Known for all ages?? NOT

[Rick Otto]

quote=ivebeenshown;Then why have bishops at all? What's the point?

Leadership, certainly not force of arms.

You think we trust the Pope for his own capability and power, or because we trust that God is working through this man?

There is too much institutionalized confusion between the two. (Power & The Holy Spirit)

Do you trust any bishop or pastor that you feel God is NOT working through?

The question sounds over-simplified.
Trust him for spiritual leadership? No. Trust him for being powerfuly effective in executing his ecclesiastical directives? To the degree he is Roman!

 

[sunlover1]

Frankly I do not understand how anyone who is Roman catholic is not greatly troubled by the fact that there are libraries of early writings and yet none confirm what Romes claim is of being "known for all ages"

To me this should be incredibly troublesome.

I find anything that doesn't add up "troublesome" and I welcome any
and all questions directed at me by RCC's. Because I could care less
about labels, my desire is to know God and walk in truth ....

Then why have bishops at all?

Are you asking "Why have bishops at all IF there's no such thing as a pope?"

 

[ivebeenshown]

Leadership, certainly not force of arms.

There is too much institutionalized confusion between the two. (Power & The Holy Spirit)

The question sounds over-simplified.
Trust him for spiritual leadership? No. Trust him for being powerfuly effective in executing his ecclesiastical directives? To the degree he is Roman!

Who said force of arms had to do with anything? Jesus gave the keys only to Peter. Then he called Peter 'Satan', then Peter cut a guy's ear off, then Peter denied that he knew who Jesus was three times, but Jesus still told Peter personally to look over his sheep and Jesus even prayed that for Peter that his faith would not fail.

Even though Peter used the sword, he was forgiven. I cannot particularly approve of his action but I cannot condemn him for it. The same goes for popes.

Are you asking "Why have bishops at all IF there's no such thing as a pope?"

No, I am not. I am curious as to why Ray can put trust in a pastor or bishop and still be trusting God, but when it comes to the pope, if anyone puts trust in him he cannot be trusting God. We should trust a pastor or bishop on the basis of whether or not we can see that God is working through them, not because of their own abilities.

What a double standard. "I trust my bishop to do a good job, and I trust God... but you trust your bishop to do his job, so you don't trust God."

 

[simonthezealot]

So no other ecf's? IBS?

 

[sunlover1]

No, I am not. I am curious as to why Ray can put trust in a pastor or bishop and still be trusting God, but when it comes to the pope, if anyone puts trust in him he cannot be trusting God.

Ray should put all of his trust in God...
and only trust in man as much as that
man can be trusted... as God leads u.
He may see his teacher in front of him
but will hear God's voice behind him
saying "this is the way, walk ye in it".
Certainly God uses men to speak to us,
but all of our trust is in the Lord.

What a double standard. "I trust my bishop to do a good job, and I trust God... but you trust your bishop to do his job, so you don't trust God."

[/QUOTE]
Big difference between trusting a bishop and obeying pope as a god.

 

[simonthezealot]

Papal Primacy, Known For All Ages? Papal primacy is integral to Catholicism...
HERE

from there I found this...
For "no one can be in doubt, indeed it was known in every age that the holy and most blessed Peter, prince and head of the apostles, the pillar of faith and the foundation of the Catholic Church, received the keys of the kingdom from our lord Jesus Christ, the savior and redeemer of the human race, and that to this day and for ever he lives" and presides and "exercises judgment in his successors" the bishops of the Holy Roman See, which he founded and consecrated with his blood

"Therefore whoever succeeds to the chair of Peter obtains by the institution of Christ himself, the primacy of Peter over the whole church.
So what the truth has ordained stands firm, and blessed Peter perseveres in the rock-like strength he was granted,
and does not abandon that guidance of the church which he once received "
First Vatican Council

There is no room for development. According to this the first person to succeed Peter would have primacy over the whole church.

My challenge! seeing it is determined so detrimental to the faith...

Show ECF's prior to the 3rd century 200 AD(seeing as it was known in every age) that recognized that Peter HIMSELF passed the keys directly to another bishop... (we know it happened in Antioch) prove it happened in Rome... this is integral to the institution we know as the Catholic Church .

