Who really founded the Catholic Church?
-
Originally posted by Skibi:
what Peter not in Rome?
Already proved that Peter not in Rome, so false story. [b]Note it says legendary tale...not historical fact.[/b]
legendary tale is who say one? Will the apocryphal act of peter confess it is a legendary tale?
-
Epistle of Simon Magus.Originally posted by Icemoon:there is only 1 .. where got 2 or 3? -
Originally posted by Skibi:
1) I have no idea why u are talking abt Magus. I believed the Church was built on Peter the rock?
I know already. Wikipedia can find one.
Already proved that Peter not in Rome, so false story. [b]Note it says legendary tale...not historical fact.[/b]
2) U have not proved it.
Scripture:
1 Peter 5:13 - Some Protestants argue against the Papacy by trying to prove Peter was never in Rome. First, this argument is irrelevant to whether Jesus instituted the Papacy. Secondly, this verse demonstrates that Peter was in fact in Rome. Peter writes from "Babylon" which was a code name for Rome during these days of persecution. See, for example, Rev. 14:8, 16:19, 17:5, 18:2,10,21, which show that "Babylon" meant Rome. Rome was the "great city" of the New Testament period. Because Rome during this age was considered the center of the world, the Lord wanted His Church to be established in Rome
Church Fathers
"Through envy and jealousy, the greatest and most righteous pillars [of the Church] have been persecuted and put to death. Let us set before our eyes the illustrious apostles. Peter, through unrighteous envy, endured not one or two, but numerous labours and when he had at length suffered martyrdom, departed to the place of glory due to him." Clement of Rome, The First Epistle of Clement, 5 (c. A.D. 96).
I presume u are accusing Clement of lying abt how Peter died and where?
Quote me a Church Father or any Christian in the first few century who agree with ur accusations?
If im not mistaken, St Peter tomb was found in the Vatican.......... -
Just to add....u are arguing with Skibi who is not a Christian (Protestant).
Originally posted by Pope Nicholas:
1) I have no idea why u are talking abt Magus. I believed the Church was built on Peter the rock?
2) U have not proved it.
[b]Scripture:
1 Peter 5:13 - Some Protestants argue against the Papacy by trying to prove Peter was never in Rome. First, this argument is irrelevant to whether Jesus instituted the Papacy. Secondly, this verse demonstrates that Peter was in fact in Rome. Peter writes from "Babylon" which was a code name for Rome during these days of persecution. See, for example, Rev. 14:8, 16:19, 17:5, 18:2,10,21, which show that "Babylon" meant Rome. Rome was the "great city" of the New Testament period. Because Rome during this age was considered the center of the world, the Lord wanted His Church to be established in Rome
Church Fathers
"Through envy and jealousy, the greatest and most righteous pillars [of the Church] have been persecuted and put to death. Let us set before our eyes the illustrious apostles. Peter, through unrighteous envy, endured not one or two, but numerous labours and when he had at length suffered martyrdom, departed to the place of glory due to him." Clement of Rome, The First Epistle of Clement, 5 (c. A.D. 96).
I presume u are accusing Clement of lying abt how Peter died and where?
Quote me a Church Father or any Christian in the first few century who agree with ur accusations?
If im not mistaken, St Peter tomb was found in the Vatican..........[/b] -
Very obvious with his failure to deail with History and his lop-sided view of Scripture.Originally posted by laoda99:Just to add....u are arguing with Skibi who is not a Christian (Protestant). -
quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Taken from Wikipedia...
The apocryphal Acts of Peter gives a legendary tale of Simon Magus' death. Simon is performing magic in the forum, and in order to prove himself to be a god, he flies up into the air. The apostle Peter prays to God to stop his flying, and he stops mid-air and falls, breaking his legs, whereupon the crowd, previously non-hostile, stones him to death. The church of Santa Francesca Romana claims to have been built on the spot in question (thus claiming that Simon Magus could indeed fly), claims that Saint Paul was also present, and that a dented slab of marble that it contains bears the imprints of the knees of Peter and Paul during their prayer.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
In the bible, miracles done by Jesus was always done without any fanfare. A simple word of command is using the name of Jesus is enough. There is no need for the two disciples to supposedly pray so hard until the marble floor gets dented and contains the imprints of their knees - refer to OT pagan tradition where the priests of Baal danced and prayed with increasing fanfare to get their god to hear them vs Elijah the Prophet.
