Catholics

[bbyrd009]

Hi,

Thank you for the short and direct response. I am not familiar with Augustine and and death bed conversion?

I don't know what that means. Augustine taught that it was ok to convert to Christianity on your deathbed?

Mary

i guess google could tell you more than me, but yes

 

[bbyrd009]

Dear sir,

I appreciate your apology however since I'm not Catholic you couldn't offend me. Many of my beliefs fall into the Catholic/Orthodox doctrine. I didn't see anything that you said that was offensive.

Who are the Christian influences in your life bbyrd009?

Mary

ha well i am an American too, so those are few and far between lol; it so happens that i spent my formative years in the Mideast after getting "saved" in the accepted manner--you know, profession, baptism, tongues, rebaptism, like that. Trying to think of any Christian influences there...nope, not the way you are defining that i guess. Or depends what you mean by Christian? ya

 

[epostle1]

In your post #1742 you stated that I dismissed the early church fathers as uninspired. Which I do. Which means you see them as inspired. Read again what you wrote.

This is what I said in post #1742:
"Thus your claim to trace your church back to the apostles is a lie." Thus, history is your enemy. That's why you are forced to dismiss the the Catholic early church fathers as "uninspired" because your theology is light years from them."
In most cases, when a ECF is quoted to refute a Protestant position, the reply is often "I don't have to accept that because it's not inspired." I agree they are not inspired. I never said they were inspired. But being uninspired, which I agree with, but it's still wrong to ignore them all together when their unanimous teachings (over many centuries) conflict with your man made system, which is why you are forced to call them liars.

The reformers left the Roman church. Not everything in the Roman church was to be rejected. In fact many held on to things they shouldn't have.
Like I said before, let me know when all this correction takes place. I haven't seen any yet.

The so called reformers didn't reform anything, they invented a whole new religion. If the reformation was a call from God, it would have succeeded in overthrowing Rome. They failed.
Why Only Catholicism Can Make Protestantism Work: Louis Bouyer on the Reformation

Three Ways You Shouldn’t Treat the Church Fathers – Shameless Popery

 

[Marymog]

i guess google could tell you more than me, but yes

Sir,

I did google it and I couldn't find a clear/concise answer. That is why I asked.

Scripture says Believe in the Lord Jesus Christ and you will be saved and you confess with your mouth that Jesus is Lord and believe in your heart that God raised him from the dead, you will be saved.

Are you familiar with those passages from scripture?

Are you saying if a person, on their death bed, professes belief in Jesus and confesses that Jesus is Lord they won't be saved?

Mary

 

[Marymog]

ha well i am an American too, so those are few and far between lol; it so happens that i spent my formative years in the Mideast after getting "saved" in the accepted manner--you know, profession, baptism, tongues, rebaptism, like that. Trying to think of any Christian influences there...nope, not the way you are defining that i guess. Or depends what you mean by Christian? ya

BBYRD,

What was your experience in getting "saved"? We're you all alone? In a Church? No one had an influence on you getting saved?

Curious Mary

 

[BreadOfLife]

As I said, if they are part of the Roman Church, then they are Roman. And, as I said before reread my post #1706.

Stranger

I know what you said - and you're STILL wrong.
Doesn't matter to me, really. I can go on exposing your ignorance all day long until you decide to stop lying.

The plain fact of the matter is that Maronite Catholics and Melkite Catholics aren't "Roman".
Neither are any of the other 20 Rites of the Catholic Church. Only the Latin Rite is considered "Roman."

This is like conversing with a spoiled 5-year-old who holds his breath until he gets his way . . .

 

[pia]

Yes. I've wondered the same thing about the hatred displayed here. As far as Mary is concerned, I ask her to pray with me all the time

All the very best to you....People can pray with whomever they want, all between them and God, what I have a hard time abiding, is when people seem to want to almost entirely exclude Christ, as if He is just a footnote......I am really not believing any more that forums such as these are in any way, shape or form helpful to anyone............Too sad all around !

 

[BreadOfLife]

Oh yes, when dealing with Roman theology, something always means something else. And that something else is whatever the Romans think they need it to mean. Handy.
They did lie, or ignorantly furthered the lie. It is not pathetic if it is right. And it is.

