The Church At Rome

[jacobtaylor]

What you quoted from the Catholic Encyclopedia does not even say that Tertullian was questioning apostolic succession. What you quoted was Terullian questioning Mary's virginity and that he developed his own doctrine of the Holy Trinity as well as classes of sin. But nowhere does it mention apostolic sucession. The one I gave quoted Tertullian supporting apostolic succession.

Selene every word in the quote brackets is from the Catholic Encyclopedia labeled Tertullian on this page. http://www.newadvent...then/14520c.htm
Along with much I did not post.

In fact the link you posted was from Tertullian as well. http://mb-soft.com/b...xv/tertulle.htm
look and read the heading. The Prescription Against Heretics - Tertullian

From the sixth paragraph. This indicates the churches were in disagreement, the solution according to Tertullian was to produce letters of succession, non of which exist today If in fact they did at all. This is Tertullian's witness they did. Its nothing more than one catholic supporting there choice. The argument IMO is nothing more mans endeavor to capture Gods hand and place in the hands of men. The point is the chuches were in disagreement, that disagreement was resolved threw letters that presumably carried Gods authority. After that it these letters of authority became Roman law 150 years latter.

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! The Roman Rule of Faith is summarized, no doubt from the old Roman Creed, the same as our present Apostles' Creed but for a few small additions in the latter; much the same summary was given in chapter xiii, and is found also in "De virginibus velandis" (chapter I). Tertullian evidently avoids giving the exact words, which would be taught only to catechumens shortly before baptism. The whole luminous argument is founded on the first chapters of St. Irenæus's third book, but its forceful exposition is not more Tertullian's own than its exhaustive and compelling logic. Never did he show himself less violent and less obscure. The appeal to the Apostolic churches was unanswerable in his day; the rest of his argument is still valid.

 

[Selene]

Lactantius is nothing more than a catholic member proclaiming the church to be founded by an Apostle again. Its no different than your reference to Tertullian.



If chapter 2 were true and not simply a political affirmation just what does it prove? That God threw the Roman empire established a church under the penalty of death to all that denied it? Is that what Jesus commanded, a christian jihad to kill and persecute all non conformist under the power of Rome? If thats what you believe then good for you, I can't quite accept that foundation. This went on until just a couple hundred years ago. Do you believe the catholic church today is the only legitimate church? Is this where you are heading with this topic?

Hello Jacob,

This only goes to show how old the Catholic Church is. The Bible spoke of a "Church in Babylon." The Catholic Church is the oldest Christian Church in Rome, and it is also the only Church that can trace its lineage to the Apostle Peter in the first century.

My brother, when Jesus built His Church, He called the sinners. So, why are you amazed that the Church members are sinners? God always chooses the weak, the poor, and even the worst sinners as His chosen ones. After all, look at St. Paul.....he was a murderer of Christians, and he was chosen by God. The members of the Catholic Church are sinners, and our history shows that. Like St. Paul and the rest of the Apostles, our history shows that we are sinful. However, our history ALSO shows that many holy saints came out from us....such as Francis of Assisi, Theresa of Avilla, St. Damian, etc.

 

[jacobtaylor]

If the evidence of this information convinces you of a divine foundation Im not going to try to convince you other wise. In a court this evidence is nothing more than hear say, 150 years after the fact and well beyond Tertullian's life span. Looking at the best evidence along with the sorted history of the Roman church I chose to steer clear of Roman Catholicism. For the last 150 years this church has tried to present itself in a more favorable light without compromising its long held dogmas at the same time. The result I believe is a church that teaches conflicting ideals in an attempt to change its image without changing its principles. The higest level of the Roman church in my opinion would be very pleased to have exclusive christian salvation threw it enforced again by law. That in my opinion is the reason its survived threw all the centuries.

This is just my personal opinion and you are entitled to believe other wise, simply because of this country's first amendment. To many historians the Roman church was just as dangerious as some middle east Muslims practicing shariah law today. The evidence is simply the absents of any other church from 350 AD to 1600 AD. I don't think I'll make the decision to support a church that was founded threw Governmental enforcement and practiced this for 1500 years. So there you have it, I don't think Jesus would use letters of authority to establish a church or Roman law to enforce it.

