Anyone on here Catholic?

Peter was clearly given leadership. This is clear, throughout the century's. I could do more than my Priest with teaching and evangelization, but does that make me his leader? How about one of your "Priest" doing more than the "Archbishop of Canterbury" with humanitarian work, or theological work, does that make the "Priest" the "Archbishops" leader?

Peter, being the leader, was the oversee of the Council. There is nothing to indicate that James was the primary oversee of the council in Acts 15. However, there is much to show that Peter was. But, even if James was, it wouldn't go against Petrine leadership, seeing that Jerusalem was in James territory, and Peter could give James the right to oversee the council, though, Peter could take over at anytime because he was clearly over James.

 

I'm sorry friend, you are just offering your hearsay and say-so. It really wasn't clear to anybody, until the Papacy came along. Look I don't even need to go further than your own admission that Peter's 'leadership' was in fact shared by St. James and St. John. Your own words...

So, where does it say that Peter gave St. James anything? You've got to read from the evidence, not read into the evidence... Basic science, and hermeneutics...

 

Why? What logic is that? Christ died and was resurrected in Jerusalem. Why not there?

No it wasn't.

Again, no. Paul opposed him to his face, both for his flawed doctrine (his Judaizing of gentile converts) and his flawed morality (Peter, who once ate freely with gentiles hypocritically distanced himself when Jewish Christians came around). Also, while there might have been many who turned to Rome, there were many also who ignored or defied Rome. And we can be thankful for it.

 

None of your statements prove anything. And you still clearly show a lack of understanding for apostolic succession. Peter never became the Bishop of Jerusalem. The current bishop there succeeds James, not Peter. Rome, however, has direct apostolic succession from Peter, the leader of the Church.

Actually, yes it is. Do you really want me to start getting the Church fathers out?

Judaizing gentile converts was not necessarily a bad thing. Paul confronted him for acting like a hypocrite, not for Judaizing gentile converts. Read the passage In Galatians 2.

Most who held to orthodoxy turned to Rome when there was a problem. Those who turned away from Rome were usually schismatic, or heretics. We have Popes claiming ultimate primacy as early as the 3rd century, and we have early Church fathers claiming Rome's primacy as early as the second century. Stephen I was explicitly the first Pope to proclaim that Rome had a primacy, and no one seemed to object. Everyone obeyed. Even Saint Cyprian, who strongly opposed the Popes personal view on whether heretics should be re-baptized or not. We even have it as early as the second century; the Bishop of Rome excommunicating certain people outside of his own territory. And the direct order of the patriarchate also points to Roman primacy in the early Church. The Church has always looked to Rome. Always! Those who disobey Rome are either schismatics, or heretics.

 

I have provided evidence, look at what I wrote above, and before with my other evidence.

I don't believe Peter gave James the authority to primarily oversee the council. I just said that even if James did have the authority, we can assume Peter gave it to him, mainly because the council was within James territory.

 

Friend , you are living in a dream world! In 1564 , approx, the Holy Roman Church, the official name of your sect, passed a canon at the 'Council of Trent,' stating there was only one set of scriptures and it had to be taken as it was written, i.e. as the church published it (no private interpretation.). Later on another canon was delivered that the scripture should be read through the writings of the Early Fathers!"More or less this is what the Anglicans say also, only we have the King James version.
The interesting thing is tha nowhere in scripture or in Holy tradition does it mention the Papacy or the Bishop of Rome! It is some three hundred years after Christ before the papal dreams were even suspected! Rome was simply the Suburbicrian Church of Rome and it existed simply for about a hundred leagues about the City. The Bishop was no more than one bishop amongst many and then as now had no more authority within the One Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church than any other. However he did have some authority and that was as a virtual officer of the State. He did jobs for Constantine, (he repossessed some houses for the Emperor Constantine) and the Church of Rome was run as a dept., of State! For his labours, he was given the privilige of using the Roman Stasi for his own profit! We find him arresting a Confessor, (Basil,?) from Lerins and having him brought over the Alps and jailed, though he escaped from his cell. This authority existed under both western and easter monarchs. When the last western Emperor disappeared, it was the Bishop of Rome who took over, having authority over the polis would help, I expect! He had some authority within the Church and he was able to take over most of western Italy, the Roman Church then assuming the name, 'Church of Italia'! He , however still relied on the state and the Eastern Emperor, Justinian, for instance. Various popes had tried to build upon the position of the City of Rome, but it got them virtually nowhere. It was only when some genius came up with the forged documents claiming to be the will, or, Donation of Constantine and Isadorian rescripts, leaving all of western europe to the papacy,(or at least all he could get hold of). Before anyone denies this historical fact, 800 years later , due to the work of Catholic scholars the forgeries were classed as such, but by then the business was done.

Reading ?
Denniys Papalism. 3 Vol's. (Awsome.)

