Will you be in heaven?

[St.Eric]

LutheranStudent:

For my part, I don’t like saying that I’m absolutely sure of my afterlife destination–not because I disbelieve in God’s promises, but because it seems presumptious and rude, like taking a contract He signed and waving it under His nose.

Maybe this hits on a different perception of salvation between Lutherans and Catholics. Without getting into the whole sola fide argument, Lutherans see heaven as a promise rather than a* contract.*

It is a promise, IF WE remain faithfull and die in God’s friendship. One cannot take salvation for granted. As Karl Keating so eloquently say:

“Are you saved?” The Catholic should reply: “As the Bible says, I am already saved (Rom. 8:24, Eph. 2:5–8), but I’m also being saved (1 Cor. 1:8, 2 Cor. 2:15, Phil. 2:12), and I have the hope that I will be saved (Rom. 5:9–10, 1 Cor. 3:12–15). Like the apostle Paul I am working out my salvation in fear and trembling (Phil. 2:12), with hopeful confidence in the promises of Christ (Rom. 5:2, 2 Tim. 2:11–13).”

I agree with the above.

 

[MariaG]

Originally posted by 12volt_man
Thank you for clarifying. I will accept that explanation but I do believe that you declared me on my way to Hell for rejecting the teachings of the Roman Catholic church.

And I tell you again, you were mistaken on what I said. If you were mistaken this time, can you see you may have been mistaken at what you thought the nuns and priests taught?

Originally posted by 12volt_man
So then, the priests and nuns are wrong, your fellow Roman Catholics are wrong, but you’re right?

No, you are wrong. You have misunderstood what I have told you, you have misunderstood what others have said, and quite probably, misunderstood what the nuns and priests said.

Originally posted by 12volt_man

Simple. We do not have sacraments.The Bible teaches that there are two ordinances: believers’ baptism and the Lord’s Supper. Both of these are purely symbolic and do not add to one’s salvation or standing with God.

No, I don’t understand why your the way you readily accept your “ordinances” things that are done by men and are only symbols is good and right but “doing” nothing for your salvation. Yet Catholic Christians believe man does nothing and God everything in baptism but that is relying on a ritual. How is relying on the grace of God wrong?

Anyway, I certainly hope that you start a new thread with each subject separate, I will have to cease our discussions since I do not think either of us will benefit from continueing on in this manner.

May God Bless you and keep you safe,
Maria

 

[Robert_in_SD]

12volt_man:

No. Christ taught that we are saved by virtue of His vicarious death on our behalf, not empty rituals.

I agree that we are saved by Christ. I also agree that empty rituals are not necessary for salvation. However, I don’t agree with your implication that the sacraments of the church are “empty rituals.” If the Catholic position is correct, the sacraments were founded by Christ. Nothing founded by Christ can be “empty.”

12volt_man:

There is no Biblical evidence for this [papal authority and papal succession].

Actually there is scriptural support for papal authority and succession.

Primacy of Peter:

Mt. 16:18 - you are Peter and upon this rock I will build my church
Mt. 16:19 - I will give you the keys of the Kingdom (OT symbol of succession) of the Kingdom; power to bind and loose
Lk 22:32 - Peter’s faith will strengthen his brethren
Jn 21:17 - Jesus gives Peter the flock as chief shepherd
Mk 16:7 - an angel was sent to Peter to announce the resurrection
Lk 24:34 - risen Jesus first appeared to Peter
Acts 1:13-26 - Peter headed the meeting that elected Matthias (also teaches of the succession of the apostolic office)
Acts 2:14 - Peter led the other apostles in preaching on Pentecost
Acts 2:41 - Peter received first converts
Acts 3:6-7 - Peter performed the first miracle after Pentecost
Acts 5:1-11 - Peter inflicted first punishment: Ananias & Saphira
Acts 8:21 - Peter excommunicated the first heretic, Simon Magus
Acts10:44-46 - Peter received revelation to admit Gentiles into the Church
Acts 15:7 - Peter presided over first council in Jerusalem
Acts 15:19 - Peter pronounces first dogmatic decision
Gal. 1:18 - Paul’s visits the chief apostle - Peter - after converting.

Peter’s name always heads the list of apostles: Mt. 10:1-4; Mk 3:16-19; Lk 6:14-16; Acts 1:13.

