Charlie Kirk debates regarding the Pope & other

[Cathode]

Charlie Kirk is a martyr and already we can see the effect of a martyrs blood in conversions out there.

This is the powerful effect of the martyrs blood in the Early Church revisited in modern times.
Many more martyrs will come and many more conversions will follow.
Before the great calamity many millions will come into the Church.

 

[John of Japan]

“Number the bishops from the See of Peter itself. And in that order of Fathers see who has succeeded whom. That is the rock against which the gates of hell do not prevail” Augustine, Psalm against the Party of Donatus, 18 (A.D. 393).

“I am held in the communion of the Catholic Church by…and by the succession of bishops from the very seat of Peter, to whom the Lord, after His resurrection commended His sheep to be fed up to the present episcopate.” Augustine, Against the Letter of Mani, 5 (A.D. 395).

“Carthage was also near the countries over the sea, and distinguished by illustrious renown, so that it had a bishop of more than ordinary influence, who could afford to disregard a number of conspiring enemies because he saw himself joined by letters of communion to the Roman Church, in which the supremacy of an apostolic chair has always flourished.” Augustine, To Glorius et.al, Epistle 43:7 (A.D. 397).

“The chair of the Roman Church, in which Peter sat, and in which Anastasius sits today.” Augustine, Against the Letters of Petillian, 2:51 (A.D. 402).

“I think it my duty to consult the chair of Peter, and to turn to a church whose faith has been praised by Paul…The fruitful soil of Rome, when it receives the pure seed of the Lord, bears fruit an hundredfold…My words are spoken to the successor of the fisherman, to the disciple of the cross. As I follow no leader save Christ, so I communicate with none but your blessedness, that is with the chair of Peter. For this, I know, is the rock on which the church is built! This is the house where alone the paschal lamb can be rightly eaten. This is the ark of Noah, and he who is not found in it shall perish when the flood prevails.” Jerome, To Pope Damasus, Epistle 15:1-2 (A.D. 375).




"Furthermore, as to mentioning the names of the dead, how is there anything very useful in that? What is more timely or more excellent than that those who are still here should believe that the departed do live, and that they have not retreated into nothingness, but that they exist and are alive with the Master? And so that this most august proclamation might be told in full, how do they have hope, who are praying for the brethren as if they were but sojourning in a foreign land? Useful too is the prayer fashioned on their behalf, even if it does not force back the whole of guilty charges laid to them." Epiphanius 377 Ad Against Heresies.

"A Christian people celebrates together in religious solemnity the memorials of the martyrs, both to encourage their being imitated and so that it can share in their merits and be aided by their prayers. But it is done in such a way that our altars are not set up to any one of the martyrs,- although in their memory,- but to God Himself, the God of those martyrs...That worship, which the Greeks call Latria and for which there is in Latin no single term, and which is expressive of the subjection owed to Divinity alone, we neither accord nor teach that it should be accorded to any save to the one God." Augustine 400 Ad.

"You say in your book that while we live we are able to pray for each other, but afterwards when we have died, the prayer of no person for another can be heard; and this is especially clear since the martyrs, though they cry vengeance for their own blood, have never been able to obtain their request. But if the Apostles and martyrs while still in the body can pray for others, at a time when they ought still be solicitous about themselves, how much more will they do so after their crowns, victories, and triumphs." Jerome 406 Ad

“For if on the foundation of Christ you have built not only gold and silver and precious stones (1 Cor.,3); but also wood and hay and stubble, what do you expect when the soul shall be separated from the body? Would you enter into heaven with your wood and hay and stubble and thus defile the kingdom of God; or on account of these hindrances would you remain without and receive no reward for your gold and silver and precious stones; neither is this just. It remains then that you be committed to the fire which will burn the light materials; for our God to those who can comprehend heavenly things is called a cleansing fire. But this fire consumes not the creature, but what the creature has himself built, wood, and hay and stubble. It is manifest that the fire destroys the wood of our transgressions and then returns to us the reward of our great works.” Origen, Homilies on Jeremias, PG 13:445, 448 ( A.D. 244).

“Other husbands scatter on the graves of their wives violets, roses, lilies, and purple flowers; and assuage the grief of their hearts by fulfilling this tender duty. Our dear Pammachius also waters the holy ashes and the revered bones of Paulina, but it is with the balm of almsgiving.” Jerome, To Pammachius, Epistle 66:5 (A.D. 397).

