When did the denomination "Church of Christ" Spoof? and its Dubious History ?

greenspun.com : LUSENET : Ask Jesus : One Thread

the so-called denomination of the "Church of Christ" ~ the 35,001st radical denomination of Martin Luther Spoofed into existence when? Who made it spoof? Where did it Spoof? How did it Spoof? From which 35,000th denomination did it spoof from? It must be another heresy.

-- james (elgreco@hotmail.com), October 19, 2003

Answers

This "Million and One denominations" is a lie. You can't prove it, and your church itself is a denomination too!

Show me a list of a Million and One denominations all with "thousands and billions" of "confusing and conflicting" doctrines.

-- David Ortiz (cyberpunk1986@hotmail.com), October 19, 2003.


are you still in elementary shool?

not millions

but

thirty five thousand.

According to the Oxford Encyclopedia, as of 1996, there are 35,000 registered denominations of Martin Luther, the Heretic.

-- james (elgreco1541@hotmail.com), October 19, 2003.


james writes,"are you still in elementary shool?"

No, I am in highschool but if you want to throw insults at my inteligence go right ahead but I won't stoop to your level.

james writes,"not millions but thirty five thousand."

What difference does it make? Your numbers are inflated so why not inflate them more. Romanists love to use this tattic to somehow "disprove" Sola Scriptura and bolster Roman unity, which Roman unity is a lie too.

james writes,"According to the Oxford Encyclopedia, as of 1996, there are 35,000 registered denominations of Martin Luther, the Heretic."

Ok, I do not have the 1996 Oxford Encyclopedia and cannot check up on that. Barretts number are misused by Romanists. If you have this encyclopedia please scan the pages so we can all read this. Either way, you don't have a reliable source proving 30,000 Denominations.



-- David Ortiz (cyberpunk1986@hotmail.com), October 19, 2003.

David,

You are too sensitive, my blue gothic font friend. I did not mean to hurt your tender heart.

Clarification:

World Christian Encyclopedia 2nd edition January 2001 Oxford University Press

records Thirty Four Thousand separate Christian groups

see: Lusenet ~ Catholic ~ Older Messages (by category) ~ Non-Catholic Beliefs-Christian ~ How Many Protestant denominations?

-- james (elgreco1541@hotmail.com), October 20, 2003.


That still does not prove it, I want a list with all 35,000 denominations on it. And not just a list of Church names, a list documenting the "thousands of conflicting doctrines" on it.

-- David Ortiz (cyberpunk1986@hotmail.com), October 25, 2003.


might as well ask for a list of all the names of protestants in the United States alone ~ you will get the same amount of denominations ~ and equally the same amount of doctrines ~ or even more.

what you want in life is not necessarily what you get.

-- james (elgreco1541@hotmail.com), October 25, 2003.


"Fixity is Catholic Purity; variance is protestant heresy." ~ Bossuet, Histoire des Variations

SACRED TRUTH :

THE ROCK ~

THE MAGISTERIUM OF THE 2000 YEAR OLD MOST HOLY CATHOLIC CHURCH SAYS :

HERESY is the obstinate post-baptismal Denial of Some Truth which must be Believed with Divine and Catholic Faith, or it is likewise an obstinate Doubt concerning the same.

The first Heresies denied not so much Christ’s Divinity as his true humanity (Gnostic Docetism). From Apostolic times the Christian faith has insisted on the true incarnation of God’s Son “come in the flesh.” (1 Jn 4:2-3; Jn 7) But already in the Third Century, the Church in a Council at Antioch had to affirm against Paul of Samosata that Jesus Christ is Son of God by nature and not by adoption. The first Ecumenical Council of Nicaea in 325 A.D. confessed in its Creed that the Son of God is “begotten, not made, of the same substance (homoousios) as the Father,” and condemned Arius, who had affirmed that the Son of God “came from things that were not” and that he was “from another substance” than that of the Father.

APOSTASY is the total repudiation of the Christian faith.

SCHISM is the refusal of submission to the Roman Pontiff, The Pope, or of communion with the members of THE CHURCH who is entirely subject to him.



-- james (elgreco1541@hotmail.com), October 28, 2003.


Hi Kevin.

I've read your post. It is very interesting. Could we admit that some Tradition is acceptable in the following statement?

"Again, we know from such respected historians as Neander and Eusebius that Christians in those early centuries took the Lord's Supper every Sunday. "

The way the church of Christ is presented in your post sounds very inviting. It sounds idealic for any person. It also sounds much like what Elpidio has been aiming at. I wonder what Elpidio might have to say about the church of Christ.

rod..

..

-- rod. (elreyrod@yahoo.com), October 28, 2003.


No rod,

In fact, I knew that posting something from church history would cause me to have something thrown back at me for I have chastised people in the past for this very reason.

We do NOT rely on TRADITION in the church of Christ for observance of the Lord's supper. We rely on the Word of God for observance of the Lord's Supper. (See Acts 20:7).

-- Kevin Walker (kevinlwalker572@cs.com), October 28, 2003.


Kevin, [Deleted by Moderator]

Kevin said, "You are correct, please forgive my error."

Kevin said, "In fact, I knew that posting something from church history would cause me to have something thrown back at me for I have chastised people in the past for this very reason."

I FELL PITY ON THOSE MISGUIDED SOULS.

THEY WERE COERCED TO REMAIN IN THE DARK.

Matthew 18:6 :

But if anyone causes one of these little ones who believe in me to sin, it would be better for him to have a large millstone hung around his neck and to be drowned in the depths of the sea.

-- james (elgreco1541@hotmail.com), October 28, 2003.



Kevin. Own up to some truth here! Admit that it does show Tradition. You won't become a Catholic by admitting what I've pointed out. I am not bashing you nor your church of Christ. Yes, I know, His church of Christ. I don't believe that quote is in the Bible, yet your congregation accepts it as truth, hmmm. I'm not bashing! I'm stating a fact.

rod..

..<

-- rod (elreyrod@yahoo.com), October 28, 2003.


rod,

Once again, observance of the Lord's Supper is NOT a tradition NOR will I state that it is a tradition.

The Word of God is CLEAR that the disciples came together to break bread (the Lord's Supper) EXACTLY as stated in Acts 20:7.

Please tell me rod, how is that a TRADITION?

-- Kevin Walker (kevinlwalker572@cs.com), October 28, 2003.


David,

It is obvious if you move over the different threads that James has no desire to post anything meaningful in response to me except to throw insults and ridicule me every time I post. This is evidenced by your deleting some of the things that he has posted in his replies to me.

I appreciate what you are doing as moderator and would like to ask that if all someone (James) intends to do is throw insults and ridicule every time that they post that they be warned and either have their posts deleted or as a last resort banned from the forum.

I know this is not what you want to do (ban people) but there is no need for anyone to have to put up with the constant abuse.

-- Kevin Walker (kevinlwalker572@cs.com), October 28, 2003.


David,

> 20,000 protestant denominations in the U.S.A. alone:

TESTIMONY OF A CATHOLIC REVERT :

Another point struck my wife and me when we read from a book in the library titled the Handbook of Denominations in the United States. We never realized that there were more than twenty thousand denominations. That figure did not even take into consideration the non-denominational churches, such as Calvary Chapel. We could not see how God's plan for the Church was for such division.

It seemed to us that any time a person disagreed with a particular teaching or doctrine, he would start his own church.

If the Bible alone is our only authority (instead of The Church) and if we all have the right to private interpretation, then this, it seems to me, is a recipe for endless division. If we all sincerely pray to the Holy Spirit to "guide us into all the truth" (John 16:13), why do so many people come up with different interpretations? Is there no real recourse to reconcile these differences? Surely these divisions are not the way God wants His Church to function. ~ Joseph Ranalli



-- james (elgreco1541@hotmail.com), November 09, 2003.


"It seemed to us that any time a person disagreed with a particular teaching or doctrine, he would start his own church."

