No I didn't, but it is becoming quite clear that you are not interested in truth, especially when you attribute to me things I never said.
-A8
No I didn't,but it is becoming quite clear that you are not interested in truth,especially when you attribute to me things I never said.
If you will refer to Uncle Chip's entry into the discussion,which is post #5,you will see that he was never interested in anything but being argumentative.Initially,I was going to respond to his comment until I recognized that it was written by a person who was invincibly ignorant or looking for an opportunity to create some mischief,neither of which I had any interest in continuing.
These times are perilous for Christians throughout the world and it seems to me incredibly sad that rather than heeding Jesus and trying to be one with the Father as He was,Christians are arguing and splitting more and more.
God made us in his image and consequently we have a mind to know Him,a heart to love Him and a body to serve Him on earth so that we can live forever with Him in heaven. He established a Church and chose 12 men to whom He gave information,authority and charisms to develop it and said the gates of hell would not prevail against it. He told them to go out and baptize all nations and teach them what He had commanded them.
It seems to me that if we all were tasked with the very same thing and were promised the Truth/Comforter/Paraclete would be with each of us at all times if we just said we believed,He would have spoken thus to the multitudes. He didn't,He told the Twelve and clearly gave Peter the lead position.
"Admittedly the Catholic position, that bishops are successors of the apostles by divine institution, remains far from easy to establish . . . The first problem has to do with the notion that Christ ordained apostles as bishops . . . The apostles were missionaries and founders of churches; there is no evidence, nor is it at all likely, that any one of them ever took up permanent residence in a particular church as its bishop . . . The letter of the Romans to the Corinthians, known as I Clement, which dates to about the year 96, provides good evidence that about 30 years after the death of St. Paul, the church of Corinth was being led by a group of presbyters, with no indication of a bishop with the authority over the whole local church . . . Most scholars are of the opinion that the church of Rome would most probably have been led at that time by a group of presbyters . . . There exists a broad consensus among scholars, including most Catholic ones, that such churches as Alexandria, Philippi, Corinth, and Rome most probably continued to be led for some time by a college of presbyters, and that only in the second century did the threefold structure become generally the rule, with a bishop, assisted by presbyters, presiding over each local church."
Isn't honest scholarship refreshing. A Catholic scholar who also disagrees with Jerome and Eusebius. According to honest Catholic scholars, the first Roman Church was a Presbyterian Church. The See of Rome was built on presbyterians not St. Peter or a bishopric attributed to him. Is that not a bit humorous?
Was F A Sullivan part of that vaunted Magisterium? Why don't we hear more from these honest Catholic scholars who also don't believe Jerome or Eusebius, and the great legend of Peter's 25 year Roman bishopric? Or maybe after writing this he became a Presbyterian.