My challenge! seeing it is determined so detrimental to the faith...

Show ECF's prior to the 3rd century 200 AD(seeing as it was known in every age) that recognized that Peter HIMSELF passed the keys directly to another bishop... (we know it happened in Antioch) prove it happened in Rome... this is integral to the institution we know as the Catholic Church .

 

[simonthezealot]

My challenge! seeing it is determined so detrimental to the faith...

Show ECF's prior to the 3rd century 200 AD(seeing as it was known in every age) that recognized that Peter HIMSELF passed the keys directly to another bishop... (we know it happened in Antioch) prove it happened in Rome... this is integral to the institution we know as the Catholic Church .

You guys ought to be mortified that you're churches position is historically indefensible.
You place all your trust in a church that has not the historical grounds of truth in which she claims.

This is serious guys. Where is the early Christian history which supports that Peter had a successor that was in charge of the Christian church?

 

[Osage Bluestem]

This is serious guys. Where is the early Christian history which supports that Peter had a successor that was in charge of the Christian church?

That's an interesting question. I haven't ever seen any evidence for that assertion.

 

[Standing Up]

You guys ought to be mortified that you're churches position is historically indefensible.
You place all your trust in a church that has not the historical grounds of truth in which she claims.

This is serious guys. Where is the early Christian history which supports that Peter had a successor that was in charge of the Christian church?

Here's what Peter himself said.

1 Pt. 5:1-2 The elders which are among you I exhort, who am also an elder, and a witness of the sufferings of Christ, and also a partaker of the glory that shall be revealed: Feed the flock of God which is among you, taking the oversight [thereof], not by constraint, but willingly; not for filthy lucre, but of a ready mind;

Jesus instructed Peter to feed the flock. Peter instructed the elders to feed the flock.

Elders--plural Vines definition: among the Christians, those who presided over the assemblies (or churches) The NT uses the term bishop, elders, and presbyters interchangeably

Now, where were those elders located to whom Peter passed on his instruction? Rome, Antioch, Jerusalem, or where?

1 Peter 1:1 Peter, an apostle of Jesus Christ, to the strangers scattered throughout Pontus, Galatia, Cappadocia, Asia, and Bithynia,

Peter wrote the instructions to those in Pontus, Galatia, Cappadocia, Asia, Bithynia. Where are those places? Pretty much Asia Minor.

So, #1, Peter had successors called elders (plural). #2 they were in Asia Minor.

But don't get me wrong, I'm fairly certain those elders would have instructed the same faith to other elders. In fact we know of Polycarp and Melito and Polycrates from Asia Minor who taught apostolically. C195 Rome asked Asia Minor to assemble a council about the easter issue. Polycrates obliged with the elders from Asia Minor. They all told Rome that (being instructed in the same faith), they observe the exact day of our Lord's death. The 14th as Peter taught, not the 15th as Sixtus taught. But I digress ...

 

[sunlover1]

You guys ought to be mortified that you're churches position is historically indefensible.
You place all your trust in a church that has not the historical grounds of truth in which she claims.

This is serious guys. Where is the early Christian history which supports that Peter had a successor that was in charge of the Christian church?

Hmm.
Probably something people just don't think about huh?

 

[simonthezealot]

Hmm.
Probably something people just don't think about huh?

One would think that if a person places their salvation in the hands of a church and her teaching instead of God's written word...They'd want to, NO DOUBT.

Peter's Primacy in Rome is a major tenet of their faith.

 

[Standing Up]

One would think that if a person places their salvation in the hands of a church and her teaching instead of God's written word...They'd want to, NO DOUBT.

Peter's Primacy in Rome is a major tenet of their faith.

Let's go through this a bit to see something. Red is from your source in the OP.

