Why Isn't Everyone Catholic?

  • Thread starter Thread starter Bubba_Switzler
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
sandusky said:
For CR there are five, with the bet that there are more.
Click to expand...
You have to imagine 5 writings by people who were taught by the apostle 2,000 years ago is pretty good! First of all it was an age when most people are illiterate. Next that we have their writings are pretty good as well. We don’t know who wrote the Didache but whoever did it was trained by the apostles because it was interestingly writing around the time or just after the gospel of Mark. How many writings do we get from the time of Homer? So, 5 is not so bad. We get an idea of what christians were thinking of then. Also we have the writings of people who did not know the apostles personally but were trained by those who did like Ireaneus, Justin Martyr, and many more.
 
a question to Semper:

can you point out to us any Bible believer church at the first century, second century, fifth century and so forth. and their councils?

Lord, have Mercy.
 
wisdomseeker said:
a question to Semper:

can you point out to us any Bible believer church at the first century, second century, fifth century and so forth. and their councils?

Lord, have Mercy.
Click to expand...
An amazing question that says it all. 😃
 
sambos671 said:
You have to imagine 5 writings by people who were taught by the apostle 2,000 years ago is pretty good! First of all it was an age when most people are illiterate. Next that we have their writings are pretty good as well. We don’t know who wrote the Didache but whoever did it was trained by the apostles because it was interestingly writing around the time or just after the gospel of Mark. How many writings do we get from the time of Homer? So, 5 is not so bad. We get an idea of what christians were thinking of then. Also we have the writings of people who did not know the apostles personally but were trained by those who did like Ireaneus, Justin Martyr, and many more.
Click to expand...
Don’t forget the writings of the apostles themselves, you know, those inspired by the Holy Spirit.
 
sandusky said:
Don’t forget the writings of the apostles themselves, you know, those inspired by the Holy Spirit.
Click to expand...
I haven’t but the question was specific and I was replying specifically to the question. The thing is its amazing that we have 4 Gospels, 1 early church development book, 1 book of apocolyptic literature, and 21 letters from that time period. Which signifies the consistency of Christian teaching from the begining. BTW on the church Council in the 1st 100 years I can of course point to Jerusalem in the book of Acts which included the apostles themselves.
 
40.png
sambos671:
I haven’t but the question was specific and I was replying specifically to the question. The thing is its amazing that we have 4 Gospels, 1 early church development book, 1 book of apocolyptic literature, and 21 letters from that time period. Which signifies the consistency of Christian teaching from the begining.
Click to expand...
So you believe the consistency of Christian teaching is completely contained in the writings of the apostles? Nothing else is needed in addition to those writings?
40.png
sambos671:
BTW on the church Council in the 1st 100 years I can of course point to Jerusalem in the book of Acts which included the apostles themselves.
Click to expand...
Do you think the church which held that first council, and included the apostles themselves, was a “bible believer church?”
 
CHESTERTONRULES said:
I can think of five: Polycarp, Ignatius,Barnabas, St. Papias and Clement. I bet there are more.
Click to expand...
Indeed, the heads of every church within the Catholic Church during the apostolic era did. For the Roman list which goes through Clement to St Peter one need only pick up any book on the Popes.

Since the Orthodox also maintain such lists, for example, tracing Smyrna back thru Polycarp to John or Antioch thru Ignatius to St Peter.

What Sandusky—ahem—forgets is that apostolic succession was considered quite important in the early Church as a guard against heresy.

Irenaeus covers it in quite some detail here:

newadvent.org/fathers/0103.htm

As usual, Sandusky offers no evidence for his outlandish claims, demands evidence from anyone with the good sense to dismiss such claims, and when provided it dismisses such evidence. It is the same old firedrill we always get from the anti-Catholics.

And in fact, it brings us to another reason why everyone isn’t Catholic despite the Church possessing the fullness of Truth:

Anti-Catholic bigotry, plain and simple.

700 posts to go before you can run out the clock on this thread, Sandusky.
 
CHESTERTONRULES said:
How many do you think there are?

How many weren’t Catholic?
Click to expand...
There are certainly many. Count up all those named in Acts, plus the bishops. I have provided several times the list of Early Church Fathers which was used to determine which writings were patristic:

newadvent.org/fathers/

These men, who for the most part were bishops of the Church themselves, learned directly from the apostles or from those who did. That’s what apostolic succession means.

I earlier posted this article wherein various ECFs claim this to be true for the Church of their era.

catholic.com/library/Apostolic_Succession.asp

Sandusky, who has no evidence whatsoever, asks us to believe Pope Sandusky I over the testimony of the saints. Sorry, can’t do it. Jack Chick simply doesn’t have the credibility Clement or Ignatius et al do.

All the moreso when one reads the patristic writings and follows their careful arguments and compelling evidence.
 
honeymooned in southern Ireland and got to journey all over the place. Just before leaving Bunratty to head to Shannon for our return flight, our host sprinkled us with holy water from a font mounted to her door to bless our journey. (We weren’t Catholic then).
Click to expand...
Perhaps she didn’t get your memo.
Click to expand...
LoL hollow ritual
Good—follow her lead.
Click to expand...
actually no I dont follow her lead. She’s a heretic according to you lot anyway so I find that to be double standards/picking and choosing. I don’t believe in artificial birth control but not because of the church’s reasons.
That post was an attempted rebuttal to my claim that Protestants simply split whenever the going gets tough and form their own denomination. Look at the founding dates and where they split from and you’ll see it to be true.
Click to expand...
without such splits the RCC would arguably be more corrupt than they are now. Only for some splits the church may be in a horrid state.
Then you shall have to define “Christian”, won’t you?
Click to expand...
well for all your legality (why so much of it in catholicsm, is it all the rules?) is is still totally immoral to baptise someone against their consent.

