Replies

BlueDragon:

Ok, so you are now baiting and switching. Implicitly, you have no answer to Prof. Chadwick [Anglican Church History scholar]. Pelikan [Lutheran at the time of his work on Church History-Scholar nor P. Schaff [German-Swiss Reformed Church History Scholar] all whose scholarly work concludes that Peter [and Paul] were both martyred at Rome.

Rome’s influence on Church Councils extended well beyond the Council of Chalcedon in 451 AD [which is some 360 years are so after the death of the Apostle John]. You can try and kid yourself and deny that fact, which doesn’t surprise me. the 3rd Council of Constantinopile was heavily directed by Pope Agatho, the 2nd Council of Nicea was directed by Pope Adrian I’s personal legates and dealt with the Inconoclastic heresy which had started in the East. So that gets you to the 8th century and these last 2 councils were the last 2 that dealt with Christological heresies, Monothelite [2 Wills of Christ vs. one Will] and Inconoclastic heresy which was seen as an attack on the orthodox understanding of Incarnational theology. On all those up to 2nd Nicea, the Bishop of Rome was instrumental and gave the definitive acceptance to the Councils for the entire Catholic Church.

So “We” whoever “we is” seems to think at some point, Rome which was the bedrock of Orthodoxy [as Pelikan, while he was a Lutheran acknowledges in his work as I noted before, see page 354 of his Volume 1 of the Christian Tradition] was no longer the bedrock. At what point in time did that happen and who made the decision to say that Rome fell from Orthodoxy and for those who make such claims, on what authority do they make such claims and how do their views reconcile with the continuity of the Catholic Faith from Christ, via the Apostles, via the 1st/2nd Century Apostolic Fathers, via the pre-Nicene Church Fathers, via the later 4th and 5th century Church Fathers [Ambrose, Hilliary of Potiers, Augustine, Jerome, Pope Leo the Great] up to the Councils of 3 Constantinopile in 680-81AD and 2nd Nicea in 787AD.

There's no "baiting and switching" from me. I think you've mixed me up with another poster here.

The rest of your stuff is just so much noise, demanding I contend on some grounds of your own choosing. Fat chance.

Continuity from Christ via the Apostles. At first...then off it went.

The first few centuries are usually skipped over by Romanist apologists. But that doesn't stop information from the 4th century being passed off as "unchanged" or presented "as handed down by Christ". With cherry picking of quotes (ignoring those which challenge or refute) from the 3rd & 4th centuries. I've seen it all before.

So why would Rome be the seat of everything, when the church began in Jerusalem? because both Peter & Paul were there at one time? Somehow, due to that, the Holy Spirit would focus more there than with ALL others, for all time afterwards? That doesn't make much sense, except for those whom already have that etched onto their eyeballs, so "see" it in all which can be gazed upon.

It's easy enough for anyone to see that the Spirit surely seemed to be ignored on many occasion, too. Right there, by Romish authorities. Some foul persons have held that bishopric. Not that that alone makes everything else rotten, but by the same token, some good, even a lot of "good" does not equate with "all good", either. Should we need remind everyone of certain excesses AGAIN? Wholesale murder even!?! burning people alive, like it's normal or something, and approved of by God? Where in the book does it say "burn those whom oppose your claim to authority in my name"? Where was the infallible leading of the spirit at those times? It was still accepted as a "right" thing for the church to support, through the time of Luther. That's why he himself burned a copy of the canon, damning it all to hell (for it's hellish aspects) for it was being threatened to be employed against him, to quite literally burn him, possibly alive.

We are still talking about human beings being involved here. They have proven themselves, over & over, to not be completely trustworthy. For that sort of complete trustworthiness, we must look elsewhere.

What of the times Rome has reversed itself? You want me to answer plenty of YOUR questions, yet continually dodge the tougher one's I present. Like--- the opposition the papist contingent faced from within the Latin church, itself, when the last big grab at ultimate authority was made. Did you seriously consider a word of what was in the link provided? Address those issues.

I refuse to play along by your rules. You can play by mine, instead.