Peter is our first Pope. Who was the second?

-- Derek Duval Jnr (Derek.duval@virgin.net), February 27, 2003

Answers

The second Pope was St. Linus (AD 67-76). The third Pope was St. Anacletus (or Cletus) (AD 76-88). The fourth Pope was St. Clement I (AD 88-98).

Do you need the 5th, 6th, 7th, 8th, 9th, and 10th as well? Please let us know. Thanks! :-)

-- Christine L. :-) (christine_lehman@hotmail.com), February 27, 2003.

If Linus was appointed in 67ad then of course St. John would have still been alive and functioning. Why is it that Linus would have been given authority over an original apostle of Jesus Christ?

-- Curious (curious@curious.com), February 27, 2003.

Because only one of the original Apostles was made the HEAD of the Apostles - Peter, and Linus was named as the successor to Peter.

St. John, like all the other Apostles - and like each one of us - had his own special role to fulfill in Christ's Church. (Also - maybe he didn't WANT to be Pope! It's not the easiest job in the world!)

-- Christine L :-) (christine_lehman@hotmail.com), February 27, 2003.

Linus was closer to the main stream of those who defended Church from the ongoing pressure from Rome. Therefore he was taken as the one who seemed to fit better.

-- Perry Cleason (PerryCl.@one .net), February 27, 2003.

If you sincerely have doubts about the successors of Peter and Church history, you can read the actual writings of the church fathers, and church historians, which are part of the public domain (not owned by the Catholic Church) at www.ccel.org. You can read the writings of 1st, 2nd, 3rd, 4th century Christians and so on, all the way up to the present time. You will find, though, that these records and historical data, do indeed support ALL of the Catholic Church's claims. You can read the writings of St. Clement, St. Ignatius, Augustine, St. Jerome, and on and on and on . . . literally volumes and volumes of writings.

Love,

Gail

-- Gail (rothfarms@socket.net), February 28, 2003.

Whoops, I forgot to mention in my previous post, Eusebius, who lived in, I believe the early 300's, compiled the Church's history for the 1st 300 years. His writings are also found at ccel.org. A casual reading of his records does list the "popes" as indicated by Christine. He also recorded the transfer of various churches from one leader to the other, i.e., apostolic succession!

-- Gail (rothfarms@socket.net), February 28, 2003.

Gail,

Please don't reference Eusebius. The scoundrel was the most dishonest author of antiquity! Practically everywhere we can check him, he's wrong. Further, he was a sycophant of the emperor Constantine and was not above outright lying if it improved his political position.

He was quoted as saying it was permissible to lie to further the cause of God, so maybe he took himself literally.

Eusebius's dishonesty is especially unfortunate because there are big gaps in church history for which he seems to be the only source.

There seems to me to be a huge gap of witnesses on the subject of "apostolic succession" till the late 2nd century, when some did take up the story. Are they objective? Well, since their writings justified their own positions, I don't think so.

-- Origen (origenmoscow@yahoo.com), February 28, 2003.

Origenmoscow,

You have some trouble with Eusebius. May I ask who shares your view. You say:

"Practically everywhere we can check him, he's wrong."

Here is a search from NewAdvent.org. It seems as if you're talking about Eusebius of Nicomedia, while Gail may be talking about Eusebius of Cæsarea.

There are a bunch of men named Eusebius in Church history. Could you confirm which one you're talking about?

Enjoy,

Mateo

-- (MattElFeo@netscape.net), February 28, 2003.

No, I meant the "Ecclesiastical History" chap.

Can we do Eusebius on another thread? It will contaminate this one badly.

Plus, I will have to dig out some reference stuff with which to compare him. My poor brain does not carry too many 4th century details.

I realise that this detracts from the present debate a bit, but I had a hard time resisting a quick slap at Eusebius -- as you would for you-know-who.

And here I promised to just be a lurker!

-- Origen (origenmoscow@yahoo.com), February 28, 2003.

It appears that your negative opinions of the authenticity of these writings are only shared by detractors of the Catholic Church. If you would like to discuss one of the various "Eusebius" figures, I agree that it should be done on another thread.

Enjoy,

Mateo

-- (MattElFeo@netscape.net), February 28, 2003.

Origen writes:

"I had a hard time resisting a quick slap at Eusebius -- as you would for you-know-who."

Do you mean Martin Luther? :-)

Enjoy,

Mateo

-- (MattElFeo@netscape.net), February 28, 2003.

Mateo,

I think he meant we as we would taking a slap at the Devil, but I suppose if he really wanted us to know, he would have told us... ;-)

Frank

-- Someone (ChimingIn@twocents.cam), February 28, 2003.

Origen, Here are just a few quotes concerning the "primacy of the church founded in Rome," by various fathers, "Peter's primacy"; also quotes referring to "other various popes" during the timespan you mentioned.

I am not sure what you were talking about earlier about there being gaps. I don't see any gaps like you said. There are writings concerning all kinds of subjects "straight from the horses' mouths," all the way back to the inception of the church.

Plus, if the Church had gone apostate the way some suggest, why is there ABSOLUTELY no writings concerning such alleged apostacy from the Fathers themselves? Would not Ignatius, Clement, Augustine (for crying out loud), Jerome, Iraneus, Athanatius, Thomas Aquinas, etc. have noticed that the Church was flipping belly-side up?

BTW, it is Eusebius Pamphilus. I did ask a well-renowned Protestant apologist (Hank Hanengraf) about his repution, and the response was positive.

Okay, here are just a few. I had a hard time selecting the best ones.

Gail

***** "Since, however, it would be very tedious, in such a volume as this, to reckon up the successions of all the Churches, we do put to confusion all those who, in whatever manner, whether by an evil self- pleasing, by vainglory, or by blindness and perverse opinion, assemble in unauthorized meetings; [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. For it is a matter of necessity that every Church should agree with this Church, on account of its pre- eminent authority, that is, the faithful everywhere, inasmuch as the apostolical tradition has been preserved continuously by those [faithful men] who exist everywhere." Irenaeus,Against Heresies,3:3:2 (A.D. 180),in ANF,I:1415-416

"A question of no small importance arose at that time. For the parishes of all Asia, as from an older tradition, held that the fourteenth day of the moon, on which day the Jews were commanded to sacrifice the lamb, should be observed as the feast of the Saviour's passover. It was therefore necessary to end their fast on that day, whatever day of the week it should happen to be. But it was not the custom of the churches in the rest of the world to end it at this time, as they observed the practice which, from apostolic tradition, has prevailed to the present time, of terminating the fast on no other day than on that of the resurrection of our Saviour...Thereupon Victor, who presided over the church at Rome, immediately attempted to cut off from the common unity the parishes of all Asia, with the churches that agreed with them, as heterodox; and he wrote letters and declared all the brethren there wholly excommunicate.But this did not please all the bishops. And they besought him to consider the things of peace, and of neighborly unity and love. Words of theirs are extant, sharply rebuking Victor. Among them was Irenaeus, who, sending letters in the name of the brethren in Gaul over whom he presided, maintained that the mystery of the resurrection of the Lord should be observed only on the Lord's day. He fittingly admonishes Victor that he should not cut off whole churches of God which observed the tradition of an ancient custom ..." Pope Victor & Easter(c.A.D. 195),Eusebius' Ecclesiastical History 5:23,24,in NPNF2,I:241-243