"
1. We teach and declare that, according to the gospel evidence, a primacy of jurisdiction over the whole Church of God was immediately and directly promised to the blessed apostle Peter and conferred on him by Christ the lord.
2. It was to Simon alone, to whom he had already said: "You shall be called Cephas" [42], that the Lord, after his confession, "You are the Christ, the son of the living God," spoke these words: "Blessed are you, Simon Bar-Jona. For flesh and blood has not revealed this to you, but my Father who is in heaven. And I tell you, you are Peter, and on this rock I will build my Church, and the gates of the underworld shall not prevail against it. I will give you the keys of the kingdom of heaven, and whatever you bind on earth shall be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven" [43].
3. And it was to Peter alone that Jesus, after his resurrection, confided the jurisdiction of Supreme Pastor and ruler of his whole fold, saying: "Feed my lambs, feed my sheep" [44]. "

Feed my lambs. Peter got the message for he says 1 Pt. 5:1-2 The elders which are among you I exhort, who am also an elder, and a witness of the sufferings of Christ, and also a partaker of the glory that shall be revealed: Feed the flock of God which is among you, taking the oversight [thereof], not by constraint, but willingly; not for filthy lucre, but of a ready mind;

Okay. Everyone agree with Peter? He got the message and passed it on to the elders in Asia Minor. Can't be any doubt about that, right?

" 1. That which our lord Jesus Christ, the prince of shepherds and great shepherd of the sheep, established in the blessed apostle Peter, for the continual salvation and permanent benefit of the Church, must of necessity remain for ever, by Christ's authority, in the Church which, founded as it is upon a rock, will stand firm until the end of time [45].
2. For "no one can be in doubt, indeed it was known in every age that the holy and most blessed Peter, prince and head of the apostles, the pillar of faith and the foundation of the Catholic Church, received the keys of the kingdom from our lord Jesus Christ, the savior and redeemer of the human race, and that to this day and for ever he lives" and presides and "exercises judgment in his successors"

Which successors? Peter said the elders in Asia Minor.

" the bishops of the Holy Roman See, which he founded and consecrated with his blood [46]. "

Whoa. What just happened? Where'd that notion arise? Not from Peter we've seen, but from where?. Here's Irenaeus a couple hundred years later.

[we do this, I say,] by indicating that tradition derived from the apostles, of the very great, the very ancient, and universally known Church founded and organized at Rome by the two most glorious apostles, Peter and Paul; as also [by pointing out] the faith preached to men, which comes down to our time by means of the successions of the bishops.
AH, III, c3.

Tradition derived from. Not scripture, but tradition assumed. But let's also assume that tradition is true and accurate. Where does that leave Christians?

For it is a matter of necessity that every Church should agree with this Church, on account of its pre- eminent authority, inasmuch as the apostolical tradition has been preserved continuously by those [faithful men] who exist everywhere.
AH, III, c3.

A matter of necessity to agree with Rome. Why? Its pre-eminent authority. What does that mean? Whatever it means, Irenaeus qualifies it, INASMUCH AS the apostolic tradition has been preserved continuously by successors.

We look backwards in time. Obviously OO believe Rome fell away from apostolic tradition. Obviously EO believe the same. Obviously P believe the same. Restorationists believe the same. Now, this is not to imply anything more about those groups and whether their dogmas/doctrines line up with apostles. Like RC, they may or may not. The point is Irenaeus says, you best agree with Rome because of its preeminent authority.

So, if we ignore and suspend Peter's clearly given lineage from scripture and substitute a tradition of men, then we are left with a choice. Follow that tradition of men, but only inasmuch as the apostolic tradition has been preserved continuously. Has it? No one agrees with it, but Rome alone.

So, where could one turn then?

Irenaeus says he can list successors in all the Churchs, but lists two more successions for consideration.

But Polycarp also was not only instructed by apostles, and conversed with many who had seen Christ, but was also, by apostles in Asia, appointed bishop of the Church in Smyrna, whom I also saw in my early youth, for he tarried [on earth] a very long time, and, when a very old man, gloriously and most nobly suffering martyrdom, departed this life, having always taught the things which he had learned from the apostles, and which the Church has handed down, and which alone are true. To these things all the Asiatic Churches testify, as do also those men who have succeeded Polycarp down to the present time,—

There again is Peter's successors, handing down what was learned from apostles and which alone are true. No qualification. And lastly,

Then, again, the Church in Ephesus, founded by Paul, and having John remaining among them permanently until the times of Trajan, is a true witness of the tradition of the apostles.

