The Nicene Creed

[archaeologist5]

And so where is this Roman Church that started in the first century then? The Catholic Church did not start in the 5th or 6th century? St. Clemens was the third Bishop of Rome and he was ordained as a priest by the Apostle Peter.

who knows. where is the church at antioch today or the one at smyrna? please stop dropping the word 'roman' from in fron of the word 'catholic' because the roman catholic church is NOT the same as the catholic church and the RCC did not organize until the 5th or 6th centuries. i noticed you can provide NO credible documentation or any documentation to support your crowning of clemens by peter. also the ancient world did NOT use the word 'priest' for the christian church.

If a person wants to know what the creationist think, common sense would tell the person to go to a creationist website. Therefore, if you really want to know what the Catholics say, then go to a Catholic website and hear what they say. It would not make any sense to go to a non-Catholic website when all you're going to hear are the opinions of the non-Catholics.

it depends i do not believe the RCC websites tell the truth an di would be looking for the truth not their cover-up.

Nowhere in the Pope's speech did it say that Protestant Churches are "fakes

you need to do better research or check your memory:

http://www.christiantoday.com/article/catholic.pride.in.one.true.church.makes.enemies.says.coptic.pope/11679.htm

Other Christian communities are either defective or not true churches and Catholicism provides the only true path to salvation," the Pope was quoted as saying.

but "ecclessial communities" which is EXACTLY what the Catechism also says

so he quotes the catechism, that doesn't mean it or he are correct or telling the truth.

That is only your opinion.

ah yes, the resort to 'that is your opinion' or 'that is you rinterpretation' argument to avoid the truth. i run into that so often as both are used by those who want alternatives to the truth.

There are indeed historical documents showing that St. Peter was in Rome and was even the first bishop of Rome

then produce them. hearsay means nothing.

All Churches that are apostolic and even have the apostolic succession have those unwritten things that St. John spoke about and which St. Paul also spoke about to the Thessalonians

when it comes to church leadership, there is nothing unwritten or written outside of the Bible. God made sure it was included so all people would know if they were being conned and led astray or if they were listening to the true christian leader. when it comes to christian living, all things are written in the Bible so all true followers of God know how to act an dlive, there is nothign written outside of the Bible that would apply or over-rule the criteria within the biblical pages.

only dishonest people would say that things were not included in the Bible so they could get away with doing sinful things and harm to those who want to follow Jesus.

other things which Jesus did

look at that portion of the verse closely. it does NOT say 'taught' or 'said' for we have the words of Jesus recorded that we must follow and none are outside of the Bible for that woul dnot be fair, just, or honest plus make them subjective to whatever leader decided what those things were.

 

[archaeologist5]

here is what a little research will do fo ryou:

http://www.earlychur...uk/clemrome.php

CLEMENS ROMANUS, one of the most celebrated names of Christian antiquity, but so overgrown with myths, that it has become next to impossible to lay bare the historical facts which it represents, occurs in all lists of the first Roman bishops, but not always in the same place.

There is, indeed, no reason to abandon the oldest tradition of the Church, according to which, Clement was the third bishop of Rome after Peter; only it must be remembered that he was not a bishop in that sense of the word which the monarchical tendency of a later period developed. He was simply one of the most prominent presbyters of the Roman [493] congregation immediately alter the post-apostolical age.

of course i would disagree with peter being the first bishop because the church was already established long before he arrived in the city.

http://www.medlibrar...Clement_of_Rome

Few details are known about Clement's life. According to Tertullian, Clement was consecrated by Saint Peter,[sup][2][/sup] and he is known to have been a leading member of the church in Rome in the late 1st century.

we can't take tertullian's word for it for he was a heretic and member of the montanists

The meaning of these early reports is unclear, given the lack of evidence for monarchical episcopacy in Rome at so early a date

i hate using wikipedia but i have to here:

http://en.wikipedia..../Pope_Clement_I

In the epistle Clement uses the terms bishop and presbyter interchangeably for the higher order of ministers above deacons.[sup][1][/sup] The letters of Ignatius of Antioch (c. 35 – c. 107[sup][15][/sup]) indicate the several congregations were headed by individual bishops but that Rome's congregation was not.[sup][16][/sup] In some congregations, particularly in Egypt, the distinction between bishops and presbyters seems to have become established only later.[sup][17[/sup]

A large congregation existed in Rome c. 58, when Paul wrote his Epistle to the Romans.[sup][1][/sup] Paul arrived in Rome c. 60 (Acts).[sup][1][/sup] His Captivity Epistles, as well as Mark, Luke, Acts, and 1 Peter were written here, according to many scholars. Paul and Peter were said to have been martyred here. Nero persecuted Roman Christians after Rome burned in 64, and the congregation may have suffered further persecution under Domitian (81–96). Clement was the first of early Rome's most notable bishops.[sup][12][/sup]

Clement is known for his epistle to the church in Corinth (c. 96), in which he asserts the apostolic authority of the bishops/presbyters as rulers of the church.

http://www.hope-of-i...rg/petdeath.htm

...he [Peter] probably came thither [to Rome] some few years before his death, joined with and assisted St. Paul in the preaching of the gospel, and then both sealed the testimony of it with their blood. The date of his death is DIFFERENTLY assigned by the ancients. EUSEBIUS PLACES IT ANNO 69, IN THE 14th [YEAR] OF NERO; EPIPHANIUS IN THE 12th. -- The Lives of the Apostles. Oxford, 1840.

http://en.wikipedia....i/List_of_popes

here you have a list of the supposed 'popes' of rome now, since peter died about 64-7 AD how could he consecrate clement who took over in 88 or 92 AD. ? kind of hard to do that don't you tink and it would be foolish for peter to undermine the other leaders rule by pre-ordaining clement 25 years early, don't you think?

also, since the christian church, not the r.c.c., was under persecution from nero to constantine it would be pretty hard to maintain an actual line of succession like the r.c.c. has done since the 5th or 6th centuries AD., don't you think?

 

[HammerStone]

Time to close this one down, there's too much pro-Catholic and anti-Catholic rhetoric here.