"And he says to him again after the resurrection, 'Feed my sheep.' It is on him that he builds the Church, and to him that he entrusts the sheep to feed. And although he assigns a like power to all the apostles, yet he founded a single Chair, thus establishing by his own authority the source and hallmark of the (Church's) oneness. No doubt the others were all that Peter was, but a primacy is given to Peter, and it is (thus) made clear that there is but one flock which is to be fed by all the apostles in common accord. If a man does not hold fast to this oneness of Peter, does he imagine that he still holds the faith? If he deserts the Chair of Peter upon whom the Church was built, has he still confidence that he is in the Church? This unity firmly should we hold and maintain, especially we bishops, presiding in the Church, in order that we may approve the episcopate itself to be the one and undivided." Cyprian,The Unity of the Church,4-5 (Primacy Text,A.D. 251/256),NE,228-229

"After such things as these, moreover, they still dare--a false bishop having been appointed for them by, heretics--to set sail and to bear letters from schismatic and profane persons to the throne of Peter, and to the chief church whence priestly unity takes its source; and not to consider that these were the Romans whose faith was praised in the preaching of the apostle, to whom faithlessness could have no access." Cyprian,To Cornelius,Epistle 54/59:14(A.D. 252),in ANF,V:344

"For Dionysius, Bishop of Rome, having written also against those who said that the Son of God was a creature and a created thing, it is manifest that not now for the first time but from of old the heresy of the Arian adversaries of Christ has been anathematised by all. And Dionysius, Bishop of Alexandria, making his defence concerning the letter he had written, appears in his turn as neither thinking as they allege, nor having held the Arian error at all." Athanasius,Dionysius of Rome,13 (A.D. 352),in NPNF2,IV:180

"Supposing, as you assert, that some offence rested upon those persons, the case ought to have been conducted against them, not after this manner, but according to the Canon of the Church. Word should have been written of it to us all , that so a just sentence might prceed from all. For the sufferers were Bishops, and Churches of no ordinary note, but those which the Apostles themselves had governed in their own persons. And why was nothing said to us concerning the Church of the Alexandrians in particular? Are you ignorant that the custom has been for word to be written first to us, and then for a just decision to be passed from this place? If then any such suspicion rested upon the Bishop there, notice thereof ought to have been sent to the Church of this place; whereas, after neglecting to inform us, and proceeding on their own authority as they pleased, now they desire to obtain our concurrence in their decisions, though we never condemned him. Not so have the constitutions of Paul, not so have the traditions of the Fathers directed; this is another form of procedure, a novel practice. I beseech you, readily bear with me: what I write is for the common good. For what we have received from the blessed Apostle Peter, that I signify to you; and I should not have written this, as deeming that these things were manifest unto all men, had not these proceedings so disturbed us." Athanasius,Pope Julius to the Eusebians,Defense Against the Arians, 35 (A.D. 347),in NPNF2,IV:118

Athanasius attended and sanctioned the deliberations of the Council of Sardica and referred to the Council of Sardica as "the great Council" (Defense Against the Arians 1) or "the Holy Synod" (Letter to the People of Antioch 5)

"Bishop Hosius said: This also it is necessary to add, that no bishop pass from his own province to another province in which there are bishops, unless indeed he be called by his brethren, that we seem not to close the gates of charity. And this case likewise is to be provided for, that if in any province a bishop has some matter against his brother and fellow-bishop, neither of the two should call in as arbiters bishops from another province. But if perchance sentence be given against a bishop in any matter and he supposes his case to be not unsound but good, in order that the question may be reopened, let us, if it seem good to your charity, honour the memory of Peter the Apostle, and let those who gave judgment write to Julius, the bishop of Rome, so that, if necessary, the case may be retried by the bishops of the neighbouring provinces and let him appoint arbiters; but if it cannot be shown that his case is of such a sort as to need a new trial, let the judgment once given not be annulled, but stand good as before." Council of Sardica,Canon III (A.D. 343/344),in NPNF2,XIV:416-417

"Bishop Gaudentius said: If it seems good to you, it is necessary to add to this decision full of sincere charity which thou hast pronounced, that if any bishop be deposed by the sentence of these neighbouring bishops, and assert that he has fresh matter in defence, a new bishop be not settled in his see, unless the bishop of Rome judge and render a decision as to this." Council of Sardica,Canon IV (A.D. 343/344),in NPNF2,XIV:418

"Bishop Hosius said: Decreed, that if any bishop is accused, and the bishops of the same region assemble and depose him from his office, and he appealing, so to speak, takes refuge with the most blessed bishop of the Roman church, and he be willing to give him a hearing, and think it right to renew the examination of his case, let him be pleased to write to those fellow-bishops who are nearest the province that they may examine the particulars with care and accuracy and give their votes on the matter in accordance with the word of truth. And if any one require that his case be heard yet again, and at his request it seem good to move the bishop of Rome to send presbyters a latere, let it be in the power of that bishop, according as he judges it to be good and decides it to be right that some be sent to be judges with the bishops and invested with his authority by whom they were sent. And be this also ordained. But if he think that the bishops are sufficient for the examination and decision of the matter let him do what shall seem good in his most prudent judgment. The bishops answered: What has been said is approved." Council of Sardica,Canon V (A.D. 343/344),in NPNF2,XIV:419

"What we have always believed, that we now know, for experience is proving and confirming for each of us what he has heard with his ears. It is true what the Apostle Paul, the most blessed teacher of the Gentiles, said of himself: 'Do ye seek a proof of him who speaks in me?' For, since the Lord Christ dwelt in him, there can be no doubt that the Spirit spoke by through his soul and animated the instrument of his body. And thus you, dearly beloved brother, though distant in body, have been with us in unison of mind and will. The reason for your absence was both honorable and imperative, that the schismatic wolves might not rob and plunder by stealth nor the heretical dogs bark madly in the rapid fury nor the very serpent, the devil, discharge his blasphemous venom. So it seems to us right and altogether fitting that priests of the Lord from each and every province should report to their head, that is, to the See of Peter, the Apostle." Council of Sardica,To Pope Julius (A.D. 342),as cited by James T. Shotwell and Louise Ropes Loomis The See of Peter (New York:Columbia,1927),pp.527-528.