Btw the idea the Simon can fly seems far-fetched. Even Jesus did not fly during his ministry. -
They pray very hard 'cos Simon Magnus is level 9 enemy.Originally posted by Skibi:In the bible, miracles done by Jesus was always done without any fanfare. A simple word of command is using the name of Jesus is enough. There is no need for the two disciples to supposedly pray so hard until the marble floor gets dented and contains the imprints of their knees - refer to OT pagan tradition where the priests of Baal danced and prayed with increasing fanfare to get their god to hear them vs Elijah the Prophet.
Btw the idea the Simon can fly seems far-fetched. Even Jesus did not fly during his ministry.
If I'm not wrong, Simon Magnus is almost like the devil to the early church. -
Originally posted by Icemoon:
Ok you pray very hard and see the marble floor will get dented or not.
They pray very hard 'cos Simon Magnus is level 9 enemy.
If I'm not wrong, Simon Magnus is almost like the devil to the early church.
Jesus doesn't give his followers unecessary powers like power to dent marble floors. Jesus also doesn't need his followers to drama and pray very hard to outwardly display their sincerity before answering their prayers because he can see directly into their hearts. -
Originally posted by Skibi:
three reasons why the marble will not get dented:
Ok you pray very hard and see the marble floor will get dented or not.
Jesus doesn't give his followers unecessary powers like power to dent marble floors. Jesus also doesn't need his followers to drama and pray very hard [b]to outwardly display their sincerity before answering their prayers because he can see directly into their hearts. [/b]
1. I am not Peter or Paul.
2. Skibi is not Simon Magnus.
3. I don't have shaolin training.
Has it occured to you that the account could be exaggerated by christians themselves? Maybe there was a battle between the chief apostle and Simon but not so drama. -
Ask the threadstarter to read Dante's inferno, which is Catholic. Simony (after Simon Magnus) is condemned to the eighth circle of hell. Here's something from the Wiki:
"Those who committed simony are placed head-first in holes in the rock, with flames burning on the soles of their feet. One of them, Pope Nicholas III, denounces as simonists two of his successors, Pope Boniface VIII and Pope Clement V. (Canto XIX)"
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Divine_Comedy -
Originally posted by oxford mushroom:
The Popes claim to be infalliable.
Ask the threadstarter to read Dante's inferno, which is Catholic. Simony (after Simon Magnus) is condemned to the eighth circle of hell. Here's something from the Wiki:
"Those who committed simony are placed head-first in holes in the rock, with flames burning on the soles of their feet. One of them, Pope Nicholas III, denounces as simonists two of his successors, Pope Boniface VIII and Pope Clement V. (Canto XIX)"
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Divine_Comedy -
I always wonder....I as a Catholic bother to actuallie to research on the doctrines of protestantism be it the 5 solas or even speaking in tongues etc etc, why can protestants do the same.Originally posted by Skibi:The Popes claim to be infalliable.
Papal Infallibility
In Roman Catholic theology, only the actual act of teaching is properly called "infallible". For example, according to Roman Catholic dogma, Pope Pius IX's teaching regarding the Immaculate Conception was infallible; it is grammatically incorrect to say "the pope is [sometimes] infallible" or to say "the Immaculate Conception is infallible". Nonetheless, these phrases are frequently used in conversations or Catholic writings
Statements by a pope that exercise papal infallibility are referred to as solemn papal definitions or ex cathedra teachings. These should not be confused with teachings that are infallible because of a solemn definition by an ecumenical council, or with teachings that are infallible in virtue of being taught by the ordinary and universal magisterium. For details on these other kinds of infallible teachings, see Infallibility of the Church.
According to the teaching of the First Vatican Council and Catholic tradition, the conditions required for ex cathedra teaching are as follows:
1. "the Roman Pontiff"
2. "speaks ex cathedra" ("that is, when in the discharge of his office as shepherd and teacher of all Christians, and by virtue of his supreme apostolic authorityÂ….")
3. "he defines"
4. "that a doctrine concerning faith or morals"
5. "must be held by the whole Church" (Pastor Aeternus, chap. 4)
Infallibility does not refer to the inability to sin (impeccability), or to the personal holiness of a person, although it is occasionally misunderstood in that sense.
List of Papal Infalliblity
Tome to Flavian", Pope Leo I, 449, on the two natures in Christ, received by the Council of Chalcedon;
Letter of Pope Agatho, 680, on the two wills of Christ, received by the Third Council of Constantinople;
Benedictus Deus, Pope Benedict XII, 1336, on the beatific vision of the just prior to final judgment;
Cum occasione, Pope Innocent X, 1653, condemning five propositions of Jansen as heretical;
Auctorem fidei, Pope Pius VI, 1794, condemning seven Jansenist propositions of the Synod of Pistoia as heretical;
Ineffabilis Deus, Pope Pius IX, 1854, defining the immaculate conception; and
Munificentissimus Deus, Pope Pius XII, 1950, defining the assumption of Mary. -
you sure you got do research?Originally posted by Pope Nicholas:I always wonder....I as a Catholic bother to actuallie to research on the doctrines of protestantism be it the 5 solas or even speaking in tongues etc etc, why can protestants do the same.