This humors me. Going back to American history, this was a common reason for the creation of different colonies. A member in church would have a different idea about church practice/translation. As a result, this person was excommunicated from that congregation lol. Who says our country was founded on religious freedom? Being persecuted, labeled as heritics of the Church of England or even the Roman catholic church, many settlers fleed to the Americas, only to inflict upon each other the same judgements.

"If we all sincerely pray to the Holy Spirit to "guide us into all the truth" (John 16:13), why do so many people come up with different interpretations?"

Sometimes the truth is not what we wanted to hear, and we see tough biblical passages being passed off as "cultural only" or "not to be taken literally" or "out-of-date."

-- Luke Juarez (hubertdorm@yahoo.com), November 18, 2003.



Oh, that should be "fled" not "fleed"

-- Luke Juarez (hubertdorm@yahoo.com), November 18, 2003.

"This humors me. Going back to American history, this was a common reason for the creation of different colonies. A member in church would have a different idea about church practice/translation. As a result, this person was excommunicated from that congregation lol."

Exactly. A protestant who had a fresh radical idea was excommunicated from his protestant church. In anger, he started his new baby denomination. The cycle propagates. The very same thing still happens today. The result is 34,001 new conflicting denominations.

Whereas all Catholics have their allegiance to the Pope, the Successor of St. Peter, wherever in the world they may be ~ just as Jesus Christ had Willed ~ a Visible United Church. The result is 1.2 Billion Catholics United as One in Christ, with Christ as the King and Mary as the Queen and the Pope as the Center.



-- james (elgreco1541@hotmail.com), November 20, 2003.


From the book of 1 Corinthians:

(3)You are still worldly. For since there is jealousy and quarreling among you, are you not worldly? Are you not acting like mere men? (4) For when one says, "I follow Paul," and another, "I follow Apollos," are you not mere men? (5)What, after all, is Apollos? And what is Paul? Only servants, through whom you came to believe--as the Lord has assigned to each his task. (6)I planted the seed, Apollos watered it, but God made it grow. (7)So neither he who plants nor he who waters is anything, but only God, who makes things grow.

-- Luke Juarez (hubertdorm@yahoo.com), November 21, 2003.


Unless you are truly narcissistic in search of glory for yourself, then you start a church.

Others have no choice. They are not welcome by any established church.

I am one of them.

-- Elpidio Gonzalez (egonval@yahoo.com), November 21, 2003.


This one is for you, Luke.

By the way, what do you believe in?

You can post it in the new thread established by David about what we believe in.

Your brother in Christ Elpidio Gonzalez

The man of Yahweh

-- Elpidio Gonzalez (egonval@yahoo.com), November 21, 2003.


Elpidio, I knew that you were gonna start a church before you made any hints about it. Do you remember?

...

..

-- rod (elreyrod@yahoo.com), November 21, 2003.


Yes, I remember.

Remember also I told you that I couldn't do it as long as John Paul II was alive.

I owe obedience to this man because God sent me to be his conscience since 1991 after the death of my first son.

Since then, after many letters, I realize he has done totally the opposite of what I wrote to him.

May Yahweh our God hve mercy on his spirit.

Elpidio Gonzalez The Man of Yahweh

-- Elpidio Gonzalez (egonval@yahoo.com), November 22, 2003.


"I owe obedience to this man because God sent me to be his conscience since 1991 after the death of my first son. Since then, after many letters, I realize he has done totally the opposite of what I wrote to him. May Yahweh our God hve mercy on his spirit."

Sorry to hear about your son.

Don't you think that you will be cramping the style of the Most Holy Spirit by insisting on being the Pope's conscience?

You mean the Most Holy Spirit guided the Pope to do the exact opposite of what you wrote to him.

If you truly owe obedience to the Pope, then you would heed to his call to become Catholic.

The brand-new experimental denominational hysteria/entertainment is amazingly dividing right before our very eyes. Elpidio, if you do decide to establish your own church, yours will be the 34,002nd. However, if you truly have a conscience, you would not establish a new "church" because, by the nature of your deviant doctrine, you surely would be leading others ASTRAY.

Matthew 18:6 But if anyone causes one of these little ones who believe in me to sin, it would be better for him to have a large millstone hung around his neck and to be drowned in the depths of the sea.



-- james (elgreco1541@hotmail.com), November 25, 2003.


Question: Your church only believes in the new testament, please explain this to me in it's full reasoning. What's wrong with the old testament?

-- Joseph D. Hokanson (hokanson7@juno.com), July 10, 2004.

Joseph,

They don't believe it has authority. They also seem to think certain parts of the New Testament are no longer relevant to us.

-- David Ortiz (cyberpunk1986@hotmail.com), July 10, 2004.


Back to james and his claim of the 35000 Denominatiosn spawned by luther. Its false.

I don have a copy at hand, however, the list actually reports seperate Chrisain groups, not all of which are evn protestant.

For instance, eastern Orthodox and Mormons counted on the list...

Likewise, some of the groupds where Catholic. Thats right, soem of those 35000 Deoominaitons where ActuallY Cahtolic. Tahst because the list doesn't acutlalyr ecord the numebr of Denominations, it records the number of independant groups, not its denominaitonal affiliation.

Therefore, the Easern Rite, whoich is in full communion with the Pope is counted as a seperate grouo within the Catholic Chruch but still possessing soem autonomy.

The lost is in regards to how many independant orders of chrisyaisn exist overall, NOT how many Spacific denominatiosn their are.

As a result, the numbers are signifigantly higher than one shoudl expect from merley listign denominaitosn as a whole, ince oen denomination may possess several independant grpups, while sem groups may be composed of several denominations.

Such as the Evangelical Association whihc i a leuge where several Evangelical Chisaisn orginise events and plans, but whihc has member denominaitosn form a variety of bakcgrounds, and is not mde up of any oen denomination.

Therefore James is wrogn when he mentions that their are 35000 Denominations spawned by Martain Luther.

Which brigns up another interestign point, not all Chruches actually deended from martain Luther. Th Chruch of England broke Communion wihthte Pope after Henry the 8th wanted a Divire, and thoug it happeend after Luther, it wa snot direlty rlated to Luther. ( The HCurhc of England haivng coem into existance ince the itme of the Magna Carta, although then it was still in full Comunion with Rome. It simpley had the abilit to appoitn is own Bishops and set an independant Litergy, much like the Eastern Rite.)

Many of the reformation Chruches spawed form Calvin, or form othe rindependant soruce as well, such as the Quakers, the Mormons, and the baptists, who do not owe direct line to Luther and his reformation.

Speakign of baptists, and to end where i began, the same list hat lists over 35000 inependant Chrisyain gorups will lit several tpyes of Baptists, however, the baptist faith is considered a single denomination, and not several seperatr Denominaitons, it is merely composed of seperate groups.

-- ZAROVE (ZAROFF3@JUNO.COM), July 10, 2004.


http://www.ntrmin.org/30000denominations.htm

http://www.ntrmin.org/30000denominationsrevisited.htm

-- David Ortiz (cyberpunk1986@hotmail.com), July 10, 2004.


Joseph,

Basically, we've generalized the Old Testament under Mosiac Law and the New Testament to be the New Covenant that Christians live under. Because "works of the law shall no flesh be justified," and Gentiles aren't required to keep the Law of Moses, the practice has been to use only the New Testament as the instruction book for the Church. There isn't anything wrong or bad with the OT, and it certainly is not entirely Mosiac Law. Many prophecies in the OT still have yet to pass, and we learn important characteristics of God as well as mistakes of man.

-- Luke Juarez (hubertdorm@yahoo.com), July 11, 2004.


Actually, the Church of Rome and her children are the ones that split off from the Original Church in 1054.

The Eastern Churches never held the Roman Bishop to be more than an honored equal. When the Roman Bishops changed the creed without calling a council, this was a major insult and the last straw in a series of moves to coerce all churches worldwide to submit to Rome's dictatorship in the Church Universal.

From there, the Roman Church has introduced heresy after heresy, muddling the true gospel of Jesus until it's barely recognizable. There was a time when the Roman Church was a champion of truth. But, that age has long since passed. The Eastern Church has also introduced so many innovations that the true gospel is not recognizable.