Ephesus. To spiritualize it, Christian love, if all else fails. Return to your first love.

Peace.

 

[simonthezealot]

Let's go through this a bit to see something. Red is from your source in the OP.

"
1. We teach and declare that, according to the gospel evidence, a primacy of jurisdiction over the whole Church of God was immediately and directly promised to the blessed apostle Peter and conferred on him by Christ the lord.
2. It was to Simon alone, to whom he had already said: "You shall be called Cephas" [42], that the Lord, after his confession, "You are the Christ, the son of the living God," spoke these words: "Blessed are you, Simon Bar-Jona. For flesh and blood has not revealed this to you, but my Father who is in heaven. And I tell you, you are Peter, and on this rock I will build my Church, and the gates of the underworld shall not prevail against it. I will give you the keys of the kingdom of heaven, and whatever you bind on earth shall be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven" [43].
3. And it was to Peter alone that Jesus, after his resurrection, confided the jurisdiction of Supreme Pastor and ruler of his whole fold, saying: "Feed my lambs, feed my sheep" [44]. "

Feed my lambs. Peter got the message for he says 1 Pt. 5:1-2 The elders which are among you I exhort, who am also an elder, and a witness of the sufferings of Christ, and also a partaker of the glory that shall be revealed: Feed the flock of God which is among you, taking the oversight [thereof], not by constraint, but willingly; not for filthy lucre, but of a ready mind;

Okay. Everyone agree with Peter? He got the message and passed it on to the elders in Asia Minor. Can't be any doubt about that, right?

" 1. That which our lord Jesus Christ, the prince of shepherds and great shepherd of the sheep, established in the blessed apostle Peter, for the continual salvation and permanent benefit of the Church, must of necessity remain for ever, by Christ's authority, in the Church which, founded as it is upon a rock, will stand firm until the end of time [45].
2. For "no one can be in doubt, indeed it was known in every age that the holy and most blessed Peter, prince and head of the apostles, the pillar of faith and the foundation of the Catholic Church, received the keys of the kingdom from our lord Jesus Christ, the savior and redeemer of the human race, and that to this day and for ever he lives" and presides and "exercises judgment in his successors"

Which successors? Peter said the elders in Asia Minor.

" the bishops of the Holy Roman See, which he founded and consecrated with his blood [46]. "

Whoa. What just happened? Where'd that notion arise? Not from Peter we've seen, but from where?. Here's Irenaeus a couple hundred years later.

[we do this, I say,] by indicating that tradition derived from the apostles, of the very great, the very ancient, and universally known Church founded and organized at Rome by the two most glorious apostles, Peter and Paul; as also [by pointing out] the faith preached to men, which comes down to our time by means of the successions of the bishops.
AH, III, c3.

Tradition derived from. Not scripture, but tradition assumed. But let's also assume that tradition is true and accurate. Where does that leave Christians?

For it is a matter of necessity that every Church should agree with this Church, on account of its pre- eminent authority, inasmuch as the apostolical tradition has been preserved continuously by those [faithful men] who exist everywhere.
AH, III, c3.

A matter of necessity to agree with Rome. Why? Its pre-eminent authority. What does that mean? Whatever it means, Irenaeus qualifies it, INASMUCH AS the apostolic tradition has been preserved continuously by successors.

We look backwards in time. Obviously OO believe Rome fell away from apostolic tradition. Obviously EO believe the same. Obviously P believe the same. Restorationists believe the same. Now, this is not to imply anything more about those groups and whether their dogmas/doctrines line up with apostles. Like RC, they may or may not. The point is Irenaeus says, you best agree with Rome because of its preeminent authority.

So, if we ignore and suspend Peter's clearly given lineage from scripture and substitute a tradition of men, then we are left with a choice. Follow that tradition of men, but only inasmuch as the apostolic tradition has been preserved continuously. Has it? No one agrees with it, but Rome alone.

So, where could one turn then?

Irenaeus says he can list successors in all the Churchs, but lists two more successions for consideration.