Stranger

Suuuuurrrre, Stranger.

John was experiencing dementia in his later years and rattled off a LIE to Polycarp - who, in turn passed it onto Irenaeus.
They were right about everything else - but John just wanted to sneak this ONE lie past the goalie . . .

The weight of History, Scripture and archaeology has you backed into a corner and you're swinging blindly to get out - but all you can come up with is, "They lied!!"

Do you realize how pathetically ignorant that sounds??

 

[Stranger]

Suuuuurrrre, Stranger.

John was experiencing dementia in his later years and rattled off a LIE to Polycarp - who, in turn passed it onto Irenaeus.
They were right about everything else - but John just wanted to sneak this ONE lie past the goalie . . .

The weight of History, Scripture and archaeology has you backed into a corner and you're swinging blindly to get out - but all you can come up with is, "They lied!!"

Do you realize how pathetically ignorant that sounds??

I don't feel backed in a corner. I wonder why?

Stranger

 

[pia]

ha me neither, but it sure is funny how the case can be made that God did lol

Goodness you make me laugh out loud, for real ! Thank you so much, can't get enough of those

 

[epostle1]

kepha 31

Concerning your post #1754

When Paul wrote Romans their faith was already known throughout the whole world. (Rom. 1:8). Thus by 57-58 they had been in existance quite a while. No one knows who started the church at Rome. But it certainly wasn't Peter or Paul.​

Who was the first Christian in Rome is irrelevant, who was the first bishop or Apostle who had authority over it is what matters. The Bible gives sketchy clues that Peter was, in fact, in Rome. This is confirmed by the historical record that you deny.

Peter's ministry was to the circumcision. Paul's to the uncircumcision. Who said anything about primacy. That has nothing to do with Peter ever going to Rome. Oh....I see. You must get Peter to Rome to have him be the first pope. Sure.

1 Peter 5:13 - Some Protestants argue against the Papacy by trying to prove Peter was never in Rome. First, this argument is irrelevant to whether Jesus instituted the Papacy. Secondly, this verse demonstrates that Peter was in fact in Rome. Peter writes from "Babylon" which was a code name for Rome during these days of persecution. See, for example, Revelation 14:8, Revelation 16:19, Revelation 17:5, Revelation 18:2,10,21, which show that "Babylon" meant Rome. Rome was the only "great city" of the New Testament period. Because Rome during this age was considered the center of the world, the Lord wanted His Church to be established in Rome.

Paul was clear that Peter, James, and John, 'seemed' to be something, (Gal. 2:6), seemed to be something in conference, (2:6), seemed to be pillars. But they added nothing to Paul. (2:6) "...for they who seemed to be somewhat in conference added nothing to me:".

2... Then I laid before them (though only in a private meeting with the acknowledged leaders) [the Apostles] the gospel that I proclaim among the Gentiles, in order to make sure that I was not running, or had not run, in vain. [Paul validates his gospel with that of the Apostles, not the other way around]3 But even Titus, who was with me, was not compelled to be circumcised, though he was a Greek. 4 But because of false believers secretly brought in, who slipped in to spy on the freedom we have in Christ Jesus, so that they [unconverted Jews] might enslave us— 5 we did not submit to them [unconverted Jews] even for a moment, so that the truth of the gospel might always remain with you. 6 And from those who were supposed to be acknowledged leaders (what they actually were makes no difference to me; God shows no partiality)—those leaders [unconverted Jews] contributed nothing to me. Paul verifies his gospel with the Apostles gospel and you would have us believe Paul did not submit to the Apostles, they might enslave us, contributed nothing to him, etc. You can't see the distinctions between false Jewish leaders and the Apostles.

Yet when Peter spoke of Paul he had a hard time understanding his doctrine. (2 Peter 3:15-16) "...as our beloved brother Paul also according to the wisdom given unto him hath written unto you; As also in all his epistles, speaking in them of these things; in which are some things hard to be understood."

You dishonestly chopped a sentence in half. There are some things in them hard to understand, which the ignorant and unstable twist to their own destruction, as they do the other scriptures. [like you did with Gal. 2] Is Peter saying he is too ignorant and unstable to understand Paul?

