Biblical Case For Schism

[GodChaser]

Double post

Edited October 22, 2007 by GodChaser

[CatholicCid]

[quote name='CatholicCid' post='1407061' date='Oct 22 2007, 06:10 AM']Who was the Jesuit Priest? Your source also didn't mention the "King James Bible" at all.[/quote]

Still don't see the who the Jesuit Priest was? Also, why did you story switch from "blowing up Parliment due to the release of the King James Bible" to King James enacting anti-Catholic Laws to "protect himself"?
Those are two very big changes, especially mid-thread.

Edited October 22, 2007 by CatholicCid

[Mateo el Feo]

[quote name='GodChaser' post='1407215' date='Oct 22 2007, 01:59 PM']So you're saying that the Gun Powder plot of Nov. the 5 didn't happen? And it wasn't because King James was making anti-catholic laws, probably due to the Inquisitions that were happening in Europe at the time, so he made it extremely hard to be a catholic in a world where Catholics were killing Jews and Protestants, left, right and center. King James didn't have a right to protect himself? He didn't have a right to protect his people?

What kind of King would that be?[/quote]Honestly, I find it a little difficult to continue a dialogue with someone who is foaming at the mouth. I'll give you a little time to calm down before I reply.

[Norseman82]

"The Inquisiiition - let's begin;
The Inquisiiition - look out sin!"

Pop quiz - name the movie.

[Mateo el Feo]

Too easy...Mel Brooks always makes me laugh.

[mortify]

[quote name='Pleural' post='1407008' date='Oct 21 2007, 11:28 PM'][quote]Godchaser,

You ought to consider that your personal understanding of scripture is flawed. Our human intellect can fail us, and any spirit (even one posing as an angel of light) can misguide us into thinking our understanding is inspired.[/quote]

Ah, have you considered applying that thought to the Catholic Church?
[/quote]

It's because my human intellect is limited in so many ways that I take recourse in the Church. I do not put my faith in my own personal understanding, nor in the acumen of theologians, but in Christ who promised His church will never be overcome by the gates of hell. It's important to consider that mysterious event, why did the Father choose to reveal the truth about Christ to Peter? There are so many instances of Peter failing Jesus in some way or another, that we might say John would have been the one to really merit such a gift. The lesson is it doesn't matter whether you are weak, faulty, or unintelligent, if God reveals truth to you, it is truth no matter what personal faults you may have. If God could reveal truth through a man that rejected Jesus three times in one sitting, there is no reason not to believe that same God can grant infallibility to the most corrupt Pope when speaking on faith and morals, and that is where my confidence is, not in the particular state of a man but in God who grants all authority.

[ironmonk]

[quote name='Pleural' post='1407008' date='Oct 22 2007, 01:28 AM']Obviously it was important to the apostles that those who would come after them would know that there would be false teachers in the world who would claim to follow God but who would be deceivers. We cannot believe any teacher or group of teachers without checking them against the gospel of Jesus as preached by the NT apostles and found in the Word of God. If we do not check, how shall we know them to be true? Remember that the Bereans were praised for searching the scriptures to confirm what they were taught by Paul and Silas.[/quote]


First you should learn how we came to know the Gospels. For that group will be the group that Christ established which will not be overcome and will be guided by the Holy Spirit... Or there is no God. God is a fact, therefore the Catholic Church is His Church.

To save you some typing time, and others here, forget everything you think you know about the Catholic Church and find out what it really teaches....

[url="http://www.ScriptureCatholic.com"]http://www.ScriptureCatholic.com[/url]
[url="http://www.catholic.com/library.asp"]http://www.catholic.com/library.asp[/url]


"We are compelled to concede to the Papists that they have the Word of God, that we received it from them, and that without them we should have no knowledge of it at all."
~ Martin Luther, Commentary on St. John


[b]1 Tim 3:15[/b]
But if I should be delayed, you should know how to behave in the household of God, which is the [b]church of the living God, the pillar and foundation of truth[/b].

[b]2 Timoty 3:14 [/b]
But you, remain faithful to what you have learned and believed, [b]because you know from [u]whom [/u]you learned it[/b],

[b]St. Matt 28:18[/b] Then Jesus approached and said to them, "All power in heaven and on earth has been given to me.
[b]19 [/b]Go, therefore, and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the holy Spirit,
[b]20 [/b]teaching them to observe all that I have commanded you. And behold, I am with you always, until the end of the age."

[b]John 14:16 [/b]
And I will ask the Father, and he will give you another Advocate 8 to be with you always,
[b]17 [/b]the Spirit of truth, which the world cannot accept, because it neither sees nor knows it. But you know it, because it remains with you, and will be in you.
[b]18 [/b]I will not leave you orphans; I will come to you.
...
[b]26 [/b]The Advocate, the holy Spirit that the Father will send in my name--he will teach you everything and remind you of all that (I) told you.

Jesus promised that the Church would be guided by the Holy Spirit, in Truth. The Church cannot be wrong about faith and morals, because Jesus said so.


Every Christian believed in the Real Pressence in the Eucharist since the first century. No other church which tries to claim Christianity claims that.

[b]2 Peter 1:20 [/b]- Understanding this first, that no prophecy of scripture is made by private interpretation.

[b]2 Peter 3:16[/b] - As also in all his epistles, speaking in them of these things; in which are certain things hard to be understood, which the unlearned and unstable wrest, as they do also the other scriptures, [u]to their own destruction[/u].

"To their own destruction"... we better find out which Church is the pillar of Truth, the City on a Mountain which cannot be hidden... The Church Christ built will have been around from the time of the Apostles and not hidden underground but always somewhere visable....

[b]Matt 5:13 [/b]
"You are the salt of the earth. But if salt loses its taste, with what can it be seasoned? It is no longer good for anything but to be thrown out and trampled underfoot.
[b]14 [/b]
You are the light of the world. A city set on a mountain cannot be hidden.
[b]15[/b]
Nor do they light a lamp and then put it under a bushel basket; it is set on a lampstand, where it gives light to all in the house.


You should really study up on "New Testament Canon" in the various encyclopedias... Note the people they name... All Catholic, loyal to the successor of Peter, which is the Pope.

