This is not a debate about the canon.
The text clearly states when Pius held the Chair at Rome. That is evidence that by 140 AD there was a single Bishop in Rome.
And history also records a sppsd successor employing a murderous mob in seeking to obtain he office, and both records testifies to the contrast between what the Holy Spirit records in the plenary inspired Scripture versus the uninspired words of traditions.
And you can’t show anything but argue from a Protestant polemical theoretical position 2,000 years later.
That is absurd, as what i can show is how the Holy Spirit is faithful to record important events, thus the nature of Peter's leadership, and apostolic credentials, and the death of James but no successor, or manifest preparation for one in the light of Peter's impending departure, while describing the apostles as being part of the foundation which the church is built upon, and clearly instructing and recording the ordination of elders, not priests. Among other contrasts.
You can cite Francis Sullivan all you want, again,
Oh yes, bias assertion. No evidence can be accepted from conservative evangelicals that impugns Rome as they are driven by anti-Catholic bigotry, while Catholic scholarship that does the same must be dismissed or marginalized as they are liberal. I suppose even objecting to the title “Co-redemptrix” for Mary could be attacked.
They may be liberal and possible bias is to be considered, as is true of committed papists, but their arguments should be judged by their merits. Of course, Sullivan is not alone, as Paul Johnson and Klaus Schatz, among others must also be rejected or marginalized.
were Apostles in place, they were in charge, as they died out, they put men in place to carry on the Apostolic Faith
Exactly, not Romish popes.
Saint Polycarp attest to the 3 tiered ministry of Bishop, Priest/Presbyter [a discussion I have already had ad nausem with you before] and Deacon.
And it remains that this is not what Scripture teaches, with the Spirit not once titling "presbuteros" "hiereus," the exclusive word for "priest," but which was a later development due to imposed functional equivalence, and is defended by reliance upon etymological fallacy.
But while we can debate Scripture and history on and one, yet for a committed RC, this cannot be the basis for assurance of Truth, as it relies upon fallible human reasoning. For as i have said, the RC argument is that an assuredly (if conditionally) infallible magisterium is essential for determination and assurance of Truth.
And that being the historical instruments and stewards of Divine revelation (oral and written) means that Rome is that assuredly infallible magisterium. Thus those who dissent from the latter are in rebellion to God.
As long as this falsehood is your premise then further exchange becomes increasingly a problem.
daniel1212:
All of your views of what scripture say are just that, your views. It is not absurd. The Apostles put men to take over, the NT is very silent about what those men did and what were there roles. Clearly Titus and Timothy were leaders of Churches there acting as overseers. So Bishops are in place during the transition from Apostles to the next generation. All of the Patristic evidence indicates how this transition was implemented and it was Bishops, Priests and Deacons.
You can only show what you think scripture teaches, I appeal to the early Fathers who canonized the scriptures and defended them against Gnostic heresies don’t interpret them the way you do. For example,, your writing “For I have written” I could give a hoot what you think. Who are you, another ex-Catholic turned protestant internet theologian????? Really?? Can you honestly say that the NT gave precise instructions as the ministry and function of Bishop, Presbyter and Deacon. It is very unclear and an appeal alone to Scripture can’t answer it, all you have is a protestant view that developed 1,600 years ex post the NT period. Saint Clement of Rome’s Letter, and he was a pupil of Saint Peter and there is evidence that we is the Clement that Saint Paul mentions clearly speaks of the fact that the Apostles worried that men would argue over who should be Bishop, etc, and thus they appointed men to lead the Churches. Saint Ignatius of Antioch’s Letters are even clearer and he was closely connected to the Apostle John, having been Saint Polycarp’s pupil who new The Apostle John.
Are you saying that all these men got it wrong????? and you got it right?