"You cannot deny that you know that in the city of Rome the Chair was first conferred on Peter, in which the prince of all the Apostles, Peter,sat ... in which Chair unity should be preserved by all, so that he should now be a schismatic and a sinner who should set up another Chair against that unique one." Optatus of Mileve,The Schism of Donatists,2:2-3 (c.A.D. 367),in GCC,55

"For the good of unity Blessed Peter deserved to be preferred before the rest, and alone received the keys of the Kingdom of Heaven, that he might communicate them to the rest." Optatus of Mileve,The Schism of Donatists,7:3 (c.A.D. 367),in GCC,50

"Yet, at the very outset, error was so far set right by the bishops on whom the attempt was made at Ariminum to compel them to manipulate or innovate on the faith, that they confessed themselves seduced by opposite arguments, or owned that they had not perceived any contradiction to the opinion of the Fathers livered at Nicaea. No prejudice could arise from the number of bishops gathered at Ariminum, since it is well known that neither the bishop of the Romans, whose opinion ought before all others to have been waited for, nor Vincentius, whose stainless episcopate had lasted so many years, nor the rest, gave in their adhesion to such doctrines. And this is the more significant, since, as has been already said, the very men who seemed to be tricked into surrender, themselves, in their wiser moments, testified their disapproval." Pope Damasus[regn. A.D. 366-384],About Council at Arminum,Epistle 1 (A.D. 371),in Theodoret's Church History,in NPNF2,III:83

"Since the East, shattered as it is by the long-standing feuds, subsisting between its peoples, is bit by bit tearing into shreds the seamless vest of the Lord, woven from the top throughout,' since the foxes are destroying the vineyard of Christ, and since among the broken cisterns that hold no water it is hard to discover the sealed fountain' and the garden inclosed,' I think it my duty to consult the chair of Peter, and to turn to a church whose faith has been praised by Paul. I appeal for spiritual food to the church whence I have received the garb of Christ. The wide space of sea and land that lies between us cannot deter me from searching for the pearl of great price.' Wheresoever the body is, there will the eagles be gathered together.' Evil children have squandered their patrimony; you alone keep your heritage intact. The fruitful soil of Rome, when it receives the pure seed of the Lord, bears fruit an hundredfold; but here the seed corn is choked in the furrows and nothing grows but darnel or oats. In the West the Sun of righteousness is even now rising; in the East, Lucifer, who fell from heaven, has once more set his throne above the stars. Ye are the light of the world,' ye are the salt of the earth,' ye are "vessels of gold and of silver." Here are vessels of wood or of earth, which wait for the rod of iron,and eternal fire. Yet, though your greatness terrifies me, your kindness attracts me. From the priest I demand the safe-keeping of the victim, from the shepherd the protection due to the sheep. Away with all that is overweening; let the state of Roman majesty withdraw. My words are spoken to the successor of the fisherman, to the disciple of the cross. As I follow no leader save Christ, so I communicate with none but your blessedness, that is with the chair of Peter. For this, I know, is the rock on which the church is built! This is the house where alone the paschal lamb can be rightly eaten. This is the ark of Noah, and he who is not found in it shall perish when the flood prevails. But since by reason of my sins I have betaken myself to this desert which lies between Syria and the uncivilized waste, I cannot, owing to the great distance between us, always ask of your sanctity the holy thing of the Lord. Consequently I here follow the Egyptian confessors who share your faith, and anchor my frail craft under the shadow of their great argosies. I know nothing of Vitalis; I reject Meletius; I have nothing to do with Paulinus. He that gathers not with you scatters; he that is not of Christ is of Antichrist." Jerome,To Pope Damasus,Epistle 15:1-2(A.D. 375),in NPNF2,VI:18

"But he was not so eager as to lay aside caution. He called the bishop to him, and esteeming that there can be no true thankfulness except it spring from true faith, he enquired whether he agreed with the Catholic bishops, that is, with the Roman Church?" Ambrose,The death of his brother Satyrus,1:47(A.D. 378),in NPNF2,X:168

"Your grace must be besought not to permit any disturbance of the Roman Church, the head of the whole Roman World and of the most holy faith of the Apostles, for from thence flow out to all(churches) the bonds of sacred communion." Ambrose,To Emperor Gratian,Epistle 11:4(A.D. 381),in SPP,160

"To your inquiry we do not deny a legal reply, because we, upon whom greater zeal for the Christian religion is incumbent than upom the whole body, out of consideration for our office do not have the liberty to dissimulate, nor to remain silent. We carry the weight of all who are burdened; nay rather the blessed apostle Peter bears these in us, who, as we trust, protects us in all matters of his administration, and guards his heirs." Pope Sircius[regn. A.D. 384-399],To Himerius,Epistle 1(A.D. 385),in DEN,36-37

"Or rather, if we hear him here, we shall certainly see him hereafter, if not as standing near him, yet see him we certainly shall, glistening near the Throne of the king. Where the Cherubim sing the glory, where the Seraphim are flying, there shall we see Paul, with Peter, and as a chief and leader of the choir of the Saints, and shall enjoy his generous love. For if when here he loved men so, that when he had the choice of departing and being with Christ, he chose to be here, much more will he there display a warmer affection. I love Rome even for this, although indeed one has other grounds for praising it, both for its greatness, and its antiquity, and its beauty, and its populousness, and for its power, and its wealth, and for its successes in war. But I let all this pass, and esteem it blessed on this account, that both in his lifetime he wrote to them, and loved them so, and talked with them whiles he was with us, and brought his life to a close there. Wherefore the city is more notable upon this ground, than upon all others together. And as a body great and strong, it hath as two glistening eyes the bodies of these Saints. Not so bright is the heaven, when the sun sends forth his rays, as is the city of Rome, sending out these two lights into all parts of the world. From thence will Paul be caught up, from thence Peter. Just bethink you, and shudder (frixate) at the thought of what a sight Rome will see, when Paul ariseth suddenly from that deposit, together with Peter, and is lifted up to meet the Lord. (1 Thess. iv. 17.) What a rose will Rome send up to Christ! (Is. xxxv. 1) what two crowns will the city have about it! what golden chains will she be girded with! what fountains possess! Therefore I admire the city, not for the much gold, not for the columns, not for the other display there, but for these pillars of the Church. (1 Cor. xv. 38.) Would that it were now given me to throw myself round (pericuqhnai) the body of Paul, and be riveted to the tomb, and to see the dust of that body that "filled up that which was lacking" after "Christ" Col. i. 24), that bore "the marks" (stigmata,) (Gal. vi. 17) that sowed the Gospel everywhere yea, the dust of that body through which he ran to and fro everywhere!" Chrysostom,Epistle to the Romans,Homily 32:24(c.A.D. 391), in NPNF1,XI:561-562