The idea of a complete and clear-cut canon of the New Testament existing from the beginning, that is from Apostolic times, has no foundation in history. The NT is a result of development. The Gospels have been accepted since about 130 AD, the other books and letters where what was in question...
Councils and People that were majorly involved in determining the New Testament Canon:
• Council of the African Church held at Hippo (393 AD) - Roman Cathlolic Bishops
• Council of Carthage (397 AD) - Roman Catholic Bishops
• St. Augustine (354-430 AD) - Roman Catholic Bishop
• Pope Innocent I
Athanasius first lists our present 27 New Testament books as such in 367. Disputes still persist concerning several books, almost right up until 397, when the Canon is authoritatively closed by the Council of Carthage with Pope Innocent I, approval. In 405 Pope Innocent I, sent the list of the Sacred Books to one of the bishops, Exsuperius of Toulouse.
The Catholic Bible was the Bible for ALL Christians until the sixteenth century, when the 'reformers' changed it. So, if you want to get 'biblical' then you need the original.
Get the facts and decide for yourself.


Here is a copy from the Encyclopedia Britannica:

[quote]New Testament canon, texts, and versions
The New Testament canon
Conditions aiding the formation of the canon
The New Testament consists of 27 books, which are the residue, or precipitate, out of many 1st–2nd-century-AD writings that Christian groups considered sacred. In these various writings the early church transmitted its traditions: its experience, understanding, and interpretation of Jesus as the Christ and the self-understanding of the church. In a seemingly circuitous interplay between the historical and theological processes, the church selected these 27 writings as normative for its life and teachings—i.e., as its canon (from the Greek kanon, literally, a reed or cane used as a measuring rod and, figuratively, a rule or standard). Other accounts, letters, and revelations—e.g., the Didache (Teaching of the Twelve Apostles), Gospel of Peter, First Letter of Clement, Letter of Barnabas, Apocalypse (Revelation) of Peter, Shepherd of Hermas—exist, but through a complex process the canon was fixed for both the Eastern and Western churches in the 4th century. The canon contained four Gospels (Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John), Acts, 21 letters, and one book of a strictly revelatory character, Revelation. These were not necessarily the oldest writings, not all equally revelatory, and not all directed to the church at large.
The Old Testament in its Greek translation, the Septuagint (LXX), was the Bible of the earliest Christians. The New Covenant, or Testament, was viewed as the fulfillment of the Old Testament promises of salvation that were continued for the new Israel, the church, through the Holy Spirit, which had come through Christ, upon the whole people of God. Thus, the Spirit, which in the Old Testament had been viewed as resting only on special charismatic figures, in the New Testament became “democratized”—i.e., was given to the whole people of the New Covenant. In postbiblical Judaism of the first Christian centuries, it was believed that the Spirit had ceased after the writing of the Book of Malachi (the last book of the Old Testament canon) and that no longer could anyone say “Thus saith the Lord,” as had the prophets, nor could any further holy writ be produced.
The descent of the Spirit on the community of the Messiah (i.e., the Christ) was thus perceived by Christians as a sign of the beginning of the age to come, and the church understood itself as having access to that inspiration through the Spirit. Having this understanding of itself, the church created the New Testament canon not only as a continuation and fulfillment of the Old Testament but also as qualitatively different, because a new age had been ushered in. These 27 books, therefore, were not merely appended to the traditional Jewish threefold division of the Old Testament—the Law (Torah), the Prophets (Nevi’im), and the Writings (Ketuvim)—but rather became the New Testament, the second part of the Christian Bible, of which the Old Testament is the first.
Because of a belief that something almost magical occurs—with an element of secrecy—when a transmitted oral tradition is put into writing, there was, in both the Old and New Testaments, an expression of reluctance about committing sacred material to writing. When such sacred writings are studied to find the revealed word of God, a settled delimiting of the writings—i.e., a canon—must be selected. In the last decade of the 1st century, the Synod of Jamnia (Jabneh), in Palestine, fixed the canon of the Bible for Judaism, which, following a long period of flux and fluidity and controversy about certain of its books, Christians came to call the Old Testament. A possible factor in the timing of this Jewish canon was a situation of crisis: the fall of Jerusalem and reaction to the fact that the Septuagint was used by Christians and to their advantage, as in the translation of the Hebrew word ‘alma (“young woman”) in chapter 7, verse 14, of Isaiah—“Behold, a young woman shall conceive and bear a son, and shall call his name Immanuel”—into the Greek term parthenos (“virgin”).
As far as the New Testament is concerned, there could be no Bible without a church that created it; yet conversely, having been nurtured by the content of the writings themselves, the church selected the canon. The concept of inspiration was not decisive in the matter of demarcation because the church understood itself as having access to inspiration through the guidance of the Spirit. Indeed, until c. AD 150, Christians could produce writings either anonymously or pseudonymously—i.e., using the name of some acknowledged important biblical or apostolic figure. The practice was not believed to be either a trick or fraud. Apart from letters in which the person of the writer was clearly attested—as in those of Paul, which have distinctive historical, theological, and stylistic traits peculiar to Paul—the other writings placed their emphases on the message or revelation conveyed, and the author was considered to be only an instrument or witness to the Holy Spirit or the Lord. When the message was committed to writing, the instrument was considered irrelevant, because the true author was believed to be the Spirit. By the mid-2nd century, however, with the delay of the final coming (the Parousia) of the Messiah as the victorious eschatological (end-time) judge and with a resulting increased awareness of history, increasingly a distinction was made between the apostolic time and the present. There also was a gradual cessation of “authentically pseudonymous” writings in which the author could identify with Christ and the Apostles and thereby gain ecclesiastical recognition.

The process of canonization
The process of canonization was relatively long and remarkably flexible and detached; various books in use were recognized as inspired, but the Church Fathers noted, without embarrassment or criticism, how some held certain books to be canonical and others did not. Emerging Christianity assumed that through the Spirit the selection of canonical books was “certain” enough for the needs of the church. Inspiration, it is to be stressed, was neither a divisive nor a decisive criterion. Only when the canon had become self-evident was it argued that inspiration and canonicity coincided, and this coincidence became the presupposition of Protestant orthodoxy (e.g., the authority of the Bible through the inspiration of the Holy Spirit).