Today we are witnessing the result of people being oppressed in the middle east. As soon as people have the means to compare what they have been told and what they see and read else where the jig is up. The same thing happened during the reformation, people compared what is written in the bible with what was taught, the jig was up again in 1520. Communist countries like N Korea today retain control by keeping information repressed. As long as the people don't realize they are slaves in comparison to western standards they will fight and die blindly to protect there slave master. People that never have running water a TV a radio or enough food to eat will never know the difference unless they are told or see for themselves.
This kind of control over nations of people has only recently been in danger with the intervention of rapid transit and communications. The war now is no longer simply controlling information but now people must chose what and whom to believe. Thats a completely new concept compared to history. Its lead to conflicting stories from the media to the highest levels of government. You can find several stories regarding the same piece of information all day long. In the past controlling peoples minds was an easy task simply control what they are exposed to. Today's fight is for the very minds of people, leaders must some how convince people to stay loyal to there cause. Unfortunately that many times involves bending the truth and telling different groups of people what they want to here with no intention of following threw. Manipulating facts to create a desired result. He was a lair in the beginning and it looks like thats how hes going to end as well. Flood the world with lies!! that certainly makes finding the truth harder, especially when you can no longer suppress the truth by controlling what people hear and read.

 

[Doppleganger]

I think you all should read this before you continue this debate ... You also need another choice, which the poller didn't mention

http://www.christianityboard.com/topic/12966-more-astonishing-bible-proof-warning-athiests-this-is-adult-sensitive-material/page__view__findpost__p__101767

http://www.christianityboard.com/topic/13387-historical-evidences-of-the-bible/page__view__findpost__p__101843

 

[Selene]

If the evidence of this information convinces you of a divine foundation Im not going to try to convince you other wise. In a court this evidence is nothing more than hear say, 150 years after the fact and well beyond Tertullian's life span. Looking at the best evidence along with the sorted history of the Roman church I chose to steer clear of Roman Catholicism. For the last 150 years this church has tried to present itself in a more favorable light without compromising its long held dogmas at the same time. The result I believe is a church that teaches conflicting ideals in an attempt to change its image without changing its principles. The higest level of the Roman church in my opinion would be very pleased to have exclusive christian salvation threw it enforced again by law. That in my opinion is the reason its survived threw all the centuries.

My brother, that is simply your opinion. But as I said, we are the oldest Christian Church, and we can trace our llineage all the way back to the Apostle Peter in the first century. We believe that we are the Church that Christ built and that the gates of Hell will never prevail over it. Why? Because Christ is the Head of the Church and He promised to be with His Church until the end of the world.

This is just my personal opinion and you are entitled to believe other wise, simply because of this country's first amendment. To many historians the Roman church was just as dangerious as some middle east Muslims practicing shariah law today. The evidence is simply the absents of any other church from 350 AD to 1600 AD. I don't think I'll make the decision to support a church that was founded threw Governmental enforcement and practiced this for 1500 years. So there you have it, I don't think Jesus would use letters of authority to establish a church or Roman law to enforce it.

You don't thinkk that Jesus would use letters of authority to establish a Church? My brother, the first chosen people of God were the Israelites. The Israelites were slaves in Egypt. They were chosen by God because slaves are the poorest of the poor. As I said, God chooses the weakest, the poverty-stricken, and even the worst of sinners to be His chosen ones. God made this group of slaves into a nation....the nation of Israel. He made them into a nation with letters of authority. If God can do that to His chosen people, how much more His Church? Only God has the power to turn a Church into a nation like Israel.

