"You are Peter, and upon this rock..."

bbbbbbb said:

I am unimpressed. This is from a Catholic priest. What else would one expect?

Click to expand...

What do you mean?
It is an iteration of the discontinuity of mission, "from the horse's mouth".
How are you not impressed?

btw,...

Root of Jesse said: ↑
The Church was not founded by an apostle. It was founded by Christ. I think every Christian understands that. He put Peter in charge after His resurrection.

Hebrews 3:1:Wherefore, holy brethren, partakers of the heavenly calling, consider the Apostle and High Priest of our profession, Christ Jesus;

A quibble perhaps, but for me at least, it seems an integral part of a system of sorts.

bbbbbbb said:

I am unimpressed. This is from a Catholic priest. What else would one expect?

Click to expand...

Come now,Madam,
It quite exposes the Roman line ususally being pedled by your friends and you have gained some interesting insights!

laternonjuror said:

Dear Lady,
Trust you are well?
"Twenty years ago (1846.) we were a mere collection of individuals : but Pope Pius has brought us together, has given us,'Bishops,' and created out of us a body politic".
(The Pope and the Revolution. Oratory Church Birmingham. England . 1866. P,14.)
John Newman, Cardinal. On the PiusIX, as founder of the Roman Catholic Church in England.

"Ours is a new wave of Christianity from Rome to take the place of Augustine's when it was lost....In this our not being lineally descended from the pre Reformation Church, but derived straight from Rome.
Father Humphrey S.J. Divine Teacher. Pg, 54.)
So much for claims of Continuous Service in Britain.

Click to expand...

I realize there were times when no Catholic bishops existed in England, largely due to persecution from the Anglican church and the outlawing of the Catholic church.

Open Heart said:

I realize there were times when no Catholic bishops existed in England, largely due to persecution from the Anglican church and the outlawing of the Catholic church.

Click to expand...

In the early 17th Century when persecution of ,left footers was at its height, one of our clergy was travelling in his coach past an inn. Outside the inn was a table and a gang of drinkers partying. They were discussing Roman Theology at the top of their voices,he stopped and I think joined in with them. After leaving he wrote a well known book, or , tract to put the Traditionalist point of view. The the Calvinist /protestants put him on trial for heresy, or some such.
That was Anglican Persecution for you in the dangerous times in Britain. Your lot could discuss ouside in the air , with passing foot and horse traffic, while partying Jesuits invited passers by to debate with them! Nothing wrong with that you might say and I would agree, but Anglican persecution was nothing compared with the Inquisition.
I must say that I'm glad to hear your views.

Open Heart said:

I realize there were times when no Catholic bishops existed in England, largely due to persecution from the Anglican church and the outlawing of the Catholic church.

Click to expand...

But the most important fact is that the Catholic Church was in Britain early on and there is ample evidence that the Church in England was subject to as they would say "the Bishop of Rome". This union obviously broke when the Bishop of Rome refused Henry VIII divorce request. And one has to wonder ....why did he ask the Pope anyway?

laternonjuror said:

Anglican persecution was nothing compared with the Inquisition.

Click to expand...

The Spanish Inquisition killed somewhere between a thousand and two thousand. Compare this to Henry VIII:

Open Heart said:

The Spanish Inquisition killed somewhere between a thousand and two thousand. Compare this to Henry VIII:

King Henry VIII of England took upon himself the role of grand royal inquisitor. O’Brien states that the king took the lives of some 72,000 Catholics, many who were cruelly tortured. https://fatherjoe.wordpress.com/ins.../protestants-have-killed-many-more-catholics/​

Click to expand...

Oh good grief, read the whole article. It ridicules the claim of 72000.

prodromos said:

Oh good grief, read the whole article. It ridicules the claim of 72000.

Click to expand...

In the lowest case, that of 4,000, that is still more than twice as many as the Inquisition.

laternonjuror said:

Come now,Madam,
It quite exposes the Roman line ususally being pedled by your friends and you have gained some interesting insights!

Click to expand...

I have been called many things in my life, but i cannot recall being called a Madam. The last time I checked I was a man. Hopefully, this is an interesting insight for you, sir.

bbbbbbb said:

I have been called many things in my life, but i cannot recall being called a Madam. The last time I checked I was a man. Hopefully, this is an interesting insight for you, sir.

Click to expand...

Maybe he thought the bbbbbbb were for Bruce Bruce Bruce Bruce Bruce ........

concretecamper said:

Maybe he thought the bbbbbbb were for Bruce Bruce Bruce Bruce Bruce ........

Click to expand...

concretecamper said:

But the most important fact is that the Catholic Church was in Britain early on and there is ample evidence that the Church in England was subject to as they would say "the Bishop of Rome". This union obviously broke when the Bishop of Rome refused Henry VIII divorce request. And one has to wonder ....why did he ask the Pope anyway?

Click to expand...

Had you paid attention either at school or on this board, you wwould have found that Henry did not seek a Divorce, that is a fallacy! England was Catholic and divorces were shunned, he sought an annulment,A different thing .

The Church in England subject to the Bishop of Rome?
The Church in England, held to the Magisterium, of the Seven Ecumenical Councils. These gave to the Bishop of Rome a Primacy of Place, as has amply been described on this board. Sadly the trust of the Councils had been sorely abused and a Coup detat had taken place at Trent. The Bishops there meekly abandoned their Christ given responsibilities on to the shoulders of the foresaid bishop of Rome and instead of being Apostles had beome mere servants of the papacy!