Previous | Next
________________________________________
Roman Catholicism
Encyclopædia Britannica Article





Christian church characterized by its uniform, highly developed doctrinal and organizational structure that traces its history to the Apostles of Jesus Christ in the 1st century AD. Along with Eastern Orthodoxy and Protestantism, it is one of the three major branches of Christianity.






________________________________________
About AD 95 Clement, bishop of Rome, in his letter to the church in Corinth ( First Letter of Clement ), expressed the view that bishops succeeded the Apostles.
originally titled Letter To The Church Of Corinth; also called I Clement, a letter to the Christian Church in Corinth from the church of Rome, traditionally ascribed to and almost certainly written by St. Clement I of Rome, c. AD 96. It is extant in a 2nd-century Latin translation, which is possibly the oldest surviving Latin Christian work. Regarded as scripture by many 3rd- and 4th-century Christians, it was transmitted in manuscripts with a sermon known as the Second Letter of Clement, written c. 125-140 by an unknown author.
Concerned about a dispute in the Corinthian Church in which younger members had deposed older men from the ministry, the letter opposed the deposition and discussed the orders of the ministry, which it asserted were established by the Apostles and were the will of God. The First Letter of Clement was an important influence on the development in the church of the episcopal orders of the ministry (bishops, priests, deacons), and it has been used to support the doctrine of the apostolic succession, according to which bishops represent a direct, unbroken line of succession from the Apostles.

The idea of apostolic succession appears in the writings of Irenaeus, a Church Father who died about 202. Against the Gnostics (dualistic sects that maintained that salvation is not from faith but from some esoteric knowledge) Irenaeus urged that the Catholic teaching was verified because a continuous succession of teachers, beginning with the Apostles, could be demonstrated. In the 3rd and 4th centuries problems of schism within churches were resolved by appealing to the power of orders (i.e., the powers a person has by reason of his ordination either as deacon, priest, or bishop) transmitted by the imposition of hands through a chain from the Apostles. Orders in turn empowered the subject to receive the power of jurisdiction (i.e., the powers an ordained person has by reason of his office). In disputes between Rome and the Eastern churches the idea of apostolic succession was centred in the Roman pontiff, the successor of Peter; it will be observed that this goes beyond the idea of collegial succession. Apostolic authority is defined as the power to teach, to administer the sacraments, and to rule the church. Apostolic succession in the Roman Catholic understanding is validated only by the recognition of the Roman pontiff; and the Roman Catholic Church understands the designation "apostolic" in the creed as referring to this threefold power under the primacy of the Roman pontiff.
The idea of apostolic succession appears in the writings of Irenaeus, a Church Father who died about 202. Against the Gnostics (dualistic sects that maintained that salvation is not from faith but from some esoteric knowledge) Irenaeus urged that the Catholic teaching was verified because a continuous succession of teachers, beginning with the Apostles, could be demonstrated. In the 3rd and 4th centuries problems of schism within churches were resolved by appealing to the power of orders (i.e., the powers a person has by reason of his ordination either as deacon, priest, or bishop) transmitted by the imposition of hands through a chain from the Apostles. Orders in turn empowered the subject to receive the power of jurisdiction (i.e., the powers an ordained person has by reason of his office). In disputes between Rome and the Eastern churches the idea of apostolic succession was centred in the Roman pontiff, the successor of Peter; it will be observed that this goes beyond the idea of collegial succession. Apostolic authority is defined as the power to teach, to administer the sacraments, and to rule the church. Apostolic succession in the Roman Catholic understanding is validated only by the recognition of the Roman pontiff; and the Roman Catholic Church understands the designation "apostolic" in the creed as referring to this threefold power under the primacy of the Roman pontiff.[/quote]


God Bless,
ironmonk

[ironmonk]

I forgot to add a few more things...

[b]Acts 20:29 [/b]
I know that after my departure savage wolves will come among you, and they will not spare the flock.
[b]30 [/b]And from your own group, men will come forward perverting the truth to draw the disciples away after them.

The original group is the right group... all others pervert the truth.

The only group that was around in the first century and is around today is the Catholic Church.


[b]Ignatius of Antioch [u](~50 AD - died at Rome between 98 and 117[/u]. )[/b]
THE EPISTLE OF IGNATIUS TO THE SMYRAEANS
CHAPTER VIII.--LET NOTHING BE DONE WITHOUT THE BISHOP.
See that ye all follow the bishop, even as Jesus Christ does the Father, and the presbytery as ye would the apostles; and reverence the deacons, as being the institution of God. Let no man do anything connected with the Church without the bishop. Let that be deemed a proper Eucharist, which is[administered] either by the bishop, or by one to whom he has entrusted it. Wherever the bishop shall appear, there let the multitude[of the people] also be; even as, [b]wherever Jesus Christ is, there is the Catholic Church. [/b]It is not lawful without the bishop either to baptize or to celebrate a love-feast; but whatsoever he shall approve of, that is also pleasing to God, so that everything that is done may be secure and valid.


[b]St. Justin Martyr (100 AD- 165 AD)[/b]
On the Sole Government of God
CHAPTER 1
Object of the author
....For the men of former generations, who instituted private and public rites in honour of such as were more powerful, caused forgetfulness of the [b]Catholic faith [/b]to take possession of their posterity; but I, as I have just stated, along with a God-loving mind, shall employ the speech of one who loves man, and set it before those who have intelligence, which all ought to have who are privileged to observe the administration of the universe, so that they should worship unchangeably Him who knows all things...

[b]Origen (185-254 AD)[/b]
The Commentary on the Gospel of John - Book I
#23
....And in his Catholic Epistle John says that He is a Paraclete for our souls with the Father, as thus: "And if any one sin, we have a Paraclete with the Father, Jesus Christ the righteous," ....

Book VI
#18
and as for the journey in prison with the Spirit we read in Peter in his Catholic Epistle, "Put to death," he says, "in the flesh, but quickened in the Spirit; in which also He went and preached unto the spirits in prison, which at one time were disobedient, when the long-suffering of God once waited in the days of Noah while the ark was a preparing."