“Weep for the unbelievers; weep for those who differ in nowise from them, those who depart hence without the illumination, without the seal! They indeed deserve our wailing, they deserve our groans; they are outside the Palace, with the culprits, with the condemned: for, “Verily I say unto you, Except a man be born of water and the Spirit, he shall not enter into the kingdom of Heaven.” Mourn for those who have died in wealth, and did not from their wealth think of any solace for their soul, who had power to wash away their sins and would not. Let us all weep for these in private and in public, but with propriety, with gravity, not so as to make exhibitions of ourselves; let us weep for these, not one day, or two, but all our life. Such tears spring not from senseless passion, but from true affection. The other sort are of senseless passion. For this cause they are quickly quenched, whereas if they spring from the fear of God, they always abide with us. Let us weep for these; let us assist them according to our power; let us think of some assistance for them, small though it be, yet still let us assist them. How and in what way? By praying and entreating others to make prayers for them, by continually giving to the poor on their behalf.” John Chrysostom, Homilies on Phillipians, 3 (ante A.D. 404).

“If the baptized person fulfills the obligations demanded of a Christian, he does well. If he does not–provided he keeps the faith, without which he would perish forever–no matter in what sin or impurity remains, he will be saved, as it were, by fire; as one who has built on the foundation, which is Christ, not gold, silver, and precious stones, but wood, hay straw, that is, not just and chasted works but wicked and unchaste works.” Augustine, Faith and Works, 1:1 (A.D. 413).

“Now on what ground does this person pray that he may not be ‘rebuked in indignation, nor chastened in hot displeasure”? He speaks as if he would say unto God, ‘Since the things which I already suffer are many in number, I pray Thee let them suffice;’ and he begins to enumerate them, by way of satisfying God; offering what he suffers now, that he may not have to suffer worse evils hereafter.” Augustine, Exposition of the Psalms, 38(37):3 (A.D. 418).

“And it is not impossible that something of the same kind may take place even after this life. It is a matter that may be inquired into, and either ascertained or left doubtful, whether some believers shall pass through a kind of purgatorial fire, and in proportion as they have loved with more or less devotion the goods that perish, be less or more quickly delivered from it. This cannot, however, be the case of any of those of whom it is said, that they ‘shall not inherit the kingdom of God,’ unless after suitable repentance their sins be forgiven them. When I say ‘suitable,’ I mean that they are not to be unfruitful in almsgiving; for Holy Scripture lays so much stress on this virtue, that our Lord tells us beforehand, that He will ascribe no merit to those on His right hand but that they abound in it, and no defect to those on His left hand but their want of it, when He shall say to the former, “Come, ye blessed of my Father, inherit the kingdom,” and to the latter, ‘Depart from me, ye cursed, into everlasting fire.'” Augustine, Enchiridion, 69 (A.D. 421).

“During the time, moreover, which intervenes between a man’s death and the final resurrection, the soul dwells in a hidden retreat, where it enjoys rest or suffers affliction just in proportion to the merit it has earned by the life which it led on earth.” Augustine, Enchiridion, 1099 (A.D. 421).

I see that you are the kind of debater that seeks to overwhelm the opponent with tons of irrelevance. None of these quotes disprove my thesis about the origin of the Catholic religion.

Purgatory, almsgiving, veneration of saints, intercession for and by the departed saints all before Pope Gregory.

You missed my point, which was not that these practices did not exist before Gregory, but that he codified them as rules for the churches over which he claimed domination.

I'll do my best to answer your other posts when I can, but they are full of irrelevance and I'm a busy man (as I trust you are).

 

[Cathode]

I see that you are the kind of debater that seeks to overwhelm the opponent with tons of irrelevance. None of these quotes disprove my thesis about the origin of the Catholic religion.

What have shown you is not even a morsel, I have been studying patristics for 40 years. I apologise if it seems I am trying to overwhelm you with information, but these quotes go directly to answering your objections.

I’m willing to go line by line, quote by quote, on any particular Father. Whatever helps.

You missed my point, which was not that these practices did not exist before Gregory, but that he codified them as rules for the churches over which he claimed domination.

If you look at the dates of the Early Fathers and Early scholars I quoted, you will see settled Catholic doctrines and practices long before Pope Gregory.