As for Henry's dealing with the papacy?
He dealt with the Bishop of Rome, because that gentleman had amassed a fortune selling favours to those people who could afford to pay,quite like the oldest profession on earth. It had become custom and practice and a scandal to both Church and nation.
Both Pope and King were to my mind, as it were people of very little moral fiber or character!

Interestingly, for four hundred years at least there had been opposition to these modern developments within the papacy that we know quite well.

Open Heart said:

The Spanish Inquisition killed somewhere between a thousand and two thousand. Compare this to Henry VIII:

King Henry VIII of England took upon himself the role of grand royal inquisitor. O’Brien states that the king took the lives of some 72,000 Catholics, many who were cruelly tortured. https://fatherjoe.wordpress.com/ins.../protestants-have-killed-many-more-catholics/​

Click to expand...

Lady, Lady!
In the County where I live, was action at the time of the Pilgrimage of Grace , no one from here suffered, or no one except two Abbots, who had the temerity to object to the wealthy, plundering the Religious Houses. The Earl of Derby sent instructions secretly, no one had to go to trial. No one did.
Henry wasn't pleased, but there was little he could do about it! The King did, however, make the people in other counties suffer, not for religions sake, but for challenging the Kings right to rule.
Even so, Henry usually hung them, unless you were of gentle blood that is, common people died by the rope usually. It was Queen Mary, the Anglican Papist, who burnt women and children!
Incidentally, the Emperor of Germany the leading Romanist, killed over a 150,000 protestants .This was quoted by one of our historians about a hundred years later.
One of his tricks, to add a little spice, was to bury the poor devils alive!
Instead of parading this , we should eschew anything of this sort, through shame!

laternonjuror said:

The Church in England subject to the Bishop of Rome?

Click to expand...

Yes. Prior to Henry breaking from Rome, the Church IN England was subject to the Pope just as the Catholic church everywhere was.

laternonjuror said:

Instead of parading this , we should eschew anything of this sort, through shame!

Click to expand...

On this at least we can agree. There has been enough killing of Christians by Christians to shame the whole Church.

ChristsSoldier115 said:

I am talking about the physical entity. Christ essentially founded all churches yes. But Paul founded the ones Corinth, Thessalonia, etc. This is what I mean. Christ didn't just drop the churches* out of the sky into the cities. Physical breathing men did this.




*[or households in the case of the early early early churches]

Click to expand...

I agree, regarding physical churches. But it was still the one Church Christ founded. Early churches met in houses because the community was small. When they grew too big for houses, they built edifices specifically for worship. In times of persecution, they met in underground catacombs.

laternonjuror said:

Even after the reformation, the Romanists were claiming S.Joseph of Arimathea as the Apostle to the British.

Click to expand...

Hmmm, my understanding is RC would deny Joseph of A as ever being there. The reason is because he would have been a quartodeciman (observed Christ's death on the 14th). Rome was observing it on the 15th.s

Point is to the discussion, that since England was observing the 14th, whoever went there (and tradition says Joseph of A), they came before Rome. However, (forget the date), England eventually agreed with Rome's dating and changed their observance. So, one could argue that Henry breaking off later was essentially reestablishing the first connection, even though they still never changed their observance to match J of A's.

ChristsSoldier115 said:

I am talking about the physical entity. Christ essentially founded all churches yes. But Paul founded the ones Corinth, Thessalonia, etc. This is what I mean. Christ didn't just drop the churches* out of the sky into the cities. Physical breathing men did this.
*[or households in the case of the early early early churches]

Click to expand...

I think you will agree that Christ founded only one church -- the various churches at different locations were simply parts of the one Church. The Church is VISIBLE and unified. Yes, they were established by apostolic missionaries. Good post.

Standing Up said:

Hmmm, my understanding is RC would deny Joseph of A as ever being there. The reason is because he would have been a quartodeciman (observed Christ's death on the 14th). Rome was observing it on the 15th.s

Point is to the discussion, that since England was observing the 14th, whoever went there (and tradition says Joseph of A), they came before Rome. However, (forget the date), England eventually agreed with Rome's dating and changed their observance. So, one could argue that Henry breaking off later was essentially reestablishing the first connection, even though they still never changed their observance to match J of A's.

Click to expand...

My point is that even after the Reformation in England , both sides, the Trentists and the Church were still claiming Joseph as the source of Christianity in Britain! Nennius the British historian first started it off and it held, interestingly the date was simply given as the last year of Tiberius . Which I believe is AD.37/41Elizabeth in reply to a letter from her apostate bishops stating that English Orders came from Rome, laughed at them and replied ,'they wouldn't have told her father that"! It is irrelevant really;British bishops attended Nice, according to both Roman & Orthodox source's , they would never of got there wihout help, obviously, it was an official by invite only!
I find your letter interesting. Though to get everything out of it, you'll have to explain it more fully for me!

Open Heart said:

Yes. Prior to Henry breaking from Rome, the Church IN England was subject to the Pope just as the Catholic church everywhere was.

Click to expand...

Splendid! ,'The Church in England',?? Good girl, you'r learning!
best wishes.