[b]The Encyclical Epistle of the Church at Smyrna, Concerning the Martyrdom of St. Polycarp[/b]
The Church of God which sojourns at Smyrna, to the Church of God sojourning in Philomelium, and to all the congregations of the Holy and [b]Catholic Church[/b] in every place: Mercy, peace, and love from God the Father, and our Lord Jesus Christ, be multiplied.

CHAPTER VIII -- POLYCARP IS BROUGHT INTO THE CITY.
Now, as soon as he had ceased praying, having made mention of all that had at any time come in contact with him, both small and great, illustrious and obscure, as well as the whole[b] Catholic Church [/b]throughout the world, the time of his departure having arrived, they set him upon an ass, and conducted him into the city,

CHAPTER XVI -- POLYCARP IS PIERCED BY A DAGGER.
At length, when those wicked men perceived that his body could not be consumed by the fire, they commanded an executioner to go near and pierce him through with a dagger. And on his doing this, there came forth a dove, and a great quantity of blood, so that the fire was extinguished; and all the people wondered that there should be such a difference between the unbelievers and the elect, of whom this most admirable Polycarp was one, having in our own times been an apostolic and prophetic teacher, and bishop of the [b]Catholic Church [/b]which is in Smyrna. For every word that went out of his mouth either has been or shall yet be accomplished.

CHAPTER XIX -- PRAISE OF THE MARTYR POLYCARP.
...with the apostles and all the righteous[in heaven], rejoicingly glorifies God, even the Father, and blesses our Lord Jesus Christ, the Saviour of our souls, the Governor of our bodies, and the [b]Shepherd of the Catholic Church [/b]throughout the world. ....

[b]St. Augustine of Hippo (11/13/354 - 8/28/430 AD)[/b]
On Christian Doctrine
BOOK III
CHAP. 10.--HOW WE ARE TO DISCERN WHETHER A PHRASE IS FIGURATIVE
15.....[b]Now Scripture asserts nothing but the catholic faith,[/b] in regard to things past, future, and present. It is a narrative of the past, a prophecy of the future, and a description of the present. But all these tend to nourish and strengthen charity, and to overcome and root out lust.

[b]Ignatius of Antioch [/b]
"Not as Peter and Paul did, do I command you [Romans]. They were apostles, and I am a convict" (Letter to the Romans 4:3 [A.D. 110])

"Ignatius . . . to the church also which holds the presidency, in the location of the country of the Romans, worthy of God, worthy of honor, worthy of blessing, worthy of praise, worthy of success, worthy of sanctification, and, because you hold the presidency in love, named after Christ and named after the Father" (Letter to the Romans 1:1 [A.D. 110]).

"You [the church at Rome] have envied no one, but others you have taught. I desire only that what you have enjoined in your instructions may remain in force" (ibid., 3:1). .

[b]Irenaeus[/b]
"Matthew also issued among the Hebrews a written Gospel in their own language, while Peter and Paul were evangelizing in Rome and laying the foundation of the Church" (Against Heresies, 3, 1:1 [A.D. 189])

"It is possible, then, for everyone in every church, who may wish to know the truth, to contemplate the tradition of the apostles which has been made known to us throughout the whole world. And we are in a position to enumerate those who were instituted bishops by the apostles and their successors down to our own times, men who neither knew nor taught anything like what these heretics rave about" (Against Heresies 3:3:1 [A.D. 189]).

"But since it would be too long to enumerate in such a volume as this the successions of all the churches, we shall confound all those who, in whatever manner, whether through self-satisfaction or vainglory, or through blindness and wicked opinion, assemble other than where it is proper, by pointing out here the successions of the bishops of the greatest and most ancient church known to all, founded and organized at Rome by the two most glorious apostles, Peter and Paul—that church which has the tradition and the faith with which comes down to us after having been announced to men by the apostles. For with this Church, because of its superior origin, all churches must agree, that is, all the faithful in the whole world. And it is in her that the faithful everywhere have maintained the apostolic tradition" (ibid., 3:3:2).



God Bless,
ironmonk

[ironmonk]

I forgot to add a few more things...

[b]Acts 20:29 [/b]
I know that after my departure savage wolves will come among you, and they will not spare the flock.
[b]30 [/b]And from your own group, men will come forward perverting the truth to draw the disciples away after them.

The original group is the right group... all others pervert the truth.

The only group that was around in the first century and is around today is the Catholic Church.


[b]Ignatius of Antioch [u](~50 AD - died at Rome between 98 and 117[/u]. )[/b]
THE EPISTLE OF IGNATIUS TO THE SMYRAEANS
CHAPTER VIII.--LET NOTHING BE DONE WITHOUT THE BISHOP.
See that ye all follow the bishop, even as Jesus Christ does the Father, and the presbytery as ye would the apostles; and reverence the deacons, as being the institution of God. Let no man do anything connected with the Church without the bishop. Let that be deemed a proper Eucharist, which is[administered] either by the bishop, or by one to whom he has entrusted it. Wherever the bishop shall appear, there let the multitude[of the people] also be; even as, [b]wherever Jesus Christ is, there is the Catholic Church. [/b]It is not lawful without the bishop either to baptize or to celebrate a love-feast; but whatsoever he shall approve of, that is also pleasing to God, so that everything that is done may be secure and valid.


[b]St. Justin Martyr (100 AD- 165 AD)[/b]
On the Sole Government of God
CHAPTER 1
Object of the author
....For the men of former generations, who instituted private and public rites in honour of such as were more powerful, caused forgetfulness of the [b]Catholic faith [/b]to take possession of their posterity; but I, as I have just stated, along with a God-loving mind, shall employ the speech of one who loves man, and set it before those who have intelligence, which all ought to have who are privileged to observe the administration of the universe, so that they should worship unchangeably Him who knows all things...

[b]Origen (185-254 AD)[/b]
The Commentary on the Gospel of John - Book I
#23
....And in his Catholic Epistle John says that He is a Paraclete for our souls with the Father, as thus: "And if any one sin, we have a Paraclete with the Father, Jesus Christ the righteous," ....

Book VI
#18
and as for the journey in prison with the Spirit we read in Peter in his Catholic Epistle, "Put to death," he says, "in the flesh, but quickened in the Spirit; in which also He went and preached unto the spirits in prison, which at one time were disobedient, when the long-suffering of God once waited in the days of Noah while the ark was a preparing."


