Why I am Catholic

[Athanasius]

Again, I challenge you to provide historical documentary evidence of this. If the church regionally located in Rome was never the head of all the churches...

Don't get ahead of yourself. Where did I dispute the centrality of the church in Rome in early Christendom?

[Sojourner55]

Don't get ahead of yourself. Where did I dispute the centrality of the church in Rome in early Christendom?

At least you're getting a response from him. I'm still waiting.......

[excubitor]

You said that "part of the reason the schism occurred between Western and Eastern Christianity, is that the Roman (Catholic) church began demanding it be seen as the head of all other churches." Now you say.

Don't get ahead of yourself. Where did I dispute the centrality of the church in Rome in early Christendom?

It seems that you are confused. Now it seems that you concede the centrality of the church in Rome in the early church. Is it now the centrality of the church in Rome between the period of early Christendom and the Great Schism that you are questioning? OK then. So I suppose I should provide evidence of the headship of Rome between the Constantine period and the Great Schism. About 300AD to 900AD or there abouts. OK then.
"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 defense, 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)."

"“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).

"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). "

I can find scores of these kind of quotes. Oh well. I doubt that the facts of history will convince you.

[Athanasius]

You said that "part of the reason the schism occurred between Western and Eastern Christianity, is that the Roman (Catholic) church began demanding it be seen as the head of all other churches."

Now you say.

It seems that you are confused. Now it seems that you concede the centrality of the church in Rome in the early church. Is it now the centrality of the church in Rome between the period of early Christendom and the Great Schism that you are questioning?

I haven't conceded anything, because I never disputed the place of the church in Rome in early Christendom. Surely you are smart enough to understand the difference between a particular church demanding obedience of all other churches, and that church freely being viewed as the one to emulate and look to.

OK then. So I suppose I should provide evidence of the headship of Rome between the Constantine period and the Great Schism. About 300AD to 900AD or there abouts. OK then.

"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 defense, 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)."

"“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).

"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). "

The church of the 4th and 5th century was not the church of the 11th century. The church of the 4th and 5th centuries, even still, were beginning to look unlike the church of the preceding centuries. Pride is creeping in, and that much is obvious from the text.

What happened to poor Paul? Iraneaus would be very disappointed.

I can find scores of these kind of quotes. Oh well. I doubt that the facts of history will convince you.

That's nice.

A church which moves away from the foundation of Scripture, and begins looking increasingly to tradition to justify its place, isn't one that ought to be demanding patronage.

[excubitor]

A church which moves away from the foundation of Scripture, and begins looking increasingly to tradition to justify its place, isn't one that ought to be demanding patronage.

Scripture and Sacred Tradition are in perfect agreement as they come out of the same well-spring of truth. There is no contradiction between the Sacred Tradition and scripture. They are so in tune and in alignment because together they are the WORD of GOD. So if we depart from the Sacred Tradition, then we are departing from the WORD OF GOD AND the Scripture. And if we depart from the Scripture then we are departing from the WORD OF GOD and the Sacred Tradition.

[episkopos]

Hello Catholic Crusader,

You need to recognize the fact that the true church--as the spiritual body and bride of Christ--is a supernatural, spiritual entity. It goes far beyond any religion, sect or denomination. You also need to understand that Jesus did away with the necessity of a priesthood. He is our one and only High Priest and mediator before God--making the Roman Catholic institution's gentile version of the Jewish Sanhedrin pointless and irrelevant. We do not need a group of go-betweens who are as desperately in need of forgiveness as those they seek to give absolution to.

You also need to recognize the error of putting your confidence in a physical entity with a history of ungodly tyranny and violence--which extends to the torture of the inhuman Inquisitions, and the bloodshed of the Crusades--all in the name of Christ. Catholics are in fact, just as guilty as Muslims of heretical doctrine and "conversion by the sword." You speak of the Catholic Church as an unbroken chain that dates back to Jesus and the Apostles. But you neglect to recognize the spiritual new birth within that has indeed marked, over the last 2000 years, those who belong to Jesus--those washed in His blood and filled with the Spirit of God. That is the unbroken chain that God recognizes.

You also need to recognize that there is absolutely no Scriptural basis for the papacy. It is ludicrous to assume that Peter ever aspired to the exalted office that your papal king now occupies. Yes, Jesus looked upon Peter as a leader among the Apostles, just as we appoint leaders in the ministry today. But do not presume to elevate him to some exalted position above the other Apostles--upon which your papal throne can predicated. The New Testament will not support that idea. In fact, it refutes it. Moreover, Peter himself was obviously not someone who exemplifies the pompous and presumptuous characteristics embodied by the "holy father." Likewise, there is no legitimacy or corroboration for either the reverence of Mary as the "queen of heaven," outside the opinion of those who advocate it, nor for prayer to dead saints.


I can back up everything I believe with clear, solid Scripture, and I invite you to likewise support your position--as long as it is strictly from Scripture, not some "he said, he said" tradition that lacks the reliable credentials of Scripture. The Bible is the fixed reference point which guides our ship of faith through the treacherous waters of false doctrine, and must always be our guiding star. I would very much like to engage you in a civil, brotherly dialogue that seeks to shine the light of Scripture on your doctrine, permitting us to arrive at the truth by a preponderance of Biblical evidence. Please feel free to begin any time you wish--I will not keep you waiting. God bless.

Great post! ...