If We Protestants Truly Hated Catholics...

[Phoneman777]

Actually you have not. To do so you would have to identify the Church in 100 AD , 200 AD , 300 AD... That you cannot even attempt to do so, in light of the evedince of Orthodox, Catholic teaching by the ECF's I can only conclude that things like the Eucharist truly being the body and blood of Christ, are in fact the teaching of the apostles. Further that these bishops, and those who succeded them are indeed the communities established by the apostles....
And that anyone who leaves these communities to start a 'new' church, do so on their own authority and the following applies to them:

They went out from us, but they were not really of our number; if they had been, they would have remained with us. Their desertion shows that none of them was of our number.

Pax!

John would disagree with you. He said, "Little children, keep yourselves from idols," but the Catholic church says forget about that one.

There's not one instance of Sunday keeping in Scripture - that from the mouth of your very own church - and yet your church says Sunday is the day that must be observed as the weekly day of rest.

This is hardly an example of a church that "keeps the commandments of God and has the testimony of Jesus Christ," wouldn't you agree?

 

[Phoneman777]

How do ANY of these verses support Sola Scriptura??

Acts 17:11 - The Bereans searched the Old Testament to see if what Paul was saying about Jesus was true.
NOWHERE does it even imply that the Bereans were Sola Scripturists. They were skeptics who were trying to substantiate what Paul was teaching - probably FROM the Old Testament.

Mark 7:6-13 - Jesus wasn't condemning Tradition here. He was condemning the Pharisees who placed their OWN traditions ABOVE the Traditions of the Law and God's Word.

Also - Paul tells the Thessalonians to . . .
"Stand firm and hold fast to the Traditions you were taught, EITHER BY an ORAL STATEMENT - OR BY or by a LETTER from us."
He doesn't place one above the other - but places BOTH of the ON PAR with each other.

The New Testament is LITTERED with oral Traditions.
In Matt 23:2 - Jesus Himself relies on the ORAL TRADITION of acknowledging "Moses' seat" of authority (which passed from Moses to Joshua to the Sanhedrin). This is not recorded in the Old Testament.

Isaiah 8:20
AGAIN - this is referring to the Word of God. NOWHERE does it refer to Scripture alone - or even Scripture at ALL. The instructions of Moses were based on what He and Yaweh spoke about.

Here are some more examples of ORAL Tradition that we are bound by . . .

Matt. 2:23 - the prophecy "He shall be a Nazarene" is ORAL TRADITION. It is not found in the Old Testament. This demonstrates that the apostles relied upon oral tradition and taught by oral tradition.

John 19:26; 20:2; 21:20,24 - knowing that the "beloved disciple" is John is inferred from Scripture, but is also largely ORAL TRADITION.

1 Cor. 10:4 - Paul relies on the ORAL TRADITION of the rock following Moses. It is not recorded in the Old Testament.

2 Timothy 3:8 - Paul relies on the ORAL TRADITION when speaking of Pharoah’s magicians, Jannes and Jambres. Their names are not recorded in the Old Testament.

Heb. 11:37 - the author of Hebrews relies on the ORAL TRADITION of the martyrs being sawed in two. This is not recorded in the Old Testament.

Jude 9 - Jude relies on the ORAL TRADITION of the Archangel Michael's dispute with Satan over Moses' body. This is not found in the Old Testament.

Jude 14-15 - Jude relies on the ORAL TRADITION of Enoch's prophecy which is not recorded in the Old Testament.

Dead Bread, prophets of the Old Testament were men Peter says "were moved by the Holy Ghost" - which Holy Ghost Paul says is given "to them that OBEY Him". Their spoken testimony is as sure as the written word of God.

However, those from whose lips you claim dropped inspired "oral tradition" were never once inspired by God - because the Holy Spirit is not given to those who are led to follow "the commandments of men" -

• like confessing one's sins to pedophile prelates rather than to God in prayer
• like seeking forgiveness through impotent rituals and sacraments rather than from the Savior Himself
• like the image worship which was facilitated by the removal of the Second Commandment
• like time off from Purgatory - which exists only in the minds of the deceived - by works in order to obtain "saints'" merits
• like praying repetitiously as the heathen - with use of stupid beads like is done in wicked Satanic Islam

Catholic oral tradition doesn't have a leg to stand on - unless you count the "pag" leg of paganism

 

[Philip James]

There's not one instance of Sunday keeping in Scripture

Wrong again;

Acts 20:7

On the first day of the week when we gathered to break bread, Paul spoke to them because he was going to leave on the next day, and he kept on speaking until midnight

But nice diversion... You still have not even attempted to show the Church that Jesus established through the apostles is something other than the community that included: Clement, Polycarp, Ignatius, Cyprian, Justin, Iraeneus, Tertullian....