The Apostles are spoken of as “Peter and his companions”: Lk 9:32; Mk 16:7.

Peter speaks for the apostles: Mt. 18:21; Mk 8:29; Lk 8:45, 12:41 and Jn 6:69.

Peter’s name appears 195 times in the NT, more than all the other Apostles put together.

Apostolic Succession (Christ intended to found a visible church that continued past the death of the Apostles.)

2 Chr 19:11 - high priest over you in everything of the Lord’s
Mal 2:7 - seek instruction from the priest, he is God’s messenger
Eph 2:20 - the Church is built upon the foundation of the apostles and the prophets
Eph 4:11 - God gave some as apostles, others as prophets…
1 Cor. 12:28-29 - God designated in the Church; Apostles, etc.
Acts 1:20 - Decision made to fill apostolic chair left vacant by Judas Iscariot.
Acts 1:25-26 - Matthias elected to fill empty chair.
1 Tim 3:1, 8, 5:17 - qualifications for bishops, priests, deacons in the Church
1 Tim 4:14 - gifts of the priesthood conferred by laying on of hands
1 Tim 5:22 - do not lay hands on anyone too readily
Act 14:23 - presbyters were appointed for every church.
2 Tim 2:2 - what you have heard from me entrust to faithful teachers.

In addition, the early church recognized the authority of Peter and his successors from the early years, as evidenced by the writings of the early church fathers For example, St. Irenaeus in “Against Heresies” stressed that all christians must be united to the Church in Rome in order to maintain the Apostolic Tradition. He presents the teaching as something taken for granted by all orthodox (as opposed to heterodox) christians of his time. (See Jurgens, The Early Church Fathers, #210 and 211.)

History shows the succession to Rome’s see can be traced to Peter. The complete list of Popes - 265 in all - can be found in on the internet, in the public library, or in the appendix of a good Catholic study bible.

12volt_man:

Until such time as someone can show me from God’s word - … that I and the rest of Christendom am wrong, I am steadfast in this.

See the above regarding papal authority and succession.

Also, the Catechism of the Catholic Church (CCC) references scripture by footnote for virtually all of its doctrinal statements.

Where church documents are cited by the CCC, those documents are also reliant upon scripture and will often contain citations to the biblical authority for the moral or doctrinal teaching of the Church.

I think the crux of your position is that you are willing to accept your own personal interpretation of the Bible despite the fact that many others have read the same passages and come to conclusions on doctrine that are very different from your own. I think you need to explore the issue of authority to interpret scripture. You may find it illuminating.

Peace

 

[12volt_man]

MariaG:

And I tell you again, you were mistaken on what I said. If you were mistaken this time, can you see you may have been mistaken at what you thought the nuns and priests taught?

No, I was not mistaken. You and Marilena both have declared me damned and on my way to Hell.

No, I don’t understand why you readily accept your “ordinances” things that are done by men and are only symbols is good and right but “doing” nothing for your salvation.

Because that’s what the Bible teaches.

Yet Catholic Christians believe man does nothing and God everything in baptism but that is relying on a ritual.

Because you are performing a ritual, believing that it somehow adds to your salvation and standing with God.

How is relying on the grace of God wrong?

It’s not. Adding rituals and works to Christ’s atonement for your salvation isn’t relying on grace, it’s adding to it in a way that it ceases to be grace.

May God Bless you and keep you safe,
Maria

And you, as well.

I just hope He does it before I go to Hell.

 

[12volt_man]

Robert in SD:

I agree that we are saved by Christ. I also agree that empty rituals are not necessary for salvation.

Then why am I going to Hell because I don’t participate in them?

However, I don’t agree with your implication that the sacraments of the church are “empty rituals.”

They add nothing to one’s salvation or standing with God.

If the Catholic position is correct, the sacraments were founded by Christ.

And if the Biblical position is correct, then they weren’t.

Actually there is scriptural support for papal authority and succession.