[b]The Encyclical Epistle of the Church at Smyrna, Concerning the Martyrdom of St. Polycarp[/b]
The Church of God which sojourns at Smyrna, to the Church of God sojourning in Philomelium, and to all the congregations of the Holy and [b]Catholic Church[/b] in every place: Mercy, peace, and love from God the Father, and our Lord Jesus Christ, be multiplied.

CHAPTER VIII -- POLYCARP IS BROUGHT INTO THE CITY.
Now, as soon as he had ceased praying, having made mention of all that had at any time come in contact with him, both small and great, illustrious and obscure, as well as the whole[b] Catholic Church [/b]throughout the world, the time of his departure having arrived, they set him upon an ass, and conducted him into the city,

CHAPTER XVI -- POLYCARP IS PIERCED BY A DAGGER.
At length, when those wicked men perceived that his body could not be consumed by the fire, they commanded an executioner to go near and pierce him through with a dagger. And on his doing this, there came forth a dove, and a great quantity of blood, so that the fire was extinguished; and all the people wondered that there should be such a difference between the unbelievers and the elect, of whom this most admirable Polycarp was one, having in our own times been an apostolic and prophetic teacher, and bishop of the [b]Catholic Church [/b]which is in Smyrna. For every word that went out of his mouth either has been or shall yet be accomplished.

CHAPTER XIX -- PRAISE OF THE MARTYR POLYCARP.
...with the apostles and all the righteous[in heaven], rejoicingly glorifies God, even the Father, and blesses our Lord Jesus Christ, the Saviour of our souls, the Governor of our bodies, and the [b]Shepherd of the Catholic Church [/b]throughout the world. ....

[b]St. Augustine of Hippo (11/13/354 - 8/28/430 AD)[/b]
On Christian Doctrine
BOOK III
CHAP. 10.--HOW WE ARE TO DISCERN WHETHER A PHRASE IS FIGURATIVE
15.....[b]Now Scripture asserts nothing but the catholic faith,[/b] in regard to things past, future, and present. It is a narrative of the past, a prophecy of the future, and a description of the present. But all these tend to nourish and strengthen charity, and to overcome and root out lust.

[b]Ignatius of Antioch [/b]
"Not as Peter and Paul did, do I command you [Romans]. They were apostles, and I am a convict" (Letter to the Romans 4:3 [A.D. 110])

"Ignatius . . . to the church also which holds the presidency, in the location of the country of the Romans, worthy of God, worthy of honor, worthy of blessing, worthy of praise, worthy of success, worthy of sanctification, and, because you hold the presidency in love, named after Christ and named after the Father" (Letter to the Romans 1:1 [A.D. 110]).

"You [the church at Rome] have envied no one, but others you have taught. I desire only that what you have enjoined in your instructions may remain in force" (ibid., 3:1). .

[b]Irenaeus[/b]
"Matthew also issued among the Hebrews a written Gospel in their own language, while Peter and Paul were evangelizing in Rome and laying the foundation of the Church" (Against Heresies, 3, 1:1 [A.D. 189])

"It is possible, then, for everyone in every church, who may wish to know the truth, to contemplate the tradition of the apostles which has been made known to us throughout the whole world. And we are in a position to enumerate those who were instituted bishops by the apostles and their successors down to our own times, men who neither knew nor taught anything like what these heretics rave about" (Against Heresies 3:3:1 [A.D. 189]).

"But since it would be too long to enumerate in such a volume as this the successions of all the churches, we shall confound all those who, in whatever manner, whether through self-satisfaction or vainglory, or through blindness and wicked opinion, assemble other than where it is proper, by pointing out here the successions of the bishops of the greatest and most ancient church known to all, founded and organized at Rome by the two most glorious apostles, Peter and Paul—that church which has the tradition and the faith with which comes down to us after having been announced to men by the apostles. For with this Church, because of its superior origin, all churches must agree, that is, all the faithful in the whole world. And it is in her that the faithful everywhere have maintained the apostolic tradition" (ibid., 3:3:2).



God Bless,
ironmonk

[ironmonk]

I forgot to add a few more things...

[b]Acts 20:29 [/b]
I know that after my departure savage wolves will come among you, and they will not spare the flock.
[b]30 [/b]And from your own group, men will come forward perverting the truth to draw the disciples away after them.

The original group is the right group... all others pervert the truth.

The only group that was around in the first century and is around today is the Catholic Church.


[b]Ignatius of Antioch [u](~50 AD - died at Rome between 98 and 117[/u]. )[/b]
THE EPISTLE OF IGNATIUS TO THE SMYRAEANS
CHAPTER VIII.--LET NOTHING BE DONE WITHOUT THE BISHOP.
See that ye all follow the bishop, even as Jesus Christ does the Father, and the presbytery as ye would the apostles; and reverence the deacons, as being the institution of God. Let no man do anything connected with the Church without the bishop. Let that be deemed a proper Eucharist, which is[administered] either by the bishop, or by one to whom he has entrusted it. Wherever the bishop shall appear, there let the multitude[of the people] also be; even as, [b]wherever Jesus Christ is, there is the Catholic Church. [/b]It is not lawful without the bishop either to baptize or to celebrate a love-feast; but whatsoever he shall approve of, that is also pleasing to God, so that everything that is done may be secure and valid.


[b]St. Justin Martyr (100 AD- 165 AD)[/b]
On the Sole Government of God
CHAPTER 1
Object of the author
....For the men of former generations, who instituted private and public rites in honour of such as were more powerful, caused forgetfulness of the [b]Catholic faith [/b]to take possession of their posterity; but I, as I have just stated, along with a God-loving mind, shall employ the speech of one who loves man, and set it before those who have intelligence, which all ought to have who are privileged to observe the administration of the universe, so that they should worship unchangeably Him who knows all things...

[b]Origen (185-254 AD)[/b]
The Commentary on the Gospel of John - Book I
#23
....And in his Catholic Epistle John says that He is a Paraclete for our souls with the Father, as thus: "And if any one sin, we have a Paraclete with the Father, Jesus Christ the righteous," ....

