This thread has been locked, it will not receive new replies. |
Locked on 02/25/2015 3:29:26 PM PST by Jim Robinson, reason:
childishness |
Posted on 02/20/2015 12:33:03 PM PST by RnMomof7
Why didn't the world end at that moment?
Seriously? Are you being serious? Is that all you have?
I thought you were far better than this, Arthur. Okay, I'll type this nice and slow so you can understand it: Christ's once and final salvific sacrifice on the cross was completed.
And, actually, there was an ending that occurred...the Temple Veil was rent...Christ became our intercessor and mediator (not his mom)...the old sacrificial system was no longer needed.
And since Christ himself said that it was finished, why does the Roman Catholic Church strive to make him a liar?
Hoss
Do you have a religion, Hoss?
Irenaeus focuses on the church of Rome which he describes as "greatest, most ancient and known to all, founded and established by the two most glorious apostles, Peter and Paul." Here we must acknowledge a bit of rhetoric, as the church of Rome was obviously not so ancient as those of Jerusalem or Antioch, nor was it actually founded by Peter or Paul (Sullivan F.A. From Apostles to Bishops: the development of the episcopacy in the early church. Newman Press, Mahwah (NJ), 2001, pp. 35,147).
According to Irenaeus, Peter and Paul, not Peter alone, appointed Linus as the first in the succession of bishops of Rome. This suggests that Irenaeus did not think of Peter and Paul as bishops, or of Linus and those that followed as successors of Peter more than of Paul (Sullivan F.A. From Apostles to Bishops: the development of the episcopacy in the early church. Newman Press, Mahwah (NJ), 2001, p. 148).
And then we have this interesting tidbit. Tertullian doesn't mention Linus but does Clement as following Peter.
Anyhow the heresies are at best novelties, and have no continuity with the teaching of Christ. Perhaps some heretics may claim Apostolic antiquity: we reply: Let them publish the origins of their churches and unroll the catalogue of their bishops till now from the Apostles or from some bishop appointed by the Apostles, as the Smyrnaeans count from Polycarp and John, and the Romans from Clement and Peter; let heretics invent something to match this (Tertullian. Liber de praescriptione haereticorum. Circa 200 A.D. as cited in Chapman J. Transcribed by Lucy Tobin. Tertullian. The Catholic Encyclopedia, Volume XIV. Copyright © 1912 by Robert Appleton Company. Online Edition Copyright © 2003 by K. Knight. Nihil Obstat, July 1, 1912. Remy Lafort, S.T.D., Censor. Imprimatur. +John Cardinal Farley, Archbishop of New York).
Do a study on the history of the title pope for a single individual and you will find it didn't exist until at least the fourth century.
We must conclude that the New Testament provides no basis for the notion that before the apostles died, they ordained one man for each of the churches they founded..."Was there a Bishop of Rome in the First Century?"...the available evidence indicates that the church in Rome was led by a college of presbyters, rather than by a single bishop, for at least several decades of the second century (Sullivan F.A. From Apostles to Bishops: the development of the episcopacy in the early church. Newman Press, Mahwah (NJ), 2001, p. 80,221-222).
The Catholic Church itself admits that the apostles were above the office of any pope. John didn't die till 100AD yet they would give the highest position in the church to Linus already in 67AD. They claim Peter was pope and died in 64AD but appointed Linus pope in 67AD.
The Catholic notion of succession of popes is built on fallacy as are many of their beliefs.
I am Christian.
Hoss
Okay, and you run your own church and think no one else is a Christian?
No. Only God knows the heart. I question the teachings of the Roman Catholic Church when presented in posts on this forum, just like others do.
Do you?
Hoss
Disprove me
Google ‘NFP’ read it and weep
From what ive read, divorce rates of Catholics on artificial birth control is the same as prots.
Hoss
My older sister now in heaven was always the ring leader.
It so happened that an old retired Baptist preacher heard about the bakery shop kids and came by to meet us. He was moved by what he saw and he used his lifes savings to build a tiny little church up the street.
Naturally all the kids got the rest of their families to join them in meeting in the new church and before you knew it we were all baptized Southern Baptist. The church grew and split and had missionary churches of it own.
If it had been someone from another Christian label who found the bakery shop kids, built the church and baptized us, Id probably be wearing a different label today. LOLOL!
As it is my "letter" has always been in a Baptist church, though that point is meaningless to me because at the root, I will always be that bakery shop kid a Christian, plain and simple.
Truly, the religion was already established when Christ was enfleshed; namely, Judaism. Jesus Christ builds a family:
God's Name is I AM.
Alamo-Girl,
What a lovely testimony! I’ll have to remember “The Bakery Shop Kids”
:)
Hoss
Any answer for me yet?
Hoss
Thats probably why you are not Catholic.
No... There’s really simple reason I’m not Catholic....
I realized after I posted that I should not have attributed a reason for why you are not Catholic, and I apologize for that.
No problem, R...
I didn’t take any offense! And no need to apologize.
Hoss
Anyhow the heresies are at best novelties, and have no continuity with the teaching of Christ. Perhaps some heretics may claim Apostolic antiquity: we reply: Let them publish the origins of their churches and unroll the catalogue of their bishops till now from the Apostles or from some bishop appointed by the Apostles, as the Smyrnaeans count from Polycarp and John, and the Romans from Clement and Peter; let heretics invent something to match this (Tertullian. Liber de praescriptione haereticorum. Circa 200 A.D. as cited in Chapman J. Transcribed by Lucy Tobin. Tertullian. The Catholic Encyclopedia, Volume XIV. Copyright © 1912 by Robert Appleton Company. Online Edition Copyright © 2003 by K. Knight. Nihil Obstat, July 1, 1912. Remy Lafort, S.T.D., Censor. Imprimatur. +John Cardinal Farley, Archbishop of New York).