"Number the bishops from the See of Peter itself. And in that order of Fathers see who has succeeded whom. That is the rock against which the gates of hell do not prevail" Augustine,Psalm against the Party of Donatus,18(A.D. 393),in GCC,51

"I am held in the communion of the Catholic Church by...and by the succession of bishops from the very seat of Peter, to whom the Lord, after His resurrection commended His sheep to be fed up to the present episcopate." Augustine,Against the Letter of Mani,5(A.D. 395),in GCC,78

"Carthage was also near the countries over the sea, and distinguished by illustrious renown,so that it had a bishop of more than ordinary influence, who could afford to disregard a number of conspiring enemies because he saw himself joined by letters of communion to the Roman Church, in which the supremacy of an apostolic chair has always flourished" Augustine,To Glorius et.al,Epistle 43:7(A.D. 397),in NPNF1,I:278

"If the lineal succession of bishops is to be considered with how much more benefit to the Church do we reckon from Peter himself,to whom, as bearing in a figure the whole Church, the Lord said: Upon this rock I will build my church,and the gates of hell shall not conquer it!' For to Peter succeeded Linus,Clement...Damsus,Sircius,Anastasius. In this order of sucession no Donatist bishop is too be found." Augustine,To Generosus,Epistle 53:2(A.D. 400),in GILES,180-181

"The chair of the Roman Church, in which Peter sat, and in which Anastasius sits today." Augustine,Against the Letters of Petillian,2:51(A.D. 402),in GCC,78

"In making inquiry with respect to those things that should be treated with all solicitude by bishops,and especially by a true and just and Catholic Council,by preserving,as you have done,the example of ancient tradition,and by being mindful of ecclesiastical discipline,you have truly strengthened the vigour of our religion,no less now in consulting us than before in passing sentence. For you decided that it was proper to refer to our judgement,knowing what is due to the Apostolic See,since all we who are set in this place,desire to follow the Apostle from the very episcopate and whole authority of this name is derived.Following in his footsteps, we know how to condemn the evil and to approve the good. So also, you have by your sacredotal office preserve the customs of the Fathers,and have not spurned that which they decreed by a divine and not human sentence,that whatsoever is done,even though it be in distant provinces,should not be ended without being brought to the knowledge of this See,that by its authority the whole just pronouncement should be strengthened,and that from it all other Churches (like waters flowing from their natal source and flowing through the different regions of the world,the pure streams of one incorrupt head),should receive what they ought to enjoin,whom they ought to wash,and whom that water,worthy of pure bodies,should avoid as defiled with uncleansable filth.I congratulate you,therefore,dearest brethren,that you have directed letters to us by our brother and fellow-bishop Julius,and that,while caring for the Churches which you rule,you also show your solicitude for the well-being of all,and that you ask for a decree that shall profit all the Churches of the world at once; so that the Church being established in her rules and confirmed by this decree of just pronouncement against such errors,may be unable to fear those men,etc." Pope Innocent[regn A.D. 401-417],To the Council of Carthage,Epistle 29 (A.D. 417),in SEP,146-147

"Although the tradition of the Fathers has attributed to the Apostolic See so great authority that none would dare to contest its judgements...For(Peter) himself has care over all the Churches, and above all that in which he sat nor does he suffer any of its priveleges or decisions to be shaken" Pope Zosimus[regn A.D. 417-418 ],To Aurelius and the Council of Carthage,Epistle 12(A.D. 418),in GCC,95,115

"For it has never been allowed to discuss again what has once been decided by the Apostolic See" Pope Boniface[regn A.D. 418-422],To Rufus Bishop of Thessalonica,Epistle 13(A.D. 422),in GCC,115

"The rising pestilence was first cut short by Rome,the see of Peter,which having become the head to the world of the pastoral office,holds by religion whatever it holds not by arms." Prosper of Aquitaine,Song on the Enemies of Grace,1(A.D. 429),in GCC,79

"Joining to yourself,therefore,the sovereignt of our See,and assuming our place with authority,you will execute this sentence with accurate rigour:that within ten days,counted from the day of your notice,he shall condemn his[Nestorius'] false teachings in a written confession." Pope Celestine[regn. A.D. 422-432],To Cyril of Alexandria,Epistle 11 (A.D. 430),in GCC,88

"The Holy Synod said:'Since most impious Nestorius will not obey our citation, and has not received the most holy and God-fearing bishops whom we sent to him,we have necessarily betaken ourselves to the examination of his impieties;and having apprehended from his letters,and from his writings,and from his recent sayings in this metropolis,which have been reported,that his opinions and teachings are impious,we being necessarily compelled thereto by the canons and by the leter of our most holy father and colleague,Celestine,bishop of the Roman Church,with many tears,have arrived at the following sentence against him:--'OurLord Jesus Christ,Who has been blasphemed by him,defines by this present most holy synod that the same Nestorius is deprived of episcopal dignity and of all sacredotal intercourse." Council of Ephesus,Session I(A.D. 431),in GCC,89-90

"And all the most reverend bishops at the same time cried out. This is a just judgment. To Coelestine, a new Paul! To Cyril a new Paul! To Coelestine the guardian of the faith! To Coelestine of one mind with the synod! To Coelestine the whole Synod offers its thanks! One Coelestine! One Cyril! One faith of the Synod! One faith of the world!....Arcadius...said:...Wherefore we desire to ask your blessedness, that you command that we taught what has been already decreed by your holiness.... Theodotus...said: The God of the whole world has made manifest the justice of the judgment pronounced by the holy Synod by the writings of the most religious bishop Coelestine, and by the coming of your holiness. For ye have made manifest the zeal of the most holy and reverend bishop Coelestine, and his care for the pious faith. And since very reasonably your reverence is desirous of learning what has been done from the minutes of the acts concerning the deposition of Nestorius your reverence will be fully convinced of the justice of the sentence, and of the zeal of the holy Synod, and the symphony of the faith which the most pious and holy bishop Coelestine has proclaimed with a great voice, of course after your full conviction, the rest shall be added to the present action." Council of Ephesus,Session II (A.D. 431),in NPNF2,XIV:222-223

"Philip, presbyter and legate of the Apostolic See, said: There is no doubt, and in fact it has been known in all ages, that the holy and most blessed Peter, prince and head of the apostles, pillar of the faith, and foundation of the Catholic Church, received the keys of the kingdom from our Lord Jesus Christ, the Saviour and Redeemer of the human race, and that to him was given the power of loosing and binding sins: Our holy and most blessed Pope Celestine the bishop is according to due order his successor and holds his place....Accordingly the decision of all churches is firm, for the priests of the eastern and western churches are present....Wherefore Nestorius knows that he is alienated from the communion of the priests of the Catholic Church." Council of Ephesus,Session III (A.D. 431),in GILES,252

