Who founded your denomination?????

  • Thread starter Thread starter JoaoMachado
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
40.png
atenciom:
PEOPLE!!! :banghead:

Rod is taking on all these subjects simultaneously.

We’ve got:
-Was Peter in Rome or not?
-Is it okay to pray to Mary?
-proof versus truth
-Did Jesus start the catholic church?
-Plus all the sub threads, other non-catholics, and who knows what else!!

I’m getting confused. And in my apologetic experience, this will only serve to dishearten because of all the “work” it will require to adequately respond in this forum. It’s like one person coming onto the battle field knowing that he has to fight 10 different lengthy battles, only to await another volley the next day. I’ve had E-mail discussions with protestant pastors where we’d start out with one topic. Then, sooner or later, he’d say, "Well, what about ". After a while, I’d be addressing ten subjects in one email . . . every email . . . every day. It becomes work after a while.

Can we tackle one subject at a time please. Remember, it is common to switch subjects. I propose to let Rod pick one and we’ll all discuss it to it’s end. Then move to the next one. Someone should keep a list of topics so that nothing gets forgotten. They should keep out the but-what-abouts until they can be properly addressed later. I know that some subjects depend on others but there’s got to be a better solution to what’s going on here.

:tiphat: Rod deserves a complete, catholic answer to all his questions.

For what it’s worth,
Martin

PS. I know other non-catholics had issues too on this subject. Is there a better way of dealing with all this?
Whenever I ask for legitimate proof to show the truth of something, the subject is usually changed. I am starting to really believe that very little proof exists to support many of the Catholic beliefs.
 
rod of iron:
Whenever I ask for legitimate proof to show the truth of something, the subject is usually changed. I am starting to really believe that very little proof exists to support many of the Catholic beliefs.
well that’s because it all boils down to the issue of AUTHORITY; Catholics believe what they believe (INCLUDING the Gospels and the canons of the Bible, mind!) because they are moved by the authority of the Church – like St Augustine said… When you accept this authority, there is really no other issue. This issue of authority, you might find, is what they keep “diverting” too, see.
 
rod of iron:
Whenever I ask for legitimate proof to show the truth of something, the subject is usually changed. I am starting to really believe that very little proof exists to support many of the Catholic beliefs.
I, too, find the subject changed when I speak to people. :crying: Often, the issue of authority comes up. Indeed, it is related to all of the subjects that you’ve brought up.

Regardless of who changed it whenever, it’s still a problem and needs to be fixed. :tsktsk: So before you come to the conclusion that
“very little” exists for many of the catholic beliefs, we should adequately explore all the evidence on one belief and not change the subject.

Since we know that the issue of authority ultimately is the root, I suggest we start with that (unless you have a better idea). But since there’s also this other rootish matter of truth-versus-proof-versus-testimony-versus-hearsay-versus-probability, we could go with that one.

Someone states the premise and we build up a case to support the premise without using the premise itself.

What say you?
Martin
 
40.png
atenciom:
Since we know that the issue of authority ultimately is the root, I suggest we start with that (unless you have a better idea).
I have ultimately asked for proof of the authority that the Catholic church declares it has. The Catholic church says that there is an unbroken line of apostolic succession from Peter to John Paul II. Yet when I ask for evidence that Peter passed on his authority to someone else, no firsthand accounts are presented here to prove it. Instead, the Catholics on this forum present me with testimonies from men who lived long after Peter allegedly passed on authority to a successor. Where is the proof of authority in the Catholic church? Did Peter claim that he passed on authority to a successor? If he did, did he give the name of that successor? If not, did the successor claim to have received authority from Peter? Unless this claim about Peter passing on authority is shown to be true, all the claims of the Catholic church tumble like a house of cards.
 
40.png
Shibboleth:
I am American but I also have German heritage. I am a Minnesotan but I once lived in South Dakota. Countries and boundaries are a man made thing and only visible if you look at a map or representation of the world drawn by man. We name things Germany and South Dakota because we as humans would be confused if we did not categorize things. Germany, South Dakota, China, and Mesopotamia are all from the singular body of Earth.

