Posted on 01/06/2013 3:56:49 PM PST by NYer
Bl. John Henry Newman said it best: “To be deep in history is to cease to be Protestant.” History paints an overwhelming picture of St. Peter’s apostolic ministry in Rome and this is confirmed by a multitude of different sources within the Early Church. Catholic Encyclopedia states, “In opposition to this distinct and unanimous testimony of early Christendom, some few Protestant historians have attempted in recent times to set aside the residence and death of Peter at Rome as legendary. These attempts have resulted in complete failure.” Protestantism as a whole seeks to divorce Christianity from history by rending Gospel message out of its historical context as captured by our Early Church Fathers. One such target of these heresies is to devalue St. Peter and to twist the authority of Rome into a historical mishap within Christianity. To wit, the belief has as its end the ultimate end of all Catholic and Protestant dialogue – who has authority in Christianity?
Why is it important to defend the tradition of St. Peter and Rome?
The importance of establishing St. Peter’s ministry in Rome may be boiled down to authority and more specifically the historic existence and continuance of the Office of Vicar held by St. Peter. To understand why St. Peter was important and what authority was given to him by Christ SPL has composed two lists – 10 Biblical Reasons Christ Founded the Papacy and 13 Reasons St. Peter Was the Prince of the Apostles.
The rest of the list is cited from the Catholic Encyclopedia on St. Peter and represents only a small fraction of the evidence set therein.
It is an indisputably established historical fact that St. Peter laboured in Rome during the last portion of his life, and there ended his earthly course by martyrdom. As to the duration of his Apostolic activity in the Roman capital, the continuity or otherwise of his residence there, the details and success of his labours, and the chronology of his arrival and death, all these questions are uncertain, and can be solved only on hypotheses more or less well-founded. The essential fact is that Peter died at Rome: this constitutes the historical foundation of the claim of the Bishops of Rome to the Apostolic Primacy of Peter.
St. Peter’s residence and death in Rome are established beyond contention as historical facts by a series of distinct testimonies extending from the end of the first to the end of the second centuries, and issuing from several lands.
That the manner, and therefore the place of his death, must have been known in widely extended Christian circles at the end of the first century is clear from the remark introduced into the Gospel of St. John concerning Christ’s prophecy that Peter was bound to Him and would be led whither he would not — “And this he said, signifying by what death he should glorify God” (John 21:18-19, see above). Such a remark presupposes in the readers of the Fourth Gospel a knowledge of the death of Peter.
St. Peter’s First Epistle was written almost undoubtedly from Rome, since the salutation at the end reads: “The church that is in Babylon, elected together with you, saluteth you: and so doth my son Mark” (5:13). Babylon must here be identified with the Roman capital; since Babylon on the Euphrates, which lay in ruins, or New Babylon (Seleucia) on the Tigris, or the Egyptian Babylon near Memphis, or Jerusalem cannot be meant, the reference must be to Rome, the only city which is called Babylon elsewhere in ancient Christian literature (Revelation 17:5; 18:10; “Oracula Sibyl.”, V, verses 143 and 159, ed. Geffcken, Leipzig, 1902, 111).
From Bishop Papias of Hierapolis and Clement of Alexandria, who both appeal to the testimony of the old presbyters (i.e., the disciples of the Apostles), we learn that Mark wrote his Gospel in Rome at the request of the Roman Christians, who desired a written memorial of the doctrine preached to them by St. Peter and his disciples (Eusebius, Church History II.15, 3.40, 6.14); this is confirmed by Irenaeus (Against Heresies 3.1). In connection with this information concerning the Gospel of St. Mark, Eusebius, relying perhaps on an earlier source, says that Peter described Rome figuratively as Babylon in his First Epistle.