But Polycarp also was not only instructed by apostles, and conversed with many who had seen Christ, but was also, by apostles in Asia, appointed bishop of the Church in Smyrna, whom I also saw in my early youth, for he tarried [on earth] a very long time, and, when a very old man, gloriously and most nobly suffering martyrdom, departed this life, having always taught the things which he had learned from the apostles, and which the Church has handed down, and which alone are true. To these things all the Asiatic Churches testify, as do also those men who have succeeded Polycarp down to the present time,—

There again is Peter's successors, handing down what was learned from apostles and which alone are true. No qualification. And lastly,

Then, again, the Church in Ephesus, founded by Paul, and having John remaining among them permanently until the times of Trajan, is a true witness of the tradition of the apostles.

Ephesus. To spiritualize it, Christian love, if all else fails. Return to your first love.

Peace.

Well summarized...ty

 

[simonthezealot]

You guys ought to be mortified that you're churches position is historically indefensible.
You place all your trust in a church that has not the historical grounds of truth in which she claims.

This is serious guys. Where is the early Christian history which supports that Peter had a successor that was in charge of the Christian church?

That's an interesting question. I haven't ever seen any evidence for that assertion.

Hmm.
Probably something people just don't think about huh?

Unreal isn't it?

They place their salvation in the hands of a church with NO traceable roots...

 

[simonthezealot]

I'm determined to become a great apologist for whatever the truth may be, God willing.

Just make sure the truth you are willing to defend to death is the absolute truth, derived from scripture NOT a man ran institution.

 

[Rick Otto]

prince and head of the apostles,

Fatal flaw.

Heb.3

1. [1] Wherefore, holy brethren, partakers of the heavenly calling, consider the Apostle and High Priest of our profession, Christ Jesus;

 

[simonthezealot]

Fatal flaw.

Heb.3

1. [1] Wherefore, holy brethren, partakers of the heavenly calling, consider the Apostle and High Priest of our profession, Christ Jesus;

Still can hear the crickets... from the other side of the Tiber.

 

[sunlover1]

Originally Posted by sunlover1

Are you asking "Why have bishops at all IF there's no such thing as a pope?"
​

No, I am not. I am curious as to why Ray can put trust in a pastor or bishop and still be trusting God, but when it comes to the pope, if anyone puts trust in him he cannot be trusting God. We should trust a pastor or bishop on the basis of whether or not we can see that God is working through them, not because of their own abilities.

What a double standard. "I trust my bishop to do a good job, and I trust God... but you trust your bishop to do his job, so you don't trust God."

HUH?

NONE of us should put our trust in ANY man.
God made a HUGE deal about that all through the Bible

5Thus saith the LORD; Cursed be the man that trusteth in man, and

maketh flesh his arm, and whose heart departeth from the LORD.

6For he shall be like the heath in the desert, and shall not see when good

cometh; but shall inhabit the parched places in the wilderness, in a salt

land and not inhabited.
7Blessed is the man that trusteth in the LORD, and whose hope the LORD is.

 

[ivebeenshown]

HUH?

NONE of us should put our trust in ANY man.
God made a HUGE deal about that all through the Bible

5Thus saith the LORD; Cursed be the man that trusteth in man, and

maketh flesh his arm, and whose heart departeth from the LORD.

6For he shall be like the heath in the desert, and shall not see when good

cometh; but shall inhabit the parched places in the wilderness, in a salt

land and not inhabited.
7Blessed is the man that trusteth in the LORD, and whose hope the LORD is.

Yeah, as in, don't trust that Dave is going to personally save you from hellfire. But if God meant that we can have ABSOUTELY no trust in ANY other human being, then you can't really believe anything I say, or anything anyone else says, you can't trust your husband is not going to murder you, etc. There is a certain level of 'trust' you can have in humans that doesn't compare to a 'trust' in God, I trust my fiance is not going to poison my dinner but my heart has not departed from God in doing so...

Come on...

 

[ivebeenshown]

Just make sure the truth you are willing to defend to death is the absolute truth, derived from scripture NOT a man ran institution.

Did God cause the bible to fall from the sky into your lap? If no, then you are trusting humans when they told you what Scripture is.