So, no authority from Peter over Paul.

Acts 15:12 - only after Peter (the Pope) speaks do Paul and Barnabas (bishops) speak in support of Peter's definitive teaching.​

Rom. 15:20 - Paul says he doesn't want to build on "another man's foundation" referring to Peter, who built the Church in Rome.
1 Cor. 15:4-8 - Paul distinguishes Jesus' post-resurrection appearances to Peter from those of the other apostles.
Gal.1:18 - Paul spends fifteen days with Peter privately before beginning his ministry, even after Christ's Revelation to Paul.

Your post 1746, 3rd paragraph down you mentioned Philip and Mark. Now I don't believe you're lying about it.

It was an oversight. I was wrong.

It just must mean you didn't write the post that bears your name. Copied from somewhere no doubt. This seems to be consistent with the Romanists here. You should at least proofread what you copied.

Pasting and leaving a link to the source abides by the rules. I said, in post 1746, We see Philip, John Mark, Barnabas and Paul traveling to and from Jerusalem and providing a teaching and disciplinary link from the new churches back to the centralized church in Jerusalem. Link to source provided, but I got a 404 error. It's on page 2 of a 4 page site, I'll try it again: The Early Papacy - 2 - Standing on my Head

Antioch was where Paul was sent out by God.

Was the church in Antioch that laid hands on on Paul invisible?

Not Rome. Not Jerusalem. Antioch is where Paul always answered to. Not Rome. Not Jerusalem. (Acts 14:26) (18:22) As I said the only time any went to Jerusalem was to give them money because they were broke, or because some legalists from Jerusalem were starting trouble.

Peter, the Apostles and elders are the authority in these instances, not any individual believer. The shift in centrality from Jerusalem to Rome did not occur until after the death of James.

​

 

[FHII]

If the reformation was a call from God, it would have succeeded in overthrowing Rome. They failed.

How so? I don't recall from history that overthrowing Rome was a goal. It seems the goal was to break away frome Rome. They succeeded.

The so called reformers didn't reform anything, they invented a whole new religion.

I'd like to compare and contrast your statement to this one:

"Protestantism isn't as antithetical to the Catholic Faith as you suppose. It has positive principles, as well as negative ones. Its positive principles, properly understood, belong to the Catholic Tradition, which we Catholics can see if we approach Protestantism with a bit of understanding and openness."

That quote is from Louis Bouyer (the very article you referenced). He doesn't seem to be of the opinion that they invented a whole new religion like you state.

Perhaps you could explain this perceived discrepancy.

 

[epostle1]

I don't feel backed in a corner. I wonder why?

Stranger

BoL is not interested in backing you into a corner, he is using satire to expose ignorance and stupidity. You would benefit greatly if you would humble yourself and retract saying the ECF were liars. That's sawing off the limb you are sitting on.

After the martyrdom of James the leadership shifts to Peter and Paul. The authority is not centered on Jerusalem, but through their epistles to the various churches, we see a centralized authority that is vested in Peter and Paul as apostles. This central authority was very soon focused on Rome, so that St Ignatius, a bishop of the church in Antioch would write to the Romans in the year 108 affirming that their church was the one that had the “superior place in love among the churches.’” James , bishop of Jerusalem, was martyred in 47, over 50 years after the CofJ. That's about how long the centrality of the Church in Jerusalem lasted before it shifted to Rome. If Rome did not develop centrality, then neither did Jerusalem.

The Patriarchs of Antioch:

• Apostle Peter.
• Evodius (c. 53–c. ...
• Ignatius (c. 70–c. 107), who was martyred in the reign of Trajan. His seven epistles are unique sources for the early Church.
• Heron (107–127)
• Cornelius (127–154)
• Eros of Antioch (154–169)
• Theophilus (c. 169–c. 182)
• Maximus I of Antioch (182–191)

This is Antioch, not Rome.

 

[epostle1]

How so? I don't recall from history that overthrowing Rome was a goal. It seems the goal was to break away frome Rome. They succeeded.