If these are imposters, where is the 'beacon set on a hill' ? Where is the 'stone that would become a mountain and fill the Earth? Where is the mustard tree of which our Saviour said
' It is the smallest of all the seeds, yet when full-grown it is the largest of plants. It becomes a large bush, and the 'birds of the sky come and dwell in its branches.'"

You have not offered an alternative, because you have none. You have the traditions of men , who on their own authority, have established their own community...
Now if you stuck to preaching Christ, He could use you... Because 'he gathers where he didnt sow...' And those who are not against us are with us... But when you attack the very tree from which your shoot sprang... You fight against the Lord, Himself.

Peace!

 

[Phoneman777]

And I've already schooled you on this point - several times now.

For your idiotic, revisionist claims to be true - you would have to ERASE the 2nd century documents - Irenaeus's "Against Heresies" and Tertullians "Di Pudicitia" from history because BOTH refer to the office of the Papacy soome 300 years BEFORE your phony date.

As I further educated you - you wold ALSO have to destroy all evidence from the Early Church Fathers like Cyprian of Carthage, Cyril of Jerusalem and Opatue - ALL of who wrote about the office of the Papacy BEFORE your make-believe timeline.

ALL of your posts are based on your own little angry opinions and not a SHRED of evidence.
On the OTHER hand - I have presented nothing BUT historical evidence.

Face it - you don't have a historical leg to stand on and it's killing you . . .

You, Dead Bread, are really becoming unhinged. You are the most obtuse Catholic apologist I've ever come across - to the point where you will deny reality.

I've exposed your propagandist claim that Protestantism has been the only institution to use the phrase "Roman Catholic church" to refer to the Roman Catholic church by digging up that encyclical by Pius XII in which he plainly uses the phrase "Roman Catholic church" to refer to the entire Roman Catholic church - and not just an "order" or "rite" as you so weakly claimed.

Instead of admitting your error then and there, you dug in your heels by insisting it was an "olive branch" extended to Protestants as a means of showing commonality with them - which I exposed as no olive branch at all, seeing that your "olive branch" extension came before Vatican II, a time when the church's position was clear that all non-Catholics will go straight to hell; a position so horrifyingly offensive to Protestantism that it makes your "olive branch" look like dropping a bandaid down to the men who took Daniel's place in the lion's den - and yet you refuse to admit your errors.

There was no universal papal rule of both religiosity and secularism before 538 A.D. - therefore, there was no papacy until that time.

 

[BobRyan]

How do ANY of these verses support Sola Scriptura??

Acts 17:11 - The Bereans searched the Old Testament to see if what Paul was saying about Jesus was true.
NOWHERE does it even imply that the Bereans were Sola Scripturists. They were skeptics who were trying to substantiate what Paul was teaching - probably FROM the Old Testament.

Acts 17:11 "They searched THE SCRIPTUREs daily to SEE IF those things spoken to them by the APOSTLE Paul - WERE SO"

How is that NOT - "Sola Scriptura"???

You appear to be inserting the idea that "sola scriptura cannot possibly include searching what we call today - the OT -- to test doctrine" ... am I getting that right?

Mark 7:6-13 - Jesus wasn't condemning Tradition here.

Let's see.

Mark 7
6 And He said to them, “Rightly did Isaiah prophesy of you hypocrites, as it is written:
‘This people honors Me with their lips,
But their heart is far away from Me.
7 ‘But in vain do they worship Me,
Teaching as doctrines the precepts of men.’
8 Neglecting the commandment of God, you hold to the tradition of men.”
9 He was also saying to them, “You are experts at setting aside the commandment of God in order to keep your tradition. 10 For Moses said, ‘Honor your father and your mother’; and, ‘He who speaks evil of father or mother, is to be put to death’; 11 but you say, ‘If a man says to his father or his mother, whatever I have that would help you is Corban (that is to say, given to God),’ 12 you no longer permit him to do anything for his father or his mother; 13 thus invalidating the word of God by your tradition which you have handed down; and you do many things such as that.”