"B. Peter in his successors has delivered what he received." Pope SixtusIII[regn. A.D. 432-440],To John of Antioch,Epistle 6(A.D. 433),in GCC,95

"For he[Pope Sixtus] wrote what was in accord with the holy synod [Council of Ephesus],and confirmed all of its acts,an is agreement with us." Cyril of Alexandria,To Acacius of Meletine,Epistle 40(A.D. 434),in GCC,114

"And since these heretics were trying to bring the Apostolic See round their view,African councils of holy bishops also did their best to persuade the holy Pope of the city(first the veneranle Innocent,and afterwards his successor Zosimus) that this heresy was to be abhorred and condemned by Catholic faith. And these bishops so great a See successively branded them,and cut them off from the members of the Church,giving letters to the African Churches in the West,and to the Churches of the East,and declared that they were to be anathematised and avoided by all Catholics.The judgement pronounced upon them by the Catholic Church of God was heard and followed also by the most pious Emperor Ho they had wandered,and are yet returning,as the truth of the right faith becomes known against this detestable error." Possidius,Life of Augustine,18(A.D. 437),in GCC,80-81

"The example of Pope Stephen in resisting the Iteration of Baptism. Great then is the example of these same blessed men, an example plainly divine, and worthy to be called to mind, and medirated upon continually by every true Catholic, who, like the seven-branched candlestick, shining with the sevenfold light of the Holy Spirit, showed to posterity how thenceforward the audaciousness of profane novelty, in all the several rantings of error, might be crushed by the authority of hallowed antiquity. Nor is there anything new in this? For it has always been the case in the Church, that the more a man is under the influence of religion, so much the more prompt is he to oppose innovations. Examples there are without number: but to be brief, we will take one, and that, in preference to others, from the Apostolic See, so that it may be clearer than day to every one with how great energy, with how great zeal, with how great earnestness, the blessed successors of the blessed apostles have constantly defended the integrity of the religion which they have once received. Once on a time then, Agrippinus, bishop of Carthage, of venerable memory, held the doctrine--and he was the first who held it --that Baptism ought to be repeated, contrary to the divine canon, contrary to the rule of the universal Church, contrary to the customs and institutions of our ancestors. This innovation drew after it such an amount of evil, that it not only gave an example of sacrilege to heretics of all sorts, but proved an occasion of error to certain Catholics even. When then all men protested against the novelty, and the priesthood everywhere, each as his zeal prompted him, opposed it, Pope Stephen of blessed memory, Prelate of the Apostolic See, in conjunction indeed with his colleagues but yet himself the foremost, withstood it, thinking it right, I doubt not, that as he exceeded all others in the authority of his place, so he should also in the devotion of his faith. In fine, in an epistle sent at the time to Africa, he laid down this rule: Let there be no innovation--nothing but what has been handed down.' For that holy and prudent man well knew that true piety admits no other rule than that whatsoever things have been faithfully received from our fathers the same are to be faithfully consigned to our children; and that it is our duty, not to lead religion whither we would, but rather to follow religion whither it leads; and that it is the part of Christian modesty and gravity not to hand down our own beliefs or observances to those who come after us, but to preserve and keep what we have received from those who went before us. What then was the issue of the whole matter? What but the usual and customary one? Antiquity was retained, novelty was rejected." Vincent of Lerins,Commonitories,6(A.D. 434),in NPNF2,XIV:134-135

"Although, therefore, dearly beloved, we be found both weak and slothful in fulfilling the duties of our office, because, whatever devoted and vigorous action we desire to do, we are hindered by the frailty of our very condition; yet having the unceasing propitiation of the Almighty and perpetual Priest, who being like us and yet equal with the Father, brought down His Godhead even to things human, and raised His Manhood even to things Divine, we worthily and piously rejoice over His dispensation, whereby, though He has delegated the care of His sheep to many shepherds, yet He has not Himself abandoned the guardianship of His beloved flock. And from His overruling and eternal protection we have received the support of the Apostles' aid also, which assuredly does not cease from its operation: and the strength of the foundation, on which the whole superstructure of the Church is reared, is not weakened by the weight of the temple that rests upon it. For the solidity of that faith which was praised in the chief of the Apostles is perpetual: and as that remains which Peter believed in Christ, so that remains which Christ instituted in Peter. For when, as has been read in the Gospel lesson, the Lord had asked the disciples whom they believed Him to be amid the various opinions that were held, and the blessed Peter bad replied, saying, Thou art the Christ, the Son of the living God,' the Lord says, Blessed art thou, Simon Bar-Jona, because flesh and flood hath not revealed it to thee, but My Father, which is in heaven. And I say to thee, that thou art Peter, and upon this rock will I build My church, and the gates of Hades shall not prevail against it. And I will give unto thee the keys of the kingdom of heaven. And whatsoever thou shall bind on earth, shall be bound in heaven; and whatsoever thou shall loose on earth, shall be loosed also in heaven.'The dispensation of Truth therefore abides, and the blessed Peter persevering in the strength of the Rock, which he has received, has not abandoned the helm of the Church, which he undertook. For he was ordained before the rest in such a way that from his being called the Rock, from his being pronounced the Foundation, from his being constituted the Doorkeeper of the kingdom of heaven, from his being set as the Umpire to bind and to loose, whose judgments shall retain their validity in heaven, from all these mystical titles we might know the nature of his association with Christ. And still to-day he more fully and effectually performs what is entrusted to him, and carries out every part of his duty and charge in Him and with Him, through Whom he has been glorified. And so if anything is rightly done and rightly decreed by us, if anything is won from the mercy of God by our daily supplications, it is of his work and merits whose power lives and whose authority prevails in his See. For this, dearly- beloved, was gained by that confession, which, inspired in the Apostle's heart by God the Father, transcended all the uncertainty of human opinions, and was endued with the firmness of a rock, which no assaults could shake. For throughout the Church Peter daily says, Thou an the Christ, the Son of the living God,' and every tongue which confesses the Lord, accepts the instruction his voice conveys. This Faith conquers the devil, and breaks the bonds of his prisoners. It uproots us from this earth and plants us in heaven, and the gates of Hades cannot prevail against it. For with such solidity is it endued by God that the depravity of heretics cannot mar it nor the unbelief of the heathen overcome it." Pope Leo the Great[regn. A.D.440-461],Sermon 3:2-3(A.D ante 461),in NPNF2,XII:117

"Who does not cease to preside in his see,who will doubt that he rules in every part of the world." Pope Leo the Great[regn. A.D.440-461],Sermon 5(A.D ante 461),in GCC,95