I'd like to compare and contrast your statement to this one:

"Protestantism isn't as antithetical to the Catholic Faith as you suppose. It has positive principles, as well as negative ones. Its positive principles, properly understood, belong to the Catholic Tradition, which we Catholics can see if we approach Protestantism with a bit of understanding and openness."

That quote is from Louis Bouyer (the very article you referenced). He doesn't seem to be of the opinion that they invented a whole new religion like you state.

Perhaps you could explain this perceived discrepancy.

I was being nasty. I can admit a mistake but I am not freeze dried into denial. Thank you for checking the link.

 

[FHII]

I was being nasty. I can admit a mistake but I am not freeze dried into denial. Thank you for checking the link.

LOl! Cool! Its all good.

It was an interesting read. I am not saying I agree with it all, but it was worth the time.

 

[mjrhealth]

If they are Christians then they know Jesus....If they know Jesus then they are Christians. Right? So what you said doesn't make sense.

Did you miss this bit,

Mar_7:6 He answered and said unto them, Well hath Esaias prophesied of you hypocrites, as it is written, This people honoureth me with their lips, but their heart is far from me.

That is what religion is all about.

 

[Stranger]

Who was the first Christian in Rome is irrelevant, who was the first bishop or Apostle who had authority over it is what matters. The Bible gives sketchy clues that Peter was, in fact, in Rome. This is confirmed by the historical record that you deny.


1 Peter 5:13 - Some Protestants argue against the Papacy by trying to prove Peter was never in Rome. First, this argument is irrelevant to whether Jesus instituted the Papacy. Secondly, this verse demonstrates that Peter was in fact in Rome. Peter writes from "Babylon" which was a code name for Rome during these days of persecution. See, for example, Revelation 14:8, Revelation 16:19, Revelation 17:5, Revelation 18:2,10,21, which show that "Babylon" meant Rome. Rome was the only "great city" of the New Testament period. Because Rome during this age was considered the center of the world, the Lord wanted His Church to be established in Rome.


2... Then I laid before them (though only in a private meeting with the acknowledged leaders) [the Apostles] the gospel that I proclaim among the Gentiles, in order to make sure that I was not running, or had not run, in vain. [Paul validates his gospel with that of the Apostles, not the other way around]3 But even Titus, who was with me, was not compelled to be circumcised, though he was a Greek. 4 But because of false believers secretly brought in, who slipped in to spy on the freedom we have in Christ Jesus, so that they [unconverted Jews] might enslave us— 5 we did not submit to them [unconverted Jews] even for a moment, so that the truth of the gospel might always remain with you. 6 And from those who were supposed to be acknowledged leaders (what they actually were makes no difference to me; God shows no partiality)—those leaders [unconverted Jews] contributed nothing to me. Paul verifies his gospel with the Apostles gospel and you would have us believe Paul did not submit to the Apostles, they might enslave us, contributed nothing to him, etc. You can't see the distinctions between false Jewish leaders and the Apostles.


You dishonestly chopped a sentence in half. There are some things in them hard to understand, which the ignorant and unstable twist to their own destruction, as they do the other scriptures. [like you did with Gal. 2] Is Peter saying he is too ignorant and unstable to understand Paul?

Acts 15:12 - only after Peter (the Pope) speaks do Paul and Barnabas (bishops) speak in support of Peter's definitive teaching.​

Rom. 15:20 - Paul says he doesn't want to build on "another man's foundation" referring to Peter, who built the Church in Rome.
1 Cor. 15:4-8 - Paul distinguishes Jesus' post-resurrection appearances to Peter from those of the other apostles.
Gal.1:18 - Paul spends fifteen days with Peter privately before beginning his ministry, even after Christ's Revelation to Paul.

It was an oversight. I was wrong.​

The Bible gives nothing to show Peter ever went to Rome. You and the Romanist's must create something. At least you admit that Peter and Paul did not found the Church at Rome. Now we just have to get pope Peter out of there.

No, I would have you believe Scripture. Paul was not under the other apostles authority. Especially not Peter who he rebuked sharply. (Gal. 2:11-14).