1. How is that NOT "sola scriptura" testing tradition.
2. How is that NOT calling the Word of God = Commandment of God = Moses said.
3. How is that NOT sola-scriptura hammering the tradition of the accepted magesterium of the nation-church that GOD started at Sinai - in the days of Christ

You seem to be inserting the idea that

He was condemning the Pharisees who placed their OWN traditions ABOVE the Traditions of the Law and God's Word.

Which is precisely the condemnation that the protesting Catholic Scholars like Wycliffe, Jerome of Prague, Huss, Luther etc were charging the RCC with.

Also - Paul tells the Thessalonians to . . .
"Stand firm and hold fast to the Traditions you were taught, EITHER BY an ORAL STATEMENT - OR BY or by a LETTER from us."
He doesn't place one above the other - but places BOTH of the ON PAR with each other.

Not quite.

Gal 1:6-9 "Though WE (apostles) or an ANGEL from HEAVEN preach to you a different Gospel - let him be accursed"

That can only happen "sola scriptura". It shows one above the other.

What is more the statement to the Thessalonians affirms that there is such a thing as good tradition -- but his Gal 1:6-9 places it under authority of scripture just as we see Christ doing in Mark 7. Paul himself was held to this strict standard in Act 17:11.

The New Testament is LITTERED with oral Traditions.
In Matt 23:2 - Jesus Himself relies on the ORAL TRADITION of acknowledging "Moses' seat" of authority (which passed from Moses to Joshua to the Sanhedrin). This is not recorded in the Old Testament.

Not true. What Jesus said is that the church leaders of the one-true-nation-church started by God at Sinai - were sitting in the authority of Moses as he too lead the nation-church - and should be respected. He was not talking about a literal chair.

Matthew 23:2
Then Jesus spoke to the crowds and to His disciples, 2 saying: “The scribes and the Pharisees have seated themselves in the chair of Moses; 3 therefore all that they tell you, do and observe, but do not do according to their deeds; for they say things and do not do them.

This is the chapter where Christ condemns all of them even though they sit in Moses' chair.

32 Fill up, then, the measure of the guilt of your fathers. 33 You serpents, you brood of vipers, how will you escape the sentence of hell?
34 “Therefore, behold, I am sending you prophets and wise men and scribes; some of them you will kill and crucify, and some of them you will scourge in your synagogues, and persecute from city to city, 35 so that upon you may fall the guilt of all the righteous blood shed on earth, from the blood of righteous Abel to the blood of Zechariah, the son of Berechiah, whom you murdered between the temple and the altar. 36 Truly I say to you, all these things will come upon this generation.
37 “Jerusalem, Jerusalem, who kills the prophets and stones those who are sent to her! How often I wanted to gather your children together, the way a hen gathers her chicks under her wings, and you were unwilling. 38 Behold, your house is being left to you desolate! 39 For I say to you, from now on you will not see Me until you say, ‘Blessed is He who comes in the name of the Lord!’”

A more scathing condemnation of church magesterium can hardly be penned.

Isaiah 8:20 "to the LAW and to the Testimony if they speak not according to this WORD they have no light"

Isaiah 8:20
AGAIN - this is referring to the Word of God. NOWHERE does it refer to Scripture alone - or even Scripture at ALL.

If you are suggesting that the OT reference to "LAW and Testimony" is not a reference to scripture - you will need to explain that suggestion.

The instructions of Moses were based on what He and Yaweh spoke about.

"All scripture is given by inspiration from God" - 2 Tim 3:16.

Sola scriptura then - is using that scripture to test all doctrine and tradition.

Here are some more examples of ORAL Tradition that we are bound by . . .

Matt. 2:23 - the prophecy "He shall be a Nazarene" is ORAL TRADITION. It is not found in the Old Testament.

True Prophecy is not oral tradition - it is the Word of God.
Yet all claims to prophecy are also to be tested "sola scriptura" to distinguish truth from error.

Your entire argument seem to rely on the idea that "if ANY tradition is valid then NO tradition can be tested sola scriptura" AS IF the valid tradition that you are identifying would have failed sola scriptura testing and so refutes it.

IS that really what you are arguing???

 

[BobRyan]

Wrong again;
Acts 20:7
On the first day of the week when we gathered to break bread, Paul spoke to them because he was going to leave on the next day, and he kept on speaking until midnight

On that one particular "week day 1" they are gathered "BECAUSE" Paul was going to leave.
Not "on the Lord's Day"
Not "on the Christian Sabbath"
But "on week-day-1"
And the "reason" is "because Paul going to leave" instead "because we gather every week-day-1 which we now call the LORD's Day in honor of Christ being raised from the dead on week day 1".