Primacy of Peter:

Mt. 16:18 - you are Peter and upon this rock I will build my church
Mt. 16:19 - I will give you the keys of the Kingdom (OT symbol of succession) of the Kingdom; power to bind and loose
Lk 22:32 - Peter’s faith will strengthen his brethren
Jn 21:17 - Jesus gives Peter the flock as chief shepherd
Mk 16:7 - an angel was sent to Peter to announce the resurrection
Lk 24:34 - risen Jesus first appeared to Peter
Acts 1:13-26 - Peter headed the meeting that elected Matthias (also teaches of the succession of the apostolic office)
Acts 2:14 - Peter led the other apostles in preaching on Pentecost
Acts 2:41 - Peter received first converts
Acts 3:6-7 - Peter performed the first miracle after Pentecost
Acts 5:1-11 - Peter inflicted first punishment: Ananias & Saphira
Acts 8:21 - Peter excommunicated the first heretic, Simon Magus
Acts10:44-46 - Peter received revelation to admit Gentiles into the Church
Acts 15:7 - Peter presided over first council in Jerusalem
Acts 15:19 - Peter pronounces first dogmatic decision
Gal. 1:18 - Paul’s visits the chief apostle - Peter - after converting.

Peter’s name always heads the list of apostles: Mt. 10:1-4; Mk 3:16-19; Lk 6:14-16; Acts 1:13.

The Apostles are spoken of as “Peter and his companions”: Lk 9:32; Mk 16:7.

Peter speaks for the apostles: Mt. 18:21; Mk 8:29; Lk 8:45, 12:41 and Jn 6:69.

Peter’s name appears 195 times in the NT, more than all the other Apostles put together.

Apostolic Succession (Christ intended to found a visible church that continued past the death of the Apostles.)

2 Chr 19:11 - high priest over you in everything of the Lord’s
Mal 2:7 - seek instruction from the priest, he is God’s messenger
Eph 2:20 - the Church is built upon the foundation of the apostles and the prophets
Eph 4:11 - God gave some as apostles, others as prophets…
1 Cor. 12:28-29 - God designated in the Church; Apostles, etc.
Acts 1:20 - Decision made to fill apostolic chair left vacant by Judas Iscariot.
Acts 1:25-26 - Matthias elected to fill empty chair.
1 Tim 3:1, 8, 5:17 - qualifications for bishops, priests, deacons in the Church
1 Tim 4:14 - gifts of the priesthood conferred by laying on of hands
1 Tim 5:22 - do not lay hands on anyone too readily
Act 14:23 - presbyters were appointed for every church.
2 Tim 2:2 - what you have heard from me entrust to faithful teachers.

I sure hope you’re not a lawyer.

None of these things that you list are proof of anything. They are either irrelevant, out of context, or circumstantial. None of them provide any evidence that the idea that we need a pope is found in scripture.

In addition, the early church recognized the authority of Peter and his successors from the early years, as evidenced by the writings of the early church fathers For example, St. Irenaeus in “Against Heresies” stressed that all christians must be united to the Church in Rome in order to maintain the Apostolic Tradition.

Irrelevant. It’s scripture that I’m looking for. That is our final authority.

Also, the Catechism of the Catholic Church (CCC) references scripture by footnote for virtually all of its doctrinal statements.

Irrelevant. The Roman Catholic Catechism is not scripture.

I think the crux of your position is that you are willing to accept your own personal interpretation of the Bible despite the fact that many others have read the same passages and come to conclusions on doctrine that are very different from your own.

And, for the umpteenth time, it has nothing to do with my interpretation. Why must Roman Catholics always fall back on this tired old straw man?

I think you need to explore the issue of authority to interpret scripture. You may find it illuminating.

The problem is that any human authority must still be governed by scripture.

 

[Neilbass2]

12volt_man:

No, Jesus has assured us that if we believe, by faith, that He paid the atonement on our behalf, if we confess with our mouths and believe in our hearts that He is Lord, we will be saved.

He taught nothing about joining a religious organization that contradicts His teachings for salvation.

This is true, but you guys (protestants) generally seem to miss alot of the implications you make when you interpret this in your own “special way”. Its not simply if you believe. “Even the demons believe—and shudder”. Its not simply that you say you believe, either. In any event, if one wishes to use the language the Bible uses, one would say that one is justified by faith apart from “works of the Law” (Rom. 3:28), but not by “faith alone,” apart from works (Jas. 2:24). Let me show you…

Psalm 62:12
For you render to each one according to his works.

Proverbs 10:16
The labour of the righteous tendeth to life: the fruit of the wicked to sin.

Jeremiah 17:10
I the Lord … give every man according to his ways, and according to the fruit of his doings.

Ezekiel 18:27
When the wicked man turneth away from his wickedness … and doeth that which is lawful and right, he shall save his soul.