Book VI
#18
and as for the journey in prison with the Spirit we read in Peter in his Catholic Epistle, "Put to death," he says, "in the flesh, but quickened in the Spirit; in which also He went and preached unto the spirits in prison, which at one time were disobedient, when the long-suffering of God once waited in the days of Noah while the ark was a preparing."


[b]The Encyclical Epistle of the Church at Smyrna, Concerning the Martyrdom of St. Polycarp[/b]
The Church of God which sojourns at Smyrna, to the Church of God sojourning in Philomelium, and to all the congregations of the Holy and [b]Catholic Church[/b] in every place: Mercy, peace, and love from God the Father, and our Lord Jesus Christ, be multiplied.

CHAPTER VIII -- POLYCARP IS BROUGHT INTO THE CITY.
Now, as soon as he had ceased praying, having made mention of all that had at any time come in contact with him, both small and great, illustrious and obscure, as well as the whole[b] Catholic Church [/b]throughout the world, the time of his departure having arrived, they set him upon an ass, and conducted him into the city,

CHAPTER XVI -- POLYCARP IS PIERCED BY A DAGGER.
At length, when those wicked men perceived that his body could not be consumed by the fire, they commanded an executioner to go near and pierce him through with a dagger. And on his doing this, there came forth a dove, and a great quantity of blood, so that the fire was extinguished; and all the people wondered that there should be such a difference between the unbelievers and the elect, of whom this most admirable Polycarp was one, having in our own times been an apostolic and prophetic teacher, and bishop of the [b]Catholic Church [/b]which is in Smyrna. For every word that went out of his mouth either has been or shall yet be accomplished.

CHAPTER XIX -- PRAISE OF THE MARTYR POLYCARP.
...with the apostles and all the righteous[in heaven], rejoicingly glorifies God, even the Father, and blesses our Lord Jesus Christ, the Saviour of our souls, the Governor of our bodies, and the [b]Shepherd of the Catholic Church [/b]throughout the world. ....

[b]St. Augustine of Hippo (11/13/354 - 8/28/430 AD)[/b]
On Christian Doctrine
BOOK III
CHAP. 10.--HOW WE ARE TO DISCERN WHETHER A PHRASE IS FIGURATIVE
15.....[b]Now Scripture asserts nothing but the catholic faith,[/b] in regard to things past, future, and present. It is a narrative of the past, a prophecy of the future, and a description of the present. But all these tend to nourish and strengthen charity, and to overcome and root out lust.

[b]Ignatius of Antioch [/b]
"Not as Peter and Paul did, do I command you [Romans]. They were apostles, and I am a convict" (Letter to the Romans 4:3 [A.D. 110])

"Ignatius . . . to the church also which holds the presidency, in the location of the country of the Romans, worthy of God, worthy of honor, worthy of blessing, worthy of praise, worthy of success, worthy of sanctification, and, because you hold the presidency in love, named after Christ and named after the Father" (Letter to the Romans 1:1 [A.D. 110]).

"You [the church at Rome] have envied no one, but others you have taught. I desire only that what you have enjoined in your instructions may remain in force" (ibid., 3:1). .

[b]Irenaeus[/b]
"Matthew also issued among the Hebrews a written Gospel in their own language, while Peter and Paul were evangelizing in Rome and laying the foundation of the Church" (Against Heresies, 3, 1:1 [A.D. 189])

"It is possible, then, for everyone in every church, who may wish to know the truth, to contemplate the tradition of the apostles which has been made known to us throughout the whole world. And we are in a position to enumerate those who were instituted bishops by the apostles and their successors down to our own times, men who neither knew nor taught anything like what these heretics rave about" (Against Heresies 3:3:1 [A.D. 189]).

"But since it would be too long to enumerate in such a volume as this the successions of all the churches, we shall confound all those who, in whatever manner, whether through self-satisfaction or vainglory, or through blindness and wicked opinion, assemble other than where it is proper, by pointing out here the successions of the bishops of the greatest and most ancient church known to all, founded and organized at Rome by the two most glorious apostles, Peter and Paul—that church which has the tradition and the faith with which comes down to us after having been announced to men by the apostles. For with this Church, because of its superior origin, all churches must agree, that is, all the faithful in the whole world. And it is in her that the faithful everywhere have maintained the apostolic tradition" (ibid., 3:3:2).



God Bless,
ironmonk

[Pleural]

[quote name='mortify' post='1407701' date='Oct 22 2007, 11:55 PM']Ah, have you considered applying that thought to the Catholic Church?
It's because my human intellect is limited in so many ways that I take recourse in the Church. I do not put my faith in my own personal understanding, nor in the acumen of theologians, but in Christ who promised His church will never be overcome by the gates of hell. It's important to consider that mysterious event, why did the Father choose to reveal the truth about Christ to Peter? There are so many instances of Peter failing Jesus in some way or another, that we might say John would have been the one to really merit such a gift. The lesson is it doesn't matter whether you are weak, faulty, or unintelligent, if God reveals truth to you, it is truth no matter what personal faults you may have.[/quote]

When Christ promised that His church would not be overcome by the gates of hell, he did not say that His church would be the same church which you and I know today as the Roman Catholic Church, nor did he even say that His church would be the same church that Eusebius or any of the so-called Church Fathers would know as their church.

[quote name='mortify' post='1407701' date='Oct 22 2007, 11:55 PM']If God could reveal truth through a man that rejected Jesus three times in one sitting, there is no reason not to believe that same God can grant infallibility to the most corrupt Pope when speaking on faith and morals, and that is where my confidence is, not in the particular state of a man but in God who grants all authority.[/quote]

By the same logic, there is no reason not to believe that same God can grant infallibility to me, when speaking on faith and morals, and no particular reason you should place your confidence in some man called Pope rather than in me. The same can be said for any other human being -- by your logic there is no reason to doubt any man's infallibility.
More importantly, there is no reason [b]to[/b] believe that God chose to grant infallibility to any pope. Catholics believe in Scripture and Tradition. True Scripture and true Tradition should support one another. The only way to support infallibility using Tradition alone would involve circular reasoning, because infallibility arises from Tradition, and thus the claim cannot be made without supporting Scripture. Sp it makes sense to consider Scripture on the issue. Scripture says nothing to suggest that God would grant infallibility to the popes. Scripture does not even say that Peter himself was granted infallibility. However, even if Peter and the other apostles were infallible, and even if Peter was the first or the chief of all of the apostles, there is no reason to believe that Christ intended this infallibility or primal leadership to pass from Peter to some other single man, by whatever means chosen.
If Christ meant Peter when he said "on this rock", then he meant Peter. There is no reason to change Christ's words to say "on this rock, and on the rock of the next bishop of Rome, and on the rock of the next bishop after him, and on the next, and the next, etc.". No, any rock which is suitable as a foundation is a single rock, unbreakable and indivisible. It is not a series of men throughout history. We also have no record of Christ indicating that Peter was to have a successor, nor any means of choosing his successor if he was to have one.