I'll do my best to answer your other posts when I can, but they are full of irrelevance and I'm a busy man (as I trust you are).

Thanks mate, I really appreciate it. If you could convince me of OSAS I would be forever in your debt, it would make my life and Faith so much easier and unchallenging.

 

[John of Japan]

Got to stop you there John. All the Church Fathers writings from the first century onwards only come down to us from the lineage in the Catholic Church, which means they were all Catholic. One, Catholic, Apostolic Church.

This is the philosophical error called begging the question. You state something here with no actual proof, then sit back and think you've won.

But actually, your begging the question fallacy is based on a linguistic fallacy called the etymological fallacy, in which a word is assumed to carry the same meaning throughout its usage, based on the origin of the word. In this case, the English word "catholic" comes from the Greek word καθολικός, but they don't mean the same thing just because they sound the same. They come from very different periods of history. For example, the Greek word is from classical Greek, and never appears in the Greek NT (though a cognate form occurs once). The classical meaning is "general, universal" (Liddell-Scott lexicon). So in 1st century Greek and for 100s of years after that, this is what it meant. It did not mean "The Roman Catholic Church" in those years. Thus the church fathers you quote use the word in its classical sense, meaning the totality of churches, not an organized hierarchy. My grandfather wrote a pamphlet about this against denominationalism, Churches and the Church.

These same Catholic sources are the ones that preserved the scriptures from the Apostles and it was these Catholics that assembled the first Canon of Apostolic writings and called it the Bible.
There were 53 books claiming to be Gospels and countless others claimed to be from Apostolic sources, but Catholic Tradition preserved only the true writings handed down.

Professor Peter Flint RIP, very smart Baptist translator of the Dead Sea Scrolls, brilliant lecturer, you need watch his lectures, said. “ Without the Catholic Church, we would have no Bible “.

The “ Bible “ is entirely Catholic.

No, the Bible is entirely God's Word. To claim it as entirely Catholic is to rob God of His glory.

If Protestants or Baptist’s existed in the Early Church and had Sproulinius disciple of John, Fullerinas of Antioch, Daggeaus of Jerusalem. All handing down and preserving the scriptures and assembling the first Bible, I would be Protestant or Baptist. But the Bible didn’t come to us from Protestantism or Baptist’s.

Again, there were not Baptists, Protestants or Catholics in the early centuries. There were no denominations.

The thing that keeps me Catholic is the fact that the Bible itself is entirely Catholic in origin by the Grace of God. Instead Catholics like Ignatius, Clement, Irenaeus, Jerome, Augustine are the Apostolic lineage.
The human founded traditions of Protestantism or Baptist’s didn’t exist and had nothing to do with the preservation of the scriptures or canonisation of the Bible. This was all done by Catholics.

Again, give glory to God, not Catholicism. He is the one who preserved the Word. He used all sorts of men, and I will admit that there were Catholics who copied mss. But many others preserved the Word. Ulphilas was the first to translate the Bible into Gothic (early German), but he was not a Catholic. Patrick took the Gospel to Ireland and preserved it there, but he was not a Catholic if you look at the historical evidence (even though Catholics like to claim him).

The other thing that confirms it is the incredible corruption and stupidity of people in the Catholic Church over 2000 years, and it still stands when nothing else that age exists. Whole nations, governments and empires, every institution of men have risen and fallen many times over, yet the Catholic Church remains. This can only be explained by God’s Grace and the promise of Christ that the gates of Hell would not prevail against His Church.

You already said this. Since you reject my Buddhism example (which I think is valid), try Islam. It's been around for many centuries, but is very obviously not of God. And what you call Catholicism had no hierarchy (you used the word "government") for centuries. When Constantine called the council of Nicea in 313, each pastor ("bishop" but not Catholic "bishop; pastor of a single church, usually) was free to attend or not. No one forced anything. There was no "government" rule over the church.

 

[John of Japan]

What have shown you is not even a morsel, I have been studying patristics for 40 years. I apologise if it seems I am trying to overwhelm you with information, but these quotes go directly to answering your objections.

And I've been teaching church history for 11 years. Neither of our claims make us correct. But again, most of your quotes are irrelevant to my points.

Thanks mate, I really appreciate it. If you could convince me of OSAS I would be forever in your debt, it would make my life and Faith so much easier and unchallenging.