Today we are witnessing the result of people being oppressed in the middle east. As soon as people have the means to compare what they have been told and what they see and read else where the jig is up. The same thing happened during the reformation, people compared what is written in the bible with what was taught, the jig was up again in 1520. Communist countries like N Korea today retain control by keeping information repressed. As long as the people don't realize they are slaves in comparison to western standards they will fight and die blindly to protect there slave master. People that never have running water a TV a radio or enough food to eat will never know the difference unless they are told or see for themselves

And how are Catholics similar to these? If you are referring to the Crusade Wars, that was a war that existed thousands of years ago. Today, the year is 2011. We are living in the 21st century. Are you going to hold a grudge and judge all Catholics for something that happened thousands of years ago? I was not even born during the Crusade Wars.

This kind of control over nations of people has only recently been in danger with the intervention of rapid transit and communications. The war now is no longer simply controlling information but now people must chose what and whom to believe. Thats a completely new concept compared to history. Its lead to conflicting stories from the media to the highest levels of government. You can find several stories regarding the same piece of information all day long. In the past controlling peoples minds was an easy task simply control what they are exposed to. Today's fight is for the very minds of people, leaders must some how convince people to stay loyal to there cause. Unfortunately that many times involves bending the truth and telling different groups of people what they want to here with no intention of following threw. Manipulating facts to create a desired result. He was a lair in the beginning and it looks like thats how hes going to end as well. Flood the world with lies!! that certainly makes finding the truth harder, especially when you can no longer suppress the truth by controlling what people hear and read.

Are you saying that the Catholic Church controls the minds of people simply because we are instructed to obey our bishops and priests. My brother, the Bible DOES say to obey your church leaders (See Hebrews 13:17).

In the Bible, it even tell us to obey and honor our mother and father. There is a reason why God tells us to obey our parents in the Ten Commandments and to obey our Church leaders. If you cannot obey your mother and father, then what makes you think you can obey God? If you cannot obey your church leaders just as it says in the Bible (See Hebrews 13:17), then what makes you think that you can obey God? We believe in our Church because we believe what the Bible teaches about the Church. The Bible tells us that Christ is the Head of the Church (Ephesians 5:23). The Bible also tells us that the Church is the pillar and foundation of Truth (1 Timothy 3:15). Therefore, if you cannot believe what the Bible tells you about the Church, then what good is that Bible?

In Christ,
Selene

 

[Anastacia]

But as I said, we are the oldest Christian Church, and we can trace our llineage all the way back to the Apostle Peter in the first century. We believe that we are the Church that Christ built and that the gates of Hell will never prevail over it. Why? Because Christ is the Head of the Church and He promised to be with His Church until the end of the world.

In the Bible, it even tell us to obey and honor our mother and father. There is a reason why God tells us to obey our parents in the Ten Commandments and to obey our Church leaders. If you cannot obey your mother and father, then what makes you think you can obey God? If you cannot obey your church leaders just as it says in the Bible (See Hebrews 13:17), then what makes you think that you can obey God? We believe in our Church because we believe what the Bible teaches about the Church. The Bible tells us that Christ is the Head of the Church (Ephesians 5:23). The Bible also tells us that the Church is the pillar and foundation of Truth (1 Timothy 3:15). Therefore, if you cannot believe what the Bible tells you about the Church, then what good is that Bible?

The second paragraph is absolutely ridiculous...saying that if a person doesn't obey the Catholic church then they can't obey God.

The Catholic church is not the oldest church. The oldest churches are those in the New Testament, and there is no Catholic church there. The church is the body of Christ...and true believers. The Catholic religion being an old religion does not make it a true religion of God.

 

[TexUs]

TexUs, my post #10 showed that it was St. Peter who established the Church in Babylon. My posted stated the following, which you ignored:

Lactantius, in a treatise called The Death of the Persecutors, written around 318, noted that “When Nero was already reigning (Nero reigned from 54–68), Peter came to Rome, where, in virtue of the performance of certain miracles which he worked by that power of God which had been given to him, he converted many to righteousness and established a firm and steadfast temple to God.”

And if you had bothered to read my post, it showed that St. Peter was in Rome, and I even cited the historical documents.

You're doing nothing more than proving what I said earlier.
That the belief Peter founded the RCC and was the Pope was invented by Catholics hundreds of years later.

