P
PRmerger
Guest
My either or option?
No, sir, that was not my option.
That was what was presented by HH.
- Status
No, sir, that was not my option.
That was what was presented by HH.
B
benhur
Guest
I gather that there are several opinions, one that he founded the church at Rome or two , that he did not found it but eventually got there and asserted his apostleship, three that he then picked a sole successor , four he appointed successors or presbyters, but not as head or sole bishop for Rome had no head bishop at this time, but multiple bishops, five that Peter never got to Rome… Now as to father writings I don’t think Ignatius is to be strictly interpreted but that Peter and Paul are the two names of fame that helped that church or were there relatively there at the founding (20,30 years later) . Not sure if other writers piggy backed on Ignatius. Certainly some claim fabrication a glorifying, but most do not (7 of Ignatius’s letters are seen by most as fabricated and seven remain generally but not totally accepted, 14 in total).
B
boomerang
Guest
**From post 148: **
Quote:
The ECFS say all sorts of things that were false. They were fallible men just like everyone else. ** Just to clarify, I didn’t say this. ]**
Definitely. That’s why they simply made up that Peter “founded” the church in Rome. And many dispute the claim outright such as Ambrosiaster: [You are responding to your own quote]
P
PRmerger
Guest
Boomerang, perhaps if you didn’t nest your responses you wouldn’t have to deal with this problem.
There are not a few “tutorials” here on how to do this correctly.
You need to not put your responses in the quotes of others.
H
House_Harkonnen
Guest
Not at all. They simply parroted what they already heard. I think many genuinely just didn’t know any better. That’s not evil or anything.
Sure. I quote ECFS all the time. I am steeped in church history. I however recognize that the ECFS were fallible and prone to error, sometimes outrageously so. They are not more prone to true teaching based on their age or geographic location.
I had never heard of Ambrosiaster before. From what I can tell, he seems to be very obscure. But the above quote doesn’t rule out Peter founding “the Church”. I don’t think anyone claims that Peter, or Paul, were the very first followers of Christ to walk the streets of Rome. What they say is that both of them founded “the Church”, which is an organized community of believers. What you see from the above quote is that these were Jewish followers of Jesus that still practiced the Jewish rites, so this is very early. There’s no mentioning of any organization or hierarchy.
No. It precludes Old Pete founding it. I doesn’t preclude him eventually showing up and teaching there. That may have happened but we just can only speculate. Also even so, the “bishops” of Rome were relatively late to the table, the churches of Asia Minor having developed their hierarchical structure ahead of Rome. The Roman Christians were so conservative that it took one hundred or so years for them even to adopt the hierarchical structure that was the norm for the rest of the church, I respect them for that.
I believe that Christ founded the church. No amount of bones or ECFS can dissuade me.
I gave you one. Old Ambrosiaster declared the Romans accepted Christ without having seen an Apostle.
B
benhur
Guest
I have been saying that is CC position on thread “are you catholic or are you christian” post 71 and 80. I shared that is the gospel difference between CC and evangelicals. One says Jesus saves by grace not works the other He saves thru a church /sacraments/rites. A Catholic preaches his Church, an evengelical His Savior yet we all agree in preaching , a Savior and A Church/sacraments/rites. As far as salvation outside CC and the so called separated brethren I posted this, “Yet it would be an interesting study to see just how and why Vat 2 used it .Did they coin it , or officialize it ? From my quick gleanings it was a compromise between the reality of “other” believers in Christ, outside the CC, and keeping up the old vanguard that there is no salvation outside of Her. A “sticky” business , the CC doctrines/teachings on these “others”. Conservatives/hard liners want the uniqueness and inherent need for Catholicity while others try to bridge the gap in reality of the abundant spiritual life outside of it. And of course, nothing can be said to be “new” with such terminology but history and earlier decrees suggest otherwise”…
P
PRmerger
Guest
After all these years here, benhur, you still don’t understand Catholic soteriology?
Any Catholic who says that we are NOT saved by grace is preaching a heresy.
Catholics profess that we are saved by grace through faith working in love.
V2 most certainly did not “coin it”.
It has been a teaching of the early church from the very beginning, and is nothing more than a reiteration of this: outside of Christ there is no salvation.
Bottom line, benhur: if you are saved, it is only through the Body of Christ. The Catholic Church.