I would submit to the Eastern Churches before I ever submitted to Rome, but both have strayed.

So, those who claim Rome is the Original One Church must deal with the the Eastern Orthodox churches which have Apostolic succession, but refused to submit to Rome when Rome started inventing the new idea of Roman supremecy and tried to coerce all the churches to submit.

Rome's aim was and is still to bring all churches under her authority, thus the name Catholic or Universal. The East's aim was to preserve doctrinal purity, rejecting Rome's heretical changes to the creeds without calling councils, thus the name Orthodox.

-- Max Darity (arrowtouch@yahoo.com), July 25, 2004.


Ok. Now, Max needs to prove all that he accuses the Church of doing. We are waiting, Max. You might want to look over the rules of the forum.

Or, you can retract your above post. This is a put up or shut up kind of deal.

..............................

-- rod (elreyrod@yahoo.com), July 25, 2004.


Max

Tell me. Are all of the Protestant and non-Catholic faiths split from the 1054 church, too? If not, which faith systems are in communion with the 1054 church?

You still need to give evidence of the Catholic Church and Eastern Orthodox as being heretical.

Are we to assume that you are in communion with the 1054 church?

............

-- rod (elreyrod@yahoo.com), July 25, 2004.


Rod

you are right.

the Church is the original church. we know that from objective history. the truth is that the East stood little chance after the re-location of the Empire around 500AD. from that time, all Church Patriarchs became play-things of the Emperor.

it is noticeable too that, time and time again, it was the West that sorted out Eastern Heresy. i will provide examples if required.

and, just as the Orthodox Church represents what is usually referred to as a "schism" from the Church Jesus founded, the protestants belong -- in the technical sense -- to "heresies" from that original Church founded by Our Lord. in that you are absolutely correct.

of course, the mudslinging gets us no further forward. and you are right that two wrongs do not make a right. however, i simply cannot understand how anyone who has actually read the Bible can say the Church has been "muddling the true gospel of Jesus until it's barely recognizable". that betrays a simply wanton disregard for the truth.

at the very least, the blatant hyperbole sugest that something else is afoot.

remember also that our Church started life as a sect of the Jewish faith, one that accepted Our Lord as Redeemer. in that sense, the Church is heretical by Jewish standards, but then the Jews do not acept Jesus as Redeemer or Messiah.

-- Ian (ib@vertifgo.com), July 25, 2004.


"Or, you can retract your above post. This is a put up or shut up kind of deal." - rod

rod, I notice with you it's always suggestions an emotions and never trying to give any facts. He is right that EOC has much stronger claims than Rome.

-- David Ortiz (cyberpunk1986@hotmail.com), July 25, 2004.


"we know that from objective history. " - Ian

I might add that this history is selective history of the early Church writers. All they do is copy a section from writer A, copy a section from writer B, and say LOOK!!!! You ARE IGNORING HISTORY. Yet, when writer A disagrees with Roman doctrine in one place and we point it out it's always"oh, no no, PRIVATE THEOLOGIAN!". Same thing with writer B. Romanists accuse us of doing this to Scripture, but they do this do the early Church Writings. Real history is AGAINST Rome.

-- David Ortiz (cyberpunk1986@hotmail.com), July 25, 2004.


Study history and then explain the split in 1054. The fact remains: the One Church split.

If the earliest Churches in the East (churches older than Rome) could not submit to Rome, Churches with Bishops that were direct successors of Apostles, doesn't it seem that these Churches had good reason to hold that the Roman Bishop did not have free reign to change historic creeds and impose other rules on the churches?

If the Roman Bishop is wrong in a matter (and he most surely can be as history proves) then isn't it right to refuse to submit to his orders if they violate the Word of God, especially when it has to do with a very important creed that was held for many hundreds of years?

There was much more than little creed changes that led to the split, but the fact remains that the Eastern churches, successors of the Apostles, never held Rome to be inherently infallible and superior to all other Churches. If these churches, which were in communion with Rome before the split, never held Rome to be infallible, then we must recognize that the idea of Absolute Papal Authority over all Christian Churches was an idea that was foreign to the East.

If the East rejected it, and the East was certainly part of the Apostolic Church, then you must question whether the doctrine of Roman Supremacy was not an innovation that slowly crept into the Latin Churches over time since it seems to have been foreign to the Greek Churches.

Church politics... fun stuff.

-- Max Darity (arrowtouch@yahoo.com), July 25, 2004.


That is so illogical David. If we were to apply this rationale to the four gospels then we'd have to throw them out as well because of the apparent discrepancies between the four testimonies of the four writers. (Which, of course, is what the enemies of the Lord are doing presently.)

The Church defined doctrine as it grew. They hashed things through. They disagreed. But ultimately councils were held and decisions were rendered . . . which we see even in the Book of Acts.

Where do any of the Church fathers hint in their writings that their Church is going apostate? WHERE? WHERE? WHERE? Where do any of them LEAVE the Church to start their own because the Church didn't agree with their theology? NO, you find just the opposite in the writings of the Church Fathers. . . you were deemed an automatic "heretic" if you left the Church.

Gail

-- Gail (Rothfarms@socket.net), July 25, 2004.


Max are you in communion with the 1054 church or not?

...............................

-- rod (elreyrod@yahoo.com), July 25, 2004.


Christ never gave the Church at Rome a supreme status within the worldwide Church, nor did Christ ever give Peter the right to institute such an Office that could be passed down from one person to another through history, nor did Christ ever combine such an "Office of the Rock" with the "Office of Bishop of Rome."

The Roman Church bases their entire doctrine of supremacy on the idea that Peter was the first Bishop of the Church at Rome and that all subsequent bishops carry equal authority as the Apostle Peter.

First, the idea that Peter was given a supreme position of authority by Christ is a mistake. When Christ spoke of building His church on "this Rock," He was not referring to a man who would later deny Him, play a hypocrite whom the Apostle Paul had to confront and correct, and who is shown to have followed James' lead during the Council at Jerusalem. Yes, Peter was recognized as a major pillar among the other Apostolic pillars, but Christ never referred to Peter as "the Rock upon which His Church would be built." The "rock" upon which Christ was to build His Church was the Revelation that Peter had confessed, namely "You are the Christ, the Son of God." Jesus said, "Flesh and blood did not reveal THIS to you, but my Father in heaven did."

This Truth is the ultimate Revelation and the Rock. The fact that Jesus is the Son of God far surpasses the fact that Peter was a significant Apostle in the early Church. Names were given to describe people's character. Jesus names Peter "Rock" because Peter was the first to openly confess without reservation this Ultimate Revelation.

Just as Jesus gave James and John the nickname "Sons of Thunder" because of the way they behaved and the things they said, Peter was given the nickname "Rock" because of what he said. Nobody would ever say that James and John were given an Office upon receiving their nicknames. It was a significant historical moment when Peter confessed the Ultimate Revelation which was marked by a new name. Peter never considered or referred to himself as the "rock upon which the Church would be built." He understood that he got the nickname from Jesus because he was the first to openly confess the Rock - the Truth - this Good Confession that the Church is built upon. (1 Timothy 6:12, Rom 10:9, Phl 2:11, 1 Jo 4:15, 2 Jo 1:7.)

Second, even if Peter was given a supreme position over all the rest of the Apostles and the Church, there is no indication that this authority could ever be passed to another person. Jesus named Peter, but Jesus never gave him the right to pass the nickname to another. Romanists cannot prove this vital point.

Also, and this is hugely important to note, even if there was a new Office created by Jesus the day He gave Peter the nickname "Rock," there is absolutely no indication that this office would be confined to the Church at Rome. Papists cannot prove this vital point either.

Jesus never ordained Peter as the Bishop of Rome. Jesus ordained Peter as an Apostle to go to all the nations with the Truth and he had power to ordain Bishops. You can line up the whole army of Roman Catholic priests in the history of the world and ask them to try and back this opinion, but there is absolutely no way they could even begin to prove that Jesus specifically ordained Peter as the Bishop of Rome on the day he supposedly received the Supreme "Rock" Office.