Notice that "breaking bread" refers to the Lord's Supper "As oft as you do this you do show Christ's resurrection day till he comes" is not in the Bible.

But this is in the Bible "26 For as often as you eat this bread and drink the cup, you proclaim the Lord’s death until He comes." 1Cor 11:26 it is a Friday memorial of Christ's death if we had to assign a day of the week to it..

==============
As for the title of thread "hate catholics" -- I am still against hating people and/or calling them names etc.

 

[Phoneman777]

Wrong again; Acts 20:7 On the first day of the week when we gathered to break bread, Paul spoke to them because he was going to leave on the next day, and he kept on speaking until midnight

Philip James, are you calling the pope a liar? www.romeschallenge is a Catholic website which argues against heretical Protestants who attempt to prove the Bible teaches Sunday sacredness...and you are here doing that very thing. If you're going to argue for Catholicism, you should probably find out what their position is first, right?

The disciples came together after the Sabbath sun set - what we call "Saturday night" (some translations actually say that) and they stayed together until the next morning - what we call "Sunday morning" - when Paul took off for Troas at first light. Not one shred of evidence of any Sunday morning church service.

You still have not even attempted to show the Church that Jesus established through the apostles is something other than the community that included: Clement, Polycarp, Ignatius, Cyprian, Justin, Iraeneus, Tertullian....

I've shown you multiple times that the commandments of the Catholic church do not match "the commandments of God", which is what the church Jesus established followed.

Where is the 'stone that would become a mountain and fill the Earth?

That refers to the eternal kingdom Christ will eventually set up in the New Earth.

You have not offered an alternative, because you have none.

You are obviously arguing that if the visible "Catholic" church is not acknowledged as existing in Christ's day, then there must have been another organized body with an official name, tax number, a 501(c)(3) non-profit status, a radio and television network, and a few scandals where the leaders were buying air-conditioned dog houses at 50 shekels a pop.

Do you not realize that as the visible church slipped further and further into apostasy, those who refused to compromise had no choice but to retreat further and further into obscurity to avoid death at the hands of these apostates? The once faithful visible church slowly transformed into the visible whore of Babylon - the Catholic church - as the faithful church fled out of sight...just like Revelation 12 prophesied it would.

 

[Philip James]

A more scathing condemnation of church magesterium can hardly be penned.

Indeed. And authority was taken from them and given to the apostles, who in turn gave it to the bishops....
And Jesus said ' the gates of hell would not prevail ' against His Church, so that authority remains with the majesterium of the Church today...

Peace!

 

[Phoneman777]

Indeed. And authority was taken from them and given to the apostles, who in turn gave it to the bishops....
And Jesus said ' the gates of hell would not prevail ' against His Church, so that authority remains with the majesterium of the Church today...

Peace!

Didn't God threaten the Ephesus church that He would "remove thy candlestick out of his place, except thou repent"? Did they repent or did they slip further and further into apostasy? Of course they did. The four horsemen parallel the first four churches of Revelation 2, and the four horsemen are a continual degradation from the pure White church and Red persecuted church to the Black church of apostasy to the Pale church that was and is spiritually dead...in Rome.

 

[Philip James]

Didn't God threaten the Ephesus church that He would "remove thy candlestick out of his place, except thou repent"?

And HE had only good things to say to the Church in Smyrna! Polycarp was the bishop of Smyrna and had this to say about Ignatius of Antioch:

The Epistles of Ignatius written by him to us, and all the rest [of his Epistles] which we have by us, we have sent to you, as you requested. They are subjoined to this Epistle, and by them you may be greatly profited; for they treat of faith and patience, and all things that tend to edification in our Lord.


So then Jesus commends Polycarp and Polycarp commends Ignatius...

If you know of others who taught contrary to Ignatius that are the 'true biblical church' please identify them.

Pax!

 

[epostle]

It's a problem trying to explain anything to a person whose mind is under control. You can't appeal to historical facts to phony man because his cult has their own history, and you can't appeal to Protestant scholars because his cult is anti-Protestant. Literal interpretation of Revelation occurs wherever it is convenient to attack Catholicism.
His sabbatarian rant falls silent when asked for hard evidence of it in the 2nd century. There is some in the 1st, but none in the 2nd. This is one of many stumbling blocks that exposes the SDA popess Ellen White as a false teacher.