You prove this for me. It was in 318AD- hundreds of years later.
It was written by someone else- not first hand. No eye witnesses.
It was written by a Catholic follower- invented by Catholics.

Selene, I'm waiting.
Where's the documentation FROM THE TIME OF PETER, that has him as the Pope of the Church in Rome? You haven't provided SQUAT.

I think it is important to see that the church of Rome is the Catholic (Thyatirean) church. In which... If folks want to follow is their own business.

Theirs and God's. God will not look favorably on a church deliberately preaching false doctrine. The Catholic church is full of it. This is one example. Catholics can't prove at all that Peter was the Pope. Yet they build entire doctrine and teachings around it. Like Paul says, God will curse those that preach a gospel other than the one they gave.

 

[Selene]

You're doing nothing more than proving what I said earlier.
That the belief Peter founded the RCC and was the Pope was invented by Catholics hundreds of years later.

You prove this for me. It was in 318AD- hundreds of years later.
It was written by someone else- not first hand. No eye witnesses.
It was written by a Catholic follower- invented by Catholics.

Selene, I'm waiting.
Where's the documentation FROM THE TIME OF PETER, that has him as the Pope of the Church in Rome? You haven't provided SQUAT.


Theirs and God's. God will not look favorably on a church deliberately preaching false doctrine. The Catholic church is full of it. This is one example. Catholics can't prove at all that Peter was the Pope. Yet they build entire doctrine and teachings around it. Like Paul says, God will curse those that preach a gospel other than the one they gave.

TexUs, my post showed the other writings other than Lactantius. If you had actually spent time reading the letters of the Early Fathers rather than criticize a fellow Christian Church, you would have known that the word "Catholic" first appeared in 110 A.D. The word was written by Ignatius, who was the Bishop of Antioch. Ignatius wrote a letter to the Smyrnaeans in 110 A.D. before he was executed in Rome, and in that letter, the name "Catholic" first appeared. This is an indication that the name "Catholic" was in use even before the letter was written.

As I said, we can trace our lineage to the Apostle Peter. Apostolic succession is a line of bishop. Starting from the current Pope today (Pope Benedict XVI), we can go back to the very first bishop of Rome, who is the Apostle Peter. As you can see, my brother, the Jewish people can trace their lineage to King David and even to Abraham. And we can trace our lineage to the Apostle Peter. Can you trace the lineage of your church?

In Christ,
Selene

 

[TexUs]

TexUs, my post showed the other writings other than Lactantius. If you had actually spent time reading the letters of the Early Fathers rather than criticize a fellow Christian Church, you would have known that the word "Catholic" first appeared in 110 A.D. The word was written by Ignatius, who was the Bishop of Antioch. Ignatius wrote a letter to the Smyrnaeans in 110 A.D. before he was executed in Rome, and in that letter, the name "Catholic" first appeared. This is an indication that the name "Catholic" was in use even before the letter was written.

In Christ,
Selene

What's that have to do with Peter?

Still waiting on the proof you say the RCC has of Peter being the first Pope.

 

[jacobtaylor]

You don't thinkk that Jesus would use letters of authority to establish a Church? My brother, the first chosen people of God were the Israelites. The Israelites were slaves in Egypt. They were chosen by God because slaves are the poorest of the poor. As I said, God chooses the weakest, the poverty-stricken, and even the worst of sinners to be His chosen ones. God made this group of slaves into a nation....the nation of Israel. He made them into a nation with letters of authority. If God can do that to His chosen people, how much more His Church? Only God has the power to turn a Church into a nation like Israel.

You should consider whether the Roman church reflects God leading Abraham and Moses or the Scribes and Pharisees. Simple logic says that Christianity never had a problem establishing itself in the Roman empire well before the Romans consolidated it under Constantin. So what happened? IMO the new scribes and Pharisees took over supported by Roman law, then they proceeded to end all opposition, bringing control of the message of salvation to the new Pharisees exclusively.