Why in the world would I try to convince you of OSAS? We're talking about Charlie Kirk and Catholicism here. OSAS is one of the most argued doctrines in all of Scripture. I convinced a Methodist couple of it many years ago, but generally it's a waste of time to debate it with a Catholic. It's not a doctrine I argue about.

 

[Cathode]

This is the philosophical error called begging the question. You state something here with no actual proof, then sit back and think you've won.

But actually, your begging the question fallacy is based on a linguistic fallacy called the etymological fallacy, in which a word is assumed to carry the same meaning throughout its usage, based on the origin of the word. In this case, the English word "catholic" comes from the Greek word καθολικός, but they don't mean the same thing just because they sound the same. They come from very different periods of history. For example, the Greek word is from classical Greek, and never appears in the Greek NT (though a cognate form occurs once). The classical meaning is "general, universal" (Liddell-Scott lexicon). So in 1st century Greek and for 100s of years after that, this is what it meant. It did not mean "The Roman Catholic Church" in those years. Thus the church fathers you quote use the word in its classical sense, meaning the totality of churches, not an organized hierarchy. My grandfather wrote a pamphlet about this against denominationalism, Churches and the Church.

“You think that you make a very acute remark when you affirm the name Catholic to mean universal, not in respect to the communion as embracing the whole world, but in respect to the observance of all Divine precepts and of all the sacraments, as if we (even accepting the position that the Church is called Catholic because it honestly holds the whole truth, of which fragments here and there are found in some heresies) rested upon the testimony of this word’s signification, and not upon the promises of God, and so many indisputable testimonies of the truth itself, our demonstration of the existence of the Church of God in all nations.” Augustine, To Vincent the Rogatist, 93:7,23 (A.D. 403).

Catholics have heard this line before John, a long time before, you are just the latest in long, long line of hopefuls.

You are committing to a fallacy of your own John, assuming that “Catholic” simply means some nebulous disjointed thing and not a real institution with a structure, doctrine and hierarchy.

“And in one Holy Catholic Church;’ that thou mayest avoid their wretched meetings, and ever abide with the Holy Church Catholic in which thou wast regenerated. And if ever thou art sojourning in cities, inquire not simply where the Lord’s House is (for the other sects of the profane also attempt to call their own dens houses of the Lord), nor merely where the Church is, but where is the Catholic Church. For this is the peculiar name of this Holy Church, the mother of us all, which is the spouse of our Lord Jesus Christ, the Only-begotten Son of God.” Cyril of Jerusalem, Catechetical Lectures, 18:23,26 (A.D. 350).

“For in the Catholic Church, not to speak of the purest wisdom, to the knowledge of which a few spiritual, men attain in this life…–not to speak of this wisdom, which you do not believe to be in the Catholic Church, there are many other things which most justly keep me in her bosom. The consent of peoples and nations…so does her authority…the succession of priests…[a]nd so, lastly, does the name itself of Catholic, which, not without reason, amid so many heresies, the Church has thus retained; so that, though all heretics wish to be called Catholics, yet when a stranger asks where the Catholic Church meets, no heretic will venture to point to his own chapel or house. Such then in number and importance are the precious ties belonging to the Christian name which keep a believer in the Catholic Church” Augustine, Against the Epistle of Manichaeus, 4:5,5:6 (A.D 397)

The Fathers use the term Catholic Church to mean bishops and Churches, and councils united to the Chair of Peter in Rome.

No, the Bible is entirely God's Word. To claim it as entirely Catholic is to rob God of His glory.

How do you know that the Bible is God’s Word?

Again, there were not Baptists, Protestants or Catholics in the early centuries.

There were plenty of Catholics John holding Catholic beliefs I quoted many of them for you, there were no Baptist’s or Protestants, you are right about that.

There were no denominations.

True. There was only the Catholic Church under the Chair of Peter in Rome presiding over all the churches and bishops everywhere.

Again, give glory to God, not Catholicism. He is the one who preserved the Word. He used all sorts of men, and I will admit that there were Catholics who copied mss. But many others preserved the Word.

No, there was only Catholics, and Catholic Councils under the Chair of Peter.

Ulphilas was the first to translate the Bible into Gothic (early German), but he was not a Catholic. Patrick took the Gospel to Ireland and preserved it there, but he was not a Catholic if you look at the historical evidence (even though Catholics like to claim him).

