E
everready
Guest
Your drawn to an icon? isn't that the same as a graven image or as Gods word puts it. You shall have no graven image before him?
Shalom,
In Christ,
Lee
Upvote
0
Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
In my personal devotions (today for example) I am finding myself more drawn to Mary than before. I don't really know why, but an Icon of Guadulape has touched me today, and never before has it done so.
Perhaps there is more to Mary than our Protestant brethren would have us believe, but I'm still feeling this out and am not ready to mentally ascent to much of what our Roman Catholic brethren are teaching now-a-days.
Ditto....This is a topic I am genuinely interested in, can you provide a source though please?
Your drawn to an icon?
..isn't that the same as a graven image or as Gods word puts it. You shall have no graven image before him?
as long as it is properly redefined.
Same thing.
First recorded words of Satan,"Yea, hath God said...?"
If you have very good grounds, produce them, and name the author. If you can't, it's just another silly hateful charge and merits deletion.I don't even believe that Apostile Peter was the Bishop of Rome in the first place, I believe if any biblical figure was the bishop of Rome it was Simon Magus and I have very good grounds for that being the case.
I don't even believe that Apostile Peter was the Bishop of Rome in the first place
St. Peter's successors carried on his office, the importance of which grew with the growth of the Church. In 97 serious dissensions troubled the Church of Corinth. The Roman Bishop, Clement, unbidden, wrote an authoritative letter to restore peace. St. John was still living at Ephesus, yet neither he nor his interfered with Corinth. Before 117 St. Ignatius of Antioch addresses the Roman Church as the one which "presides over charity . . . which has never deceived any one, which has taught others." St. Irenæus (180-200) states the theory and practice of doctrinal unity as follows:With this Church [of Rome] because of its more powerful principality, every Church must agree, that is the faithful everywhere, in this [i.e. in communion with the Roman Church] the tradition of the Apostles has ever been preserved by those on every side. (Adv. Haereses, III) The hereticMarcion, the Montanists from Phrygia, Praxeas from Asia, come to Rome to gain the countenance of its bishops; St. Victor, Bishop of Rome, threatens to excommunicate the Asian Churches; St. Stephen refuses to receive St. Cyprian's deputation, and separates himself from various Churches of the East; Fortunatus and Felix, deposed by Cyprian, have recourse to Rome; Basilides, deposed in Spain, betakes himself to Rome; the presbyters of Dionysius, Bishop of Alexandria, complain of his doctrine to Dionysius, Bishop of Rome; the latter expostulates with him, and he explains. The fact is indisputable: the Bishops of Rome took over Peter's Chair and Peter's office of continuing the work of Christ [Duchesne, "The Roman Church before Constantine", Catholic Univ. Bulletin (October, 1904) X, 429-450]. To be in continuity with the Church founded by Christ affiliation to the See of Peter is necessary, for, as a matter of history, there is no other Church linked to any other Apostle by an unbroken chain of successors. Antioch, once the see and centre of St. Peter's labours, fell into the hands of Monophysitepatriarchs under the Emperors Zeno and Anastasius at the end of the fifth century. The Church of Alexandria in Egypt was founded by St. Mark the Evangelist, the mandatory of St. Peter. It flourished exceedingly until the Arian and Monophysiteheresies took root among its people and gradually led to its extinction. The shortest-lived Apostolic Church is that of Jerusalem. In 130 the Holy City was destroyed by Hadrian, and a new town, Ælia Capitolina, erected on its site. The new Church of Ælia Capitolina was subjected to Caesarea; the very name of Jerusalem fell out of use till after the Council of Nice (325).
http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/01641a.htm
So much for the Jerusalem-as-centre theory.
Peter-get-behind-me-satan earned a few of his infallible own.
And the wine of fornication is a spiteul concotion regardless of how intoxicating.
Get a life, not a religion.
