Known for all ages?? NOT

[Rdr Iakovos]

Ok, but when that "fuller understanding of what we already believe" becomes pages and pages that the Apostles never wrote nor said - how does one differentiate that from innovation?

Sounds like Sunday sermons, particularly those Evangelical ones that go on for 45 minutes or so.

 

[simonthezealot]

Here's in the third century:
Originally Posted by St. Cyprian, Ep. 51

Moreover, Cornelius was made bishop by the judgment of God and of His Christ, by the testimony of almost all the clergy, by the suffrage of the people who were then present, and by the assembly of ancient priests and good men, when no one had been made so before him, when the place of Fabian, that is, when the place of Peter and the degree of the sacerdotal throne was vacant; which being occupied by the will of God, and established by the consent of all of us, whosoever now wishes to become a bishop, must needs be made from without; and he cannot have the ordination of the Church who does not hold the unity of the Church.
​

You look for doctrines being explicitly defined in Scripture or in the Early Church Fathers. They didn't define every point of doctrine explicitly. That doesn't mean it wasn't there, it just wasn't understood as fully as later.

Yet there is plenty of evidence that they acted as though they believed it was true, even if they didn't sit down and write out an argument for the Primacy of Peter. This is true as far back as the first and second centuries when Rome clearly exercised authority over the other Sees. Pope St. Leo the Great made the argument when the primacy was challenged by Constantinople but prior to this time there had been no real need to discuss it in depth, in the sort of structured logical that you might desire, at least not in what has come down to us today.

Couple things:
FIRST:
Rome claimed it was KNOWN for all ages...So what it was known but NOBODY knew about it???

SECOND:
Regarding Cyprian,

HE DENIED THAT THERE IS ANY POPE:

here

"For neither does any of us set himself up as a bishop of bishops, nor by tyrannical terror does any compel his colleague to the necessity of obedience; since every bishop, according to the allowance of his liberty and power, has his own proper right of judgment, and can no more be judged by another than he himself can judge another. But let us all wait for the judgment of our Lord Jesus Christ, who is the only one that has the power both of preferring us in the government of His Church, and of judging us in our conduct there." - The Seventh Council of Carthage.

 

[from scratch]

Ireneaus does this with the bishops of the other churches as well, it's what he does.
This is no acknowledgment of primacy, Antioch lists Peter in the line of bishops as well.
Eusebius:
Ignatius, the second to be appointed to the bishopric of Antioch in succession to Peter.

Very interesting! Thanks for pointing this out.

 

[from scratch]

...but Irenaeus did acknowledge that Rome has the pre-eminence. Peter may have ordained a bishop in Antioch, but he was present in Rome as the bishop of Rome until his death.

EDIT: To which of the Churches does Ignatius, a bishop of Antioch, salute for presiding (being in a position of authority) over love?
Ignatius, who is also called Theophorus, to the Church which has obtained mercy, through the majesty of the Most High Father, and Jesus Christ, His only-begotten Son; the Church which is beloved and enlightened by the will of Him that willeth all things which are according to the love of Jesus Christ our God, which also presides in the place of the region of the Romans, worthy of God, worthy of honour, worthy of the highest happiness, worthy of praise, worthy of obtaining her every desire, worthy of being deemed holy, and which presides over love, is named from Christ, and from the Father, which I also salute in the name of Jesus Christ, the Son of the Father: to those who are united, both according to the flesh and spirit, to every one of His commandments; who are filled inseparably with the grace of God, and are purified from every strange taint, [I wish] abundance of happiness unblameably, in Jesus Christ our God.

Your edit says nothing about the church of Rome. It does talk about the civil government.

 

[simonthezealot]

And we do the laying on of hands in my church as well .

Mine too, right before we send out our missionaries for example...
Like when the Holy Spirit asks for Saul and Barnabas to be set aside in Acts 13

 

[ivebeenshown]

Mine too, right before we send out our missionaries for example...
Like when the Holy Spirit asks for Saul and Barnabas to be set aside in Acts 13

The Holy Ghost directed the apostles, who had received their authority from Jesus Christ, to lay hands upon Paul and Barnabas. Paul makes mention of this authority having been delegated to Titus and Timothy, and specifically mentions the laying on of hands regarding Timothy.

Do the people of your church have this very authority that was once given to the apostles by Christ himself, conferred by the laying on of hands throughout history?

 

[from scratch]

This is a logical fallacy -- unfortunately, I do not know the name of this particular fallacy. Using this logic one might assume that both Christianity and Islam are false because they contradict.

Yer calling birds and elephants the same thing. His comparison was with a single structure. You are comparing two opposing religions that aren't remotely the same. I don't know what you call it but I call it dishonest scolarship having no value except to argue.

I don't think you would say that adhering to the Catholic Church is a damnable decision, is it? I am attracted to it in the first place because of its uniformity, and in the second place because I see an obvious implication behind the doctrine of 'laying on of hands.'

Goody for you.

 

[simonthezealot]

The Holy Ghost directed the apostles, who had received their authority from Jesus Christ, to lay hands upon Paul and Barnabas. Paul makes mention of this authority having been delegated to Titus and Timothy, and specifically mentions the laying on of hands regarding Timothy.

Do the people of your church have this very authority that was once given to the apostles by Christ himself, conferred by the laying on of hands throughout history?