Another testimony concerning the martyrdom of Peter and Paul is supplied by Clement of Rome in his Epistle to the Corinthians (written about A.D. 95-97), wherein he says (chapter 5):
“Through zeal and cunning the greatest and most righteous supports [of the Church] have suffered persecution and been warred to death. Let us place before our eyes the good Apostles — St. Peter, who in consequence of unjust zeal, suffered not one or two, but numerous miseries, and, having thus given testimony (martyresas), has entered the merited place of glory”.
He then mentions Paul and a number of elect, who were assembled with the others and suffered martyrdom “among us” (en hemin, i.e., among the Romans, the meaning that the expression also bears in chapter 4). He is speaking undoubtedly, as the whole passage proves, of the Neronian persecution, and thus refers the martyrdom of Peter and Paul to that epoch.
In his letter written at the beginning of the second century (before 117), while being brought to Rome for martyrdom, the venerable Bishop Ignatius of Antioch endeavours by every means to restrain the Roman Christians from striving for his pardon, remarking: “I issue you no commands, like Peter and Paul: they were Apostles, while I am but a captive” (Epistle to the Romans 4). The meaning of this remark must be that the two Apostles laboured personally in Rome, and with Apostolic authority preached the Gospel there.
Bishop Dionysius of Corinth, in his letter to the Roman Church in the time of Pope Soter (165-74), says:
“You have therefore by your urgent exhortation bound close together the sowing of Peter and Paul at Rome and Corinth. For both planted the seed of the Gospel also in Corinth, and together instructed us, just as they likewise taught in the same place in Italy and at the same time suffered martyrdom” (in Eusebius, Church History II.25).
Irenaeus of Lyons, a native of Asia Minor and a disciple of Polycarp of Smyrna (a disciple of St. John), passed a considerable time in Rome shortly after the middle of the second century, and then proceeded to Lyons, where he became bishop in 177; he described the Roman Church as the most prominent and chief preserver of the Apostolic tradition, as “the greatest and most ancient church, known by all, founded and organized at Rome by the two most glorious Apostles, Peter and Paul” (Against Heresies 3.3; cf. 3.1). He thus makes use of the universally known and recognized fact of the Apostolic activity of Peter and Paul in Rome, to find therein a proof from tradition against the heretics.
In his “Hypotyposes” (Eusebius, Church History IV.14), Clement of Alexandria, teacher in the catechetical school of that city from about 190, says on the strength of the tradition of the presbyters: “After Peter had announced the Word of God in Rome and preached the Gospel in the spirit of God, the multitude of hearers requested Mark, who had long accompanied Peter on all his journeys, to write down what the Apostles had preached to them” (see above).
Like Irenaeus, Tertullian appeals, in his writings against heretics, to the proof afforded by the Apostolic labours of Peter and Paul in Rome of the truth of ecclesiastical tradition. In De Præscriptione 36, he says:
“If thou art near Italy, thou hast Rome where authority is ever within reach. How fortunate is this Church for which the Apostles have poured out their whole teaching with their blood, where Peter has emulated the Passion of the Lord, where Paul was crowned with the death of John.”
In Scorpiace 15, he also speaks of Peter’s crucifixion. “The budding faith Nero first made bloody in Rome. There Peter was girded by another, since he was bound to the cross”. As an illustration that it was immaterial with what water baptism is administered, he states in his book (On Baptism 5) that there is “no difference between that with which John baptized in the Jordan and that with which Peter baptized in the Tiber”; and against Marcion he appeals to the testimony of the Roman Christians, “to whom Peter and Paul have bequeathed the Gospel sealed with their blood” (Against Marcion 4.5).
The Roman, Caius, who lived in Rome in the time of Pope Zephyrinus (198-217), wrote in his “Dialogue with Proclus” (in Eusebius, Church History II.25) directed against the Montanists: “But I can show the trophies of the Apostles. If you care to go to the Vatican or to the road to Ostia, thou shalt find the trophies of those who have founded this Church”.
