|
|
Post by Cepha on Jun 2, 2009 12:57:50 GMT -5
Tell you what...let's just take Ireneaus' statements on The Papacy of The Roman Catholic Church: Let us focus on "this" teaching by Irenaeus and notice something here about how he talks about The Pope of The Roman Catholic Church and defends it...IreneausThe blessed apostles [Peter and Paul], having founded and built up the church [of Rome], they handed over the office of the episcopate to Linus. Here, he clearly states that The Church is built up "in" Rome and singles out The Church "of Rome" as The Church founded by The Apostles Peter and Paul...they (Peter and Paul) handed over the position as Bishop (which is what episcopate means) to Linus.Now, who was Linus?Saint Linus (d. ca.76) was the second Bishop of Rome, according to Irenaeus, Jerome, Eusebius, John Chrysostom, the Liberian Catalogue and the Liber Pontificalis; he was succeeded by Anacletus.en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pope_LinusSo who was Linus in Christian history?
He is the 2nd Pope of The Roman Catholic Church!
Not only that, Saint Paul mentions him in Timothy! 2 Timothy 4:21 Do your utmost to come before winter. Eubulus greets you, as well as Pudens, Linus, Claudia, and all the brethren.Is this a "Catholic" teaching that Linus was a direct student of The Apostle Paul?
NO! Irenaeus himself said this! IreneausPaul makes mention of this Linus in the letter to Timothy [2 Tim. 4:21]. To him succeeded Anacletus, and after him, in the third place from the apostles, Clement was chosen for the episcopate.
To this Clement, Evaristus succeeded . . . and now, in the twelfth place after the apostles, the lot of the episcopate [of Rome] has fallen to Eleutherius. In this order, and by the teaching of the apostles handed down in the Church, the preaching of the truth has come down to us" Who are these men? Anacletus, Clement? Evaristus? Eleutherius?
They were Popes #'s 3, 4, 5 & 13!
So, what is Ireneaus stating here? He is literally listing The Popes of The Catholic Church!First CenturySt. Peter (c.33-67AD)
Linus (? 67-76)
Anacletus (? 76-88)
Clement I (? 88-97)
Evaristus (? 97-105)Second CenturyAlexander I (? 105-15)
Sixtus I (? 115-25)
Telesphorus (? 125-36)
Hyginus (? 136-40)
Pius I (? 140-55)
Anicetus (? 155-66)
Soter (? 166-75)
Eleutherius (? 175-89)www.britannia.com/history/resource/popes.html |
|
|
|
Post by Cepha on Jun 2, 2009 12:59:06 GMT -5
You're right...it's your insulting The Catholic Church that makes you seem angry and bitter with it (not your refusal to yield to it). If the truth insults you, that is your problem. Insults are insults whether they are true or not. Truth doesn't define what an insult is or not. And any reasonable person knows that truth is relative among Christian dissenters.  |
|
|
|
Post by watchman on Jun 2, 2009 13:04:37 GMT -5
Tell you what...let's just take Ireneaus' statements on The Papacy of The Roman Catholic Church: Let us focus on "this" teaching by Irenaeus and notice something here about how he talks about The Pope of The Roman Catholic Church and defends it...IreneausThe blessed apostles [Peter and Paul], having founded and built up the church [of Rome], they handed over the office of the episcopate to Linus. Here, he clearly states that The Church is built up "in" Rome and singles out The Church "of Rome" as The Church founded by The Apostles Peter and Paul...they (Peter and Paul) handed over the position as Bishop (which is what episcopate means) to Linus.Now, who was Linus?Saint Linus (d. ca.76) was the second Bishop of Rome, according to Irenaeus, Jerome, Eusebius, John Chrysostom, the Liberian Catalogue and the Liber Pontificalis; he was succeeded by Anacletus.en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pope_LinusSo who was Linus in Christian history?
He is the 2nd Pope of The Roman Catholic Church!
Not only that, Saint Paul mentions him in Timothy! 2 Timothy 4:21 Do your utmost to come before winter. Eubulus greets you, as well as Pudens, Linus, Claudia, and all the brethren.Is this a "Catholic" teaching that Linus was a direct student of The Apostle Paul?
NO! Irenaeus himself said this! IreneausPaul makes mention of this Linus in the letter to Timothy [2 Tim. 4:21]. To him succeeded Anacletus, and after him, in the third place from the apostles, Clement was chosen for the episcopate.
To this Clement, Evaristus succeeded . . . and now, in the twelfth place after the apostles, the lot of the episcopate [of Rome] has fallen to Eleutherius. In this order, and by the teaching of the apostles handed down in the Church, the preaching of the truth has come down to us" Who are these men? Anacletus, Clement? Evaristus? Eleutherius?
They were Popes #'s 3, 4, 5 & 13!
