Here's the pattern....

[ScottBot]

miss

a24

There is no A in bingo....

 

[Catholic Christian]

Our church raised enough funds to buy 2 more ceilings fans and 2 more rows of pews.

what church is that?

 

[Catholic Christian]

There is no A in bingo....

Battleship

 

[LittleLambofJesus]

what church is that?

Small Pentecost church we belong to. Could probably fit 4 our churches into one of yours.

 

[sunlover1]

I've heard of a place in Florida where sturgeon are jumping into people's boats.

I dont think he's gonna make it.

miss

a24

HIT, you sunk my battleship

 

[myfavoritmartin]

miss

a24

J23 was a miss for certain...
The first one I mean.

 

[TraderJack]

Cyprian says much about the church being unified in this writing and that is how it should be.

But not in the Roman sense at all. Rome reads it's own preconceptions into Cyprian where they don't exist.

But he still seems to state that even though the other Apostles received a like power, that Peter was elevated some.

When Cyprian speaks of Peter's primacy he, as did all the ECFs is speaking of Peter, the man, with that "primacy" being one of the honor of being the first to profess, "Thou art the Christ the Son of the Living God", and not any primacy or supremacy of authority, nor did Cyprian apply it to the Roman bishops as exclusive reciprients of the "keys" or as Peter's successors, for Cyprian, as did all the ECFs saw all genuine believers as they preached the Gospel as reciprients of the "keys" and all bishops/pastors/presbyters as the successors of Peter.

You know I am trying to be analytical about this even though I wish to show Catholic support.

In that case, pay attention to the Roman Catholic historian, Robert Eno, who repudiates your premise and as a misrepresentation of Cyprian’s view. Eno points out Cyprian did not believe that the bishop of Rome possessed a higher authority than he or the other African bishops. They were all equals:

Cyprian makes considerable use of the image of Peter’s cathedra or chair. Note however that it is important in his theology of the local church: ‘God is one and Christ is one: there is one Church and one chair founded, by the Lord’s authority, upon Peter. It is not possible that another altar can be set up, or that a new priesthood can be appointed, over and above this one altar and this one priesthood’ (Ep. 43.5).
The cathedri Petri symbolism has been the source of much misunderstanding and dispute. Perhaps it can be understood more easily by looking at the special treatise he wrote to defend both his own position as sole lawful bishop of Carthage and that of Cornelius against Novatian, namely, the De unitate ecclesiae, or, as it was known in the Middle Ages, On the Simplicity of Prelates. The chapter of most interest is the fourth. Controversy has dogged this work because two versions of this chapter exist. Since the Reformation, acceptance of one version or the other has usually followed denominational lines.
Much of this has subsided in recent decades especially with the work of Fr. Maurice Bevenot, an English Jesuit, who devoted most of his scholarly life to this text. He championed the suggestion of the English Benedictine, John Chapman, that what we are dealing with here are two versions of a text, both of which were authored by Cyprian. This view has gained wide acceptance in recent decades. Not only did Cyprian write both but his theology of the Church is unchanged from the first to the second. He made textual changes because his earlier version was being misused.
The theology of the controverted passage sees in Peter the symbol of unity, not from his being given greater authority by Christ for, as he says in both versions, ‘...a like power is given to all the Apostles’ and ‘...No doubt the others were all that Peter was.’ Yet Peter was given the power first: ‘Thus it is made clear that there is but one Church and one chair.’ The Chair of Peter then belongs to each lawful bishop in his own see. Cyprian holds the Chair of Peter in Carthage and Cornelius in Rome over against Novatian the would–be usurper. You must hold to this unity if you are to remain in the Church. Cyprian wants unity in the local church around the lawful bishop and unity among the bishops of the world who are ‘glued together’ (Ep. 66.8).
Apart from his good relations and harmony with Bishop Cornelius over the matter of the lapsed, what was Cyprian’s basic view of the role, not of Peter as symbol of unity, but of Rome in the contemporary Church? Given what we have said above, it is clear that he did not see the bishop of Rome as his superior, except by way of honor, even though the lawful bishop of Rome also held the chair of Peter in an historical sense (Ep. 52.2). Another term frequently used by the Africans in speaking of the Church was ‘the root’ (radix). Cyprian sometimes used the term in connection with Rome, leading some to assert that he regarded the Roman church as the ‘root.’ But in fact, in Cyprian’s teaching, the Catholic Church as a whole is the root. So when he bade farewell to some Catholics travelling to Rome, he instructed them to be very careful about which group of Christians they contacted after their arrival in Rome. They must avoid schismatic groups like that of Novation. They should contact and join the Church presided over by Cornelius because it alone is the Catholic Church in Rome. In other words, Cyprian exhorted ‘...them to discern the womb and root...of the Catholic Church and to cleave to it’ (Ep. 48.3).
It is clear that in Cyprian’s mind...one theological conclusion he does not draw is that the bishop of Rome has authority which is superior to that of the African bishops---[SIZE=-1]Robert Eno, The Rise of the Papacy, pp. 57-60​