By the trophies (tropaia) Eusebius understands the graves of the Apostles, but his view is opposed by modern investigators who believe that the place of execution is meant. For our purpose it is immaterial which opinion is correct, as the testimony retains its full value in either case. At any rate the place of execution and burial of both were close together; St. Peter, who was executed on the Vatican, received also his burial there. Eusebius also refers to “the inscription of the names of Peter and Paul, which have been preserved to the present day on the burial-places there” (i.e. at Rome).
There thus existed in Rome an ancient epigraphic memorial commemorating the death of the Apostles. The obscure notice in the Muratorian Fragment (“Lucas optime theofile conprindit quia sub praesentia eius singula gerebantur sicuti et semote passionem petri evidenter declarat”, ed. Preuschen, Tübingen, 1910, p. 29) also presupposes an ancient definite tradition concerning Peter’s death in Rome.
The apocryphal Acts of St. Peter and the Acts of Sts. Peter and Paul likewise belong to the series of testimonies of the death of the two Apostles in Rome.
I that when you can make it mean anything you want to like the Catholic Church does? BTW You didn't answer my question about the "streams of living water". How does that fit into the "typology" you speak of?
We know that Jesus does that....What we were discussing was a woman who claims that Mary removed demons from her...That is not possible, and by her actions [it looks like she still has them.]You left off the end of the quote that I posted to you. Didn't like that part, did you?
We know the Apostles drove out demons and we know that Mary is united with Jesus .thus, giving Mary power to drive the demon's out as well.
"We know"----"we know"-----"thus giving"
I asked if you have a scripture that shows God giving Mary (after she is dead) power over demons in individuals alive on earth, post it for us
We know your opinion, if it is not in scripture it is not true.
Someone made that up.
Mary has no way to communicate with people here on earth.
Except by demonic apparitions.
I am surprised, because Catholics state they love Mary so much, that they would accept those sightings as really being Mary. That's bizarre.
The Blessed mother spelled out many places in Scripture through typology of Scripture, but I have been down this road before and those without ears to hear and eyes to see don’t want to believe this even though it’s historically backed up throughout Christian history by the Church Fathers and by Scripture.
The following is from a post of mine in 2010 that was also used for a group of Marian Franciscans from Syracuse to teach their new postulates .
Typology Of The Blessed Mother
Old Testament Ark “verses” New Testament- Mary who is the “Immaculate”(Sinless) Ark of the NEW COVENANT
A cloud of glory covered the Tabernacle and Ark (Exodus 40:34-35; Numbers 9:15) = Type is “And the angel said to her: “The Holy Spirit will come upon you, and the power of the Most High will overshadow you’” (Luke 1:35)
Ark spent three months in the house of Obededom the Gittite (2 Samuel 6:11) = Type is Mary spent three months in the house of Zechariah and Elizabeth (Luke 1:26, 40)
King David asked “How can the ark of the Lord come to me?” (2 Samuel 6:9) = Type is Elizabeth asked Mary, “Why is this granted to me, that the mother of my Lord should come to me?” (Luke 1:43)
David Leaped and danced before the Lord when the Ark arrived in Jerusalem (2 Samuel 6:14 - 16) = Type is John the Baptist leaped for joy in Elizabeth’s womb when Mary arrived (Luke 1:44)
Even the Early Christians saw this. Some examples....
Athanasius of Alexandria (c. 296–373) was the main defender of the deity of Christ against the second-century heretics. He wrote: “O noble Virgin, truly you are greater than any other greatness. For who is your equal in greatness, O dwelling place of God the Word? To whom among all creatures shall I compare you, O Virgin? You are greater than them all O [Ark of the] Covenant, clothed with purity instead of gold! You are the ark in which is found the golden vessel containing the true manna, that is, the flesh in which divinity resides” (Homily of the Papyrus of Turin).
