteous according to Gods ordinance… In essence, in idea, in origin, in preeminence we say that the ancient Catholic Church is the only Church …”

 

[yankee_drifter]

You certainly are hung up on this whole “Roman” thing aren’t you?

When Ignatius spoke about the catholic church, he meant “universal”. All true Christians everywhere. Whether they were Anabaptist, Waldensian or other groups who met in homes or underground, who had names or no names but were united in their faith in Jesus Christ as Lord and Savior and baptized in His name, they were included when Ignatius said: Wherever Jesus Christ is, there is the catholic church. Tertullian said: Where there are three, there is the church; notwithstanding they be laypersons.

Later, the church of Rome adopted the word catholic. If catholic means the RCC, then why do Protestant faiths have a creed which states: We believe in one holy, catholic, and apostolic church?

 

[yankee_drifter]

Notice how Yankee_drifter provides no links to the sites where he got his information, no references to books that can be used to fact-check, no names, dates, nothing. He simply makes his assertions and expects the reader to accept them as fact.

This is funny coming from you Randy. For weeks I’ve been complaining that you fail to provide references for your myriad claims. When I don’t, you shout foul. When I do, you just deny. :juggle:

 

[yankee_drifter]

*My prediction - based on your past behavior - is that rather than engage in a meaninful exchange, you will not even begin to address the powerful refutation of your position offered by Randy and others. Let us see if my appraisal is so accurate as to be capable of predicting the futute,
*

Randy and I already conducted a debate via private messages. He would not or could not tell me what the Gospel of Jesus Christ is.

Have you ever listened to debates between roman catholic apologists and Christians of other faiths? These debates are found on many web sites. Just google it.I strongly suggest you watch these debates and listen closely to the catholic apologists. They have struggled to prove the RCC existed in the 1st or even 2nd century.

Am I inaccurate or ignorant of the facts because you don’t believe me, or because you have a church to defend at all costs and any disagreement with their teachings is considered a sin by the RCC?

 

[JacobG]

In Christian theology the word “catholic” describes the entire church of Jesus Christ. All God’s people from every nation and in every era, all who are redeemed by the blood of Jesus, together form the catholic church.

The Lord Jesus has one universal - or catholic - church. He is the head, and all the redeemed are members of His body.

"...the church is subject to Christ...Christ also loved the church and gave Himself for her, that He might sanctify and cleanse her with the washing of water by the word, that He might present her to Himself a glorious church, not having spot or wrinkle or any such thing, but that she should be holy and without blemish...For we are members of His body, of His flesh and of His bones." (See Ephesians 5:24-30).

Aren’t Evangelical/Biblical Christians subject to Christ since they follow the teaching of His Word? Doesn’t Christ love them too? Didn’t He give Himself on the cross for them also? Yes of course, and therefore Evangelicals are members of His body, the catholic church! But when Rome boasts that it is the one and only true church of Christ, what shall we conclude? Shall we say that Christ loved and died for Roman Catholics only?

In the New Testament, every local congregation is called a church, and in this sense, there are many churches. The distinguishing feature of a true church of Christ is not the submission to the church of Rome, but faithfulness to the teaching of Christ and love for the brethren (John 8:31; John 13:35). The various churches we read about in the New Testament, though undoubtedly different in character and emphasis, recognized each other as members of the same one true church of Jesus Christ. They were genuinely catholic and universal in their outlook.

But claiming only the Roman church as the one true church of Christ, would immediately exclude the millions of faithful Christian churches. That is certainly against the spirit of catholicism we read in the Bible. John Gerstner argues:

Strictly speaking "Roman Catholic" is a contradiction of terms. Catholic means universal; Roman denotes a particular place. It is the Protestant and not the Romanist who believes in the catholic church. Protestants believe the church is universal or catholic; Rome cannot discover it beyond her own communion (Gerstner J., The Gospel According to Rome).

Protestants do not regard their denomination as the exclusive church of Jesus Christ, They regard other churches as valid manifestations of His Church, despite the differences in some doctrines and practices. They embrace all Christians as dear brothers and sisters in Christ despite the different denominational labels. No denomination or local assembly is perfect in doctrine or practice. The reality is that the church, God’s family, is found in all the local assemblies of Christians that believe in Him, obey His Word and love the brethren (imperfectly and yet truly).

 

[crazzeto]

“Roman Catholic” isn’t the name of the Church, the name is “Catholic Church”. Protestants are the ones that started calling it “Roman Catholic” to try and snub the church.

 

[Randy_Carson]

This is funny coming from you Randy. For weeks I’ve been complaining that you fail to provide references for your myriad claims. When I don’t, you shout foul. When I do, you just deny.

Anyone familiar with the dozens and dozens of posts I have made in response to Yankee_drifter knows that one of the hallmarks of my apologetics is strict attention to documentation and sourcing.

The quotes provided above do not provide evidence a sudden improvement in this regard; instead, they are consistent with my policy of documenting my sources RELIGIOUSLY.