Can you define "asserted itself"? Does that mean dominating dictatorship? Is there any proof of this assertion you speak of?Not really. We all know that the See of Rome asserted itself gradually from the end of the Apostolic Age through the next thousand years, becoming the Papacy we all are familiar with.
Have you forgotten the first 300 years of violent persecution? Otto thinks the Catholics collaborated with the Romans to kill the true believers. Too bad he's never heard of the Roman Catacombs where the "true believers" were buried after what was left of them after the lions had their dinner. http://www.catacombe.roma.it/welcome.htmlIts population, its history as the governmentals center of the Roman world, and its wealth relative to poorer diocese, all contributed to this Earthly success story.
I couldn't agree more. I think that has been established by the meticulous documentation in my post. The problem is how the evidence is ignored or dismissed because it is contrary to human opinion, and the truth takes a back seat.The question really concerns what was believed by the FIRST CHRISTIANS, those who were closest to Christ and the Apostles.
OK. So the Bible has a translational error. It should read: "Thour art Peter and upon this Rock I will build my churches."It's also interesting to read, though, how what is original isn't supposed to matter, especially coming from one whose church makes so much out of claims of being first, the only one Christ had in mind, etc.
What you are implying with "wine of fornication" is pure anti-Catholic bigotry and historical revisionism, and you are pushing for a third deletion of your sick posts. "Mystery Babylon Religion" has poisoned your mind, and educated Protestants don't buy into that crap.
Can you define "asserted itself"?
Does that mean dominating dictatorship?
Is there any proof of this assertion you speak of?
Have you forgotten the first 300 years of violent persecution?
No. but that did not keep the Roman diocese from becoming influential, owing to its location, size, and wealth. Christians were persecuted throughout the Roman Empire, if you remember.
Otto thinks the Catholics collaborated with the Romans to kill the true believers.
Then Otto can speak for himself, and if you don't care for his views, ask him about them.
I couldn't agree more.
Great.
Here is a question for you. If Jesus is not the founder of the Catholic Church, who is?
Jesus is the founder of the Christian Church, not of any particular denomination.
If it was Constantine, why is there so much evidence of Catholicism in the 1st, 2nd and 3rd centuries, before the canon of the Bible and before Constantine was even born?
You should probably ask someone who thinks Constantine founded the Christian Church...or the Roman Church.
What is original doesn't matter in the light of dialogue and the desire for unity.[
If that is your view, then it is. I believe in the Church that Christ founded to the exclusion of all errors ancient and modern.
The Baptist "Trail of Blood" pamphlet is a classic example. Apostolic Succession is constitutional for a church to be a true Church, and this has always been the case from the beginning. It is part of how we define ourselves as Church. We have a right to do this the same as you have a right to define what your church is.
I just finished replying to your shill, Jack the Catholic, who had written on another thread that he alone decides who can be called Catholic or be considered a Catholic. Do you support him in that? Only if you renounce that kind of provincialism would your statement about any of us having the right to define ourselves as we do have any meaning.
Ecclesial communites do not accept Apostolic Succession. They do not deny this.
What does that have to do with me?
I just finished replying to your shill, Jack the Catholic, who had written on another thread that he alone decides who can be called Catholic or be considered a Catholic. Do you support him in that? Only if you renounce that kind of provincialism would your statement about any of us having the right to define ourselves as we do have any meaning.
Actualy kepha, I think it is your own arrogance, & Anti-Protestant bigotry that drives your malicious accusations. It is my experience that Romans reflexively reach for power (the rules) when reason fails them.What you are implying with "wine of fornication" is pure anti-Catholic bigotry and historical revisionism, and you are pushing for a third deletion of your sick posts. "Mystery Babylon Religion" has poisoned your mind, and educated Protestants don't buy into that crap.
Have you forgotten the first 300 years of violent persecution? Otto thinks the Catholics collaborated with the Romans to kill the true believers. Too bad he's never heard of the Roman Catacombs where the "true believers" were buried after what was left of them after the lions had their dinner.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?