Lutheran, Baptist, Anglican, Catholic,… - we are all from the singular body of the church catholic created by Jesus. Just as Germans, Chinese, Lebanese… are all from the planet Earth created by God.
So in the same way that State borders are man made, the Church made by Jesus Christ is man made? Well, you have it half right, at least.
 
Yet when I ask for evidence that Peter passed on his authority to someone else, no firsthand accounts are presented here to prove it.
LOL, what are you looking for? A newspaper headline?
“But since it would be too long to enumerate in such a volume as this the successions 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 with which comes down to us after having been announced to men by the apostles. For with this Church, because of its superior origin, all 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” (Irenaeus, *Against Heresies *3:3:2 A.D. 189).
 
rod of iron:
I have ultimately asked for proof of the authority that the Catholic church declares it has. The Catholic church says that there is an unbroken line of apostolic succession from Peter to John Paul II. Yet when I ask for evidence that Peter passed on his authority to someone else, no firsthand accounts are presented here to prove it. Instead, the Catholics on this forum present me with testimonies from men who lived long after Peter allegedly passed on authority to a successor. Where is the proof of authority in the Catholic church? Did Peter claim that he passed on authority to a successor? If he did, did he give the name of that successor? If not, did the successor claim to have received authority from Peter? Unless this claim about Peter passing on authority is shown to be true, all the claims of the Catholic church tumble like a house of cards.
Look here, read, and learn… please: catholic.com/library/Apostolic_Succession.asp
 
If he did, did he give the name of that successor
St. Peter was succeeded by St. Linus

St. Linus was succeeded by St. Anacletus

Then St. Clement

…St Evaristus

St. Alexander I

St. Sixtus I

Do I have to go on?
 
The only thing that tumbles like a house of cards are the thousands of denominations outside of the Holy Catholic Church.
 
Eric Hyom:
Hello all, I hope I won’t cause too many problems with my first post.

Recently the Pope has been asking for forgiveness for the things done in the name of the Catholic Church, namely the inquisitions. I would also like to add the selling of indulgencies.

It seems Martin Luther broke away from the Catholic Church because he felt that the church wasn’t following in the footsteps of Christ through these actions.

He felt that the Catholic Church was not right and there was a need for change.

Could he have had a greater reforming voice if ha had stayed within the Catholic Church?

Who can know?

I can admire his courage to try and change the injustice that he perceived happening; it was at a time when death was the penalty for going against authority.

Did the Catholic Church need some sort of reformation at the time; I would have to say yes.

That was centuries ago, but what should we do today, how should we relate to people who are the same but different to us, I am a Catholic.

Peace

Eric
As many Catholics and non-Catholics alike, you don’t know that there was no sale of indulgences. The so-called “sale” of indulgences was something that came out of what one must do to obtain an indulgence. I suppose you know what an indulgence is, if you don’t, you should read up on them at Catholic.com. Anyway, the three traditional penitentiary acts of the Catholic Church are prayer, fasting, and alms giving. Let’s say, you lived in the sixteenth century and you wanted an indulgence. What you would do is go to your parish priest, and ask for one. The priest would give you three acts of penance, one of each of the penitentiary acts, one of prayer, one of fasting, and one of almsgiving. The prayer and fasting are easy to figure out, but then there’s the almsgiving. The alms that people were perscribed to give at that point in time were just a reasonable amout of money to the church, because then in history, is when the church was building St. Peter’s Basilica. Some looked at this as more of a “sale” than of a penitentiary act. The prayer and fasting was easy, but to give some of your finance to the church didn’t seem that penitentiary (although, it actually was), so Martin Luther, an Augustinian priest in Germany, decided to go and protest this, even though he didn’t fully get it. That’s how this “sale of indulgences” thing got started.
 
rod of iron:
You’ve proven nothing. None of your quotes from the Bible show anyone praying to Mary or anyone teaching that you should pray to Mary. Your quote from Revelation contains the phrase, “prayer of saints”. Every time that the word “saints” is used in the Bible, it is speaking of those Christians yet alive on Earth. Who are these Christians praying to? The Lamb of God. Nowhere in that verse is Mary mentioned or that you should pray to Mary. That verse is not relevant to what you are trying to prove.