 

[Randy_Carson]

Randy and I already conducted a debate via private messages. He would not or could not tell me what the Gospel of Jesus Christ is.

For the record, there was no debate. No statement was agreed upon, no one took the affirmative, no cross examination or question and answer periods, etc.

Instead, for days on end, Yankee_drifter PM’s me more of his lengthy rambling writings about all that is in error in Catholicism. I was receiving 8-10 per day before he finally broke off the discussion and vanished. Those familiar with his posts in this forum know what I mean about his style…14 topics covered in three paragraphs.

I responded with boatloads of quotes, references, links, etc. That’s how I roll.

Have you ever listened to debates between roman catholic apologists and Christians of other faiths? These debates are found on many web sites. Just google it.I strongly suggest you watch these debates and listen closely to the catholic apologists. They have struggled to prove the RCC existed in the 1st or even 2nd century.

I have most of the high-level debates (Madrid v. White, Akin v. White, Pacwa v. White, Matatics v. White, Sungenis v. White…see a pattern here?) on my iPhone, and I review them regularly. The non-Catholics are easily outclassed in most of these encounters.

Am I inaccurate or ignorant of the facts because you don’t believe me, or because you have a church to defend at all costs and any disagreement with their teachings is considered a sin by the RCC?

See what I mean?

 

[swords99]

So could you sum up why the fact that several churches have split off the Catholic Church leads you to the conclusion that there cannot be One, Holy, Apostolic Church?
How does the fact that people will disagree negate the validity of One, Holy, Apostolic Church?It seems to me that your conclusion and your premise are one in the same.

Like others have already posted on here, the Reformers wanted reform, not to start a new faith. The catholic church turned a deaf ear to its own abuses and the sale of indulgences that took advantage of the less fortunate. It also kept the Bible out of the hands of the common man. It grew enormously wealthy and accumulated a mass of relics and other icons. Its interesting to note that in Exodus the 2nd Commandment is clearly spelled out: No idols or engraven images, but the catholic church and catechism has conspicuously left it out. In reality, as Jakob on here pointed out, the Protestant faith is not a new faith but one that has returned to the Bible. People may disagree on many non essentials such as music or no music and tradition such as infant baptism or pouring vs immersion. You will always have disagreements. Paul wrote about divisions in the churches. That’s human nature. But the catholic church forces agreement. The Council of Trent has dozens of curses it places on those who don’t agree with the catholic church. Its a sin to miss Mass. Its easy to have unity when a church demands absolute allegiance to the pope.

I have been reading many posts over the past several months and not one catholic on here has been able to prove that their church existed before Constantine. All I see are verbal attacks when someone claims they cannot find the roman catholic church in the new testament or even in the century afterward. Some of you make claims that the word catholic means the church of Rome only and quote a few church fathers to try and support their case but its found wanting when compared to recorded christian history. For the first 280 years of Christian history, Christianity was banned by the Roman empire, and Christians were terribly persecuted. The failure of any of you to prove your own history straight from Christ speaks volume.

Jesus is LORD.

 

[steve_b]

Randy and I already conducted a debate via private messages. He would not or could not tell me what the Gospel of Jesus Christ is.

Your posts are on record as are his. There’s no ducking that. Anybody on the planet can see all your posts. They can see that you’ve ducked the debate. There’s no debate on that. If you think you have answerd him, show the exact post. There’s your challenge.
yd:

Have you ever listened to debates between roman catholic apologists and Christians of other faiths? These debates are found on many web sites. Just google it.I strongly suggest you watch these debates and listen closely to the catholic apologists. They have struggled to prove the RCC existed in the 1st or even 2nd century.

I’ve heard plenty of debates. Have you googled CA apologists for these debates? There is ZERO problems proving the Catholic Church existence in the 1st and 2nd century.

But here’s a quick one for you. Who is the book of Romans written to? And when was it written?

I’ll give you a hint. It’s to the Church of Rome ~55 a.d… The Church that Ignatius says holds the presidency. The Church Ignatius calls the Catholic Church. Ignatius as you may know was a disciple of St John. Which means St John must have taught him this.

Polycarp a disciple of Ignatius, and Irenaeus a disciple of Polycarp, were both from Smyrna. One of Ignatius letters was to the Church at Smyrna.

Ch 8
See that you all follow the bishop, even as Jesus Christ does the Father, and the presbytery as you would the apostles; and reverence the deacons, as being the institution of God. Let no man do anything connected with the Church without the bishop. Let that be deemed a proper Eucharist, which is [administered] either by the bishop, or by one to whom he has entrusted it. Wherever the bishop shall appear, there let the multitude [of the people] also be; even as, wherever Jesus Christ is, there is the Catholic Church. It is not lawful without the bishop either to baptize or to celebrate a love-feast; but whatsoever he shall approve of, that is also pleasing to God, so that everything that is done may be secure and valid.

http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/0109.htm Ignatius to Smyrna

For space, I would direct you to read all of Irenaeus but to your point directly, Bk 3 Ch 3 to continue with your challenge of 1st and 2nd century reference to the Catholic Church
newadvent.org/fathers/0103.htm Irenaeus against Heresies.
yd:

Am I inaccurate or ignorant of the facts because you don’t believe me, or because you have a church to defend at all costs and any disagreement with their teachings is considered a sin by the RCC?