Finally, even if we concede the idea that Peter was the "Rock upon which Christ would build His Church" and also concede that Jesus ordained Peter to the Office as Bishop of Rome, there is no way a reasonable person can ever assume that the "Office of Bishop of Rome" can be confused with the "Office of the Rock" which Peter supposedly held. These would be two seperate Offices. There is no way the Roman Catholic Church can ever prove that the "Office of the Bishop of Rome" was combined with the special "Office of the Rock" that Peter supposedly held and passed to others. Romanists cannot prove this vital point.

Again, even if Peter had a so-called superior "Office of the Rock," there's no indication that such an Office could be passed to another human or combined with the separate office called Bishop of Rome. The Office would have died with Peter. Peter would have been mistaken to think he could pass such an office to another without a command from Christ. And yes, Peter made mistakes. Paul even had to "whip" him back into shape.

The old notion that the Bishop of Rome is infallible (even if the Church denies the idea today) is one that was held in the middle ages. Such a notion is totally silly. Even Peter the Rock made major mistakes for which he had to be corrected. Could such a figure be considered infallible as supreme head of the church on earth? Impossible. It's already proven Peter was already falling into error and Paul had to correct him.

One more point, even if we concede that the "Office of the Rock" was given to Peter, that Peter was the first Bishop at Rome, that the "Office of the Rock" was combined with the "Office of Bishop of Rome," and that such an Office is valid even if the Bishop that possesses the Office makes mistakes, there is no way a reasonable person can assert that the worldwide church should submit to the headship of the Bishop of Rome if he promotes doctrines which are contrary to the historic doctrines of the Apostles.

In view of all these proofs against the Roman Church's position, it is perfectly reasonable and right to reject the urging of Papists to submit to the headship of Rome. Not only can it not be proven that such an Office exists, but even if it does, there is the possibility that the devil has crept in and has led those who possess the Office to be taken into serious error over the ages - to the point of heresy.

No reasonable Christian should be forced to submit himself to heresy in the name of a "spurious and shady Office" that can never be proven to be valid logically or theologically. The rule of all Christians should be to search the scriptures to see whether the things they believe and practice are true.

Many very early churches, such as the non-Chalcedon churches (Oriental Orthodox Church and Coptic Orthodox Church) rejected Rome in the earliest centuries. The Eastern Orthodox Church rejected Rome in 1054. The Protestant Churches rejected Rome in the 1500's. But, in the end, Rome will seduce and deceive most of these denominations and lead them into the greatest Apostasy of all.

-- Max Darity (arrowtouch@yahoo.com), July 25, 2004.


Gail,

Can you please show me one church father that believe exactly the same as you do. I mean, your Roman communion states that these doctrines where always believed.

-- David Ortiz (cyberpunk1986@hotmail.com), July 25, 2004.


"rod, I notice with you it's always suggestions an emotions and never trying to give any facts. He is right that EOC has much stronger claims than Rome. "-David.

Hey, but that is ok with Max. It is our intuition at work. I'm here to learn. I doubt very seriously that any of my facts will have any impact on those who are already committed to their beliefs. I'm only looking for the truth. The truth should answer my questions. I'll believe what I perceive to be the truth. Do you actually believe that I can convert you back to Catholocism, David?

A little boy asked what color his wagon was. He was told that it was red. The little boy saw that the other children also had wagons. He asked what color were theirs. They answered, "red". But, the little boy became confused because all of the wagons were of a different color. So, the little boy set out to prove to himself that he indeed had a red wagon, just like some of the other little boys. It turns out that everyone thinks their shade of red is pure and some are not even a shade of red. Also, it could be that no one has the red color. Maybe there is no red at all. Yet, we all claim to have a red wagon. Something is wrong.

...................... ..................

-- rod (elreyrod@yahoo.com), July 25, 2004.


Henry VIII ?? Why did he split from the Church? Was his reason for forming his own church authority righteous enough to reject the Catholic Church? Most importantly, does that split make for a true church for their followers?

Let's go with January 1533 as Henry VIII's complete split from the Church, as that date marks his private marriage to Ann, leaving Katherine in her dilema.

...................

-- rod (elreyrod@yahoo.com), July 25, 2004.


[Article Linked inorder to save download times
http://www.cin.org/users/jgallegos/realp.htm]]


-- Gail (Rothfarms@socket.net), July 25, 2004.

rod,

Please make an effort to atleast answer Max's post, or ask questions about it without using your usual emotional rhetoric.

-- David Ortiz (cyberpunk1986@hotmail.com), July 25, 2004.


[Article Linked inorder to save download times
http://www.cin.org/users/jgallegos/justice.htm]


-- Gail (Rothfarms@socket.net), July 25, 2004.

Gail,

I asked for a name of just *one* early church writer that believe in everything that you believe. I can look up the references.

-- David Ortiz (cyberpunk1986@hotmail.com), July 25, 2004.


[Article Linked inorder to save download times
http://www.cin.org/users/jgallegos/private.htm]


-- Gail (Rothfarms@socket.net), July 25, 2004.

[Article Linked inorder to save download times
http://www.cin.org/users/jgallegos/rock.htm]


-- Gail (Rothfarms@socket.net), July 25, 2004.

Go as far as you want Gail. But please visit this thread: http://www.greenspun.com/bboard/q-and-a-fetch-msg.tcl?msg_id=00CE0p

And you get to speak to people who know a whole lot more about church history than I will ever know.

Please notice, I also asked for you to *name* the person that agrees 100% with everything you believe TODAY. I didn't ask for you to people who agree with you here, or there.

-- David Ortiz (cyberpunk1986@hotmail.com), July 25, 2004.


Hi!

This is getting broad and silly, so I'm going to narrow things down a bit. Max starts off with the Original Church extant in 1054. Let's assume that's correct and the premise is the Original Catholic Church existed in 1054. Who broke off from whom? Let's begin by throwing in some ecumenical council briefs:

The First Council of Nicea (325 AD Ecumenical)

From the end of The Creed:

...all that so say, the Catholic and Apostolic Church anathematizes them

The only church that still calls itself "The Catholic Church" is the Church of Rome! Not Roman Catholic Church, just Catholic Church. The best some of the Eastern Churches can come up with is "Catholic- Orthodox" or else, it's Orthodox.

Canon 6 of the same coucil:

Canon 6. Let the ancient customs in Egypt, Libya and Pentapolis prevail, that the Bishop of Alexandria have jurisdiction in all these, since the like is customary for the Bishop of Rome also. Likewise in Antioch and the other provinces, let the Churches retain their privileges. And this is to be universally understood, that if any one be made bishop without the consent of the Metropolitan, the great Synod has declared that such a man ought not to be a bishop. If, however, two or three bishops shall from natural love of contradiction, oppose the common suffrage of the rest, it being reasonable and in accordance with the ecclesiastical law, then let the choice of the majority prevail

So, the coucil has declared that authority to confirm bishops is reserved to the Sees of that region. First, Rome doesn't never need to interfere in the confirmation of bishops of the patriarchates so it's never or ever will be a point of contention. Notice, however, that the patriarchs must give consent to the appointment of bishops. This statement forces the recognition of patriarchal authority. Yet, the Eastern Churches have disobeyed the Council by decentralizing. The Patriarch of Constantinople is a "First Among Equals". But, some in the Eastern Churches have forgotten what that phrase means. It means he is first among all the Patriarchs, second only to the Pope. And, as I have proven, the Patriarchs are not equal to their bishops just as the Bishop of Rome is not equal to any other bishops in his own See.

The First Council of Constantinople (381 AD Ecumenical)

..back to the creed..Catholic and Apostolic again..

Canon 3. The Bishop of Constantinople, however, shall have the prerogative of honour after the Bishop of Rome; because Constantinople is New Rome.