[/SIZE]

There you have it, a Roman Catholic historian who thoroughly repudiates the misrepresentations of Cyprian so often employed by the Romans.
​

 

[Catholic Christian]

Luther was a Catholic too. Go figure....

 

[Catholic Christian]

Any thread started by a Catholic questioning or pointing out errors in Protestantism is derailed and closed. It's quite easy, really. All you have to do is start fights that proceed into flaming, personal attacks, mocking, baiting, way off topic posting, etc.

Consequently, there are now numerous anti-Catholic threads that dominate this fora. And you can't even point that out without the thread getting closed. I must congratulate some of our Protestant brethren for their crafty tactics. We Catholics should take a page out of your playbook! I hope we don't, however.....

OP

 

[myfavoritmartin]

Luther was a Catholic too. Go figure....

You missed this whole series of exchanges I would guess.
Jackthecatholic and I were veiwing cyprians view of church government, primacy and authority...I pointed out in numerous posts cyprians view and alls TJ was doing was confirming that even RC take that same view as I was sharing with JackTC, track back on this exchange it'd be a good learning experience for you.

 

[myfavoritmartin]

OP

Thanks for reminding us that there is absolutely NO point to this THREAD.

 

[Catholic Christian]

Small Pentecost church we belong to. Could probably fit 4 our churches into one of yours.

So you're Pentacostal ?

 

[Catholic Christian]

Thanks for reminding us that there is absolutely NO point to this THREAD.

Thats probably what Goering said about the Nurmberg trials.

 

[LittleLambofJesus]

Originally Posted by Veritas
Any thread started by a Catholic questioning or pointing out errors in Protestantism is derailed and closed. It's quite easy, really. All you have to do is start fights that proceed into flaming, personal attacks, mocking, baiting, way off topic posting, etc.

Consequently, there are now numerous anti-Catholic threads that dominate this fora. And you can't even point that out without the thread getting closed. I must congratulate some of our Protestant brethren for their crafty tactics. We Catholics should take a page out of your playbook! I hope we don't, however.....

I learned my nifty debating crafty tactics from debating the atheists. First time I started when them years back I got caught in many bait traps and then I relized how a beaver felt when getting trapped.

 

[myfavoritmartin]

Thats probably what Goering said about the Nurmberg trials.

What?
I am wondering does this post have something to do with the position of b16 hand in your avatar?

 

[Catholic Christian]

I learned my nifty debating crafty tactics from debating the atheists. First time I started when them years back I got caught in many bait traps and then I relized how a beaver felt when getting trapped.

So now you use the atheists' tactics on your own brothers and sister in Christ. How revealing.

 

[Catholic Christian]

What?

Goering probably didn't thin their treatment of others was any big deal either.

I am wondering does this post have something to do with the position of b16 hand in your avatar?

The Pope is waving hello. Not too hard to figure out.

 

[LittleLambofJesus]

So now you use the atheists' tactics on your own brothers and sister in Christ. How revealing.

Yepperz. I consider debating an art, whether it is with Jews, Muslims, Athiests or other Christians on theology.
I can learn just as well as try to teach without ever being disrepectfull, angry or arrogant. I just love the LORD and the Scriptures.

LLOJ [still waiting on chopsticks btw]

 

[myfavoritmartin]

Goering probably didn't thin their treatment of others was any big deal either.

What is getting so OLD is all these unsound attempts for you to claim the "high ground" by calling anyone who disagrees with you and with your positions an "anti-Catholic/basher," while referring to yourself simply as a "defender". It truly is a joke!

You then try and make your opponent look like the attacker, while you are the defender, even though, in point, you are attacking our position (even while your giving no defense or definition of your own P.O.V.)

Give it a rest! Seriously!

 

[PreachersWife2004]

LLOJ, what exactly are the chopsticks you keep referring to? You can PM if you want so we don't derail this ever so nice thread about non-Catholics.