Posted on 04/11/2016 7:49:06 AM PDT by Salvation
History. More on this later.
Yeah I'm gonna need a lot more than that.
You confuse economic and spiritual poverty. The wealthy are often spiritually impoverishec, lonely. The economically poor need each other, borrow, comfort, help and sit with one another, so they are hard pressed but not lonely....and Christ is seen, experienced, in relationships, not watching dvds in a home movie room. The young rich man couldnt give up his safety and comfort to follow christ.....it is very hard unless you never had it to give
People want things of the church, so the church always needs money, but priests are not televangelists, even those with outside income from deceased parents.
Another Great one, Thanks!
God Bless
Why not?
Check the story of the Visitation where Elizabeth, inspired by the Holy Spirit, says, “And how is this that the Mother of my Lord should visit me.” (Paraphrasing.)
I sense another 500+ post thread, where the usual suspects make disparaging unsubstantiated offensive remarks about the Catholic Church.
The word mother is also not recognized as a proper noun in the texts as you've attempted to indicate rather slighly in your post.
None of the major translations cite mother as a proper noun. Only man-made roman catholicism does.
Unlike the catholic I can back my postings up with the Word.
You KNOW I’m a Catholic, and won’t know what that says without looking it up!
That’s what I suspected.
I say it for Pope Francis and for Obozo.
You really are one great “internet theologian” that trumps everybody else (scholars, historians, Augustine, Aquinas, Benedict including noted Protestant scholars who converted to Catholicism) who all disagree with you.
There were thousands of written fragments that early followers were using but they all were part of the first Church. The compilation of the books in the Bible itself was in AD 382. This early Church was the Catholic Church dating from Christ and Peter to his successors beginning with Pope Linus.
All the ancient records of the Roman bishops which have been handed down to us by St. Irenaeus, Julius Africanus, St. Hippolytus, Eusebius, also the Liberian catalogue of 354, place the name of Linus directly after that of the Prince of the Apostles, St. Peter. These records are traced back to a list of the Roman bishops which existed in the time of Pope Eleutherus (about 174-189), when Irenaeus wrote his book “Adversus haereses”. This author claims that Pope Linus is the Linus mentioned by St. Paul in his 2 Timothy 4:21. The passage by Irenaeus (Against Heresies III.3.3) reads:
“After the Holy Apostles (Peter and Paul) had founded and set the Church in order (in Rome) they gave over the exercise of the episcopal office to Linus. The same Linus is mentioned by St. Paul in his Epistle to Timothy. His successor was Anacletus.” Linus reigned from about A.D. 64
So much for your ekklesia!
14Therefore, beloved, since you look for these things, be diligent to be found by Him in peace, spotless and blameless, 15and regard the patience of our Lord as salvation; just as also our beloved brother Paul, according to the wisdom given him, wrote to you, 16as also in all his letters, speaking in them of these things, in which are some things hard to understand, which the untaught and unstable distort, as they do also the rest of the Scriptures, to their own destruction. 2 Peter 3:14-16
You are aware that Paul's letters were accorded the status of Scripture by 66 AD and we in circulation among the churches prior to that....right?
Galatians 49 AD
1, 2 Thessalonians 51 AD
1, 2 Corinthians 56-57 AD
Romans 58 AD
Ephesians 61 AD
Philemon 61 AD
Colossians 61 AD
1,2 Timothy 63, 66 AD
Titus 63 AD
By 115 AD the four Gospels were recognized as authoritative.
Athanasius, Bishop of Alexandria was first to list all 27 books of the NT in 367 AD.
Requirements for a book to be included in the canon were:
For a book to be considered holy scripture on the canonical level, it had to enjoy widespread acceptance among the churches. If a book was only accepted in one region, it did not enter into the New Testament canon. Also, since others in the second century and later were writing books, criteria needed to be applied that would separate these works from the ones that came from the first century: the book needed to date to the time of the apostles. And the book should be connected to an apostle, whether due to authorship by an apostle or association with an apostle (for example, Mark and Luke were associated with Peter and Paul, respectively). Of course, the books also needed to minister to the people in the churches who were hearing them read. This spiritual dimension was likely paramount. Our New Testament books were included in the canon because they spoke so strongly to people that they could not be kept out of the canon. Lastly, the books needed to be deemed suitable for public reading in the church. (Above paragraph is from my notes from Survey of the NT Seminary Class on the formation of the Canon)
One thing must be emphatically stated. The New Testament books did not become authoritative for the Church because they were formally included in a canonical list; on the contrary, the Church included them in her canon because she already regarded them as divinely inspired, recognizing their innate worth and generally apostolic authority, direct or indirect. The first ecclesiastical councils to classify the canonical books were both held in North Africa-at Hippo Regius in 393 and at Carthage in 397-but what these councils did was not to impose something new upon the Christian communities but to codify what was already the general practice of these communities (F. F. Bruce, The New Testament Documents: Are They Reliable?, Grand Rapids, Eerdmans, 1960, p. 27).
Ok...so Linus was Bishop of Rome. This does not prove the primacy of Rome. There were bishops of other cities as well during this time.
There is no historical evidence that Peter founded the church at Rome. (John Drane, Introducing the New Testament, p403)
Prince of the Apostles???? Another false title by roman catholicism.
You seem to have left out some of the ECFs that disagree with you. Typical of catholic apologetics.
Chrysostom (John) [who affirmed Peter was a rock, but here not the rock in Mt. 16:18]: Therefore He added this, 'And I say unto thee, Thou art Peter, and upon this rock I will build my Church; that is, on the faith of his confession. Chrysostom, Homilies on the Gospel of Saint Matthew, Homily LIIl; Philip Schaff, Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers (http://www.ccel.org/ccel/schaff/npnf110.iii.LII.html)
Basil of Seleucia, Oratio 25: 'You are Christ, Son of the living God.'...Now Christ called this confession a rock, and he named the one who confessed it 'Peter,' perceiving the appellation which was suitable to the author of this confession. For this is the solemn rock of religion, this the basis of salvation, this the wall of faith and the foundation of truth: 'For no other foundation can anyone lay than that which is laid, which is Christ Jesus.' To whom be glory and power forever. Oratio XXV.4, M.P.G., Vol. 85, Col. 296-297.
Well, I've had enough fun with refuting your claims....again.
Off to better things tonight.
The Greek Orthodox apparently know some Greek, and they agree with us, and disagree with you, on a whole lot of things. For one thing, they revere the Lord's Mother, and you seem to denigrate and minimize her as much as possible.
The roman catholic church came into existence around the 4th century
Not even remotely historically true, but part of the mythology that low-church Protestants like to promote.
Exactly when and how "around the 4th century" did this remarkable event happen?
Irenaeus of Lyons says that the church at Rome was "founded and organized" by Peter and Paul. He was a good bit closer to those events than you are, and lived well before those amazing events "around the 4th century" that you're going to specify for us, dying around AD 150.
What is hard to dispute is that Peter went to Rome and died there, as prophesied by Our Lord in the Gospel reading we Catholics heard at Mass this past Sunday. We know that Peter died in Rome because we know where his tomb is ... under the high altar at the basilica named in his honor.
What's to REFLECT?
Do you NOT believe the very words of JESUS??
I'll balance that with some TRUE titles; OK??
Using what standard?
I'll tell you:
What the opinions of a majority of a group of men said was true.
A majority vote got Catholics their present pope.
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.