No, I didn't dishonestly chop off the latter part of the verse. It did not pertain to what I was saying. (2Peter 3:15-16) It is not a question of Peter being ignorant. It is a question of the revelation given to Paul. It wasn't given to Peter. (Gal. 1:11-12) Imagine that, It was Paul and not Peter whom God gave the revelation of the Church to. Wonder why?

In (Acts 15)James was the one in authority over the council. Peter was there to explain the vision, not because he was the pope. If one were a pope here, which they are not, it would have been James. No pope Peter here.

(Rom. 15:20) doesn't speak of Peter or any certain person at all. Paul is telling the Romans one of the reasons he had not come to them. He then explains in the next few verses why now he can come to them. (Rom. 15:21-23) "But as it is written, To whom he was not spoken of, they shall see: and they that have not heard shall understand. For which cause also I have been much hindered from coming to you. But now having no more place in these parts, and having a great desire these many years to come unto you;" No pope Peter here.

(1Cor. 15:4-8) So what?

(Gal. 1:18) So what?

Sure.

Stranger



​

 

[Stranger]

This is what I said in post #1742:
"Thus your claim to trace your church back to the apostles is a lie." Thus, history is your enemy. That's why you are forced to dismiss the the Catholic early church fathers as "uninspired" because your theology is light years from them."
In most cases, when a ECF is quoted to refute a Protestant position, the reply is often "I don't have to accept that because it's not inspired." I agree they are not inspired. I never said they were inspired. But being uninspired, which I agree with, but it's still wrong to ignore them all together when their unanimous teachings (over many centuries) conflict with your man made system, which is why you are forced to call them liars.
The so called reformers didn't reform anything, they invented a whole new religion. If the reformation was a call from God, it would have succeeded in overthrowing Rome. They failed.
Why Only Catholicism Can Make Protestantism Work: Louis Bouyer on the Reformation

Three Ways You Shouldn’t Treat the Church Fathers – Shameless Popery

The reformers were trying to reform the Roman Church. But the Roman Church wouldn't have it. The reformation succeeded in causing the breakaway from the Roman Church. The Roman Church was beyond fixing.

Stranger

 

[Stranger]

BoL is not interested in backing you into a corner, he is using satire to expose ignorance and stupidity. You would benefit greatly if you would humble yourself and retract saying the ECF were liars. That's sawing off the limb you are sitting on.

After the martyrdom of James the leadership shifts to Peter and Paul. The authority is not centered on Jerusalem, but through their epistles to the various churches, we see a centralized authority that is vested in Peter and Paul as apostles. This central authority was very soon focused on Rome, so that St Ignatius, a bishop of the church in Antioch would write to the Romans in the year 108 affirming that their church was the one that had the “superior place in love among the churches.’” James , bishop of Jerusalem, was martyred in 47, over 50 years after the CofJ. That's about how long the centrality of the Church in Jerusalem lasted before it shifted to Rome. If Rome did not develop centrality, then neither did Jerusalem.

The Patriarchs of Antioch:

• Apostle Peter.
• Evodius (c. 53–c. ...
• Ignatius (c. 70–c. 107), who was martyred in the reign of Trajan. His seven epistles are unique sources for the early Church.
• Heron (107–127)
• Cornelius (127–154)
• Eros of Antioch (154–169)
• Theophilus (c. 169–c. 182)
• Maximus I of Antioch (182–191)

This is Antioch, not Rome.

If any did say what you or others claim they said, they either lied or ignorantly contributed to the giving to Rome any authority over any other church, as I said without apology.

There was no shifting of authority over the churches anywhere. No one church ever had that authority.

Stranger

 

[bbyrd009]

I did google it and I couldn't find a clear/concise answer. That is why I asked.

oh, my apologies. I guess Constantine popularized putting off "accepting Christ" with all of the standard ritual accoutrements, baptism, etc, until one's deathbed, maybe to avoid the "purgatory" heresy that was then getting popular or something? I guess "life, more abundantly" went out the window pretty quick iow. Pretty much everyone--dunno about the Apostles though, prolly not--started "standing there, looking up into the sky" at least figuratively speaking?

But i would get a Catholic's side here for a closer approach to the truth, which is prolly somewhere in the middle.