Now, the authority of the Bishop of Constantinople is clarified. His authority is only after the Bishop of Rome. We also see here why the some in the EOC are so confused by the word "honour". Honour here is clearly authority, because the patriarchs clearly have authority to confirm their bishops which places them above their bishops. How clearer can that get?

Ok, moving on...

The Council of Ephesus (A.D. 431 Ecumenical)

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.

It's a very long document, so just do a "find" command for a phrase within what I quoted and you'll find it(for those who aren't used to this kind of thing). What is laid out here is self-explanatory. Note the year of this council. Note that the faith is "orthodox", that is, it is traditional. The Church is Catholic and Apostolic. "orthodox" is an inferior adjective to Apostolic and should never be used in naming the church but the EOC does it anyway, hmmph. Note also, the phrase "stripped him of the episcopate", him referring to the patriarch of Alexandria, Dioscurus(Dioscorus). Such is Papal authority recognized.

Now, this passage illustrates the often ambiguous understanding of Rome's prodigal children(protestants, and I'll tell you, Max, if some orthodox were reading this they'd get a real kick out of your "Rome's children" comment which refers right to yourself.) Why is it the founding of the Catholic Church can't be found in scriptures? Because there's resistance to it. Because protestants are taught differently. If you were living in the several hundred years of early church history, you'd never think to question that Peter founded the Church in Rome, that the bishop of Rome is his successor, that he is the head of the Church. Peter's founding of Rome came before he died, yet the Gospels were not even commited to paper. The only writings as of that date was probably some of Paul's letters and James. The Church not only hands down to us the NT, but also tradition, unity in the form of Ecumenical Councils which were started even before the Canon of Scriptures were finalized.

I think Max has brought this interesting topic to the fore by stepping on everyone's toes, Catholic, Orthodox, even protestants.. I'm not going to address the mini-schisms before 1054 and other stuff as they have been resolved before that time. That should be a whole different topic.

In conclusion, if you think the "Original Church" was still extant in 1054 then you're in a lot of trouble with Ecumenical Council documents. So, the remaining choice is to say the Church apostatized before the Councils started. Good luck with that as it is ultimately self-defeating! Or...Realize the Catholic Church is still the One Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church.

God bless!

-- Vincent (love@noemail.net), July 25, 2004.


arggh! Gail you own!

-- Vincent (love@noemail.net), July 25, 2004.

Max

in terms of your last post, read the assorted quotes from Gail.

they are as detailed as they are self-explanatory. it "seems" to me that yr posts contain a mixed bag of the usual anti-Catholic rhetoric. but now you have it -- historical evidence that a person (even DO!) must surely take time to consider as "objective". consider why these people wrote these words at that time. why?

i will also assume that the statement -- that the Church muddles "the true gospel of Jesus until it's barely recognizable" (again Gail's post refers) is still extant.

however, pls noe that the centre-piece of our Mass is the Eucharist. the transubstantiation has been celebrated since Our Lord began His Church. the early wiritngs confirm this. just who is being true to Sacred Scripture?

i could ad lib with the ad hom that flows in the opposite direction (eg 30,000 denominations) -- but it is probaly better that we stick to the points.

with that in mind, i would refer you - again - to Gail's posts; and to Rod's last question that as yet remains unanswered.

this thread is startng to creak!

-- Ian (ib@vertifgo.com), July 25, 2004.


Right it is Ian, and it seems that the Church of Christ is now the Catholic Church, thanks everyone for clearing that up for me.

-- Luke Juarez (hubertdorm@yahoo.com), July 25, 2004.

Agh, I must go to church at this time. I will argue though that Gail is a selective in her church quotes. Yes, in those quotes above she mentions, she will never ever quote a early church writer that disagrees with her doctrine. And she has yet to give me just *one* church writer that agree with everything that she believes in. Even yet, some of those quotes above are probably taken out of context. I will be back later.

-- David Ortiz (cyberpunk1986@hotmail.com), July 25, 2004.

Luke, you can't restore what's never been broke. Furthermore, your position becomes that of restoring a broken church after oh 1600-1900 years depending on how you play the CoC and Ecumenical Councils. That's anti-Holy Spiritism, to coin a phrase.

-- Vincent (love@noemail.net), July 25, 2004.

LUKE - you lost me -- quite seriously -- but i suspect you [may] have spotted the irony in a thread that started by condemning yr church and that ends by condemning the Church; and, if you didn't, i did. if i have missed yr point, haga el favor and clarify.

DAVE - a humble suggestion: stick to the Real Presence for the time being and attempt to trump St Justin. By "your rules", if you cannot, you accept Real Presence. he is a second/ third generation Catholic. you are a (approx, by my crude math) 40th generation lapsed Catholic.

VINCENT - Amen to that!

-- Ian (ib@vertifgo.com), July 25, 2004.


David, you said "And she has yet to give me just *one* church writer that agree with everything that she believes in." ANSWER: Do you have any idea how long that would take David? I would have to take the Catechism and compare it to all of the Church writers we have available. That is just patently ABSURD.

Whenever you get your back up against the wall, you raise the bar as far as the stars are in the heavens and expect me to jump over it. You have never answered my hypothesis: Why don't we apply your rule to the gospels, ie., everyone has to be in ABSOLUTE COMPLETE 100% agreement or the doctrine is nill. That wipes out ALL OF THE GOSPELS!

Vincent did as superior job in answering Max's post as is possible. I cannot possibly top it. Why don't we take things topic by topic starting with the Real Presence and Transubstantiation. Then, David, you can post whatever quotes you have to counter in that regard.

I worked as a legal secretary for close to 15 years for some very high-profile, top notch litigators. I have been trained, vicariously, to look for evidence. The fact that there are no Church Fathers claiming the Church went apostate is PROFOUND. If you believe the Church went apostate, then you must believe that the Church went apostate from the 1st generation . . . they were all deceived, from Ignatius to Polycarp to Athanasis to Augustine, to Aquinas, to Jerome, and on and on and on.

Gail

P.S. BTW, I don't give a rat's fat-rearend how James White perceives the Fathers. The best these guys can ever do is find one or two quotes in opposition to the PREPONDERANCE of evidence we have to the contrary! The proponderance of the evidence demonstrates BEYOND A REASONABLE DOUBT that the Church is who she says she is!

-- Gail (Rothfarms@socket.net), July 25, 2004.


Gail, Vincent, and Ian, beautiful posts! Gail, you are a scholar. Like I've said before,"...I'm a brochure, but you are a library".

I have sitting next to me a thick book on the Reformation. I could post the entire book on this thread. ;)

I like Luke's remark about being Catholic. Luke, you are correct to a certain percentage. It's that other percentage that is of concern.

David. Does my emotionalism stink?

.......................

-- rod (elreyrod@yahoo.com), July 25, 2004.


"Gail, you are a scholar." - rod

Correction rod, I think this "scholar" might be Jose Gallegos.

rod, stop being a cheerleader.

-- David Ortiz (cyberpunk1986@hotmail.com), July 25, 2004.


Gail,

Really Gail, if the man is nuts and horribly misrepresents the Fathers and Catholicism, should you atleast have an interest in defending your beliefs?

I don't think you can, that's the problem.. which explains why you'd rather pass off these quotes to people who don't even know about the early church writesr than actually engage in a discussion which someone with more knowledge about them.

-- David Ortiz (cyberpunk1986@hotmail.com), July 25, 2004.


"Go, David, Go! Go, David, Go!"

"Go, Zarove, Go! Go, Zarove, Go!"

"Go, Max, Go! Go, Max, Go!"

David: "Go AWAY, rod, Go! Go AWAY, rod, go!"

******** Now Hear This ********

SPECIAL RULES FOR rod:

1. no emotionalism.
2. no logical arguments.
3. no criticisms.
4. AND ESPECIALLY NO CHEERLEADING!!

Better yet, 5. no posting!!

Ok, David. I'll leave you and Max alone with your "depravity" doctrine.

..............

-- rod (elreyrod@yahoo.com), July 25, 2004.


David please remind Max of his "intuition" faith system. Uh......intuition.....emotionalism....hmm?

................