Simply put, the argument of whether Peter was the rock upon which the church was to be built is a moot point when considering whether we should now follow the men who are called popes or the church called the Roman Catholic Church. The fact that Christ said that the gates of hell shall not prevail against His church is also a moot point, because Christ never said that His church would be the one we know as the Roman Catholic Church. One must determine what His church is before deciding whether Christ's words apply.

[Deo Iuvente]

[quote name='Pleural' post='1408988' date='Oct 25 2007, 12:21 AM']When Christ promised that His church would not be overcome by the gates of hell, he did not say that His church would be the same church which you and I know today as the Roman Catholic Church, nor did he even say that His church would be the same church that Eusebius or any of the so-called Church Fathers would know as their church.[/quote] Your point is...? The whole protestant point lies on the hypothesis that Jesus founded a church, the church failed, so the reformers (or whoever a person might choose to be the person) re-founded it. It's unavoidable to conclude that no protestant church was founded by christ himself, the only churches that can claim that are the roman catholic and orthodox churches. And I doubt seriously that any church father would recognise a protestant church as the early church, with the lack or priests, two or less symbolic sacraments no prayers offered for the dead, etc.
[quote]By the same logic, there is no reason not to believe that same God can grant infallibility to me, when speaking on faith and morals, and no particular reason you should place your confidence in some man called Pope rather than in me.[/quote] Are you the rock on which the church is built? Are there any instances where you receive a teaching, and infallibly proclaim it to the church in the scriptures?Were you told to lead and teach the flock of christ? No. But Peter was.
[quote]The same can be said for any other human being -- by your logic there is no reason to doubt any man's infallibility.[/quote] There is much to doubt,there arent any places in scripture or church history that could preclude that you, or any other person was given primacy among the apostles, or that the place where you teach is free from the stain of heresy,
[quote]More importantly, there is no reason [b]to[/b] believe that God chose to grant infallibility to any pope.[/quote] Christ died to purify the church, to present it to him without a single spot, stan or wrinkle of any kind, Correct?Now, if we conclude that early on, christ's church was totally corrupted by heresy, one can logically concludee that Christ failed in that mission, correct?Now, Catholics have a great way of avoiding that conclusion: There was no total doctrinal corruption that someone as you might beleive in: there was no total apostasy,And that christ protected his church by papal infallibility, and there is'nt much reason in considering the former premise,often beleive by protestants for the simple reason that it does'nt logically follow from scripture.
[quote]Catholics believe in Scripture and Tradition. True Scripture and true Tradition should support one another. The only way to support infallibility using Tradition alone would involve circular reasoning, because infallibility arises from Tradition, and thus the claim cannot be made without supporting Scripture.[/quote] No, infallibilty does not derive solely from tradition, and I see a little bit of sola scriptura in this argument. Am I right in thinking so?When scripture does'nt seem to provide and explicit answer to a question, there's no reason that tradition should be ruled out on the matter,that's a sola scriptura idea, and sola scriptura is a self defeating idea.
[quote]Sp it makes sense to consider Scripture on the issue. Scripture says nothing to suggest that God would grant infallibility to the popes.[/quote] Contested. IT can be logically deduced from other scriptures, not to mention the clear example in act of Peter infallibly receiving and interpreting a doctrine revealed to him by the holy spirit.
[quote]Scripture does not even say that Peter himself was granted infallibility.[/quote] Again contested, see above.
[quote]However, even if Peter and the other apostles were infallible, and even if Peter was the first or the chief of all of the apostles, there is no reason to believe that Christ intended this infallibility or primal leadership to pass from Peter to some other single man, by whatever means chosen.
If Christ meant Peter when he said "on this rock", then he meant Peter. There is no reason to change Christ's words to say "on this rock, and on the rock of the next bishop of Rome, and on the rock of the next bishop after him, and on the next, and the next, etc.".[/quote] Of course, that's why you will never meet any honest catholic schooled in hermeneutics who would say anything like that.Peter is the sole rock upon which the church was built, but by establishing peter as rock, he was doing it permanently,not a temporary position which would fall away, but a permanent office.
[quote]No, any rock which is suitable as a foundation is a single rock, unbreakable and indivisible. It is not a series of men throughout history. We also have no record of Christ indicating that Peter was to have a successor, nor any means of choosing his successor if he was to have one.[/quote] Again,sola scriptura premise, but even more restricted. We have biblical record of judas being replaced by another person,an example of apostolic succession, not to mention the clear example of Eusebius in the history of the church, and other writings from other fathers which show that the apostles established the church in a city, and after them, other men took their place.

[quote]Simply put, the argument of whether Peter was the rock upon which the church was to be built is a moot point when considering whether we should now follow the men who are called popes or the church called the Roman Catholic Church. The fact that Christ said that the gates of hell shall not prevail against His church is also a moot point, because Christ never said that His church would be the one we know as the Roman Catholic Church. One must determine what His church is before deciding whether Christ's words apply.[/quote]
Your reasoning borders on fallacious,having occasional dicto simpliciters and non sequiturs as the basis for your reasoning.Because much of your argument is seemingly based on the logical fallacy of Sola Scriptura,you jump to inordinate conclusions. Jesus said his church would not fail. Not, if His church was taken over by satan, made rife with heresy,blasphemy and abomination, I would say that one has negated all the passages that say that his church would persevere completely pure and without spot forever.Please show me, historically, how the roman catholic church was not founded by Christ, and does not have direct or indirect connection with the apostles.
You say that the roman Catholic church is'nt the church of christ , well which is? the one founded by martin luther? the one founded by John Calvin, or Wesley, or Henry VIII, or E.G. White,or Joseph Smith,or John Knox,or Zwingli, or some other?None of these can ever claim to be founded by christ, history simply does'nt support that,but the Catholic church was. If Jesus founded it, It's his church.