I certainly don't see Tertullian, Constantine or any other early testimony's as being the equal to Moses. The shoe of the Roman church is better suited to the Scribes and Pharisees. You claim the fathers of the Roman church were the poor and down trodden, history indicates the Roman church founders were the elite influential and educated looking to consolidate control over this run away faith in Jesus. As I said the faith in Christ never had a problem spreading threw out the entire known world from 33 AD to 320 AD. With that in mind just what purpose did singular control provide if not control? The Roman church lost its grip threw out the last couple hundred years. Where are we now? Exactly where we were before Rome took control. Is the message of salvation being spread today? Of course it is. Even without the enforcement of the sword. The main difference I understand between the Roman church and Protestant churches is one teaches as the Scribes and Pharisees did that they alone hold salvation. Protestants teach its in the hands of Jesus. A centralized location is not what Jesus spoke of.

[sup]21[/sup] Jesus said to her, “Woman, believe Me, the hour is coming when you will neither on this mountain, nor in Jerusalem, worship the Father. [sup]22[/sup] You worship what you do not know; we know what we worship, for salvation is of the Jews. [sup]23[/sup] But the hour is coming, and now is, when the true worshipers will worship the Father in spirit and truth; for the Father is seeking such to worship Him. [sup]24[/sup] God is Spirit, and those who worship Him must worship in spirit and truth.”

Apparently Catholics would have everyone believe that Rome is the place we should now worship both Jesus and the Scribes and Pharisees. http://www.zimbio.co...Beatified+May+1

I really don't have a problem with your faith it's simply not for me thank you.

 

[Selene]

You should consider whether the Roman church reflects God leading Abraham and Moses or the Scribes and Pharisees. Simple logic says that Christianity never had a problem establishing itself in the Roman empire well before the Romans consolidated it under Constantin. So what happened? IMO the new scribes and Pharisees took over supported by Roman law, then they proceeded end all opposition bringing control of the message of salvation to the new Pharisees exclusively.

I certainly don't see Tertullian, Constantine or any other early testimony's as being the equal to Moses. The shoe of the Roman church is better suited to the Scribes and Pharisees. You claim the fathers of the Roman church were the poor and down trodden, history indicates the Roman church founders were the elite influential and educated looking to consolidate control over this run away faith in Jesus. As I said the faith in Christ never had a problem spreading threw out the entire known world from 33 AD to 320 AD. With that in mind just what purpose did singular control provide if not control? The Roman church lost its grip threw out the last couple hundred years. Where are we now? Exactly where we were before Rome took control. Is the message of salvation being spread today? Of course it is. Even without the enforcement of the sword. The main difference I understand between the Roman church and Protestant churches is one teaches as the Scribes and Pharisees did that they alone hold salvation. Protestants teach its in the hands of Jesus. A centralized is not what Jesus spoke of.

[sup]21[/sup] Jesus said to her, “Woman, believe Me, the hour is coming when you will neither on this mountain, nor in Jerusalem, worship the Father. [sup]22[/sup] You worship what you do not know; we know what we worship, for salvation is of the Jews. [sup]23[/sup] But the hour is coming, and now is, when the true worshipers will worship the Father in spirit and truth; for the Father is seeking such to worship Him. [sup]24[/sup] God is Spirit, and those who worship Him must worship in spirit and truth.”

Apparently Catholics would have everyone believe that Rome is the place we should now worship both Jesus and the Scribes and Pharisees. http://www.zimbio.co...Beatified+May+1


I really don't have a problem with your faith it's simply not for me thank you.

My brother, I never even ask you to convert. I was simply defending my Church. As you noticed throughout my post, not once did I ever criticized any other non-Catholic church as being a false church. It has always been YOU who branded the Catholic Church as false despite the fact that we are Christians who believe in our Lord Jesus Christ.