So, what is Ireneaus stating here? He is literally listing The Popes of The Catholic Church!First CenturySt. Peter (c.33-67AD)
Linus (? 67-76)
Anacletus (? 76-88)
Clement I (? 88-97)
Evaristus (? 97-105)Second CenturyAlexander I (? 105-15)
Sixtus I (? 115-25)
Telesphorus (? 125-36)
Hyginus (? 136-40)
Pius I (? 140-55)
Anicetus (? 155-66)
Soter (? 166-75)
Eleutherius (? 175-89)www.britannia.com/history/resource/popes.htmlI tell you what I see....blah,blah, blah, indoctrination, indoctrination, blah. |
|
|
|
Post by Cepha on Jun 2, 2009 13:07:01 GMT -5
I tell you what I see....blah,blah, blah, indoctrination, indoctrination, blah. So, where you once believed that Ireneaus was worthy of believing as a Church Father, you now deny what he taught and beleived? ;D [Again, to be Anti-Catholic, one MUST ignore history...] |
|
|
|
Post by alfie on Jun 2, 2009 13:31:50 GMT -5
Having thus mentioned the title of patriarchs, I may explain here the use of another title which we hear much oftener—I mean the title of “pope”. The proper meaning of 131it is “father”; in short, it is nothing else than the word “papa,” which children among ourselves use in speaking to their fathers. This title of pope (or father), then, was at first given to all bishops; but, by degrees, it came to be confined in its use; so that, in the East, only the bishops of Rome and Alexandria were called by it, while in the West it was given to the bishop or patriarch of Rome alone.
|
|
|
|
Post by watchman on Jun 2, 2009 13:34:07 GMT -5
I tell you what I see....blah,blah, blah, indoctrination, indoctrination, blah. So, where you once believed that Ireneaus was worthy of believing as a Church Father, you now deny what he taught and beleived? ;D [Again, to be Anti-Catholic, one MUST ignore history...] When Ireanius used the term catholic he meant it as universal, the same way I view the church as all true believers every where not as the RCC. |
|
|
|
Post by Cepha on Jun 2, 2009 13:45:44 GMT -5
So, where you once believed that Ireneaus was worthy of believing as a Church Father, you now deny what he taught and beleived? ;D [Again, to be Anti-Catholic, one MUST ignore history...] When Ireanius used the term catholic he meant it as universal, the same way I view the church as all true believers every where not as the RCC. Oh, that's one of those "universal doesn't mean universal" deals. Right...redefine words and you can create any belief you want to! LOL! Besides, that still wouldn't do away his mentioning The Popes of The Catholic Church as it stands historically today. You can't pick and choose what you want to believe historically. You either accept it or not. Besides, The Universal Church is The Universal Church period. It's not going to "not" be so just because you cannot fathom it. |
|
|
|
Post by Cepha on Jun 2, 2009 13:47:21 GMT -5
Having thus mentioned the title of patriarchs, I may explain here the use of another title which we hear much oftener—I mean the title of “pope”. The proper meaning of 131it is “father”; in short, it is nothing else than the word “papa,” which children among ourselves use in speaking to their fathers. This title of pope (or father), then, was at first given to all bishops; but, by degrees, it came to be confined in its use; so that, in the East, only the bishops of Rome and Alexandria were called by it, while in the West it was given to the bishop or patriarch of Rome alone. Ahhh! So this is where you're getting your "current" theology from! www.searchgodsword.org/his/ad/sch/view.cgi?book=1&chapter=22  |
|
|
|
Post by watchman on Jun 2, 2009 13:55:41 GMT -5
When Ireanius used the term catholic he meant it as universal, the same way I view the church as all true believers every where not as the RCC. Oh, that's one of those "universal doesn't mean universal" deals. Universal does indeed mean universal, what it does mean is RCC. |
|
|
|
Post by Cepha on Jun 4, 2009 8:20:42 GMT -5
Oh, that's one of those "universal doesn't mean universal" deals. Universal does indeed mean universal, what it does mean is RCC. You just contradicted yourself. The word "universal" is in that name and it is where Saint Ireneaus stated The Universal Church was founded. Why do you have such difficulty accepting Saint Ireneaus' teachings when they conflict with yours? Just accept what Saint Ireneaus and the Primitive Church believed and what History teaches. The Universal Church is the one in Rome (where The Book of Revelation states it is too). There aren't several universal churches, but only one Universal Church. And it's the only one that can be traced back to Biblical times historically and theologically speaking. Grasp reality. Life will get much easier once you do. [Pssst! By the way, the "official" name of The RCC is literally " The Catholic Church". That's it. No "Roman" in it. Rome is often used to describe it to attach it as the authentic Christian Church from which The Church Fathers spoke of. Just so you know.] |
|
case
New Member
Posts: 1
|
Post by case on Mar 28, 2012 21:41:34 GMT -5
Hi all,
I was baptized once as an infant into the Reformed Church of America.
Later in my life though I began to participate in the Quaker community. (I'm not saying that I necessarily identify as a Quaker, just that I have worshipped with them quite a bit). The traditional Quaker take on baptism is that there is only one true baptism, and thats the baptism of the Holy Spirit, through Christ.
As John the Baptist said, ""As for me, I baptize you with water for repentance, but He who is coming after me is mightier than I, and I am not fit to remove His sandals; He will baptize you with the Holy Spirit and fire." (Matthew 3:11)
And Ephesians 4:5 says there is "one Lord, one faith, one baptism". That is taken to mean baptism of the Holy Spirit. "For by one Spirit we were all baptized into one body, whether Jews or Greeks, whether slaves or free, and we were all made to drink of one Spirit." (1 Cor. 12:13) Because of this belief, most Quakers completely reject water baptism.
What do you think?
|
|
|
|
Post by Cepha on Mar 30, 2012 12:13:33 GMT -5
I agree. |
|
|
|
Post by e on Nov 27, 2012 22:10:31 GMT -5
steve, where are you
|
|