In your quote from 2 Thessalonians, it speaks of someone praying to someone else. But who is being prayed to? God. Mary is not mentioned in this verse nor is there any mention of anyone praying to her or being told to pray to her. This verse is also not relevant to what you are trying to prove.

As for your third quote from Luke, this verse does not tell you to pray to Mary. In this verse, Mary is still alive. How is this relevant to your argument that praying to Mary is scripturally sound? It is not. You have not shown me one iota of evidence in the Bible to even suggest that you should pray to Mary.

I understand where you get your prayer from, but there is no mention that this is a prayer. There is also no mention that anyone should say this alleged prayer to speak to Mary after she died.

As I have alreadly said, you have proven nothing. If this is your best proof for praying to Mary, then I must conclude that the doctrine of praying to Mary is completely unbiblical.
I’ve noticed that you, as many protestants do, claim many things, such as clerical celibusy, the rosary, praying to mary and the saints, and other things to be “doctrines”. Why don’t you pick up a stack of papal encyclicals because you obviously don’t know what a doctrine is , and because of that you don’t know what the doctrines are . So if I were you, I’d first brush up on what the church actually teaches, as doctrine, and what the church does as devotion or disciplinary act, and then go from there with the accusations because as long as you don’t know that Catholic faith as well as you think you do, and still argue against it, then that’s like a movie critic reviewing a movie that they haven’t seen.
 
Look, rod of iron (whatever that’s supposed to mean), Simon’s surname was not Peter. In the beginning of the gospel of Matthew, when Jesus starts gathering disciples, it does read “Simon, who was called Peter”, though note, that the gospels were written after all of this happened. He’s referring to a later event, not a present one. Jesus also called him Cephas, or Kepha, which in Aramaic, is rock. The Greek Petros is used because the manuscript gospels were written in greek and if he called Peter “Petra”, then he would be referring to him as a woman, which is in fact, not what he was. Jesus changed Simon’s name to Peter, which means rock, just the same way he changed Saul’s name to Paul. You never hear ANYONE called Peter “Simon Peter” unless they’re reading from or referring to a gospel, or call him “St. Simon Peter” or “St. Simon” or St. Simon bar Jona" or anything like that. They call him “St. Peter” because his name was changed to “rock” because he was the rock that Christs church was built on. You notice in later accounts of the acts, and early church documents and councils that when all of the disciples are referred to in a group, that Peter is first named, and the rest are either named after or just called the apostles. Jesus asked PETER, not anyone else on the day of his resurrection if he loved him 3x and he said, feed my lambs, tend my sheep, etc. The point is that Peter is the only person that we have record anywhere of Jesus himself giving him primacy. The apostles were given similar authority, yet Peter was given a special and unique responsibility to admonish and encourage his fellow apostles in the church, and also to lead the church, just as the apostles were to also. That is why, the pope, and the synod of bishops (the successors of the apostles) when teaching together, in communion, it is an infallible teaching, and binding on all Christians. The problem of you not believing it isn’t our problem. You’ve heard and rejected. Jesus said to all of his apostles that he who hears you, hears me, and he who rejects you rejects me. It goes the same for their successors. You just choose to reject them, and for that, you’re missing something big. If the holy spirit is leading the protestant churches, either it’s doing a very bad job, and I wouldn’t want to follow that holy spirit who’s splitting up churches left and right, not to blaspheme of course, I’m not talking about the holy spirit, I’m talking about the so-called holy spirit that leads you into what you believe to be shards and shards of a block, none fitting together for some reason. I don’t think it’s an issue of how well the holy spirit is leading protestants or who in protestantism is being led by the holy spirit and who’s not, it’s really simple: either it’s the blind leading the blind, or the blind leading themselves, and since I cannot blaspheme the holy spirit of God, then it must be the blind leading themselves.
 