And for your information, no where in my post did I ever say that Tertullian or even Constantine was poor and down-trodden. I stated that God chooses the poor, the lowly, and even the worst of sinners to be His chosen ones. Look at St. Paul....he was a murderer of Christians, and he was God's chosen one. St. Peter denied Christ three times, and he was also God's chosen one. Matthew was a cheating tax collector, and he was God's chosen one. The group of slaves who came out of Egypt as God's chosen people were not only the poorest of the poor, but they were a stiff-necked people who betrayed God over and over many times; yet God made them into the great nation of Israel. As for the members of the Catholic Church, look at our history. We have a history similar to Israel. We also committed great sins especially in the Crusades, and God turned His Church into a nation....the nation of Vatican City. Do you know of any Christian denomination that became a soverign nation like Israel? There is none, but the Roman Catholic Church.

How did the Catholic Church lose its grip? Today, we are the largest of all the Christian denominations, and our numbers are growing especially in the pagan continents of Africa and Asia.

What's that have to do with Peter?

Still waiting on the proof you say the RCC has of Peter being the first Pope.

Our line of succession is our proof, TexUs. In fact, the Britanica Encyclopedia accepts this line of succession. You can find the Apostolic succession of the Catholic Church in the Britanica Encyclopdedia because it is already accepted as historical fact.

http://www.britannic...c/441722/papacy

 

[TexUs]

Our line of succession is our proof, TexUs.

Not unless that line of succession can be traced by to the time of Peter. Do we have a document from Peter's lifetime that says he was the first?


Still waiting.

Our line of succession is our proof, TexUs.

System of central government of the Roman Catholic Church. Bishops led the early church, the bishop of Rome being accorded special respect by the end of the 1st century ad in part because of the belief that St. Peter was the first bishop of that city.
See that word? Belief? All they do is recognize that you BELIEVE it. There's no historical proof FOR it.

 

[jacobtaylor]

My brother, I never even ask you to convert. I was simply defending my Church. As you noticed throughout my post, not once did I ever criticized any other non-Catholic church as being a false church. It has always been YOU who branded the Catholic Church as false despite the fact that we are Christians who believe in our Lord Jesus Christ.

And for your information, no where in my post did I ever say that Tertullian or even Constantine was poor and down-trodden. I stated that God chooses the poor, the lowly, and even the worst of sinners to be His chosen ones. Look at St. Paul....he was a murderer of Christians, and he was God's chosen one. St. Peter denied Christ three times, and he was also God's chosen one. Matthew was a cheating tax collector, and he was God's chosen one. The group of slaves who came out of Egypt as God's chosen people were not only the poorest of the poor, but they were a stiff-necked people who betrayed God over and over many times; yet God made them into the great nation of Israel. As for the members of the Catholic Church, look at our history. We have a history similar to Israel. We also committed great sins especially in the Crusades, and God turned His Church into a nation....the nation of Vatican City. Do you know of any Christian denomination that became a soverign nation like Israel? There is none, but the Roman Catholic Church.

How did the Catholic Church lose its grip? Today, we are the largest of all the Christian denominations, and our numbers are growing especially in the pagan continents of Africa and Asia.



Our line of succession is our proof, TexUs. In fact, the Britanica Encyclopedia accepts this line of succession. You can find the Apostolic succession of the Catholic Church in the Britanica Encyclopdedia because it is already accepted as historical fact.

http://www.britannic...c/441722/papacy

If this is not critiquing all other denominations then your simply fooling yourself

We also committed great sins especially in the Crusades, and God turned His Church into a nation....the nation of Vatican City. Do you know of any Christian denomination that became a soverign nation like Israel? There is none, but the Roman Catholic Church.

Your church lost its grip when the men began teaching a doctrine other than Roman Catholicism. Can you name some European churches between 320 AD & 1500 AD that were not persecuted as heretics? The churches between 1500 and 1800 were under attack as well. Your promotion of Rome over all others is evident you believe all others are heretical. Nothings really changed, except Romes exclusive iron grip as the singular source of information under the penalty enforcement. Several hundred years ago your church would be at my door to take my land and property and imprison me until I confessed the Roman church my allegiance.
The largest church?
And yes the next largest group of believers are Muslims, interestingly enough they to force people into submitting. Is it any wonder both Catholics and Muslims boast of having the most converts. Its pretty easy to recruit converts when your threatening them with death over hundreds of years.The picture of the Pope kissing the Koran? It would be no small wonder that these two promoters of religion came to terms with one another. They have use the same strategy for centuries confess or die.