Phony man and his cult refuses to make the distinction between Christian Rome and pagan Rome. They refuse to give one single name of a martyr of the first 3 centuries. They claim the gates of Hades prevailed, thus, making Jesus a liar and all His promises to protect the Church are lies. Jesus as a liar is their primary doctrine.

Phony man's hatred is not against the Catholic Church, but against a straw man fallacy, a cartoon, a cardboard caricature, a fantasy. It isn't real. It doesn't exist.

 

[epostle]

On that one particular "week day 1" they are gathered "BECAUSE" Paul was going to leave.
Not "on the Lord's Day"
Not "on the Christian Sabbath"
But "on week-day-1"
And the "reason" is "because Paul going to leave" instead "because we gather every week-day-1 which we now call the LORD's Day in honor of Christ being raised from the dead on week day 1".

Notice that "breaking bread" refers to the Lord's Supper "As oft as you do this you do show Christ's resurrection day till he comes" is not in the Bible.

The biblical definition of "first day of the week", even by Jewish standards is Sunday, something you make no mention of.

But this is in the Bible "26 For as often as you eat this bread and drink the cup, you proclaim the Lord’s death until He comes." 1Cor 11:26 it is a Friday memorial of Christ's death if we had to assign a day of the week to it..

"...as often as..." is not any specific day. The Bread and Wine sacrifice of the seder meal at Passover is one and the same sacrifice as the Crucifixion. Jesus didn't drink the Fourth Cup at the Passover/seder, that is where He drank the first Three. He drank the Fourth Cup from the cross, one and the same sacrifice as the Bread and Wine sacrifice. The Passover was fulfilled...finished.

As for the title of thread "hate catholics" -- I am still against hating people and/or calling them names etc.

How reassuring. I am against anyone calling your mother a murderous hooker of Babble-on.

 

[epostle]

As Biblical Protestants who hold the authority of Scripture as paramount, unparalleled, and the sole bond of union,

The Bible doesn't say any of that. "Bible alone" theology is a man made tradition, it isn't found anywhere in the Bible.

it is our hatred of unBiblical, blasphemous, God-dishonoring Catholic doctrines that Catholic apologists mistake as hatred of Catholics.

That is a double falsehood.
Falsehood #1
Your definition of "doctrine" is false, derogatory and a major straw man. In general, doctrine is all Church teaching in matters of faith and morals. Dogma is more narrowly defined as that part of doctrine which has been divinely revealed and which the Church has formally defined and declared to be believed as revealed.

All "matters of faith" are taken directly or indirectly from Scripture. These you attack. But you never attack a moral teaching. You want your cake and eat it too.

You frequently, if not always, use the term "doctrine" without naming any. You don't want Catholics to have a fair hearing, you just utter blanket condemnations without any thought.

There are no apologist members here, just amateurs. Each Catholic has their own favorites. There are thousands of debates, videos and transcriptions, of Catholic apologists facing a legion of opponents. I challenge you to find one real apologist who claims their opponent hates Catholics. If you cannot or will not find any, then you are just blowing forum flatulence.

If we Protestants truly hated Catholics, our pity for their ignorance of Jesus' invitation to approach Him directly without a single mediator would be turned to satisfaction.

Another straw man fallacy. The sole mediatorship of Christ has been consistent Catholic teaching for 2000 years. A subordinate mediator does not re-place Christ but is entirely dependent on Christ''s sole mediatorship. Praying for a friend makes you a subordinate mediator that depends on Christ as sole mediator, the grace for your friend doesn't come from you, it comes from Christ and Christ alone.

"sole mediator" with absolutely no subordinate mediators is a false dichotomy. But according to your narrow definition, praying for others is forbidden.

 

[Marymog]

Acts 17:11 is not unbiblical. And it came wayyy before the reformation.
Mark 7:6-13 is not "unbiblical" and it came wayyy before the reformation
Isaiah 8:20 is not unbiblical and it came wayyy before the reformation
"20 To the law and to the testimony! If they do not speak according to this word, it is because they have no light."

Nothing you have written here supports sola scripture or any of the 5 sola’s.

What’s your point??

Mary

 

[Enoch111]

Nothing you have written here supports sola scripture or any of the 5 sola’s.

What’s your point??

His point is that wilful blindness prevents people from seeing the truth. All of his Scripture references point to Sola Scriptura. And then we have these words of Christ, which clearly estabish Sola Scriptura: But he answered and said, It is written, Man shall not live by bread alone, but by every word that proceedeth out of the mouth of God. (Mt 4:4)

 

[BobRyan]

Acts 17:11 is not unbiblical. And it came wayyy before the reformation.
Mark 7:6-13 is not "unbiblical" and it came wayyy before the reformation
Isaiah 8:20 is not unbiblical and it came wayyy before the reformation
"20 To the law and to the testimony! If they do not speak according to this word, it is because they have no light."