Littledale's Papal Claims. 3 Vol's.

Early Church and the Court of Rome! Father Puller. S.S.J.E.



All were on Google Books.

 

Yes please do!
For instance you mention S.Peter at Rome? The only proof for S.Peter being in Rome is the word of catholic Tradition and it is unlikely for him to have been there until the last two years of his life. You've been watching to many of the 50's & 60's films. According to scripture and tradition Paul,' laboured more abundantly' 1 Cor.1 and he is portrayed as more dynamic of the two being the apostle to the gentiles. . The first bishop was I agree Linus. Peter being the apostle to the Jewish People.

Further more, S.Peter being the leader of the Apostles is one thing, before S.Paul arrived on the scene, what we really want to know and you have to prove, along with all your other wild assertions, is how did S.Peter's alleged supremacy descend to the Bishop of Rome?

When the Roman Mission landed in Britain that was 597 AD., none of the three nations appear to have any knowledge of him! In about 250 AD, when the Roman Bishop interfered in African matters, the Council of Carthage (eventually) told him to mind his own business. Another 150yrs or later the Bishop of Rome tried again and received virtually the same reply from a later Council of Carthage this latter Council having S. Augustine amongst the fathers.

 

I am an Anglo-Catholic, but not an Anglo-Papalist. That is, I hold that the Anglican Communion is a part of the universal Catholic Church, but not the 'one true Church', because wherever a Bishop in Apostolic Orders is, there is the Catholic Church, not simply wherever people submit to the Bishop of Rome, Moscow or Constantinople. Wherever there is a Bishop to give the Apostolic authority to administer the Holy Sacraments to God's people, there is the Church- primacy is merely a jurisdictional and prestige issue, not a binding matter of doctrine. Because frankly, if you're in a Church where you are able to receive all the graces one needs through the Sacraments, why should union with Rome or Constantinople make any difference, other than self-consciousness about being affirmed by the two larger Communions, like a young woman eager to be noticed by her two older sisters?
Don't get me wrong- I think Reformed Protestant doctrine was developed as little more than a reactionary measure by 16th Century theologians who were trying blindly to recover a form of 'authentic primitive Christianity' that never really existed, but was merely the opposite of the medieval Roman Church they knew, and based off a reading of Scripture through the lens of a hyper-Augustinianism. But Roman insistence on universal authority of the Papacy is just as much a reactionary idea, based upon the role of the Roman Church as the only particularly powerful central authority in the chaos of the former Western Roman Empire after being invaded by Barbarian chieftains.

 

The thing is, the Catholic Church does not recognize your holy orders. We don't consider your Deacons, Priest, or Bishops to be valid. So therefor, you aren't even a Church. You're just a community of Christian believers. The "Roman papacy" has been the leader of the Church from the very beginning, on the contrary. Clement of Rome, who lived in the 1st century, even mention it. the early Fathers mention it. There was never any opposition to the papacy unless the group was heretical or schismatic. The Eastern fathers attest to it. Cyprian is a great example. He, being from the see of Alexandria, a see that disagreed with Rome over baptism, acknowledges the Roman see as the primary see. This was in the 3rd century. Popes have always claimed primacy, and there was never opposition unless a latter group fell into heresy or schism. Surprisingly, not even the Eastern Orthodox Church broke off because of Papal Primacy. Rather, they broke off because of what happened in Constantinople in 1204 A.D, during the fourth crusade.

 

Dear colleague,
I have already explained to you, everyone who is validly baptised becomes a member of the Catholic Church, this is one thing,both the One true Churches agree on.Triune Baptism by water & by word. The Water cleanses us from inherent sin and the Word, gives us true belief. We become Members of Christ and Children of God.It is sad, that the Church is divided, but one has to believe in the Revelation of Christ once made to the Saints,and to seek forgiveness and purpose to amend. Unfortunately, for you,' Roman,' teaching is in error. S.Paul tells us that, ' we should keep the Deposit,' .This Traditional Anglicans have done, sadly Rome hasn't, adding to the faith as well and polluting the Holy Creed of Nice at the same time . Further at Trent, something in the nature of a Coup, was mounted by the papacy, causing the few Catholic Bishops present to abandon their duty to Christ and His Body the Church, on to the shoulders of the Bishop of Rome. Causing another rift in the already torn garments of Our Lord and Saviour! This rent was backed by most of the Continental Monarchy and caused the formation of,'The New Church of Trent.'(This you can find in the Diary of John Evelyn, March 1686.) For myself I should have thought, as most of Europe feared at that time, that Rome was anti-cChristian but our Bishops of the Later Reformation rejected the idea, pointing out that Rome had become a catholic sect! Baptism, a solid belief in the Apostolic Succession and the Catholic Rule of Life supports our understanding, the utterances of the Bishop of Rome deserve a hearing, and this has been given as indeed your support for him, but both you and he go against the teachings of two thousand years of Catholic orthodoxy. Sorry!