-- rod (elreyrod@yahoo.com), July 25, 2004.


Hi,

I have to admit, the copious quotes which amounts to several hundred full-blown discertations when expanded into explanations, Gail IS A LIBRARY! That is pure and utter ownage and I have still only read a portion of her quotes.

David,

Here's my objection to your request with Gail. I believe it's impossible because it's a contradiction. The Catechism of the Catholic Church can never be found in only one Church father's work. Ever. For example, Saint Augustine was a bishop of Hippo. He definitely submitted to papal authority. Moreover, the doctrines of the Church has been expounded not by a bishop or two, but by councils and papal writings to boot. So, the request can not be fulfilled.

You people have been so kind to me, thank you so very much!

God bless,

-- Vincent (love@noemail.net), July 25, 2004.


rod,

I don't think Max has ever said he believed in Total Depravity or that he was a Calvinist.

-- David Ortiz (cyberpunk1986@hotmail.com), July 25, 2004.


David???

I am no more a Catholic than Max is a Calvinist. He says that he is not a Calvinist, yet his post sure sound like Calvinism. Much like my remarks, comments, and suggestions sound like Catholicism. If it quacks like a duck, it pretty much is a duck, even when the duck thinks it is a swan. Sorry.

But, I guess that's the anti-doctrine illusion. We don't cling to anything that might cause us to sink with it. We'll play it safe and quack like a duck until duck season begins, then we'll say we never were ducks to begin with. We were gease all along. Yeah! that's it. I'll call myself Catholic, well, because that's what I sound like when I make a noise.

..........

-- rod (elreyrod@yahoo.com), July 25, 2004.


I think he's Lutheran, rod. A comment is found on another about that.

-- David Ortiz (cyberpunk1986@hotmail.com), July 25, 2004.

BTW, David. You are one of the most brilliant people I've ever met. You have this uncanny awareness of Scriptures and now other outside information. You have come a long way since we first met. Your horizons have expanded. I see how you are open to more things than before. I am impressed with your growing curiosity and awareness. You are not the David from day one of your forum take-over.

And, I'm not a cheerleader, David. Sorry.

.......................

-- rod (elreyrod@yahoo.com), July 25, 2004.


Does anyone hear a vaccum cleaner on?

rod, stop sucking up ;-)

-- David Ortiz (cyberpunk1986@hotmail.com), July 25, 2004.


Rod A. Rodriguez is known for his clean nose and upright stance. He uses a broom to sweep, not a vacuum cleaner. Prove that what I've observed of you is not true. You can't. Besides, we debate doctrine, not character.

...........

-- rod (elreyrod@yahoo.com), July 25, 2004.


For Max, and anyone else who thinks I am a library, please visit Corunum, Joseph Gallegos' site. He has already compiled these quotes according to category. So for instance, if you want to see what has been written about Purgatory, you merely click on, and read. I have cross-referenced a lot of these quotes to ccel.org to make sure they were quoted properly, and as far as I can tell they are.

http://www.cin.org/users/jgallegos/contents.htm

David, give it up, man! Your challenge is completely ludicrous and you know it.

Why don't you tell me how your litmus test of "not one single Church Father can disagree," to the four writers of the gospels, and then tell me where Protestantism is found in the N.T. Tell me where is any mention of "Joe-Blow" starting his own church, according to the election of the people, and then voting in Boards of Directors, Presidents, etc. WHERE IS THAT? Where are the Baptists, the Assemblies, the Methodists, the Wesleyans? Where are they? The structure of Protestantism is ANTI-BIBLICAL!

I am in the Church that Augustine belonged to. I am in the Church that Ignatius and Polycarp and Athanasius and Aquinas, Jerome, Clement belonged to. These men were champions of the faith, pillars of the Church . . . yet they are SILENT as to the Church's "alleged apostacy." You can't even hazard a guess as to the lack of evidence to support your claim.

The quote from Augustine detailing the succession of bishops all the way back to Peter annialates any possibility that the Church was "Protestant" in nature. It was ONE COHESIVE UNIT, just as Christ prayed "that they all be ONE"! Protestantism is structured just like Paul warns AGAINST in Corinthians "I am of Apollos. I am of Paul." OR "I am of Calvin. I am of Luther."

Gail

P.S. The simple fact remains that if you are not Catholic, you are NOT in the Church of our Fathers?

-- Gail (Rothfarms@socket.net), July 25, 2004.


Sorry Gail. Thanks for the link :)

-- Vincent (love@noemail.net), July 25, 2004.

!

...........

-- rod (elreyrod@yahoo.com), July 25, 2004.


Ok, Gail. You are not a "library". How about Protector of the Faith?

Oops! sorry, Daivd, let me put my pom-poms down. What was that about cheeleader??

........................

-- rod (elreyrod@yahoo.com), July 25, 2004.


David, I read it mentioned several times in this thread that you are a former Catholic. Is that true, or am I confused? I had thought that you were previously part of the Assembly of God Church, but I never read before that you had been Catholic. Just curious. Thanks.

-- Emily ("jesusfollower7@yahoo.com), July 25, 2004.

Emily,

I am Catholic, just not Roman :D

-- David Ortiz (cyberpunk1986@hotmail.com), July 25, 2004.


But, yes I was part of an Assemblies of God church. I have left it now. I am not a former Roman Catholic. The others would just say that as an emotion appeal for me to join their organization.

-- David Ortiz (cyberpunk1986@hotmail.com), July 25, 2004.

Did I have something to do with you leaving the Assemblies, David?

-- Elpidio Gonzalez (egonval@yahoo.com), July 26, 2004.

No Elipidio, my decision to leave it was because of the Arminian teaching. I want to go to a church with solid teaching on the doctrines of grace

-- David Ortiz (cyberpunk1986@hotmail.com), July 26, 2004.

I, personally know how God Yahweh's Spirit operates.That is why I have been against Pentecostals and Charismatics. The Spirit doesn't come when we want to, but when he wants to. Besides, these people always claim miracles which are not true.

Why Calvin and not Luther, David?

After all, it was Luther who started faith aloneand grace only. He derided the Epistle of James. Calvin on the other hand restricted salvation for those whom God has chosen.

-- Elpidio Gonzalez (egonval@yahoo.com), July 26, 2004.


Actually, Jesus taught the Doctrines of Grace. Calvin and Luther helped revive them I guess.. Read John 6.

-- David Ortiz (cyberpunk1986@hotmail.com), July 26, 2004.

>>> From the end of The Creed:

...all that so say, the Catholic and Apostolic Church anathematizes them

The only church that still calls itself "The Catholic Church" is the Church of Rome! >>>

First, the Eastern Church still holds itself to be the True Catholic Church and even retains the name, but does not emphasize it as greatly as Rome. This goes without debate.

Second, the name "Orthodox" was emphasized in the Eastern Churches after the Churches that were in submission to Rome began introducing un-Orthodox doctrines.

The name "Catholic" emphasizes the Universal Oneness of the Church. The name "Orthodox" emphasizes the Correct Doctrine of the Church.

Both call themselves Apostolic. Does that make both equally Apostolic in your view?

Third, both the East and the West called themselves "Orthodox" before they split.

"To the Church of Alexandria, by the grace of God, holy and great; and to our well-beloved brethren, the ORTHODOX clergy and laity throughout Egypt"

So, holding the name "Catholic" does not mean it is the True Church anymore than holding the name "Orthodox" or "Apostolic" means it is the True Church, since both East and West still hold all these names, but emphasize each differently now.

>>>> "Canon 3. The Bishop of Constantinople, however, shall have the prerogative of honour after the Bishop of Rome; because Constantinople is New Rome."

Now, the authority of the Bishop of Constantinople is clarified. His authority is only after the Bishop of Rome. >>>>

Why did Constantinople have prerogative of honor? Because St. Peter willed it? Because Jesus ordained it? Obviously not.

Constantinople had prerogative of honor because it was the New Rome. It was based purely on the political situation of the Roman Empire, not Apostolic tradition.