Throughout history the Holy Spirit has never left the "true ecclesia"-"the called out ones"-"the elect" so YES His church~the elect have done this...And get this in His church all are true saints and believers set aside for His work. SOOO you don't have some murderous power hungry so called "anti-pope" as one of the succession like the first Pope John 23, laying hands on one to keep this so called succession rolling.

 

[ivebeenshown]

Yer calling birds and elephants the same thing. His comparison was with a single structure. You are comparing two opposing religions that aren't remotely the same. I don't know what you call it but I call it dishonest scolarship having no value except to argue.

How about this: 700 or 7000 horsemen? They contradict, so neither of the books can be trusted.
How about this: the account of the resurrection event, and who all was there, and the order of the events. They contradict, so none of the Gospels can be trusted.

Throughout history the Holy Spirit has never left the "true ecclesia"-"the called out ones"-"the elect" so YES His church~the elect have done this...And get this in His church all are true saints and believers set aside for His work. SOOO you don't have some murderous power hungry so called "anti-pope" as one of the succession like the first Pope John 23, laying hands on one to keep this so called succession rolling.

John XXIII? The one who made various efforts during the Holocaust to save refugees? I'm confused, you say 'first Pope John' and then the '23' throws me off.

 

[from scratch]

Paul put sects in the same class with fornication, murder, and idolatry. Paul said the laying on of hands was a necessary doctrine.

Jesus breathed the Spirit onto the apostles as a separate event prior to the day of Pentecost, giving them the authority to retain and remit sin.

The Holy Ghost directed the apostles to later lay hands on Paul, as a separate event from his initial conversion where Ananias put hands on him, setting him aside for the work of the ministry.

Paul acknowledged that he and the apostles had authority. Paul appointed both Titus and Timothy. He told Titus to rebuke with all authority. He also instructs Timothy to rebuke those that sin before everyone in the church, and makes mention that the presbytery had laid hands on Timothy.

This 'laying on of hands' is one thing that really hit me. If repentance from dead works, faith toward God, the doctrine of baptisms, the resurrection of the dead, and eternal judgment are solid and sure, why would there be an exception to the laying on of hands?

Kinda looks like to me that the protestants ought to come to their senses and line up at the nearest RCC and beg to be allowed into heaven IOW be saved because it appears that you postulate salvation is in the hands of men.

 

[ivebeenshown]

Kinda looks like to me that the protestants ought to come to their senses and line up at the nearest RCC and beg to be allowed into heaven IOW be saved because it appears that you postulate salvation is in the hands of men.

Kinda looks to me like nobody has said that you have to beg the RCC to be allowed into heaven.

Really? I mean, really?

 

[from scratch]

In all seriousness, this is the problem I have w/ Catholicism. If heresy is anything that didn't originate with the Apostles, what good are "understandings that came later?"

Good point!

 

[ivebeenshown]

Good point!

Clarification and revelation are not synonymous with invention.

 

[from scratch]

No, I think what I said is: "Generally, women serve that role with young girls in the company of a bunch of men." I didn't say a thing about "dirty pr's"


How loving of you to put words in my mouth.



Good question. Where is her chaperon?



My head says that I would never put my little girl in that situation, not even taking the spiritual danger into consideration.

That picture only shows a brief moment in time and you have no context on which to base your statements. It would take a series of pictures to show what is happening. I personally have been in few of and have seen many of those situations. You are out of your feild here.

 

[from scratch]

How about this: 700 or 7000 horsemen? They contradict, so neither of the books can be trusted.
How about this: the account of the resurrection event, and who all was there, and the order of the events. They contradict, so none of the Gospels can be trusted.

What are you talking about on this rabbit trail? Changing the subject doesn't help you at all. I guess you are trying to present a reason to abondon God. I don't buy that the Gospels contradict each other concerning the resurection events or the events surrounding the week end or slightly longer period of time.

 

[from scratch]

Kinda looks to me like nobody has said that you have to beg the RCC to be allowed into heaven.

Really? I mean, really?

Is not the RCC being promoted as the only correct and true church having power over whether or not sin can be forgiven?

 

[simonthezealot]

John XXIII? The one who made various efforts during the Holocaust to save refugees? I'm confused, you say 'first Pope John' and then the '23' throws me off.

Antipope John XXIII - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

the first one, of which historian Edward Gibbon wrote the following summary on...
Edward Gibbon asserts in The History of the Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire that John XXIII was charged with piracy, murder, rape, sodomy, and incest, with the more serious charges being suppressed.

LOL, this was one bad apple...He is just one in a long line of hands being layed...It's what i meant when i asked you if you knew where those hands have been...

 

[from scratch]

Clarification and revelation are not synonymous with invention.

It really is beyond me how you can argue with a statement agreeing with someone.

 

[Nick T]

The Fathers of Chaledon seemed to have believed that the Primacy of Rome had more to do with the fact that it was an imperial capitol rather than the Succession of St. Peter, which also applies to Antioch. Of course this in no way lessens the significance of Rome as a See of St. Peter, it merely demonstrates that the idea of papal primacy based soley on Peter was not believed by the Chaledonian Fathers.

"For the Fathers rightly granted privileges to the throne of old Rome, because it was the royal city."- Canon XXVIII

 

[PilgrimToChrist]

Kinda looks like to me that the protestants ought to come to their senses and line up at the nearest RCC and beg to be allowed into heaven IOW be saved because it appears that you postulate salvation is in the hands of men.

It's exactly because salvation is not in the hands of men that there is no salvation outside the Catholic Church. Man-made religious opinions are not enough.