Gregory the Wonder Worker (c. 213–c. 270) wrote: “Let us chant the melody that has been taught us by the inspired harp of David, and say, ‘Arise, O Lord, into thy rest; thou, and the ark of thy sanctuary.’ For the Holy Virgin is in truth an ark, wrought with gold both within and without, that has received the whole treasury of the sanctuary” (Homily on the Annunciation to the Holy Virgin Mary).
Mary is the Daughter of Zion .
The important thing point out is that in the OT (esp. Isiah, Zephaniah, Zechariah, etc..) there are Messianic prophecies known as the Daughter Zion prophecies which tend to have a similar form. They begin with something like, “rejoice, O Daughter of Zion, for the Lord your God is in your midst..” and continue on with Messianic prophecy. The form of Gabriel’s Annuniciation to Mary matches the form of the Daughter Zion prophecies. This indicates on the one hand that these prophesies are fulfilled with the words of Gabriel which announce the Messianic expectation as being fulfilled at that time.
The prophets words were a foreshadowing of the Annuniciation. Gabriel called Mary Kecharitomene, which I believe captures the essence of Daughter of Zion and points beyond it. Basically Mary is being presented in Luke I & II as representing not just the perfect embodiment of the virtues of what it means to be Israel, she is presented as a certain personification of Israel. She stands in as Israel proper, and the language used throughout the narrative suggests the concept of “corporate personality” which is part of Hebrew thought. There are allusions and types in Luke I & II which further support this (themes and structure in the Magnificat, allusions to Abraham to which this concept of corporate personality applies, Simeon, Judith, etc..). Also, this understanding of what Luke I & II presents about Our Lady is an interpretive key to understanding certain passages in a deeper way (for example Simeon’s prophecy).
It also ties in with themes in John’s writings and sheds light upon them. The thematic parallels between John-Rev & Luke-Acts are many so it’s no surprise that this aspect of Luke I & II would mesh well with John.
The Importance of Kecharitomene
Kecharitomene (Luke 1:28), is Mary,s purpose ,it is Her essence and being in the divine supernatural order, the virgin from Nazareth is the “woman” of the Father. As the spouse of the Holy Spirit (Matthew 1:20), in the divine supernatural order, the virgin from Nazareth is the “woman” of the Holy Spirit. As the mother of the Son (Luke 1:31), in the divine supernatural order, the virgin from Nazareth is the ‘woman’ of the Son. The virgin from Nazareth, clearly then, is “woman” to all the three divine Persons who is GOD. She is aptly the ‘blessed among women’ (Luke 1:42). The Blessed Virgin Mary is the “woman” of GOD. The Son of Man never called her “mother”, not even once while He interacted with humans, because it will not be in keeping with His divinity or with the Oneness and Indivisibility of the Holy Trinity. The virgin from Nazareth is not the mother of the Holy Spirit and she, obviously, is not the mother of the Father
Luke 1:28 Uses the word “Kecharitomene: to describe Mary,s function,essence and being
The original Greek was kecharitomene, the perfect passive participle of charis, grace. St. Jerome translated it into Latin as gratia plena, “full of grace.” In Greek the perfect stem denotes a completed action with a permanent result. Kecharitomene means completely, perfectly, enduringly endowed with grace. The Protestant Revised Standard Version translates Lk 1:28 as “highly favored daughter.” This is no mere difference of opinion but a conscious effort to distort St. Luke’s original Greek text. Had Mary been no more than “highly favored,” she would have been indistinguishable from Sarah the wife of Abraham, Anna the mother of Samuel, or Elizabeth the mother of John the Baptist, all of whom were long childless and “highly favored” because God acceded to their pleas to bear children. But neither Sarah nor Anna is described as kecharitomene in the Septuagint, a translation by Jewish scholars of the Hebrew Scriptures for Greek-speaking Jews in Egypt. Nor does Luke use it to describe Elizabeth. Kecharitomene in this usage is reserved for Mary of Nazareth.
The word “kecharitomene” is a perfect passive participle of the verb “charitoo.”