"After the reading of the foregoing epistle [i.e. the Tome of Pope Leo], the most reverend bishops cried out: This is the faith of the fathers, this is the faith of the Apostles. So we all believe, thus the orthodox believe. Anathema to him who does not thus believe. Peter has spoken thus through Leo [regn. A.D. 440-461]. So taught the Apostles. Piously and truly did Leo teach, so taught Cyril. Everlasting be the memory of Cyril. Leo and Cyril taught the same thing, anathema to him who does not so believe. This is the true faith. Those of us who are orthodox thus believe. This is the faith of the fathers. Why were not these things read at Ephesus [i.e. at the heretical synod held there] ? These are the things Dioscorus hid away." Council of Chalcedon,Session II (A.D. 451),in NPNF2,XIV:259

"Wherefore the most holy and blessed Leo, archbishop of the great and elder Rome, through us, and through this present most holy synod together with the thrice blessed and all-glorious Peter the Apostle, who is the rock and foundation of the Catholic Church, and the foundation of the orthodox faith, hath stripped him of the episcopate, and hath alienated from him all hieratic worthiness. Therefore let this most holy and great synod sentence the before mentioned Dioscorus to the canonical penalties." Council of Chalcedon,Session III (A.D. 451),in NPNF2,XIV:259-260

"The great and holy and universal Synod...in the metropolis of Chalcedon...to the most holy and blessed archbishop of Rome, Leo....being set as the mouthpiece unto all of the blessed Peter, and imparting the blessedness of his Faith unto all...and besides all this he [Dioscorus] stretched forth his fury even against him who had been charged with the custody of the vine by the Savior, we mean of course your holiness, ...." Leo the Great,Pope,Chalcdeon to Pope Leo,Epistle 98:1-2 (A.D. 451),in NPNF2,XII:72

Joseph A. Gallegos © 1997 All Rights Reserved.

-- Gail (rothfarms@socket.net), February 28, 2003.

Gail,

But remember, (as I teach the kids in my CCE classes) when faced with a true teaching that goes against your lifestyle, you'll need to either change your life to fit the truth or change the truth to fit your life. Unfortunately, the latter is the road chosen by most. (But should we be surprised? The Lord told us Himself that many are they who chose the road to perdition, and few there are who choose the road to Life.)

The perfect example is the Protestant poster-boy, Martin Luther. He came up with some novel ideas (sola scriptura, sola fide, ...) that didn't fit all that well with Sacred Scriptures, but did make him popular with the growing anti-clerical movements swelling up at the time. So his response was to get rid of the book of Maccabees (Purgatory), James (the only place where the phrase "saved by faith alone" appears in the entire Bible, but unfortunately for Luther was preceeded by the phrase "one is not.."), etc.

So should we be surprised that these followers of Luther are going to change their way of thinking based upon facts, true teachings, Truth? Unfortunatley, most will just deny (and those who honestly look at the facts end up eventually joining our ranks), giving some lame excuse why this should not be believed.

But this proves the Catholic point of the need of an absolute authority, guided by the Holy Spirit, to faithfully preserve, hand- down and authentically interpret the deposit of faith - i.e. the need of what we call the Vicar of Christ, the Pope. (I knew I could get this posting back to the main topic!)

Viva il Papa! and God bless!

-- Hollis (catholic@martinsen.com), March 01, 2003.

Dear Gail,

Before Irenaeus, whom exactly do you mean? If we take an early, “eyewitness” origin of the canonical gospels as a given (I don’t, but that’s another topic), this leaves at least 100 years between them and Irenaeus’s writings.

My criticism was especially of Eusebius (of Caesarea, or Pamphili), church “historian”.

Long quotes from websites are not very easy to discuss, since the sources and scholarship behind the quotes are not always apparent. Maybe these are explained on the website? I’ll have to check it out.

Mateo,

I meant Matthew Fox. You can slap Luther if you want (but he tends to slap back). By the way, you probably know that Eusebius regarded the much quoted “James” as a spurious book – much as did the later Martin Luther, for different reasons I suppose. (This is a quote from a secondary source (Metzger), so I’m not positive it was the same Eusebius, who had a very popular name, apparently.)

(Personally, I consider the Epistle of James pretty sound teaching, but not great theology. Aside from a few references to Jesus, it could have been written by any devout and somewhat literate Jew of that period. But back to your argument:)

Regarding my alleged acceptance of “detractors” only: By your same logic, does this mean that the “defenders of the Catholic Church” should be ruled out as well because of their obvious bias? This I suppose destroys all of Gail’s sources, and many others besides. No? OK.

Of Eusebius we can quote not just a “detractor of the Catholic Church”, but also many people who get paid to make an objective analysis. For instance, how about the Encyclopaedia Britannica (15th ed.):

“his vast erudition is not matched by clarity of thought of attractiveness of presentation”

“Eusebius, however, was not a great historian.”

“His historical works are really apologetic,”

To summarize: Eusebius was an apologist, not an historian. At the time, apologist meant “spin doctor”. They were playing for very high stakes, with little division between the “religion” and the “politics” of the day. Treat him with great caution as a source of objective truth.

Further, the man was obviously a politician. Can anyone say more to damage his character? ;^)

Check out who baptized the murderous hypocrite Constantine at the end of his crime-filled life. Hint: the same guy who wrote his biography.

I’ll save any really nasty remarks about the guy till they are needed.

Sorry Derek – I truly didn’t mean to highjack your thread!

-- Origen (origenmoscow@yahoo.com), March 01, 2003.

Hollis,

Take care, friend – your argument cuts both ways. Many people -- actually, all of us to some extent, especially as children -- accept things they are taught because to question them is a very frightening and painful process and may result in the loss of many things they value in life. This applies to both truth and falsehood.

Which are which? Only objective analysis can help us find out. If the road is narrow (as Jesus taught), why take comfort in being in such a large group? Even Jesus only found 12 good guys, and one of them turned out to be rotten! ;^)

The questioner or dissenter is usually accused by the majority of being morally deficient. It’s a first line of defense for the status quo, but it’s a cheap shot. But this is certainly a lot easier to allege than actually considering the question, which usually takes courage and the hard work of checking out the argument.

Where I live, the majority view for many decades was very anti- religious. To voice any version of Christianity was dangerous – it was said to be morally and intellectually corrupt, and such dissenters were often punished in some way. Were the majority right? (I hope not!)

I stand with Socrates (but I hope not to suffer his fate). Actually, I’m not in his league by any means, but I admire him. I’m content to stand in his shadow.

Now, back to the Pope stories:

-- Origen (origenmoscow@yahoo.com), March 01, 2003.

Origenmoscow writes:

"To summarize: Eusebius was an apologist, not an historian. At the time, apologist meant “spin doctor”."