Matthew 12:37
For by thy words thou shalt be justified, and by thy words thou shalt be condemned.

Matthew 16:27
For the Son of Man will come in the glory of His Father with His angels, and then He will reward each according to his works.

Matthew 19:17
If you want to enter into life, keep the commandments.

Matthew 25:41-46
Then shall he say also unto them on the left hand, Depart from me, ye cursed, into everlasting fire, prepared for the devil and his angels: For I was an hungred, and ye gave me no meat: I was thirsty, and ye gave me no drink: I was a stranger, and ye took me not in: naked, and ye clothed me not: sick, and in prison, and ye visited me not. Then shall they also answer him, saying, Lord, when saw we thee an hungred, or athirst, or a stranger, or naked, or sick, or in prison, and did not minister unto thee? Then shall he answer them, saying, Verily I say unto you, Inasmuch as ye did it not to one of the least of these, ye did it not to me. And these shall go away into everlasting punishment: but the righteous into life eternal.

Luke 10:26-28
He said unto him, What is written in the law? how readest thou? And he answering said, Thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy strength, and with all thy mind; and thy neighbour as thyself. And he said unto him, Thou hast answered right: this do, and thou shalt live.

John 5:29
And shall come forth; they that have done good, unto the resurrection of life; and they that have done evil, unto the resurrection of damnation

Romans 2:6, 13
Who will render to each one according to his deeds. … For not the hearers of the law are just in the sight of God, but the doers of the law will be justified.

2 Corinthians 5:10
For we must all appear before the jugment seat of Christ, that each one may receive the things done in the body, according to what he has done, whether good or bad.

2 Corinthians 11:15
Therefore it is no great thing if his ministers also transform themselves into ministers of righteousness, whose end will be according to their works.

Philippians 2:12
“Work out your own salvation with fear and trembling.”

James 2:14
What does it profit, my brethren, if someone says he has faith but does not have works? Can faith save him?

James 2:17
Thus also faith by itself, if it does not have works, is dead.

James 2:21-25
Was not Abraham our father justified by works? You see then that a man is justified by works, and not by faith only. Likewise, was not Rabab the harlot also justified by works? For as the body without the spirit is dead, so faith without works is dead also.

1 Peter 1:17
The Father, who without partiality judges according to each one’s work.

Revelation 2:23
I will give unto every one of you according to your works.

Revelation 20:12-13
And I saw the dead, small and great, stand before God; and the books were opened: and another book was opened, which is the book of life: and the dead were judged out of those things which were written in the books, according to their works. And the sea gave up the dead which were in it; and death and hell delivered up the dead which were in them: and they were judged every man according to their works.

 

[Neilbass2]

12 volt, I have looked at your posts throughout diferent threads, and I have to ask, exactly why is it that you are here?

You clearly like to argue, but you only argue with a sense of frustration and rage. If a question arises you cant answer, you get more frustrated and sometimes it seems (i could be wrong, but it still seems this way) that the reason you say you are right is just because you think we are wrong. If you havent come to learn, and dont have the tools to teach, why be here at all?

You obviously havent come to witness to us, because a Christian would be an example through love and grace. “By your fruits shall you be known”. So are you here only to instigate arguments?

 

[Neilbass2]

12volt_man:

Then why am I going to Hell because I don’t participate in them?

Stop saying this. This claim is totally bogus. It is absolutely not Catholic Dogma that protestants are automatically damned to hell. It is not Catholic dogma that people of any particular religious persuaion are necessarily damned. Your actions and words can be self condemning, but none of us ever said that you are going to hell for not being a Catholic. Get it out of your head. It is slander, and slander WILL by you a one way ticket to the hot place.

 

[Church_Militant]

12volt_man:

No, I was not mistaken. You and Marilena both have declared me damned and on my way to Hell.

Y’know, you have been told again and again that just because someone on the open forum tells you something does not make it Catholic teaching because some of the folks here are as wrong in what they say as you are about what you assert (again & again) that the Catholic Church teaches.

If you actually wish to discuss something about the faith then I suggest that you begin doing so and stop bantering back and forth strawman arguments consisting of what someone said.

I know both the posters that you assert said this and though Marilena is wrong, you are trying to say that MariaG said something that I know better. So unless you can go back and post a quote with a number to the original for reference, get off the rhetoric and try actually talking to Catholics.