I dont see what brussles has to do with it. Its the UN who decides fundamental human rights like the right to choose religion not the pope, not you, not blessed mother teresa
 
IrishJoe said:
without such splits the RCC would arguably be more corrupt than they are now. Only for some splits the church may be in a horrid state.
Click to expand...
St. Francis of Assisi reformed the Church (addressing bad things that were being done in its name) without splitting from it. So have many others. No schism is necessary.
well for all your legality (why so much of it in catholicsm, is it all the rules?)
Click to expand...
God is a God of laws. Yes, if Love were followed faithfully by everyone, we wouldn’t need loss. Given the human condition, though, what is any human community without laws? Anarchy. Is Christ an anarchist? Or is God a wise Father who knows that rules are good for His household, and Christ a wise Lord, who knows the same?
Its the UN who decides fundamental human rights like the right to choose religion not the pope, not you, not blessed mother teresa
Click to expand...
Are you a secular humanist?
If “fundamental human rights” are defined only by man, we are in sad shape indeed. As the founders of this country recognized, fundamental, “inalienable” rights come from our Creator alone. Man chooses whether to recognize or deny rights in by Grace-given wisdom or by his own folly.
 
IrishJoe said:
I dont see what brussles has to do with it. Its the UN who decides fundamental human rights like the right to choose religion not the pope, not you, not blessed mother teresa
Click to expand...
We shall take great comfort in your notion that fundamental rights come from the United Nations, the same organization which allows the likes of Iran to lead its Human Rights Commission and gives veto authority to murderous China and Russia.

The American Founders had it quite right—rights come from God.

We’ll pray for St Patrick’s return to straighten his very confused children out.

Meanwhile, do yourself a favor and read Augustine’s “City of God”.
 
Arandur said:
If “fundamental human rights” are defined only by man, we are in sad shape indeed. As the founders of this country recognized, fundamental, “inalienable” rights come from our Creator alone. Man chooses whether to recognize or deny rights in by Grace-given wisdom or by his own folly.
Click to expand...
I thought Hobbes put paid to such silly notions long ago.

People really don’t read anymore, do they?
 
CR:
How many do you think there are?
Click to expand...
Quite a few, but as I said to an earlier question of why I was asking, it’s to make the Catholic list them. So many times in response to that request I’ve been given names of men born hundreds of years after the death of the apostles. I always find that amusing.
CR:
How many weren’t Catholic?
Click to expand...
All who were Christians. 🙂
 
sandusky said:
So you believe the consistency of Christian teaching is completely contained in the writings of the apostles? Nothing else is needed in addition to those writings?

Do you think the church which held that first council, and included the apostles themselves, was a “bible believer church?”
Click to expand...
  1. I think there is a misunderstanding when it comes to scripture. The Church tradition is one thing made up of two parts: scripture and the deposit of faith. Scripture assist the deposit of faith. It was the deposit that came first. Scripture is a compliment to it. Both in continuity is the full Apostolic teaching.
  2. Bible Believing churches are a misnomer. Sure they believe the bible is the inspired word of God. But generally its a pieced meal belief system so partial bible believing church would be more accurate because only those things that are emphasised by that church leaders are believed. If scripture shows something that favors Catholicism it is redefined to mean something else. Also “bible believing” churches are not named such by the early church as it would have been thought ludicrous which is why names like the way or little messiahs or Catholic was chosen. Because of Course bible believing church in todays context has a much different conotation that what the early church would have understood you to mean in their context. Because it was the apostolic teaching of which the bible was a part of and supported that they believed. And of course there was no “bible” or “biblios” there was the scriptures of which the LXX were a part as well as the NT writings. Even some early churches considered the Sheperd of Hermas as inspired. So the Modern Context of “bible believing” Churches are not correct in the context of the Early Church. Also there is abundant evidence that the early church was a liturgical church which not one “bible believing” church ( or as such identifies itself as ) is.
 
sandusky said:
Quite a few, but as I said to an earlier question of why I was asking, it’s to make the Catholic list them. So many times in response to that request I’ve been given names of men born hundreds of years after the death of the apostles. I always find that amusing.

All who were Christians. 🙂
Click to expand...
You know as well as I do that they were all Catholic.
 
40.png
sambos671:
I think there is a misunderstanding when it comes to scripture. The Church tradition is one thing made up of two parts: scripture and the deposit of faith. Scripture assist the deposit of faith. It was the deposit that came first. Scripture is a compliment to it. Both in continuity is the full Apostolic teaching.
Click to expand...
I understand your church’s position on that.
40.png
sambos671:
Because of Course bible believing church in todays context has a much different conotation that what the early church would have understood you to mean in their context.
Click to expand...
Do you think that’s the case with “Catholic Church” as well? Or is it simply not possible for “Catholic Church” to have had differing connotations from then to now?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top