Nothing you have written here supports sola scripture

Do you expect that we would agree with that speculative statement you are making? You have free will of course and can have any preference that you wish. But if you want to frame it as a compelling argument in favor of you POV you need substance in it - by addressing the details in the post.

Acts 17:11 "They searched THE SCRIPTUREs daily to SEE IF those things spoken to them by the APOSTLE Paul - WERE SO"

How is that NOT - "Sola Scriptura"???

Mark 7
6 And He said to them, “Rightly did Isaiah prophesy of you hypocrites, as it is written:
‘This people honors Me with their lips,
But their heart is far away from Me.
7 ‘But in vain do they worship Me,
Teaching as doctrines the precepts of men.’
8 Neglecting the commandment of God, you hold to the tradition of men.”
9 He was also saying to them, “You are experts at setting aside the commandment of God in order to keep your tradition. 10 For Moses said, ‘Honor your father and your mother’; and, ‘He who speaks evil of father or mother, is to be put to death’; 11 but you say, ‘If a man says to his father or his mother, whatever I have that would help you is Corban (that is to say, given to God),’ 12 you no longer permit him to do anything for his father or his mother; 13 thus invalidating the word of God by your tradition which you have handed down; and you do many things such as that.”

1. How is that NOT "sola scriptura" testing tradition.
2. How is that NOT calling the Word of God = Commandment of God = Moses said.
3. How is that NOT sola-scriptura hammering the tradition of the accepted magesterium of the nation-church that GOD started at Sinai - in the days of Christ

 

[Phoneman777]

And HE had only good things to say to the Church in Smyrna! Polycarp was the bishop of Smyrna and had this to say about Ignatius of Antioch:

The Epistles of Ignatius written by him to us, and all the rest [of his Epistles] which we have by us, we have sent to you, as you requested. They are subjoined to this Epistle, and by them you may be greatly profited; for they treat of faith and patience, and all things that tend to edification in our Lord.


So then Jesus commends Polycarp and Polycarp commends Ignatius...

If you know of others who taught contrary to Ignatius that are the 'true biblical church' please identify them.

Pax!

The apostasy hadn't occurred yet in Polycarp's time - to the contrary, church persecution was so intense at that time that it protected it from apostasy. But after 321 A.D., when Constantine opened the way for the co-mingling of truth and error, the apostasy really started taking hold.

 

[aspen]

There is no record of a great apostasy

 

[Phoneman777]

The Bible doesn't say any of that. "Bible alone" theology is a man made tradition, it isn't found anywhere in the Bible. That is a double falsehood.

FALSE. Isaiah 8:20 is clear that anyone who speaks against "the Law and the testimony" has zero light - the "law" referring to the books of Moses and the "testimony" referring to what the prophets wrote.

Your definition of "doctrine" is false, derogatory and a major straw man.

"Doctrine" means "teaching", plain and simple, and what Catholicism teaches is not Biblical.

I challenge you to find one real apologist who claims their opponent hates Catholics.

a·pol·o·gist
əˈpäləjəst/
noun
1. a person who offers an argument in defense of something controversial.

That would be you, Dead Bread, and several others here. And since you and Dead Bread constantly accuse others of "hate", then consider your challenge met successfully.

The sole mediatorship of Christ has been consistent Catholic teaching for 2000 years.

Since the Catholic church has not been around for 2,000 years, your statement is inaccurate. The "Catholic" church is the apostate church that supplanted the true church which Christ began.

A subordinate mediator does not re-place Christ.

Paul says there is but ONE Mediator, Jesus Christ. It's clear that priests assert themselves to be "another Christ" according to Dignities and Duties of the Priest. That's blasphemous beyond measure.

 

[Philip James]

The apostasy hadn't occurred yet in Polycarp's time - to the contrary, church persecution was so intense at that time that it protected it from apostasy

Ah, now we're getting somewhere, because Ignatius gives a very clear picture of the role of the bishop, the Eucharist, and many other things...

Now you mention Constantine... Are you suggesting that it is after the Council of Nicea that the Church in Rome apostized, or before?

Do you acknowledge that council as authoritative, in the same manner as the prototype council of Jerusalem?

Pax!