Posted on 10/14/2007 8:25:58 PM PDT by Salvation
That's odd. You seem really threatened.
So it was being "misrepresented" for 1500 years before someone realized it? That's amazing.
When will you start demonstrating this comprehension? I haven't noticed any of it.
I am simply giving you the light of truth as opposed to the darkness which dishonest RC apologists have filled you with. And I know that is the case, since you don't know the difference between Montanism and Modalism, and dishonestly continued to mispresent Origen as a "heretic", when in fact Origen repented of the anthropomorphic heresy he fell into, and was restored to full communion, vital points you conveniently omitted in a feeble attempt to impune a source that repudiates the RC position, one that Origen was not alone in but was in agreement with a consensus of the fathers on. I am sorry you cannot see the truth but choose to remain in darkness of lies and misrepresentations.
Origen took a heretical position. Whether or not he was restored to communion is irrelevant to the statement you presented as evidence. And since we're on the subject, which Church - of no primal authority according to you - "restored him to communion"?
one that Origen was not alone in but was in agreement with a consensus of the fathers on.
This is surreal. When are you going to present this "consensus"?
What the hell are you talking about? The following are Eastern Churches which believe in the primacy of the pope:
Alexandrian - Coptics, Ethiopians
Armenian
Antiochian - Maronite, Syriac, Syro-Malankara
Chaldean - Chaldean, Syro-Malabar
Byzantine - Albanian Byzantine, Belarusian Greek, Bulgarian Greek, Greek Byzantine, Hungarian Greek, Italo-Albanian, Macedonian Greek, Melkite Greek, Romanian Church, Russian Byzantine, Ruthenian Catholic, Slovak Greek, Ukrainian Greek
More revisionist history. It's really a cancer of this age.
No need to, Clement never made any claim to any exclusive holding of the "keys" or any papal supremacy through Peter. Rome makes inferences where they do not exist as it usually does.
He didn't have to. It was an accepted reality. Since you won't answer the original question, it's apparent you simply have no answer.
No need to. Firstly, the quotes you cite have been in dispute as not authentic for a long time, and are considered by most historians to be additions, and embelishments. Imagine that, Rome adding things fraudulently. Not that it would be the first time. The Greeks didn't trust any document coming from Rome because of Rome's propensity to produce forgeries and fraudulent documents, as it continued to do through the medieval period. Actually, the entire series of letters pruported to be by Ignatius have been in dispute for a long time.
More obfuscation. You can't be taken seriously at this point. If you believe all this documentation has been altered, what's your position on the validity of much older documents known as... Scripture? Since Catholic documents are suspect merely because they're old, then you have to question the entire Bible, since it was the Catholic Church that codified it. Getting cold out there, yet?
You see RCs infer that because the fathers often speak in lofty language when referring to the apostle Peter implies a personal primacy, when in reality it does not.
Nothing needs to be inferred. It's stated plain as day. I see the formula you work from:
1. If it's clearly stated, Catholics are inferring too much.
2. If it's inferred, it can't be true.
This point is further concurred by another RC historian, Michael Winter:
Michael M. Winter? Why don't you quote Ted Kennedy and Fr. Richard McBrien while you're at it?
What emerges from honest RC historians concerning Cyprian's statements of the "keys", "chair of Peter" and "primacy" is the direct opposite presented by yourself.
Now you're cherry picking historians instead of listening to the Church Fathers. Keep trying, the Church is still open for business.
You still won’t answer the question: Why are you so hell-bent on assigning infallibility to Origen and removing it from the Pope?
Why did Corinth (read: Eastern church) appeal to Clement in Rome and not John the Apostle in Ephesus?
It’s a simple question. Why are you afraid of answering it?
Why didn’t the Eastern churches revolt when Pope Victor excommunicated the Quartodecimens? How could he excommunicate them without power to do so, and why would Ignatius travel all the way to Rome to make an appeal?
Why won’t you answer these question?
Why is the Roman Church the only one whereby the Bishop takes on a new name as did Simon bar Jonah? Why didn’t the other churches revolt against this supposed power grab if the Roman bishops weren’t entitled to do so? Why would they remain in union with Rome under any circumstances?
Why won’t you answer these questions?
It seems your posts are peppered with words like “dishonest” and “lies” and “illusion” and endless talk of Roman Catholic conspiracy and “alterations” of historic documents and “redefining” of this, that, and the other. This is the main thrust of your argument.
The reason you are lashing out is very clear - you know the Truth - you know where it is - but your pride will not let you discover it. Every post of yours that I’ve shot down is further proof of what you already, in your heart, know about the Catholic Church - which is that it is the one, holy, catholic, and Apostolic Church created by Christ, built on the rock of Peter, and protected by the Holy Spirit, Who acts through his successors in Rome. The only other possibility is that you’re an ex-Catholic with a major axe to grind. But I think it’s the former. You know the Truth. The Spirit didn’t bring you to this thread to convert me. Listen to what He is saying, and you will find your way home.