[mortify]

Hi Pleural,

[quote name='Pleural' post='1408988' date='Oct 25 2007, 12:21 AM']When Christ promised that His church would not be overcome by the gates of hell, he did not say that His church would be the same church which you and I know today as the Roman Catholic Church, nor did he even say that His church would be the same church that Eusebius or any of the so-called Church Fathers would know as their church.[/quote]

If I took your baby picture and placed it along side the photos of a dozen other grown people, I'm sure not everyone would be able to point you out as the baby because you've changed so much since the time that has passed. Development does not make you a different person from the time you were a baby, in fact you are the very same person. It's the same way with the Church. Those early days were spent worshipping in catacombs and basements, it's not how we were to worship forever, and so development was natural and necessary. The point is, the Catholic Church is the very same Church in essence that was started by Jesus Christ, even though it has developed and matured over the centuries.

[quote]By the same logic, there is no reason not to believe that same God can grant infallibility to me, when speaking on faith and morals, and no particular reason you should place your confidence in some man called Pope rather than in me. The same can be said for any other human being -- by your logic there is no reason to doubt any man's infallibility.[/quote]

Actually there is a reason. No one can bestow on themselves authority or grace, only God has the right to do so. Jesus made Peter the foundation of the Church and the head of the Apostles. Before He ascended into heaven He gave Peter all of His sheep, and therefore He was given the governance and authority Jesus had on earth, that is why Peter and his successors are called "Vicars of Christ," because Jesus passed on His earthly authority to them. So in virtue of the fact that the successors of Peter are the heads of the Church, and the Lord's governance and teaching works through them, it is impossible that they err when teaching on faith and morals. This is not because the Popes are the smartest theologians but because the Holy Spirit prevents them from such an error. Other bishops in communion with the successor of St Peter also share in this in some way, but it is a charism particular to the Pope. You or I can not bestow on ourselves authority so we can never share in this charism by our own volition.

[quote]Scripture does not even say that Peter himself was granted infallibility. However, even if Peter and the other apostles were infallible, and even if Peter was the first or the chief of all of the apostles, there is no reason to believe that Christ intended this infallibility or primal leadership to pass from Peter to some other single man, by whatever means chosen.[/quote]

The very reason why Christ chose Apostles and chose one among them in particular to be there head, was so that His grace may continue on earth even after His ascension. So for example Jesus had the authority to forgive sins, this authority was given to His apostles explicitly so that it may continue. It wouldn't make sense if the successor of an Apostle did not inherit all the chrisms and authority associated with the office, for it would be tantamount to saying what Christ established on earth ceased to exist. Why would Jesus have passed on His authority to teach, forgive, and govern in the first place if it would be lost with the death of the Apostles? Clearly, the Lord intended these things to last till the end of time.

Second of all, scripture is very clear that the Apostles DID understand the authority of Christ through them was to continue through their successors (recall for example the chapter in Acts where they elect someone to replace Judas.)

Third, it is very clear in history that the successors of the Apostles understood this authority was passed down, consider for example the first letter of St Clement to the Corinthians (96 AD), chapters 42 through 44 (it's available on newadvent.org).

[quote]If Christ meant Peter when he said "on this rock", then he meant Peter. There is no reason to change Christ's words to say "on this rock, and on the rock of the next bishop of Rome, and on the rock of the next bishop after him, and on the next, and the next, etc.". No, any rock which is suitable as a foundation is a single rock, unbreakable and indivisible. It is not a series of men throughout history. We also have no record of Christ indicating that Peter was to have a successor, nor any means of choosing his successor if he was to have one.[/quote]

As mentioned above, Apostles elected someone to take the spot of Judas, and they also elected people to take there place of authority. Even St Paul who was chosen by Christ personally via a vision made it a point to meet the Pillars of the Church, St Peter, James, and John in Jerusalem, so that they may recognize him.

[quote]The fact that Christ said that the gates of hell shall not prevail against His church is also a moot point, because Christ never said that His church would be the one we know as the Roman Catholic Church. One must determine what His church is before deciding whether Christ's words apply.[/quote]

The Church can be traced back through the line of Popes to St Peter, and therefore back to Christ, who said the Church would be built on St Peter.

God bless

[Pleural]

[quote name='Deo Iuvente' post='1409328' date='Oct 25 2007, 06:52 PM']Your reasoning borders on fallacious,having occasional dicto simpliciters and non sequiturs as the basis for your reasoning.Because much of your argument is seemingly based on the logical fallacy of Sola Scriptura,you jump to inordinate conclusions. Jesus said his church would not fail. Not, if His church was taken over by satan, made rife with heresy,blasphemy and abomination, I would say that one has negated all the passages that say that his church would persevere completely pure and without spot forever.Please show me, historically, how the roman catholic church was not founded by Christ, and does not have direct or indirect connection with the apostles.
You say that the roman Catholic church is'nt the church of christ , well which is? the one founded by martin luther? the one founded by John Calvin, or Wesley, or Henry VIII, or E.G. White,or Joseph Smith,or John Knox,or Zwingli, or some other?None of these can ever claim to be founded by christ, history simply does'nt support that,but the Catholic church was. If Jesus founded it, It's his church.[/quote]

Do you honestly not realize that your entire argument is a circulus in probando?

[Deo Iuvente]

[quote name='Pleural' post='1411275' date='Oct 29 2007, 08:25 PM']Do you honestly not realize that your entire argument is a circulus in probando?[/quote]
How do you figure that?I critiqued your argument,showing where it failed, and I asked two questions which you may not have noticed,But where did I use a conclusion as a premise?
It still stands that your argument is self-defeating since it cannot be proved by the evidence it suggests supports it (ie sola scriptura).It also stands that since you assumed the existence of evidence for your case, and the non-existence of evidence for ours,and that you also did not answer any objections,you have'nt sufficiently proved your case or disproved ours.