The reason Rome had the greater honor (among equals) in the first place is because Rome was the center of the World at that time in history. It was convenient organizationally. It was not because St. Peter had decreed that the Roman Church would have primacy over all Churches of the World and that all his successors would inherit his absolute authority. That's absurd.

Jerusalem had the greatest honor at first, because that was the geographic center of the Christian world and the birthplace etc.

Therefore, the "honor" is based on the political and geographic landscape, which must be agreed upon by the Bishops. The honor is not inherent in a geographic location or a specific line of Bishops.

>>>Honour here is clearly authority, because the patriarchs clearly have authority to confirm their bishops which places them above their bishops.<<<

Rome was the "headquarters" recognized by all the Bishops because of convenience, not because of Apostolic tradition. The Roman Bishop was recognized as first among equals, not because he retained some authority from St. Peter, but because that was the center of the world. That was the center of the Roman Empire. You must realize that the Bishop of Rome was the greatest witness to the most powerful men in the world at that time. If honor was due the king, then obviously honor was due to the one who was the nearest witness to the highest authority in that world. (the Emperor)

Rome was the "headquarters" of Christianity just as Jerusalem was the "headquarters" at the very beginning. The honor was not inherent. The honor came because the Bishops agreed that this would be the best way to organize things at that time.

"because Constantinople is New Rome."

Notice Constantinople gets a new place of honor, not because it has inherited a certain right through Apostolic succession, but because a political shift took place in the world at that time.

CONSIDER THIS SERIOUSLY: If Constantinople's honor is based on the Roman Empire's political situation (which is obvious from the Canon just quoted) then how much more was Rome's honor due basd on the same grounds?

So, honor was NOT "authority" in the sense that the "authority" was divinely inherent in one local church or Bishop, as if that local church or Bishop could never go astray in doctrine.

My previous post above challenges you to prove that Christ gave power to Peter over all the other Apostles, that he was the first Bishop of Rome, that it was possible to transfer said power to whomever would be the local Bishop of Rome after he died, etc. You cannot prove these points. The doctrine of Papal authority is one big assumption based on a mistaken view of tradition, not on any divine decree by God.

>>> Note that the faith is "orthodox", that is, it is traditional. >>>

Orthodox means "correct doctrine" or "correct way" not traditional. FYI.

>>> "orthodox" is an inferior adjective to Apostolic and should never be used in naming the church >>>

First, you cannot prove this relative point. Orthodox means "right doctrine" which of course is "Apostolic" - right? Apostolic refers to Authority of Bishops. Orthodox refers to the teachings of the Bishops, given by the Apostles.

You really stretch your credibility by saying the term "Apostolic" is a greater adjective than "Orthodox" - especially in view of the fact that "Orthodoxy" originated in Christ, not in the Apostles. If I were to pick the greater adjective, I'd say "Orthodox" is greater than "Apostolic" since Orthodoxy came long before the Apostles. ;)

>>> Note also, the phrase "stripped him of the episcopate", him referring to the patriarch of Alexandria, Dioscurus(Dioscorus). Such is Papal authority recognized. >>>

Don't forget the WHOLE quotation you yourself gave:

"the most holy and blessed Leo, archbishop of the great and elder Rome, through us, and through this present most holy synod"

The Bishop of Rome was only one part of all those who stripped Dioscorus of his position.

Yes, the Bishop of Rome was recognized as the spokesman at that synod, but he did not possess some divine inherent authority. The Bishops gave him the authority to pronounce the sentence on Dioscorus based on their judgment, not because the Bishop of Rome inherited an authority greater than all the rest.

>>> Now, this passage illustrates the often ambiguous understanding of Rome's prodigal children(protestants, and I'll tell you, Max, if some orthodox were reading this they'd get a real kick out of your "Rome's children" comment which refers right to yourself. >>>

I have a Protestant influence, just as many Eastern Orthodox converts do, but I would not classify myself as a Protestant. Your assumption is where the real "kick" begins. ;)

>>Why is it the founding of the Catholic Church can't be found in scriptures?<<<

Can't understand that sentence. Sorry. Maybe you mean, why can't the founding of "Roman Catholicism" be found in scriptures... easy... because it's not there. ;)

>>> If you were living in the several hundred years of early church history, you'd never think to question that Peter founded the Church in Rome, that the bishop of Rome is his successor, that he is the head of the Church. >>>

There were plenty of Churches who did not recognize the Bishop of Rome having primacy. Consider the non-Chalcedon churches. If they believed in Papal authority, they would not have challenged the council and gone their own way. Consider the Arians. They contended that Jesus was not Almighty God. There was a controversy over the matter. If Rome had power over all the Churches and the Roman Bishop held the undefiled Truth from St. Peter, which all local churches ought to hold as well, then there wouldn't have been a need to call a council or to debate the matter at all. If there was such a thing as Papal authority, all the local churches would have done was look to Rome, see what the Roman Bishop believed, and the debate was over. This was obviously not what happened, as I'm sure you know from history.

>>> Peter's founding of Rome came before he died, yet the Gospels were not even commited to paper. >>>

There's no evidence that Peter "founded Rome" as you imagine. If it were so, we can safely assume and HIGHLY EXPECT that it would have DEFINITELY been committed to paper by Peter's own hand. That's the biggest challenge you face - finding any direct evidence that Peter held such authority, had the right to pass such power on, and then decreed that Rome would be the Universal center of Christianity for all time. It's absolutely impossible to find these missing links.

>>> I'm not going to address the mini-schisms before 1054 and other stuff as they have been resolved before that time. That should be a whole different topic. >>>

I doubt you'll ever address this topic because it shows the fact that there was no such thing as "Papal Authority" at that early time in the sense Romanists now hold it.

>>> In conclusion, if you think the "Original Church" was still extant in 1054 then you're in a lot of trouble with Ecumenical Council documents. >>>

If your quotes above are the best available, then I've shown your position to lack any true weight.

>>> So, the remaining choice is to say the Church apostatized before the Councils started. >>>

The Church was introducing false doctrine early on. Praying to saints (which no Apostle ever did) and paying homage to images (which no Apostle ever did) and instituting complicated calendars of holy days (which no Apostle ever did) exalting and praying to Mary (which no Apostle ever did) among many other things that muddle the true gospel - makes you wonder why they use the name "Apostolic" at all...

I would not characterize introducing these falsehoods as total apostasy, though. Denying Jesus of Nazereth as the Eternal Son of God and adopting another person(s) in his place is ultimate apostasy.

>>> Realize the Catholic Church is still the One Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church. >>>

Rome was part of the True Catholic Apostolic Orthodox Church at one time, but she has strayed FAR from her name and her husband and is now prone to exalting the false husband in the End - as are all those religions and Christian denominations/groups who accept unity with her.

-- Max Darity (arrowtouch@yahoo.com), July 27, 2004.


Max,

for once I agree on your response to Gail. It is historically accurate.

I need to add that if we add more of who holds the keys of Peter, then we have to add the Syrian Apostlic Church. Now dovided among 3 Patriarchs. One obeys the Pope. He is out. One is in Communion with the Orthodox. The other has been independent for the longest claiming also Petrine lineage. This is led now by Iganatius Zakka Iwas.

Patrar chs of antioch

There is biblical proof that Peter was in Antioch. There is also biblical proof that Peter, James, and John commisioned Paul and Barnabas to teach there.

So Antioch, not Rome is the oldest Apostolic Church with Petrine lineage!!!

The Christian Yahwist

The Man of Yahweh

-- Elpidio Gonzalez (egonval@yahoo.com), July 27, 2004.


Other than the Pope, he is the other Patriarch I have written to.

The Christian Yahwist

-- Elpidio Gonzalez (egonval@yahoo.com), July 27, 2004.


Rod A. Rodriguez? I'm certain that you're a baseball player. Don't be concerned with the percentage of my uncatholic side.

Bingo Ian. I'm sure we were talking about the CoC once upon a time.

-- Luke Juarez (hubertdorm@yahoo.com), July 27, 2004.


If you enjoy the slam on my name, keep Luke's post.