Ulphilas and Patrick were bishops at a time when only the Catholic Church existed. You keep ignoring all the quotes of the Fathers talking about the Catholic Church as an institution under the Chair of Peter in Rome.

You make these claims and don’t quote the Fathers or any contemporaneous sources at all supporting your claims. Notice that.

You already said this. Since you reject my Buddhism example (which I think is valid), try Islam. It's been around for many centuries, but is very obviously not of God. And what you call Catholicism had no hierarchy (you used the word "government") for centuries. When Constantine called the council of Nicea in 313, each pastor ("bishop" but not Catholic "bishop; pastor of a single church, usually) was free to attend or not. No one forced anything. There was no "government" rule over the church.

Garbage. And again you make assertions without quoting any Church history or Early Church Father.

“There was no "government" rule over the church.”

No, that’s the brainwashing speaking. Sure everyone was just in charge of his own Baptist style church independently preaching his interpretation of a bible that didn’t exist yet, like an all American Baptist pastor. Church history doesn’t fit to your lenses man.
The Bible didn’t exist in those times. Catholics are the only pre Bible Christians.

You ignore Bishop Irenaeus in 180 ad saying every Church must by necessity agree with the Roman Church founded by Peter and Paul.

You ignore Bishop Cyprian of Carthage in 250 ad talking about the Chair of Peter in Rome.

And before Pope Gregory you ignore these and many others.

“We exhort you, honourable brother, to submit yourself in all things to what has been written by the blessed Bishop of Rome, because St. Peter, who lives and presides in his see, gives the true faith to those who seek it. For our part, for the sake of peace and the good of the faith, we cannot judge questions of doctrine without the consent of the Bishop of Rome.” Peter Chrysologus, Epistle 25 of Leo from Peter (A.D. 449).

“If Paul, the herald of the truth, the trumpet of the Holy Ghost, hastened to the great Peter in order that he might carry from him the desired solution of difficulties to those at Antioch who were in doubt about living in conformity with the law, much more do we, men insignificant and small, hasten to your apostolic see in order to receive from you a cure for the wounds of the churches. For every reason it is fitting for you to hold the first place, inasmuch as your see is adorned with many privileges.” Theodoret of Cyrus, To Pope Leo, Epistle 113 (A.D. 449).

“[T]he Lord wished to be indeed the concern of all the Apostles: and from him as from the Head wishes His gifts to flow to all the body: so that any one who dares to secede from Peter’s solid rock may understand that he has no part or lot in the divine mystery.” Pope Leo the Great, To Bishops of Vienne, Epistle 10 (A.D. 450).

 

[Cathode]

And I've been teaching church history for 11 years. Neither of our claims make us correct. But again, most of your quotes are irrelevant to my points.

The difference between your claims on Church history and my claims on Church history is I have provided contemporary quotes from church History and you haven’t quoted anything, not a jot. You have only made assertions which the Church Fathers have totally repudiated.
You have had formal training in Church history, all I’ve had is pathological obsession.

Why in the world would I try to convince you of OSAS?

Why not John? If you think it’s the truth, let it shine before men.

We're talking about Charlie Kirk and Catholicism here. OSAS is one of the most argued doctrines in all of Scripture. I convinced a Methodist couple of it many years ago, but generally it's a waste of time to debate it with a Catholic.

No it’s not, I’m busting to be convinced John, convince me.

It's not a doctrine I argue about.

If it’s the truth, it’s worth arguing about.

 

[37818]

Water Baptism being Regenerational . . . .

Nope. Never has been.

 

[Cathode]

Nope. Never has been.

It always has been. Regenerational Water Baptism is one of those universal Christian doctrines, it was believed universally for the first 1500 years, same with the Eucharist being the Body and Blood of Christ.

Everywhere you look in Church history for the first 1500, it’s always the same, being born again of water and Spirit is Regeneration by water Baptism.

The different gospel of believers Baptism was first preached by Ulrich Zwingli in the 1500s. If Zwingli is your Apostle, go right ahead. It’s a false human tradition based on his false interpretation of scripture.

 

[37818]

It always has been. Regenerational Water Baptism is one of those universal Christian doctrines, it was believed universally for the first 1500 years, same with the Eucharist being the Body and Blood of Christ.

I am persuaded those are two false teachings.
And nowhere are taught in the 27 books of New Testament.