It’s a sin, a very serious sin, according to Paul to do what you’ve done. That is, divide from the Church.

Jesus builds and defends the Church. He died for the Church, and the apostles defended the Church and died for the Church. You don’t defend the Church nor feel you need to defend it, because you left the Church.

 

[Randy_Carson]

I have been reading many posts over the past several months and not one catholic on here has been able to prove that their church existed before Constantine. All I see are verbal attacks when someone claims they cannot find the roman catholic church in the new testament or even in the century afterward. Some of you make claims that the word catholic means the church of Rome only and quote a few church fathers to try and support their case but its found wanting when compared to recorded christian history. For the first 280 years of Christian history, Christianity was banned by the Roman empire, and Christians were terribly persecuted. The failure of any of you to prove your own history straight from Christ speaks volume.

Good grief…when will it end?

Okay…I have lot of quotes like this, but this one alone should drive a stake through the heart of this argument. Irenaeus was a disciple of Polycarp. Polycarp was a disciple of the Apostle John. Thus the following is from a second century Christian with impeccable credentials:

Irenaeus of Lyons

“3The blessed Apostles [Peter and Paul], having founded and built up the Church [of Rome], they handed over the office of the episcopate to Linus. Paul makes mention of this Linus in the Epistle to Timothy. To him succeeded Anencletus; and after him, in the third place from the Apostles, Clement was chosen from the episcopate. He had seen the blessed Apostles and was acquainted with them. It might be said that He still heard the echoes of the preaching of the Apostles, and had their traditions before his eyes. And not only he, for there were many still remaining who had been instructed by the Apostles. In the time of Clement, no small dissension having arisen among the brethren in Corinth, the Church in Rome sent a very strong letter to the Corinthians, exhorting them to peace and renewing their faith. To this Clement, Evaristus succeeded; and Alexander succeeded Evaristus. Then, sixth after the Apostles, Sixtus was appointed; after him, Telesphorus, who also was gloriously martyred. Then Hyginus; after him, Pius; and after him, Anicetus. Soter succeeded Anicetus, and now, in the twelfth place after the Apostles, the lot of the episcopate has fallen to Eleutherus. In this order, and by the teaching of the Apostles handed down in the Church, the preaching of the truth has come down to us.” (Against Heresies 3.3.3, [A.D. 180])

Peter > Linus > Anacletus > Clement and so on all the way down to Benedict XVI today. It’s all documented and unassailable.

One Lord. One Faith. One Baptism. One Shepherd. One Flock. One Church.

We are the Catholic Church.

 

[steve_b]

When Ignatius spoke about the catholic church, he meant “universal”.

There was no other Church but Catholic. And as Ignatius says the Church of Rome holds the presidency…and still does.
yd:

All true Christians everywhere. Whether they were Anabaptist, Waldensian or other groups

“True” Christians? As opposed to heretics perhaps?

Anabaptists (rebaptizers) are Protestants. They were founded by Munzer in the 16th century. We know their lineage. As we do all protestant groups. Scripture ya know condemns division from the Church. Condemns it

Waldes (Waldo) a merchant, founder of the Waldensians a protestant group in the 15th century.

As Cardinal Newman a convert to Catholicism from protestantism, and a historian says, to go deep in history is to cease to be protestant
yd:

but were united in their faith in Jesus Christ as Lord and Savior and baptized in His name, they were included when Ignatius said: Wherever Jesus Christ is, there is the catholic church. Tertullian said: Where there are three, there is the church; notwithstanding they be laypersons.

Waldensians? United? A 15th century group founded by a merchant. Protestants in their origin left the only Church Jesus established. Then they went into serial division within Protestantism. Now tell me again about unity of faith and how Jesus is Lord.

your quote from Tertullian was referencing his comments on baptism

wherever there are three, (that is, the Father the Son and the Holy Spirit) there is the Church, which is a body of three.

Protestants aren’t a Church or Churches. Even though they use a Catholic sacrament of baptism
vatican.va/roman_curia/congregations/cfaith/documents/rc_con_cfaith_doc_20000806_dominus-iesus_en.html
yd:

Later, the church of Rome adopted the word catholic. If catholic means the RCC, then why do Protestant faiths have a creed which states: We believe in one holy, catholic, and apostolic church?

• The Church used the term Catholic from the 1st century.
• Protestants use the Catholic creed and put their own meanings into what is said. Obviously if they believed what the creed truly meant, they couldn’t say it and remain protestant