There is no way to know for sure whether any of us will be in heaven. Asserting that one will be is called the sin of presumption. Now someone may choose to pull verses out of context, like 1st John 5:13, but Matthew 10:22 & 24:13 indicate something else again as does Matthew 25:31-46 and many other passages. (See also Revelation 2:26 for instance).

In fact… I have searched the New Testament, and there is not one verse in the whole thing where anyone makes the statement that is so common among non-Catholics, “I am saved.”
Pax vobiscum,

 

[gladius_Verbi]

I would reply, my good Lutheran adversarius, that I will be in Heaven, provided I die in the state of sanctifying grace (supernatural charity), which is God’s own inner life, which He condescends to live in my soul, elevating me, and uniting me, to Him.

I would also add that, should a Lutheran die willfully adhering to the errors of his man-made religion, knowing that they are, in fact, erroneous, he will not be in Heaven. This applies to all who willfully follow false, man-made religions, and unhappily die in that state.

As I am new here, I wish all a good day, and may we see each other in the never ending, blissful day of eternity, granted to all who die as God’s friends.

 

[BrianH]

Irenaues,
Lets go there. Why does he say about Rome let me quote a person from another site, because this is good;

“Irenaeus said that the Roman church is the greatest church, and that all other churches must agree with the Roman church. Because of a papacy? No, but because of non-papal factors, such as the Roman church’s location in the capital of the empire. Irenaeus viewed the Roman church as authoritative not because of any papacy, but because of practical factors such as the fact that Christians from around the world traveled to Rome, thereby making the Roman church representative of worldwide Christian consensus. Thus, the Roman primacy of Irenaeus was practical rather than jurisdictional. Since Rome is no longer the capital of a major empire, and many Roman bishops since Irenaeus’ time have been unfaithful to apostolic teaching, Irenaeus’ argument doesn’t apply today as it did in the second century. Not only does Irenaeus give non-papal reasons for the Roman church’s importance, but he also suggests that the apostles, not just Peter, appointed Linus as bishop of Rome while Peter was still alive. After mentioning the Roman church, Irenaeus goes on to say that Christians can also turn to the churches of Smyrna and Ephesus for sound doctrine. When’s the last time you heard a Catholic appeal to the authority and infallibility of Smyrna or Ephesus? They only follow the portions of Irenaeus that seem to support Roman Catholicism, while rejecting the rest.”

direct quote:

““Since, however, it would be very tedious, in such a volume as this, to reckon up the successions of all the Churches, we do put to confusion all those who, in whatever manner, whether by an evil self-pleasing, by vainglory, or by blindness and perverse opinion, assemble in unauthorized meetings; we do this, I say, by indicating that tradition derived from the apostles, of the very great, the very ancient, and universally known Church founded and organized at Rome by the two most glorious apostles, Peter and Paul; as also by pointing out the faith preached to men, which comes down to our time by means of the successions of the bishops. For it is a matter of necessity that every Church should agree with this Church, on account of its preeminent authority – that is, the faithful everywhere – inasmuch as the Apostolic Tradition has been preserved continuously by those who are everywhere. The blessed apostles, then, having founded and built up the Church, committed into the hands of Linus the office of the episcopate…But Polycarp also was not only instructed by apostles, and conversed with many who had seen Christ, but was also, by apostles in Asia, appointed bishop of the Church in Smyrna, whom I also saw in my early youth, for he tarried on earth a very long time, and, when a very old man, gloriously and most nobly suffering martyrdom, departed this life, having always taught the things which he had learned from the apostles, and which the Church has handed down, and which alone are true. To these things all the Asiatic Churches testify, as do also those men who have succeeded Polycarp down to the present time – a man who was of much greater weight, and a more stedfast witness of truth, than Valentinus, and Marcion, and the rest of the heretics…There is also a very powerful Epistle of Polycarp written to the Philippians, from which those who choose to do so, and are anxious about their salvation, can learn the character of his faith, and the preaching of the truth. Then, again, the Church in Ephesus, founded by Paul, and having John remaining among them permanently until the times of Trajan, is a true witness of the tradition of the apostles.” (Against Heresies, 3:3:2-4)”
ntrmin.org/catholic_but_not_roman_catholic_01.htm

BH

 

[Robert_in_SD]

12volt_man:

Then why am I going to Hell because I don’t participate in them?