Some have argued that this says nothing unique about Mary since Saint Stephen, just before he is martyred for the faith, is said to be full of grace in Acts 6:8. However a different word form is used to describe Saint Stephen. In the Greek the conjugated form of “charitoo” that is used to describe him is “charitos” not “kecharitomene” that is used in reference to Mary.
Saint Luke does not use Mary as her name in Luke 1:28 He Changes it to “Kecharitomene” this is a new name , and we all know that name changes in Scripture are significant - Abram (Hebrew “father”) to Abraham (”father of multitudes), Jacob to Israel, Saul to Paul, Simon to Peter, etc.
This describes her very essence and being.
Mary, is named “kecharitomene” - because she is full of grace-full of perfection
Mary was chosen to be the Mother of God, because she was perfect in obeying the will of God. She would not betray her divine husband for the sake of a man. The marriage between Joseph and Mary took place in the divine plan in order to protect the publicity of the holy virgin announced in the Holy Scriptures who would give birth to Emanuel, God with us (Isaiah 7:14)
Joseph was a chaste man, who respected Mary highly since he was given revelations about Mary and Jesus by the angel of God (Matthew 1:20), he accepted the special holy mission to help the promised Messiah and his mother.
Mary is the New Eve(More Typology)
Old Testament Eve- Verses New Testament Mary
Created without original sin, Gen 2:22-25 = Created without original sin, Luke 1:28,42
There was a virgin, Gen 2:22-25 = There is a virgin, Luke 1:27-34
There was a tree, Gen 2:16-17 = There was a cross made from a tree, Matt 27:31-35
There was a fallen angel, Gen 3:1-13 = There was a loyal angel, Luke 1:26-38
A satanic serpent tempted her, Gen 3:4-6 = A satanic dragon threatened her, Rev 12:4-6,13-17
There was pride, Gen 3:4-7 = There was humility, Luke 1:38
There was disobedience, Gen 3:4-7 = There was obedience, Luke 1:38
There was a fall, Gen 3:16-20 = There was redemption, John 19:34
Death came through Eve, Gen 3:17-19 = Life Himself came through Mary, John 10:28
She was mentioned in Genesis 3:2-22 = She was mentioned in Genesis 3:15
Could not approach the tree of life Gen 3:24 = Approached the “Tree of Life”, John 19:25
An angel kept her out of Eden, Gen 3:24 = An angel protected her, Rev 12:7-9
Prophecy of the coming of Christ, Gen 3:15 = The Incarnation of Christ, Luke 2:7
Firstborn was a man child, Gen 4:1 = Firstborn was a man child, Luke 2:7, Rev 12:5
Firstborn became a sinner, Gen 4:1-8 = Firstborn was the Savior, Luke 2:34
The mother of all the living, Gen 3:20 = The spiritual mother of all the living, John 19:27
The Early Christians saw this very clear...