CynicalBear, do you not realize that this excerpt was taken from a strong defense by Tertullian of Apostolic succession? Here is a more extensive quote from the same source:
So Tertullian deals with heresies: it is of no use to listen to their arguments or refute them, for we have a number of antecendent proofs that they cannot deserve a hearing. Heresies, he begins, must not astonish us, for they were prophesied. Heretics urge the text, “Seek and ye shall find”, but this was not said to Christians; we have a rule of faith to be accepted without question. “Let curiosity give place to faith and vain glory make way for salvation”, so Tertullian parodies a line of Cicero’s. The heretics argue out of Scripture; but, first, we are forbidden to consort with a heretic after one rebuke has been delivered, and secondly, disputation results only in blasphemy on the one side and indignation on the other, while the listener goes away more puzzled than he came. The real question is, “To whom does the Faith belong? Whose are the Scriptures? By whom, through whom, when and to whom has been handed down the discipline by which we are Christians? The answer is plain: Christ sent His apostles, who founded churches in each city, from which the others have borrowed the tradition of the Faith and the seed of doctrine and daily borrow in order to become churches; so that they also are Apostolic in that they are the offspring of the Apostolic churches. All are that one Church which the Apostles founded, so long as peace and intercommunion are observed [dum est illis communicatio pacis et appellatio fraternitatis et contesseratio hospitalitatis]. Therefore the testimony to the truth is this: We communicate with the apostolic Churches”. The heretics will reply that the Apostles did not know all the truth. Could anything be unknown to Peter, who was called the rock on which the Church was to be built? or to John, who lay on the Lord’s breast? But they will say, the churches have erred. Some indeed went wrong, and were corrected by the Apostle; though for others he had nothing but praise. “But let us admit that all have erred:- is it credible that all these great churches should have strayed into the same faith”? Admitting this absurdity, then all the baptisms, spiritual gifts, miracles, martyrdoms, were in vain until Marcion and Valentinus appeared at last! Truth will be younger than error; for both these heresiarchs are of yesterday, and were still Catholics at Rome in the episcopate of Eleutherius (this name is a slip or a false reading). Anyhow the heresies are at best novelties, and have no continuity with the teaching of Christ. Perhaps some heretics may claim Apostolic antiquity: we reply: Let them publish the origins of their churches and unroll the catalogue of their bishops till now from the Apostles or from some bishop appointed by the Apostles, as the Smyrnaeans count from Polycarp and John, and the Romans from Clement and Peter; let heretics invent something to match this. Why, their errors were denounced by the Apostles long ago. Finally (36), he names some Apostolic churches, pointing above all to Rome, whose witness is nearest at hand, - happy Church, in which the Apostles poured out their whole teaching with their blood, where Peter suffered a death like his Master’s, where Paul was crowned with an end like the Baptist’s, where John was plunged into fiery oil without hurt!
ROFL! Catholic appeal to longevity for legitimacy yet read the account of the seven churches in Revelation to see how quickly they strayed from the truth.
Good points. Also, I think most of these heretics are actually quarreling with God and not so much with the Roman Catholic Church. They see that a Priest sinned, and claim that unless all Priest are without sin than the Church Jesus created is flawed beyond redemption. They forget that all men are flawed and that no Church can be run by humans who are without sin. They declare their love of God and speak maliciously of fellow Christians, even claiming that Catholics are not Christians.
sorry I cant give you what you need.
I am a cradle Catholic.
I became firmly, totally and forever Catholic when I was about 10 when I was serving 6:30am weekday Mass.
It was mid-winter and was just the organist (who sang the Mass in Latin), myself (a newbie altar server) the priest and no parishioners (at least that I saw).
The Mass was nearing the consecration when the priest intones the SANCTUS while the organist singing to God sings the SANCTUS in Gregorian chant.
the priest says:
SANCTUS, Sanctus, Sanctus, Dominus Deus Sabaoth. Pleni sunt caeli et terra gloria tua. Hosanna in excelsis. Benedictus qui venit in nomine Domini. Hosanna in excelsis.
which means:
HOLY, holy, holy, Lord God of hosts. Heaven and earth are full of Thy glory. Hosanna in the highest. Blessed is He who comes in the name of the Lord. Hosanna in the highest.
meanwhile the organist sang the Sanctus acapella in Gregorian chant:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6n_DUZN3Ahw
At that moment I knew what it meant to be Catholic and to ‘be lifted up’ and ‘to be in the Spirit’.
I will be that Catholic to the day I die.
Ad Majoram Dei Gloriam
For the Greater Glory of God
Why didn't the world end at that moment?
Art ol' boy, I sure hope you just arguing for arguing sake.
If not, you need to do some real in-depth Bible study...or perhaps obtain a degree in theology from an accredited seminary school.
You represent yourself as a catholic priest. Are you representative of all priests?
Still waiting to hear if you're in favor or not of the fifth marion dogma......
Again...catholics identify with a denomination....not the Savior.
There is a difference.
I’m sure from your response you either did not read what I wrote or you don’t understand it.
Either way IT IS YOUR LOSS.
AMDG
Nice ad hominem. The fact of the matter, though, is that instead of showing that the succession of popes is built on fallacy, Tertullian’s Liber de praescriptione haereticorum is a strong affirmation of Apostolic succession.
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.