 

Dear colleague,
I have explained to you that there is only one Catholic Church. Not everyone validly baptized is Catholic, such a belief only finds itself within Anglican 'branch theory', and neither in any traditional Christian denomination. Nor does it find itself in the early Church. Of course, to justify your beliefs, you blame Trent for new beliefs, and doctrines, and dogmas, and such. I was going to paste it all on here, however, I cannot fit it. Please read, http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/15030c.htm Please stop referring to us as 'Roman Catholics'. For we are not just Roman, but we are also Byzantine, Coptic, Chaldean, Ethiopian, Maronite, etc. The terms "Romish Catholic" and "Roman Catholic", along with "Popish Catholic", were brought into use in the English language chiefly by adherents of the Church of England, which saw itself as the Catholic Church in England, so that they were not willing to concede the term Catholic to their opponents without qualification. The term Roman Catholic is not used by the Church herself; it is a relatively modern term, and one, moreover, that is confined largely to the English language. The English-speaking bishops at the First Vatican Council in 1870, in fact, conducted a vigorous and successful campaign to insure that the term Roman Catholic was nowhere included in any of the Council's official documents about the Church herself, and the term was not included. We are simply Catholic.

 

Quite frankly, whether or not Rome recognises Anglican Orders as valid or not does not matter. The Old Catholics, whose orders you DO recognise, are in full Communion with us, and one of their bishops is always present co-consecrator at Anglican episcopal consecrations, and have been since the 1930s. And the Mar Thoma Syrian Church, which is in partial communion with the Syrian Malankara Church and Syro-Malabar Catholic Church, is also in full communion with us. And before you dare try to hold Apostolicae Curae over Anglican heads, that Bull was written in the 1870s, before any of those communion agreements took place.

 

Yes, we do recognize their orders. But only Council of Utrecht orders. I don't think all Old Catholic Church's are Utrecht. I am not an expert on Old Catholics, so don't ask me. But, it doesn't matter if they're in communion with you. And, I can hold that over your head since it is a document of the holy Catholic Church, the time does not matter. Sadly, heretics and schismatics depart away from the Church and her teachings.

 

CR, I'm at a loss as to what you're trying to accomplish with your comments. If your point is that Anglicans aren't "catholic" by Vatican standards. It's duly noted. Is there some other point you want to make? Or is your interest solely to come on an Anglican discussion board the call Anglicans heretics and schismatics? Doesn't seem very nice or constructive but I guess it depends on what your goal is.

 

S,`Thomas Aquinas, no less, tells us clearly that Baptism administered by a NON Christian is valid! Interestingly he also said a woman ought not to baptise if a man is present. (Summa iii 67.4./5..) The Form of baptism is,.. I baptise thee in the Name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Ghost.
"Are ye ignorant,says 'S.Paul', that all we who are baptized in to Christ Jesus, were baptised in to His Death?' Cornelius had to be baptised, even after he had received the Holy Ghost! (Acts 10- vs48 )

Regarding your condemnation of the Branch Theory? You quote New 'Advent', this is like asking the police in Ferguson U.S. (?) to make up a jury for the trial. There are two sources which I rarely accept as an authority on scripture or tradition, they are New Advent and Foxes Book of Martyrs!
Christ said ,' I am the Vine and ye are the branches.' Neither have Anglicans Whatever our Roman Friends say, the growth of a Branch frrom a tree is a natural progression?

 

CR, do you think we are not aware of what Rome has to say about Anglicanism? I hope from all of this you've realized that we are well aware.

It would therefore be far more productive to discuss Anglicanism itself, because we here have decided to stick with it in spite of what others (Baptists, Roman Catholics, Pentacostals, etc!) continue to say. You would learn a lot, I think, if you took that angle: _why_ those of us here are Anglican.

 

I never said your baptisms were never valid. Your baptism do not make you Catholic though. Not all Christian are apart of the holy Catholic Church. There is one holy Catholic Church.

Again... stop calling me Roman. It is an insult. Especially since I'm transferring to the Ruthenian Catholic Church, and calling Eastern Catholics Roman is a huge insult. Yes, the Roman Church is the largest Church in the Catholic Church. The Catholic Church, similarly to to the Anglican Communion, is a Communion of about 23 different Churches all united in the same faith. Around 15-20 million Catholics are not Roman.

 

I'm just telling you. Mormons and Jehovah Witness would say they are Christians, yet I think most of us could agree they are cults, and that their baptisms are not valid. Because of that, they are not Christians at all.

 

Schismatic, I would say you are. Heretics... depends on your theology. High Anglicanism tends not to be heretical. Low Church Anglicans tend to be.