One could make the same negative attack on the credibility of the Gospel writers. Similarly, parts of the Old Testament could be attacked.

Do you think that the four Gospel writers (or other Bible writers) are "Spin Doctors?" If you're going to throw out judgments, you've gotta be consistent.

Origenmoscow writes:

"You can slap Luther if you want (but he tends to slap back)."

I've never seen him slap back. :-)

Origenmoscow writes:

"By the way, you probably know that Eusebius regarded the much quoted “James” as a spurious book – much as did the later Martin Luther, for different reasons I suppose. (This is a quote from a secondary source (Metzger), so I’m not positive it was the same Eusebius, who had a very popular name, apparently.)"

I thought you were going to start a new thread. I've already admitted I don't know much about the various Eusebiuses. I still don't think you're talking about the same Eusebius.

Origenmoscow writes:

"By your same logic, does this mean that the “defenders of the Catholic Church” should be ruled out as well because of their obvious bias? This I suppose destroys all of Gail’s sources, and many others besides. No? OK."

No, not OK; there is a difference. It's not their bias; it is their perspective (if you can see the difference). If I want to know what a Catholic teaches, I ask a Catholic. If I want to know what a Mormon teaches, I ask a Mormon. If I want to know what Matthew Fox teaches, I go to his website.

In the case of Matthew Fox, you thought that I was incorrectly associating him with Liberation Theology (you previously never made the connection). But it was his own website which made the connection. Do you see my point?

Of course, I will also look to the Catholic Church's position with regard to others; because they will give a comparative analysis from a Catholic perspective; but this is usually in conjunction with my own research.

Origenmoscow writes:

"Further, the man was obviously a politician. Can anyone say more to damage his character?"

You still don't know which 'Eusebius' you're talking about. Can we save your attacks for another thread?

Origenmoscow writes:

"Check out who baptized the murderous hypocrite Constantine at the end of his crime-filled life."

If you hate Constantine so much that you feel the need to pass judgment on him, could you at least save this for another thread?

Enjoy,

Mateo

-- (MattElFeo@netscape.net), March 01, 2003.

Origenmoscow writes:

"The questioner or dissenter is usually accused by the majority of being morally deficient."

Your own peculiar experiences seem to have pushed you to the reverse prejudice: that the majority (status quo) should usually be assumed morally deficient. Novelty isn't always better than the status quo. Here's a somewhat relevant quote:

"It will never be known what acts of cowardice have been motivated by the fear of not looking sufficiently progressive." (Charles Péguy, from the essay "Notre Patrie")

Enjoy,

Mateo

-- (MattElFeo@netscape.net), March 01, 2003.

Mateo,

Yes, you did well to check Matthew Fox’s web site. I learned a few things in that discussion.

I guess my point is that if we want to know history, we try to find good historians who follow the disciplines of that field.

We should put little trust in “historians” who don’t follow those disciplines: careful analysis, reasonable skepticism, documenting one’s sources, objectivity, etc. The “historian” Eusebius doesn’t meet those criteria. But Gail’s already started another thread on Apostolic Succession for me, so we can take it there. If I started one, what could I title it? Eusebius of Caesarea: believe him or don’t? ;^) What a yawner.

In the same vein as Bishop E., you or I could write volumes of apologetics defending our religious views, or books of polemic attacking people we don’t like, but unless we held to those scholarly disciplines, the real historians, theologians, etc. would tear our writings apart. Or, more likely, ignore them. So should we regard Bishop E.

Unfortunately, there were few objective people writing on these subjects in that period. Or if there were, their writings haven’t survived. Nearly all we have is a propagandist to fill the vacuum.

Do you really defend Constantine, and want me to start a thread on him? Even by emperor standards, he was pretty bad. I don’t have to throw out judgements on him.

For majority vs. minority morality: my point was just to turn Hollis’s cheap shot against us “Lutherans” back on its head. The majority may either be wrong or right, but numbers cannot decide that. Again, I would refer all to Plato’s Socrates on the subject. For him, knowledge (and moral knowledge) rested on the foundation of knowing not only why something was true, but also why its alternatives were false. I was just working on the first part on the subject at hand, so far.

Still, shouldn’t we all be doing something better than this on the weekend? I’ll try to back off this and just be an occasional lurker. This is no place for Platonists. ;^)

-- Origen (origenmoscow@yahoo.com), March 01, 2003.

Hi Origen, Hollis and everyone else:

Origen, you do make an excellent point, "Which historian do you trust." For me, after what I have had to go through just to get simple answers, I would have to say no one! Everyone has a bias. That is why the writings of the Father's themselves were so monumentally important to me. Even throwing Eusebius out (BTW there are 10 books of his writings on ccel.org) you still have literally thousands and thousands (maybe millions) of pages of Church Father writings.

My journey into the Catholic faith began with one question, "Who canonized the N.T. and what's the deal with the apochrypha?" Do you know it took 6 months to get that answer? I was told some of the most ridiculous things by folks who were just handing down ready-made answers from their teachers. (They weren't lying, but they were repeating errors.)

I wonder, Origen, if Martin Luther had it to do over, and in light of the state of Protestantism today, would he have nailed that 95 theses to the cathedral wall? I also wonder whether he would recognize the Lutheran church of today as his own? Especially since it has now splintered in to several different groups. I mean that sincerely and it is not meant to be a punch at the Lutheran Church, but I am sure you know that Luther did not protest against all that the Church had taught. In fact, I "think" he held to Marian doctrines all the way through his life. Please correct me if I'm wrong.

Love,

Gail

P.S. I will post the "Peter as pope" thread, POST-Eusebius, for your pleasure.

-- Gail (rothfarms@socket.net), March 01, 2003.

super thread. i have learned loads, and clearly have much more to learn especially as the thread develops. btw, Origen, you did not steal my thread, you made it. and trick questions are not so bad after all when they produce this amount of knowledge -- although i still wish that Ric's (?? -- was that the name) "2-rule" message had not been deleted as it should serve as a beacon to us all. PC

-- Derek Duval Jnr (derek.duval@virgin.net), March 01, 2003.

Origen,

I completely agree with you that bias works both ways, and you make my point quite well. Left up to my own "opinion" and what I "felt" was right, I most certainly wouldn't be a Catholic. Let me explain.

My coming to the conviction of the Catholic Church as being the one true Church founded by Jesus Christ was a process, like most of those posting here in defense of the Church. Those who haven't been challenged to look deep in to this matter are either non-Catholics (easy "prey" for evangelicals who have their "confuse and convert" methodology down pat), agnostics/atheists, or "lukewarm" Catholics.

As God was working miracles and opening my mind (and me responding to His opening my heart), I was amazed at the true wisdom behind the teachings of the Church. But then I came across the Church's teaching on artificial contraception.