 

[TexUs]

It has always been YOU who branded the Catholic Church as false despite the fact that we are Christians who believe in our Lord Jesus Christ.

Belief in Christ is full submission to him. This also means full submission to his Word, and what he taught.
Creating doctrines of men, renouncing scripture, and idolizing saints, works, and human tradition is not full submission to Christ.

 

[Selene]

If this is not critiquing all other denominations then your simply fooling yourself

My brother, there is nothing negative in saying that ONLY the Catholic Church is a soverign nation like Israel. Vatican City is indeed a soverign nation like Israel. However, when you say that Catholics follow a false doctrine, that is a negative critique.

Your church lost its grip when the men began teaching a doctrine other than Roman Catholicism. Can you name some European churches between 320 AD & 1500 AD that were not persecuted as heretics? The churches between 1500 and 1800 were under attack as well. Your promotion of Rome over all others is evident you believe all others are heretical. Nothings really changed, except Romes exclusive iron grip as the singular source of information under the penalty enforcement. Several hundred years ago your church would be at my door to take my land and property and imprison me until I confessed the Roman church my allegiance.
The largest church?
And yes the next largest group of believers are Muslims, interestingly enough they to force people into submitting. Is it any wonder both Catholics and Muslims boast of having the most converts. Its pretty easy to recruit converts when your threatening them with death over hundreds of years.The picture of the Pope kissing the Koran? It would be no small wonder that these two promoters of religion came to terms with one another. They have use the same strategy for centuries confess or die.

My brother, do you honestly believe that only Catholics are sinners? Do you not know that all Christians are sinners? John Chivington was a Methodist minister who murdered Native Americans. The Chivington Massacre is recorded in American history books. My brother, in Asia and Africa, where Catholicism is growing, we do not force them to convert. Yes, I remember Pope John Paul II kissing the Koran. This just goes to show how tolerant Catholics are toward our Muslim brothers. As a result of the Pope's action, some Muslims will convert to Catholicism. After all, do you know of any Muslim Iman who kissed the Holy Bible?

[font="Arial]System of central government of the Roman Catholic Church. [url="http://www.britannica.com/EBchecked/topic/66863/bishop"][font="Arial]Bishop[/font][/url]s led the early church, the bishop of Rome being accorded special respect by the end of the 1st century [font="Arial]ad[/font] in part because of the [u][b]belief [/b][/u]that St. [url="http://www.britannica.com/EBchecked/topic/453832/Saint-Peter-the-Apostle"][font="Arial]Peter[/font][/url] was the first bishop of that city.[/font][/size][/i]
[font="Arial][size="2"]See that word? Belief? All they do is recognize that you BELIEVE it. There's no historical proof FOR it.[/font]

Really, TexUs...try reading the entire sentence and not just one word.

 

[jacobtaylor]

Have a nice day Selene, save your ink for the less informed.

 

[Selene]

Have a nice day Selene, save your ink for the less informed.

God bless you, my brother.

In Christ,
Selene

 

[Selene]

Ummm... He didn't say that as a compliment.

He said it in meaning, that we aren't stupid and won't believe the crap coming from your mouth.

Okay, so he did not meant it as a compliment. But llike our brother Jesus, we are taught to be humble to those who persecute us.

I did. You are ignoring that one word. The context doesn't change the fact the only thing the encyclopedia says is that you believe it. It's not proof for it.

I'm still waiting for the proof you say you posses of Peter being the first Pope. It's only valid if it was a written observation at the time of Peter- not invented hundreds of years later.
Or did you lie about the documentation existing?

My brother, you are focusing on one word and taking it out of context. As I said, our proof is already in our lineage. Are you going to tell me that the lineage is wrong? Are you going to tell me that before Benedict XVI, John Paul II was not a Pope and that John Paul I was not a Pope before that? The proof is in our lineage. Prove to me that our lineage is inaccurate.