“He became man by the Virgin, in order that the disobedience which proceeded from the serpent might receive its destruction in the same manner in which it derived its origin. For Eve, who was a virgin and undefiled, having conceived the word of the serpent, brought forth disobedience and death. But the Virgin Mary received faith and joy, when the angel Gabriel announced the good tidings to her that the Spirit of the Lord would come upon her, and the power of the Highest would overshadow her: wherefore also the Holy Thing begotten of her is the Son of God; and she replied, ‘Be it unto me according to thy word.’ And by her has He been born, to whom we have proved so many Scriptures refer, and by whom God destroys both the serpent and those angels and men who are like him; but works deliverance from death to those who repent of their wickedness and believe upon Him.” Justin Martyr, Dialogue with Trypho, 100 (A.D. 155)
“In accordance with this design, Mary the Virgin is found obedient, saying, ‘Behold the handmaid of the Lord; be it unto me according to thy word.’ But Eve was disobedient; for she did not obey when as yet she was a virgin. And even as she, having indeed a husband, Adam, but being nevertheless as yet a virgin (for in Paradise ‘they were both naked, and were not ashamed,’ inasmuch as they, having been created a short time previously, had no understanding of the procreation of children: for it was necessary that they should first come to adult age, and then multiply from that time onward), having become disobedient, was made the cause of death, both to herself and to the entire human race; so also did Mary, having a man betrothed [to her], and being nevertheless a virgin, by yielding obedience, become the cause of salvation, both to herself and the whole human race. And on this account does the law term a woman betrothed to a man, the wife of him who had betrothed her, although she was as yet a virgin; thus indicating the back-reference from Mary to Eve, because what is joined together could not otherwise be put asunder than by inversion of the process by which these bonds of union had arisen; s so that the former ties be cancelled by the latter, that the latter may set the former again at liberty Wherefore also Luke, commencing the genealogy with the Lord, carried it back to Adam, indicating that it was He who regenerated them into the Gospel of life, and not they Him. And thus also it was that the knot of Eve’s disobedience was loosed by the obedience of Mary. For what the virgin Eve had bound fast through unbelief, this did the virgin Mary set free through faith.” Irenaeus, Against Heresies, 3:22 (A.D. 180).
“For as Eve was seduced by the word of an angel to flee from God, having rebelled against His Word, so Mary by the word of an angel received the glad tidings that she would bear God by obeying his Word. The former was seduced to disobey God, but the latter was persuaded to obey God, so that the Virgin Mary might become the advocate of the virgin Eve. As the human race was subjected to death through [the act of] a virgin, so it was saved by a virgin.” Irenaeus, Against Heresies, V:19,1 (A.D. 180).
Mary was PRESERVED from all stain of original sin at her creation so that she would be a “New Creation”, the “New Eve”
Lastly,It is NOT fitting that the Mother of God should bring shame to Her divine son.Therefor.God preserved Mary from any personal sin,whether mortal or venial. Through the Grace of God,which was infused into her soul at the moment of her conception,at the very instant He created her soul and united it to her body. He did it in virtue of the merits of Christ.
No descendant of Adam receives the Grace of God except through the merits of Christ.
The Mother of Christ was no exception to this law of Grace.
Like every other human being who is descended of carnal generation from Adam,the blessed virgin Mary need to be redeemed by the blood of Christ,But wheras every other human being needs to be cleansed from the stain of original sin-which has contracted by way of carnal generation from Adam-the Virgin Mary did NOT need to be cleansed from original sin.Through the Grace of Christ she was preserved from the stain of sin.
Mary is closer to Christ than any other human being,because He took flesh from her and dwelt in her womb.The closer one is to Christ,the source of all Grace,the greater degree of Grace one receives from Christ. Mary,therefor,received from Christ a fullness of Grace not granted to any other creature.
Her Immaculate Conception made her worthy to be Mother of God
I’m busy and I don’t have the time to go round and round again on this since it’s been covered at length
If you ever learn to understand Scripture through The Holy Spirit you will begin to understand Scripture in the correct way, stfassisi
I pray you retract what you just wrote because I fear for your soul
Adios!
Wow! The RCC sure has their followers snowed on that whole deal!
Except, Ignatius did NOT say that. He did not use the word "catholic" as a proper noun, it was NOT capitalized, he used it to signify the meaning of the word which meant "universal". There was no Catholic Church in his day - it was the church of Jesus Christ that held to the universal faith. That there was a hierarchy of leadership within the early church is not in contention. That it meant there was a "Pope" headquartered in Rome that had global jurisdiction over all Christendom is easily shown to be false.
You talk about rewriting history, yet you follow a religious system that has been the worst at doing just that! Not only that, they made sure to destroy any documents they could find that were written by genuine Christians ALONG with murdering some of these Christians, sometimes using their writings as kindling to fuel the fires that tortured and killed them. THE church of Jesus Christ? HARDLY! Not all that different than what the Mohammedans did so they could claim to have the Quran that never varied from one copy to the next. Thank God we DO have works that were safely secreted away from the Inquisitors and censors and we can know that God always kept a remnant that did not bow the knee to Baal/false gods and idols.