First, I don’t know where you will end up so don’t start your argument by assuming that the church is condemning you to Hell. Second, the Church cannot condemn you to Hell, only God can condemn you to Hell.

12volt_man:

They [the sacraments] add nothing to one’s salvation or standing with God.

This statement is filled with presumptions about salvation doctrine that are simply not accepted by the Catholic Church. It would take a whole thread discussion to fully unpack the reasons why I disagree with you. But let me just state: Under the Catholic understanding, salvation is only determined at the point of death. If one dies in a state of grace (in a right relationship with God), then one goes to Heaven. If one is not in a state of grace at the time of death, one goes to Hell. The sacraments infuse us with God’s grace (no, we do not merit it) and strengthen us to live lives of faith in Christ. So, yes, the sacraments do assist us on the road to salvation.

Because you reject this concept of salvation and have adopted a very fundamentalist sola fide position that also includes OSAS you believe your salvation was secured by some act of faith that occurred in your past. If you believe that, then you are logically correct to reject the Catholic sacraments as adding nothing to your salvation. Because I think your position (sola fide) is logically, biblically and theologically unsound, however, I believe that your decision to reject the sacraments exposes you to the risk of great mortal peril. But, again, I do not know if you will go to Heaven or Hell.

12volt_man:

And if the Biblical position is correct, then they weren’t.

Your response assumes a false dichotomy - i.e. that the Church’s teachings are not supported by Scripture. As many have already tried to explain to you, Catholic doctrines are scriptural. They simply do not comport with the interpretations of Scripture that you have been taught in your Protestant church. Each of the sacraments of the church is supported by scripture, and each was instituted by Christ.

12volt_man:

I sure hope you’re not a lawyer.

Actually, I am a lawyer as well as a *very * amateur apologist. Plese don’t hold my professions against me.

12volt_man:

None of these things that you list are proof of anything. They are either irrelevant, out of context, or circumstantial…

I disagree with your unsupported conclusion and dismissal. Please tell me why you have come to this conclusion and give citations to authority for your position.

12volt_man:

Irrelevant. It’s scripture that I’m looking for. That is our final authority.

Two comments:

First, the early church writngs are relevant if you believe that the early church - the church in existence while St. John was still alive - had it right with respect to doctrine. If you think that it did, then it is persuasive evidence of the primacy of the see of Rome - the successor of Peter the Apostle.

Second, where in scripture does the bible say that the bible is the final authority. Let me ask you a question… What do you believe to be the pillar and foundational authority for your faith?

12volt_man:

Irrelevant. The Roman Catholic Catechism is not scripture.

But the teachings summarized in the CCC are supported by the citations to scripture that you crave. That was the point in my prior post.

12volt_man:

And, for the umpteenth time, it has nothing to do with my interpretation. Why must Roman Catholics always fall back on this tired old straw man?

Because it IS your interpretation that you are relying upon, and it is NOT a straw man.

12volt_man:

The problem is that any human authority must still be governed by scripture.

Again, you are operating from the assumption that the scriptures alone are sufficient for teaching doctrine.

Catholics believe Christ gave us a Church founded on Peter and the other Apostles, that He sent the teaching authority of the Holy Spirit to His Church, and that His Church later established the canon of the Scriptures.

Your position assumes the Church’s authority is temporal or human. That it is equivalent to the interpretive abilities of any man. It is not. The teaching authority of the Church is the teaching authority of the Holy Spirit given by Christ to the Apostles and their successors.

That is why I believe you should begin exploring the issue of authority - is it scripture alone or is it Church and scripture.

 

[Church_Militant]

** 12volt_man
Suspended**

I hate to say it, but that guy didn’t really seem to want to do anything but badmouth the church and abuse the charity of those who sought to respond.

Unfortunately there are many people who feel that this is the appropriate way to “witness” to us and as most of us will agree, it just doesn’t work.