 

[Selene]

Ahhh yes.... Says the Catholic side that is now having trouble proving what they claim.

You guys made the claim you have the documents I asked of.

Was that a lie? It's rather simple. Either you lied about it or not.

The sources are included and placed in bold.

St. Cyprian
In the middle of the third century St. Cyprian expressly termed the Roman See the Chair of St. Peter, saying that Cornelius has succeeded to "the place of Fabian which is the place of Peter." (Epistle 51:8. 75:3)


Hippolytus
In the first quarter of the century (about 220), Hippolytus reckons Peter in the list of Roman bishops ("Liberian Catalogue" - "Clement of Rome", 1:259)


"Adversus Marcionem"
We have moreover a poem, "Adversus Marcionem", written apparently at the same period, in which Peter is said to have passed on to Linus "the chair on which he himself had sat" (P.L., II 1077).

St. Clement
The first witness is St. Clement, a disciple of the Apostles, who, after Linus and Anacletus, succeeded St. Peter as the fourth in the list of popes. In his "Epistle to the Corinthian", written in 95 or 96, he bids them receive back the bishops whom a turbulent faction among them had expelled. "If any man", he says, "should be disobedient unto the words spoken by God through us, let them understand that they will entangle themselves in no slight transgression and danger" (Ep. 59). Moreover, he bids them "render obedience unto the things written by us through the Holy Spirit". The tone of authority which inspires the latter appears so clearly that Lightfoot did not hesitate to speak of it as "the first step towards papal domination" (Clement 1:70). Thus, at the very commencement of church history, before the last survivor of the Apostles had passed away, we find a Bishop of Rome, himself a disciple of St. Peter, intervening in the affairs of another Church and claiming to settle the matter by a decision spoken under the influence of the Holy Spirit. Such a fact admits of one explanation alone. It is that in the days when the Apostolic teaching was yet fresh in men's minds the universal Church recognized in the Bishop of Rome the office of supreme head.


St. Irenaeus
The same century gives us the witness of St. Irenaeus — a man who stands in the closest connection with the age of the Apostles, since he was a disciple of St. Polycarp, who had been appointed Bishop of Smyrna by St. John. In his work "Adversus Haereses" (III:3:2) he brings against the Gnostic sects of his day the argument that their doctrines have no support in the Apostolic tradition faithfully preserved by the Churches, which could trace the succession of their bishops back to the Twelve. He writes:

Because it would be too long in such a volume as this to enumerate the successions of all the churches, we point to the tradition of that very great and very ancient and universally known Church, which was founded and established at Rome, by the two most glorious Apostles, Peter and Paul: we point I say, to the tradition which this Church has from the Apostles, and to her faith proclaimed to men which comes down to our time through the succession of her bishops, and so we put to shame . . . all who assemble in unauthorized meetings. For with this Church because of its superior authority, every Church must agree — that is the faithful everywhere — in communion with which Church the tradition of the Apostles has been always preserved by those who are everywhere [Ad hanc enim eoclesiam propter potentiorem principalitatem necesse est omnem convenire ecclesiam, hoc est eos qui sunt undique fideles, in qua semper ab his qui sunt undique, conservata est ea quâ est ab apostolis traditio].

​

He then proceeds to enumerate the Roman succession from Linus to Eleutherius, the twelfth after the Apostles, who then occupied the see.

 

[jacobtaylor]

For the moment lets just presume the extra biblical testimony is true. Just what does that mean or prove? Does it prove that the passing of a good preacher and his teachings are some how transferable to his replacement? If you believe so please explain. Some verses would nice as well, rather than extra biblical testimony. I also don't need to hear about the seed of Abraham, that was a blood line leading to the seed Jesus. Most understand we are not saved simply because we have Abraham as a father. If that were the case all the decedents of Hagar in "Ishmael" and the Pharisees as well could make the same claim. We see that being a Pharisee following the line from Moses did not insure or guarantee the transfer of Gods message. So, like I said just what does it prove?