Just as there has always been, in the history of mankind, those who would pervert the truth today is no different. Yes, there are many groups that claim to be Christian but they are not. How can we know? By comparing what they profess with what the Apostles left us - their teachings written down in Holy Scripture that have endured because God intended them to so that we may know what is the truth. If anyone does not hold to these truths, we know not to condone their beliefs EVEN when it is a religious group that claims it has existed from the start.
To the law and to the testimony: if they speak not according to this word, it is because there is no light in them. (Isaiah 8:20)
Why would he retract? There is no doubt those “apparitions” are demonic. Scripture foretold there would be those in these days.
Which "group" it that you assume I belong to? If you have questions about what I personally believe please ask me. Assuming things isn't very smart.
Your silly little attempt at smearing by assuming is lame and doesn’t merit any more of a response than this.
Tsk, tsk, you failed to read my response before you engaged your mouth/fingers.
Their need to “pigeon hole” so as to categorize into some niche is all pervasive and causes projection. It comes from a lack of scriptural basis for their beliefs. Belonging to the “group” is essential to their existence. Finding one day that salvation is not based on belonging to some group is going to be a long term disappointment.
Funny, there was no DOGMATIC teachings on the sacrifice of the Eucharist until the Fourth Lateran Council in 1215, up til then there were various interpretations of the purpose of the observance of the Lord's Supper among those the Catholic Church calls "church fathers". Some taught the bread and wine were spiritual symbols of Christ's body and blood broken and shed for our sins and that participating in the observance was done in remembrance of Him as He commanded. Eating his body and drinking his blood were indicative of receiving him by faith. Not even in those who believed the elements were physically changed to Christ's body, blood, soul and divinity actually said the change was observable - it was STILL a spiritual recognition of Christ's sacrifice. Only much later did the idea of the Eucharist (thanksgiving) service take on a expiatory significance.
I hold to the SAME beliefs the Apostles expressed by Scripture and participate with the body of Christ (my fellow worshipers) in the Lord's Supper just as Paul explained it in his book to the Corinthians. I also hold to the truth that the cross was the place where PROPITIATION (payment in full) was made for all my sins and I don't go to the bread and grape juice in expectation of having my sins paid for again and again or merely covered (expiation). Christ, Scripture says, made his sacrifice ONCE for sins and then sat down at the right hand of God. He doesn't get up every time a Mass gets said to do it all over again. Once was enough. I might ask you, why do you reject true Christianity which teaches justification by faith apart from works? Why do you prefer an accursed gospel that perverts the truth of what Christ does for his own and make salvation dependent on your merit and make Jesus' sacrifice done in vain?
When I put the term "Protestants" in quotes, it is to refer to the global term many Catholics use to designate anyone who isn't Catholic. Had you read my comment, you might have understood that context. The CORRECT term is Christians - as in all those who know Christ and are members of HIS body. We follow Him - our true shepherd - and the hired hands we reject.
Our lady of Laus said the following.
"admonish women and girls about living lives of scandal, especially those who commit abortion"
According to you satan is against abortion and loves others?
Don't you realize the mistake you're making?
As usual, some are late to the party and only want to re-rehash what has already been hashed and rehashed again on this very thread. I suspect it is to sow discord more than to actually have a discussion about doctrines of Christianity. We know what God thinks about those who sow discord among brothers/sisters.
Although belief in the "holy Church" was included in the earliest form of the Roman Creed, the word Catholic does not seem to have been added to the Creed anywhere in the West until the fourth century.
So, you have actually demonstrated that Syncro was right and there were no Catholics until the fourth century...even New Advent says so.
I’m wondering, do you actually LIKE stirring up discord? Are you aware of what God thinks about those who do? See Proverbs 6:19, if you care about what God thinks.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.