B
benhur
Guest
Why, if everything is under the graces of the Catholic Church? The parent company gets all the glory and credit. It is a closed system. You don’t lose and you don’t gain. We all stem from the CC, all under the same umbrella. Is it not above your pay grade to assume that a not on fire Catholic will somehow become on fire in CC, therefore leave him alone, and don’t steal him and set him on fire in a lesser, separated church ? How do you know the future ebb and flow of any believer ? Our gain is your gain…And that ends our Wall Street lesson for the day.
B
benhur
Guest
To be fair there was much more detail in the other thread which I have not shared here. The discussion began with exact CC soteriology shared by a Catholic. Maybe the devil is in the details beyond saved by grace and not of works lest any man boast. I posted, " If Catholic belief were as simple as you stated here there would be no discussion (of differences). In practice and doctrine the emphasis seems to be for one to become “Catholic”. That is, one can become a Christian thru the institution of the Church and thru sacraments. And one must remain obedient to all she says to remain a persevering, heaven entering Christian. Bottom line is I think they would say in the end it is a salvation by works (sacraments being a righteous work but still a work)…Like it is no longer as simple as you state by grace. Not that works should not follow and even sacraments and or rites, but not for salvation but because of it. That is, where does one place their faith , in the works of Christ or our works in response to His grace ? " I guess it is a difference between how we view justification and sanctification.
Correct as is for all. Unfortunately it is all the added “necessities” we interpret into that.
Sorry again, my fault, I meant the phrase “separated brethren”
Correct, except on your parochial, sectarian emphasis.
B
benhur
Guest
Yes, we know what your option is. Yes, HH proposed an either or. But I still think you assume that Truth did not set HH’s “converts” on fire by questioning Truth behind extremists. My apologies for inaccuracy. You did not “either or” but you “butt” ed. You did not assume either but followed your deep down conviction on the matter ( like Luther). As always, thanks for being “pleasurable”.
P
Per_Crucem
Guest
Can you give an example?
B
benhur
Guest
How about Ignatius and the Jesuits in Germany, winning back parts of Lutheran Germany back to Catholicism in the 1500’s? Anyways, does the axiom “everyone is trying to sell something” apply ?
H
House_Harkonnen
Guest
Of?
B
benhur
Guest
Actually I thought Evangelicals don’t proselytize. They preach the gospel with hopes of conversion to the body of Christ, the Kingdom of heaven here on Earth. This is above joining any particular denomination. Having said that, generally speaking, where one is birthed is where one remains and the Lord does "place’’ us in a particular community/church. The main thing is that dead spirits are rebirthed. To make the main thing into what church is like saying you want them to be white or black or female or male. That they end up sharing in your other convictions is secondary. In our culture the sad fact is most are reared in some church but just as sitting in a garage does not make you a car, that being in a church may not make you a Christian. The Lord knows the reasons (poor preaching,catachesis, no annointing etc or just a thick “skull”) and we must be humble enough not to be bummed by any possible lack on our church but to rejoice in new found life, and continue to monitor our spirits for effectiveness in Him, so that all might be saved.
P
Per_Crucem
Guest
Lets stick with the present century…or at least modern period.
P
Per_Crucem
Guest
Missionary efforts of Catholics to convert Protestants.
H
House_Harkonnen
Guest
The counter-reformation was loaded with Catholic effort to convert Protestants.
B
boomerang
Guest
I’m sorry it’s my fault you can’t cut and paste properly. Oh, forgive me!! :crying:
B
boomerang
Guest
Not at all. They simply parroted what they already heard.
** At least nine of them “parroted” that they heard Peter started the Church in Rome**
I however recognize that the ECFS were fallible and prone to error, sometimes outrageously so.
** Only the one you quoted was infallible. All the ones I quoted were fallible and outrageously prone to error.**
I believe that Christ founded the church. No amount of bones or ECFS can dissuade me.
Christ is the foundation of all Christian churches. But Martin Luther specifically started yours. And St. Peter specifically started mine.
Old Ambrosiaster declared the Romans accepted Christ without having seen an Apostle.
** He actually said they were Jews that were living in Rome, but who cares? I found nine early church fathers that say Peter was in Rome, and was martyred there, and about half of them specifically say he founded the Church in Rome. Good enough for me and 1.3 billion of my brethren. :tiphat: **
P
Peter_J
Guest
Aren’t glad you have a reader? (No, I don’t mean myself – even though I read the above short post, I wouldn’t yet count myself as a reader of your posts.) Pushing her away doesn’t seem a great way to get more readers. 
- Status