'cos you always hit the strawman when discussing Sola Scriptura.
most obvious mistake is to apply sola scriptura during the apostolic age. -
And why not? Did the Lord say after the last apostle die, revert to thier writings (which i didnt order them to do).Originally posted by Icemoon:you sure you got do research?
'cos you always hit the strawman when discussing Sola Scriptura.
most obvious mistake is to apply sola scriptura during the apostolic age.
I dont mind having a sola scriptura vs sola verbum dei debate.
Most importantly, Skibi totally misunderstand what papal infallibility is and more importantly the major diff between teaching infallibily and being impeccable. There is no Pope that has ever taught error in ex cathedra. -
I rusty liao. Cannot handle sola scriptura vs sola verbum dei (what the heck is that?) debate. Now my focus is more on christian and jewish differences and how the former has corrupted the Hebrew Scripture .. ahem.Originally posted by Pope Nicholas:And why not? Did the Lord say after the last apostle die, revert to thier writings (which i didnt order them to do).
I dont mind having a sola scriptura vs sola verbum dei debate.
Most importantly, Skibi totally misunderstand what papal infallibility is and more importantly the major diff between teaching infallibily and being impeccable. There is no Pope that has ever taught error in ex cathedra.
Anyway my experience tells me most Protestants bochup the 5 solas, I bet the average churchgoer can't even list out 3 solas. So naturally they won't bother to go into such a debate.
Only one type of Protestant will bother to go into such a debate. Pity we don't have them in EH.
Papal infallibility is a mystery, just like the Catholic version of the eucharist. Whereas the Dalai Lama is chosen from birth or very young, the Pope is chosen from the cardinals. As to why the cardinal-turned-pope can suddenly become infallible in ex cathedra, it remains a mystery to me. It is easier to believe in an infallible Dalai Lama than infallible Pope. -
Who?Originally posted by Icemoon:Only one type of Protestant will bother to go into such a debate. Pity we don't have them in EH -
Reformed Christians.Originally posted by laoda99:Who?
Actually I wanted to say baptists since I was told by a forummer baptist church has rock solid bible study program. But then haven't met a rock solid baptist before .. haha.
Lutherans like extinct liao. Are they still rock solid in theology?
Pentecostals and charismatics are out because they do not study the Protestant church fathers. Actually they have no church father to begin with ..
Methodists are also out. Can't even talk about Wesley intelligently. What a shame. And Wesley is arminian .. lol
Anglicans are also out. They probably know more about liturgy than theology. -
Sola Verbum Dei - Word of God alone. The Catholic Church position on Tradition and Scripture.Originally posted by Icemoon:Reformed Christians.
Actually I wanted to say baptists since I was told by a forummer baptist church has rock solid bible study program. But then haven't met a rock solid baptist before .. haha.
Lutherans like extinct liao. Are they still rock solid in theology?
Pentecostals and charismatics are out because they do not study the Protestant church fathers. Actually they have no church father to begin with ..
Methodists are also out. Can't even talk about Wesley intelligently. What a shame. And Wesley is arminian .. lol
Anglicans are also out. They probably know more about liturgy than theology.
Difficult for a protestant to win a sola scriptura debate....not seen any Church Father that mentioned it. Most importantly, irnoically it is not even in scripture haha.
Papal infallibility is simple. Because the office of Peter contains the KEYS which allows binding and loosing. Christ cannot allow Peter or his successors to bind or loose error in heven hence he is protected with the gift of infallibility. Generally there has been very few instances of papal infallibility...i think less than 10.
Hmm...Hebrew Scripture vs Septugaint. -
Anyone who believe in TULIP?Originally posted by Icemoon:Reformed Christians. -
TULIP?Originally posted by laoda99:Anyone who believe in TULIP? -
U dunno TULIP?Originally posted by Pope Nicholas:TULIP? -
If i knew i wouldnt have askOriginally posted by laoda99:U dunno TULIP?
What is it -
i wont say i believe in TULIP, my salvation theology is summarised by TULIP though
-
WHAT IS TULIP????????Originally posted by NT2:i wont say i believe in TULIP, my salvation theology is summarised by TULIP though -
LOL .. now we know you haven't done real research in Protestant Christianity.Originally posted by Pope Nicholas:WHAT IS TULIP????????
TULIP is the life and blood of Reformed Christians.