......................

-- rod (elreyrod@yahoo.com), July 28, 2004.


No mocking here, but if I were you and you were David, you would have given me heat.

-- Luke Juarez (hubertdorm@yahoo.com), July 29, 2004.

I don't see how that is a "slam". Perhaps you'd care to explain.

-- David Ortiz (cyberpunk1986@hotmail.com), July 29, 2004.

Luke

David and I go back a ways. "Copper isn't gold" sometimes and vice versa. There was a time when David didn't exactly place me in Heaven. David and I have come a long way. "Heat" is the least I can give or dare to give. I wonder, today, if David still places me in the "heat" of all heats because of my Catholicism. I'm thinking that maybe not. I'm still in his forum, so that must mean something, Luke. "All Catholics are going to [Church]]", yes, David?

Luke

How would you feel if I told you and all of your congregation that they were destined to damnation because of their false CoC doctrines? There are several choices: 1) ignore me, 2) correct me, 3) learn from me, 4) test the waters for the truth.

........................

-- rod (elreyrod@yahoo.com), July 29, 2004.


Hi Max!

David seems to want me to respond to your post which I'm not going to do with all the misleading stuff as it can be done by reading and researching Tradition and Church History, which I don't think either of you have done judging by your reaction to council documents. Maybe I'll do it later, maybe not as it's been done before. But, the real question to address here is where is the scriptural evidence for the Church, the Catholic Church, led by the Bishop of Rome.

Scriptures talks about the Founding of the Church, Jesus's own words:

Matthew 16:18 KJV

And I say also unto thee, That thou art Peter, and upon this rock I will build my church; and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it.

Since this has been beaten into a pulp, I will leave it at one line for now.

Moving on..

Peter was entrusted with the care of the Church John 21:15-17 NKJV

15So when they had eaten breakfast, Jesus said to Simon Peter, "Simon, son of Jonah, do you love Me more than these?" He said to Him, "Yes, Lord; You know that I love You." He said to him, "Feed My lambs." 16He said to him again a second time, "Simon, son of Jonah, do you love Me?" He said to Him, "Yes, Lord; You know that I love You." He said to him, "Tend My sheep." 17He said to him the third time, "Simon, son of Jonah, do you love Me?" Peter was grieved because He said to him the third time, "Do you love Me?" And he said to Him, "Lord, You know all things; You know that I love You." Jesus said to him, "Feed My sheep.

Now, Jesus is the Good Shepherd. There is an order to things Shepherd, Sheep, Lamb(the young sheeps). Jesus is the Good Shepherd in John 10 and he gives Peter the command to shepherd his flock in John 21. Furthermore, you don't have Jesus telling anyone else this.

Now, John 10:11-16 NKJV

11"I am the good shepherd. The good shepherd gives His life for the sheep. 12But a hireling, he who is not the shepherd, one who does not own the sheep, sees the wolf coming and leaves the sheep and flees; and the wolf catches the sheep and scatters them. 13The hireling flees because he is a hireling and does not care about the sheep. 14I am the good shepherd; and I know My sheep, and am known by My own. 15As the Father knows Me, even so I know the Father; and I lay down My life for the sheep. 16And other sheep I have which are not of this fold; them also I must bring, and they will hear My voice; and there will be one flock and one shepherd.

Now, unless someone is daft, they would never say Peter is the hireling in verse 13 because Peter was chosen by Jesus, promised the Holy Spirit, received the Holy Spirit, and the conclusion is that Jesus who ascended into Heaven left Peter in charge as the Shepherd(from John 21). There is ultimately one Shepherd in Jesus, but Peter is unified in Jesus because he was given authority to be the shepherd on earth. Since Peter was the shepherd on earth, was it a one-time deal? No way. We find in John10:16 that there is one Shepherd and one flock(on earth). Unity then asserts that the Communion of Saints in Heaven and those in communion with them on earth are led ultimately by Christ through the Holy Spirit. There is still a flock on earth and therefore there must be a shepherd on earth. Therefore, it's not a one-time deal. There's more Scriptural evidence for Peter's Primacy, but I must be brief.

moving on..

The Church on earth therefore must be the Church guided by Peter and ultimately by one Shepherd at any given time and which Church must be united with the Saints in Heaven including all the past shepherds(in Christ).

Now, the Church in Rome Acts of the Apostles ends with Acts 28:30-31

30Then Paul dwelt two whole years in his own rented house, and received all who came to him, 31preaching the kingdom of God and teaching the things which concern the Lord Jesus Christ with all confidence, no one forbidding him.

So the end of the Acts places Paul in Rome, preaching. Then we pick up with Paul's letters, the last of which were written from ROME! And Paul dies in Rome.

Peter is also in Rome at this time: 1Peter5:13-15

13She who is in Babylon, elect together with you, greets you; and so does Mark my son. 14Greet one another with a kiss of love. Peace to you all who are in Christ Jesus. Amen.

Babylon is Rome. Unless somehow Saint Peter rebuilt the city of Babylon, it would not have existed. Babylon, the whore, sin city: Where else but Rome which persecuted Christianity. We find from Church Fathers that Peter died in Rome. Unless, you believe since Scriptures does not talk about his death, he is really alive and living in Babylon as right now!

Peter is the Shepherd, head of the Church on earth. Where he resides is where the head of the Church on earth resides. Thus, upon his death, his last residence is the only place where the office resides, unless someone else can claim to be the "shepherd on earth" and thus moves the office with them. But, where is there biblical evidence for this? Or even the Church Fathers? Who has said, "I am Peter's successor?"

Read some more here.

Ok, done? There's plenty of proof from the Fathers. Do you want them?

Here's a few bonus passages courtesy of Saint Peter:

2 Peter 2:10-12

and especially those who walk according to the flesh in the lust of uncleanness and despise authority. They are presumptuous, self-willed. They are not afraid to speak evil of dignitaries

Before the canon of the Bible was proclaimed, there was the Bishop of Rome who had authority. Don't speak evil of dignitaries - Peter is in Heaven as sure as you and I are on earth right now...so is Mary the Mother of God...and all the Saints and Angels who do His will. You think the Church introduced heresies, I think not.

2 Peter 3:15-16

and consider that the long suffering of our Lord is salvation--as also our beloved brother Paul, according to the wisdom given to him, has written to you, 16as also in all his epistles, speaking in them of these things, in which are some things hard to understand, which untaught and unstable people twist to their own destruction, as they do also the rest of the Scriptures

Self-explanatory: take it easy with the Scriptural interpretation. I might take that advice :) Soon. Ah, but I've been taught by Mother Church :-\ so I can't really call myself untaught or unstable. Oh well, what to do...

Now, Revelations(John) is very tough to understand as it's transcends many levels of symbolism and perhaps literalism. However, one way to see it's poetic justice is the Church, the New Jerusalem, is where Scriptures ends. The new beginning. It would take tremendous volumes to understand Revelations even from this simple stance. That's something to do later.

Peace!

-- Vincent (love@noemail.net), July 29, 2004.


"Matthew 16:18 KJV

And I say also unto thee, That thou art Peter, and upon this rock I will build my church; and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it. "

The unanimous consent of the church fathers oppose this interpretation, why should we believe you?

-- David Ortiz (cyberpunk1986@hotmail.com), July 29, 2004.


here's the link.

-- Vincent (love@noemail.net), July 29, 2004.

David,

The unanimous consent of the church fathers oppose this interpretation, why should we believe you

Because some anti-catholic said so? I wouldn't believe it. Anyway, could you post the link again? I'm getting a headache, but I want to see the document.

thanks..

-- Vincent (love@noemail.net), July 29, 2004.


http://www.christiantruth.com/fathersmt16.html

-- David Ortiz (cyberpunk1986@hotmail.com), July 29, 2004.

Happy reading :)

-- David Ortiz (cyberpunk1986@hotmail.com), July 29, 2004.

OFF

-- David Ortiz (cyberpunk1986@hotmail.com), July 29, 2004.

Moderation questions? read the FAQ