One very important thing that we can all learn from this is what not to do when we share our faith. It’s not our debate skills or ego saving potshots that wins souls, but our humble presentation of the truth from the Word of God and affirmed by the historical writings of the early church.
KNOW the faith, but present it with humble charity.
Pax vobiscum,

 

[Eden]

BrianH:

Irenaues,
Lets go there. BH

In addition to confirming that the Catholic Church was the Church founded by Christ in the quote BH provided, St. Irenaeus, bishop of Lyons, wrote the Adversus Haereses during the episcopate of Eleutherius [175-189] and in this work he lists the popes from Peter to Linus and through to Eleutherius:

Having established and built up the church, the blessed apostles entrusted the office of the episcopate to Linus. Paul mentions this Linus in his letters to Timothy. Anencletus succeeded him. After him, in the third place from the apostles, Clement obtained the episcopate… Evaristus succeeded to this Clement, and Alexander succeeded Evaristus, and then Sixtus was established sixth after the apostles. After him came Telesphorus, who gloriously endured martyrdom. Afterwards came Hyginus, Pius, Anicetus, Soter and Eleutherius… [PG 7: 849-51]

That list only goes to 189 A.D. but the full list up to the present is available here:

newadvent.org/cathen/12272b.htm

 

[BrianH]

]In addition to confirming that the Catholic Church was the Church founded by Christ in the quote BH provided, St. Irenaeus, bishop of Lyons, wrote the Adversus Haereses during the episcopate of Eleutherius [175-189] and in this work he lists the popes from Peter to Linus and through to Eleutherius:

Having established and built up the church, the blessed apostles entrusted the office of the episcopate to Linus. Paul mentions this Linus in his letters to Timothy. Anencletus succeeded him. After him, in the third place from the apostles, Clement obtained the episcopate… Evaristus succeeded to this Clement, and Alexander succeeded Evaristus, and then Sixtus was established sixth after the apostles. After him came Telesphorus, who gloriously endured martyrdom. Afterwards came Hyginus, Pius, Anicetus, Soter and Eleutherius… [PG 7: 849-51]

No Eden. This does not prove the Catholic church was founded by Christ. Its teachings have long strayed from what he taught. No one should deny that Rome can trace back its bishops to Peter. Thats true, very true.
BH

 

[Eden]

BrianH:

No Eden. This does not prove the Catholic church was founded by Christ. Its teachings have long strayed from what he taught. No one should deny that Rome can trace back its bishops to Peter. Thats true, very true.
BH

How does your quote from Irenaeus from Eric Svendsen’s website that you provided support your statement that the Church’s teachings have long strayed from what he taught? Your quote shows that St. Irenaeus said that Rome is the “preeminent authority” and the same text by St. Irenaeus goes on to list the succession of popes.

 

[BrianH]

That quote does not prove it Eden. That would take more than that quote…this thread…it would take awhile. I do think the church at Rome, for many reasons, was highly regarded obviously. Irenaeus dpes not support a primacy of the Bishop of Rome, in fact I am sure you are quite familiar with the whole ordeal with Victor.
BH

 

[tdandh26]

BrianH:

That quote does not prove it Eden. That would take more than that quote…this thread…it would take awhile. I do think the church at Rome, for many reasons, was highly regarded obviously. Irenaeus dpes not support a primacy of the Bishop of Rome, in fact I am sure you are quite familiar with the whole ordeal with Victor.
BH

I guess you assume this just materialized out of thin air?
newadvent.org/cathen/12272b.htm

 

[Eden]

Are you referring to the fact that St. Irenaeus wrote Pope Victor a letter?

stthomasirondequoit.com/SaintsAlive/id585.htm

Returning to Gaul, Irenaeus was elected bishop of Lyons to succeed St. Pothinus. Fortunately, the blood-letting was not renewed, so he held the episcopal post for the next twenty years. While the details of his years as bishop have not come down to us, one other peacemaking event is well known: Around 198 he successfully persuaded Pope Victor III to remove the excommunication that he had visited on some Eastern churchmen who celebrated the Pascha on a date different from the common one.

That only proves again that St. Irenaeus recognized the pope as the preeminent authority to decide these kinds of matters.

 

[Mickey]

Church Militant:

I hate to say it, but that guy didn’t really seem to want to do anything but badmouth the church and abuse the charity of those who sought to respond.

Yes CM. Sad indeed. The great apologists on this forum have taken great effort and time to respond to the misconceptions set forth by 12v.
His usual response was, “irrelevent”.
It is sometimes fruitless to interact with someone whose heart has been so hardened.

Blessings to all who attempted to present the beauty, love, and enduring truth of Christ’s Church–the one, holy, Catholic, and apostolic church. The Catholic Church.