Crusades And Catholicism, Moved from Euros vs Americans

[Raven]

[quote=AndyLucy But the Catholic Church was not started by man, but by the Son of Man. To have faith in Christ is to have faith in the Church he founded. [/quote]

A difference of opinion and interpretation. But at least you know where I stand. If I agreed with the first statement I would have to believe the second. Since I do not believe that the Roman Catholic Church or any other organization representing Christians was founded/started by Christ nor does the bible ever give an admonition to have faith in anything except God and his word I do not agree with you. Again simple a difference of opinion and interpretation (ad this to the long list of agree to disagree )

[quote=AndyLucy Did Christ found the Baptist church? No. The Methodist church? No. The Mormon church? No. Only the Catholic Church can trace its lineage, through a 2000 year unbroken line of succession, to Peter, to whom the Keys of Heaven were given. [/quote]

See above - as I said before I am neither a Protestant nor a Catholic but simply a follower of Christ

QUOTE (Raven @ Mar 9 2004, 10:39 AM)

So this is why I think this argument has no weight
1.) God allowing an organization to exist and claim to be his instrument is no evidence that it is. God in the Bible says that false prophets will come and he will allow them to exist.



[quote=AndyLucy One could make the same argument about the 39,000+ Protestant denominations, ie, that they are all false prophets, especially as they tend to disagree among themselves on significant theological matters. The problem is that Christ didn't start those churches. [/quote]

exactly my point and a reason that I would never use time on the pew as an argument. It simply carries no weight. Plus they do not claim Apostolic Succesion and as I said before I do not give those groups more weight or creedence because of their organization or Protesting

QUOTE (Raven @ Mar 9 2004, 10:39 AM)
2.) I dispute the fact that no Christians existed outside of the Catholic Church until the Catholic Church decided that they did.



[quote=AndyLucy The Church treats this as a matter of definition. Today, the more ecumenical Church does recognize those previously listed as heretics, etc, as seperated brethren. The Church of the period did not. The Church of the period saw them as flouting the authority of the Church, established by Christ, thereby denying Christ's authority. It is a matter of temporality and definition. [/quote]

Exactly my point - looks like the Roman Catholic Church has a bit of desintion with in it's ranks just like the Protestants However since I do not agree that the Roman Catholic Church has the authority to decide or define who is a Christian I stand by my statement. This is not a matter for men to decide but God alone. (ad it to the list )

[quote=AndyLucy I believe (unless I am mistaken Please correct me if I am wrong!) that you mark the beginning of the Catholic Church as being after the Edict of Milan in 313. Is that correct? This being the case wouldn't one expect to find Catholic practices and beliefs, such as veneration of the saints, the Real Presence in the Eucharist, a sacrificing priesthood or prayers for the dead to have arisen *after* that point? When one examines the writings of the early Church Fathers, such as Iraneus, Tertullian and Ignatius of Antioch all mention these practices and beliefs as existing prior to the 4th century. Additionally, the office of the Papacy is bestowed on the man elected the Bishop of Rome. Peter was the first Bishop of Rome. (and yes, he was actually in Rome- for a definitive examination of the evidence (forensic, historical, anthropological and archaeological), see Jonn Walsh's The Bones of Saint Peter) The succession is unbroken (stretched at some points, but unbroken, nonetheless). Of course, this all rests on whether one believes that Christ invested Peter with the Keys. Hmmmm. [/quote]

That is the date and I do agree that most of what we disagree on rests on Peter getting the keys from Christ. However the practices that you mention could have a couple of other causes than the pre existence of Roman Catholocism and we could definitely get into some debate about that Who is to say that the Roman Catholics did not pick up existing practices and run with them. Non the less this sort of evidence is circumstancial at best and there fore not conclusive.

I am glad that you have read Foxes book and have not dismissed it out of hand. It strengthens your credability with me for what it is worth I try not to have strong opinions myself on things that I know nothing about. And yes I do agree that motivation and context should always be taken into consideration with any historical work. You should know you have the sheep skin in History I have only a Technology degree

Peace

Mikel

[Raven]

BTW it is pleasant to be able to have a civil discussion with one who I am obviously in such strong disagreement with. Thank you for your calm temperment!!

Peace

Mikel

[andylucy]

What I really enjoy is being able to engage in a discussion of a religious/spiritual nature and not have it degenerate into a rancorous argument. That is a somewhat different experience from what I am used to.

I accept the fact that even many American "Catholics" don't agree with what I believe in. That doesn't matter to me. What does matter is for people to take my opinions seriously, and not dismiss them as being just "superstition" or "Romish mind control." You, while disagreeing with me, have always shown the utmost respect for my opinions. For that, Mikel, I thank you, sir.

Just my tuppence.

Andy

[Raven]