Since I’ve covered all the ground that’s necessary to cover, I will wish you the best and my deepest prayers. I pray that you will stop persecuting the Church He’s calling you to embrace.
That's odd. You seem really threatened.
What's not so odd is the pomposity and arrogance displayed in your comment, as if you can read minds and hearts.
In reality, you have no idea of what you speak.
The citation from Origen was not heretical and had nothing to do with his being charged with heresy. The ignorance it takes to make such a misrepresentation is beyond coincidence.
When are you going to present this "consensus"?
I already have. I cannot help the fact of the brainwashing which has believed the illusion Rome has painted for Roman Catholics, who must believe and obey Rome without question and on pure blind trust, doing so in fear of man rather than God.
Lets see if you can follow this. Watch the bouncing ball very closely.
Rome stated at Trent and Vatican I, that no one, even Rome, can interpret the Scriptures contrary to the "unanimous teaching of the fathers", yet that is exactly what Rome has done in regards to it's vile interpretation of Matthew 16:18-19.
You do know what "unanimou teaching of the fathers" means, don't you? Clearly not.
I have produced at least seven(7) church fathers who interpret Matthew 16:18-19 in the direct opposite position as Rome does, and they all represent the overwhelming majority of the Church Fathers on that issue.
Rome has interpreted it contrary to the fathers, violating it's own maxim, doing so for it's own self serving purposes.
More revisionist history. It's really a cancer of this age.
Wrong, it is Rome who has practiced revisionist history, as well as doctrinal revisionism, as Rome evolves it's religion to suit whatever it's present needs are.
No need to, Clement never made any claim to any exclusive holding of the "keys" or any papal supremacy through Peter. Rome makes inferences where they do not exist as it usually does.
He didn't have to. It was an accepted reality.
Only in the minds of revisionsits Romans.
No need to. Firstly, the quotes you cite have been in dispute as not authentic for a long time, and are considered by most historians to be additions, and embelishments. Imagine that, Rome adding things fraudulently. Not that it would be the first time. The Greeks didn't trust any document coming from Rome because of Rome's propensity to produce forgeries and fraudulent documents, as it continued to do through the medieval period. Actually, the entire series of letters pruported to be by Ignatius have been in dispute for a long time.
More obfuscation. You can't be taken seriously at this point.
Once again your ignorance stands out. Obviously you are totally ignorant of the fact that there are two versions, a long one and short one, which were not even discovered until the 19th century, and have been in dispute since.
If you believe all this documentation has been altered, what's your position on the validity of much older documents known as... Scripture?
The Scriptures are wide spread, and indeed acknowledged for a long time to be the inspired Word of God. Now you are once again employing a genetic fallacy. A document claimed by Rome to have been from someone, of which only a couple of copies exist is in no ways comparable to the Scriptures for which there are thousands of manuscripts, each saying the same thing.
Given the long standing practice of Rome for producing forgeries and fraudulent documents which were used to try to make Rome's claims to appear to be authentic, anything coming from Rome must be met with a skeptical eye.
Since Catholic documents are suspect merely because they're old
There you go again misrepresenting. Age has nothing to do with it. Rome is notorious for producing forgeries and fraudulent documents.
, then you have to question the entire Bible,
One has nothing to do with the other.
since it was the Catholic Church that codified it.
Wrong again. The Roman Catholic religion did not even have a dogmatic canon until the council of Trent. God codified the Scriptures.
You see RCs infer that because the fathers often speak in lofty language when referring to the apostle Peter implies a personal primacy, when in reality it does not.
Nothing needs to be inferred. It's stated plain as day.
No, it's not stated "plain as day" at all. What Rome does is lift a few words out of context and spin them, when the fathers are read in their entirety, in context, they state explicitly, as has been demonstrated that each and every Apostle held the same honor, authority and power, and that each bishop held the "chair of Peter".
This point is further concurred by another RC historian, Michael Winter:
Michael M. Winter? Why don't you quote Ted Kennedy and Fr. Richard McBrien while you're at it?
What emerges from honest RC historians concerning Cyprian's statements of the "keys", "chair of Peter" and "primacy" is the direct opposite presented by yourself.
Now you're cherry picking historians instead of listening to the Church Fathers.
Those Roman Catholic historians concur with the clear teaching of the fathers, as has been demonstrated, that the bishops of Rome had no exclusive hold on the "keys" nor were the exclusive successors of Peter, nor had any exclusive ownership of the "chair of Peter".
I'm sorry that Rome has blinded you to the truth. However, I will pray that God open your eyes to see, give you ears to hear, and give you a new heart with which you can come to the Christ of the Scripture and teachings of the Apostles, leaving apostate Roman Catholicism behind.
Keep trying, the Church is still open for business.
Yes, the Church is still open for business, come join us and leave apostate Roman Catholicism in the ditch.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.