rod of iron:
I have ultimately asked for proof of the authority that the Catholic church declares it has. The Catholic church says that there is an unbroken line of apostolic succession from Peter to John Paul II. Yet when I ask for evidence that Peter passed on his authority to someone else, no firsthand accounts are presented here to prove it. Instead, the Catholics on this forum present me with testimonies from men who lived long after Peter allegedly passed on authority to a successor. Where is the proof of authority in the Catholic church? Did Peter claim that he passed on authority to a successor? If he did, did he give the name of that successor? If not, did the successor claim to have received authority from Peter? Unless this claim about Peter passing on authority is shown to be true, all the claims of the Catholic church tumble like a house of cards.
To Corpus Christi (and to everyone else for that matter): Please refrain from responding to Rod of Iron’s past posts on any other subject than the one we are deciding here. It will divide his efforts and then someone might be compelled to respond to his re-rebuttals and we’ll end up in the same mess as before. Of course, this is still a free country and therefore a free forum. But please try to respect the order, I’m attempting to restore here.

To Rod: Please only respond to anyone on the subject you choose here. Okay, it appears that you have chosen a topic. You want us to somehow prove the unbroken line of succession starting from Peter. NOTE: This assumes that Peter had authority to pass. If you don’t believe this, then maybe we should explore whether Peter had authority or not. It would be a shame if we were to provide enough evidence to demonstrate that authority was passed, and then you throw in the there-was nothing-to-pass argument.

On the other hand, I suppose these subjects are modular enough so that we can discuss them out of order, and then later we can “plug” them into the bigger picture to see what it looks like.

If you wish to remain with this subject, then I believe Theodred quoted Iranaeus in 189 AD. You have also countered (in advance) that a quote from him would not be acceptable because you will only accept “firsthand accounts”. You also said (in advance) what evidence you would like to be presented so that you will believe. Theodred has balked at your strict parameters. I too, balk at them because there is more than one way to skin a cat (as it were), not just your way. There is more I’d like to add to give Iranaeus’ account more weight so that you may give it more than just “hearsay status” but I will hold off for now until I know if you want to continue along these lines.

Lastly, let’s try to keep the conversation charitable and refrain from the “tumble like a house of cards” comments and others like it. Not everyone can resist the temptations to return the volley.

What do you think?

Martin
 
Corpus and atenciom,

Excellent job. I have never seen nonsense stopped so absolutely in it’s tracks than with these last two posts. Way to put the hammer down. If I could give you reputation points, I would.

Now, go pray for humility. 😉

MM
 
Théodred:
St. Peter was succeeded by St. Linus

St. Linus was succeeded by St. Anacletus

Then St. Clement

…St Evaristus

St. Alexander I

St. Sixtus I

Do I have to go on?
Where is the evidence that Linus succeeded Peter? Did Peter write down who would succeed him?
 
Théodred:
The only thing that tumbles like a house of cards are the thousands of denominations outside of the Holy Catholic Church.
Without the evidence that Peter named his successor, the Catholic church does not have a leg to stand on.
 
rod of iron:
I’ve been told to go to that link a number of times. I read the article there, and there was no evidence that Peter passed on authority to anyone.
Maybe you should read up on how popes are elected, and then go from there, because once you find out, then you might get a clearer picture on how Peter’s authority is passed down through apostolic succession.

Vita in Christo!
 
rod of iron:
Without the evidence that Peter named his successor, the Catholic church does not have a leg to stand on. Tumble, tumble goes the Catholic church.
Well, we do have biblical evidence that Peter did have authority, just as the other apostles did, yet the two things that Peter had that the other apostles didn’t have was PRIMACY over the whole church, bishops only have authority to teach in their own diocese. He also had RESPONSIBILITY over the whole church to lead them and shepherd them in the ways of Christ’s teaching. Peter, as you know, was martyred. Once you read up on how popes are elected, then we can go from there.
 
Without the evidence that Peter named his successor, the Catholic church does not have a leg to stand on. Tumble, tumble goes the Catholic church.
Pretty arrogant for a guy who has absolutely NO historical or Scriptural evidence for the foundation of his…

How can you demand such absolute, hyper-pedantic proof when you deny we can know anything outside of our own experience even happened? If you’re so arbitrary about what you believe, why do you believe that a man “found” a magical stone tablet from God? If it’s a matter of merely picking a belief among many, I’d at least find something credible.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top