Here is were I made the most arrogant statement in my life. I said to myself, "well the Church has a lot of wisdom, but they messed up on this one." But then I took this to prayer, where I was immediately convicted - "who was I with my limited instruction, limited knowledge, living in one small epoch of history with no gift of infallibility to put myself above the teachings of the Church with all Her wisdom with the gift of infallibility and years of experience and wisdom?"

So this is where I was lead to the brink of the cliff and challenged to make a true "act of faith". Was I going to believe something because it passed by criteria of being feasible or not, or because it met the criteria of God's infallible teaching. It goes back to the Garden of Eden in Genesis. Was I going to make myself the source of knowledge of good and evil, or was I going to hold fast to the certain word spoken by God?

In tears and total humiliation resulting from the awareness of my arrogance, I made the act of faith - believing God and all that He reveals since He can neither deceive nor be deceived. God had shown me sufficiently that placing my faith in the Catholic Church was equivalent to placing my faith in Him and His revelation.

On that day, I no longer became the origin of truth and what my criteria was for right and wrong had to be subjected to the authority of Christ's Church. It was the best move I ever made in my life.

And, Origen, you completely make my point. Yes, we are all biased and all can easily be deceived by the "master of lies." And God is not going to leave our salvation to happenstance. There has to be somewhere/someone/somehow where we can have absolute certainty on knowing God's will in matters of faith and morals. And this certainly isn't with me and the Bible. (The exponential multiplication of "bible churches" should be enough proof for this, but much more proof could be given, but that's for another thread.)

I believe, without doubt, that I found this infallible source of truth and I have very solid reasons for this decision. And now there is no turning back. And now it's not "my bias" I'm arguing, but the teachings of the Church. It is possible that at times my bias (or ignorance or sinfulness or....) gets in the way, but all it takes is for someone to point me back to how my current thought differs from official Church teaching, and I submit and get back on course.

What a joy and gift it is not to have to rely on my bias or the bias of the current preacher in my church or current trends in society (yes, all Christian denominations taught what the Catholic Church now does regarding artificial contraception only a few decades ago, but like a reed in the wind, have dropped this teaching like a hot potato only a step behind the pop culture of the time).

Certainly you will try to make the argument that my belief is in a series of biases handed down over the centuries, but I can make a very strong case from history, lives of the saints, philosophy, etc. to show you why I believe there is no better case made for the Catholic Church being this infallible authority and possessor of the deposit of faith than the Catholic Church. But to be honest, it really isn't worth my time in this context.

We are called to share our faith and work to bring others to Christ and to the fullness of His teachings, but the Lord also warns us not to "throw your pearls to the swine," and it certainly looks like we have the swine thing going here.

In Christian charity I will pray for you, but the fact that some of you come in to a specifically Catholic forum with the only intent to bash Catholic teachings can be viewed as an "unjust aggressor" (in an analogous way) and some tough words are appropriate. If you are honestly seeking to know what the Catholic Church teaches, fine. But that obviously is not the case with your "trick questions" that fool no one and your hardness of heart when responses from Mateo, Gail and others show you to be in error.

God bless!

-- Hollis (catholic@martinsen.com), March 03, 2003.

Thank you Hollis, for that wonderful, wonderful testimony!

Love,

Gail

-- Gail (rothfarms@socket.net), March 03, 2003.

Hollis, I actually meant no offense to you, either. I'm just a sucker for a good argument. I seem to get drawn into long arguments when I really just meant to make an occasional comment.

-- Origen (origenmoscow@yahoo.com), March 03, 2003.

Origen,

I read somewhere else that you state yourself as an outside observer and only jump in when you can't resist it.

I'm all for good, honest discussions too. I was going to add a disclaimer at the end stating that my comments were more intended for others, and not so much yourself. But it was getting late and the post was way too long, so I left it out.

I didn't take offense, but I still thought the posting was appropriate since this is a Catholic forum and those who are anti- Catholic should realize this and refrain from endless postings (with the only intent being to prove Catholics wrong) once the Catholic teaching is properly articulated on the matter.

And on a side note, I have a lot of respect for non-Catholic Christians who are honestly seeking to know, love and serve Our Lord, Jesus Christ. We need to stick together in the society we find ourselves which is continually becoming more hostile to Christian believes and morals.

God bless!

-- Hollis (catholic@martinsen.com), March 03, 2003.

Origen, beware!

seems to me that this is rapidly turning into some kind of counselling session. if i were you, i'd disengage immediately!

-- derel duval jnr (derek.duval@virgin.net), March 03, 2003.

http://ic.net/~erasmus/RAZ112.HTM

50 NEW TESTAMENT PROOFS FOR PETRINE PRIMACY AND THE PAPACY

-- Derek Duval Jnr (derek.duval@virgin.net), March 04, 2003.

Vatican 2 says: "The separated churches and communities as such, though we believe they suffer from the defects already mentioned, have been by no means deprived of significance and importance in the mystery of salvation. For the Spirit of Christ has not refrained from using them as means of salvation which derive their efficacy from the very fulness of grace and truth entrusted to the Catholic Church." (Decree on Oecumenism Unitatis Redintegratio, paragraph 3)

This contradicts a doctrine which has been repeated perhaps more times than any other by the Church and is unquestionably Divinely revealed. Only a single example of the magisterial teaching of the true doctrine is necessary and we select the following from the Council of Florence held under Pope Eugene IV (1441):

"The most Holy Roman Church firmly believes, professes and preaches that none of those existing outside the Catholic Church, not only pagans, but also Jews and heretics and schismatics, can have a share in life eternal; but that they will go into the eternal fire which was prepared for the Devil and his angels, unless before death they are joined with her..."

We have heard it argued that the word "means", occurring in the aberrant passage in this decree, was perhaps intended to signify something like "stepping-stone";

This is a very serious contradiction between Vatican 2 and previous councils. If the past councils can be so lightly dismissed, cannot Vatican 2 likewise suffer the same fate at some future time. Where does that leave the "rock" that was supposed to keep the Church inviolate until the Lord returns?.

-- Ed Richards (loztra@yahoo.com), March 05, 2003.

The definition of "catholic" means universal. All Christians are part of that mystical "universal" church, whether they be "Catholic" or not.

Love,

Gail

-- Gail (rothfarms@socket.net), March 06, 2003.

Gail, with all due respect, you would have to "dig up", Eugene, Boniface, and Innocent, and ask them if that was what they meant. I believe they said what they meant, and meant what they said. Or are they just passe, as many other of the solemn church teachings of the past. It seems that it is "Goodbye traditionalism, and Hello ecumanism.

-- Ed Richards (loztra@yahoo.com), March 06, 2003.