Confession for Baptist’s and Protestants in general

[Ben1445]

Paul was not finding blame in Peters teaching, but his behaviour. Which has no bearing on Peters infallible guidance on teaching.



If you asked for something reasonable, there is plenty of surviving historical evidence for what I am telling you.
You set your standard of evidence impossibly high, so that you can safely ignore the actual evidence. Ignoring this still leaves you ignorant.

“Since, however, it would be very tedious, in such a volume as this, to reckon up the successions of all the Churches, we do put to confusion all those who, in whatever manner, whether by an evil self-pleasing, by vainglory, or by blindness and perverse opinion, assemble in unauthorized meetings; [we do this, I say,] by indicating that tradition derived from the apostles, of the very great, the very ancient, and universally known Church founded and organized at Rome by the two most glorious apostles, Peter and Paul; as also [by pointing out] the faith preached to men, which comes down to our time by means of the successions of the bishops. For it is a matter of necessity that every Church should agree with this Church, on account of its pre- eminent authority, that is, the faithful everywhere, inasmuch as the apostolical tradition has been preserved continuously by those [faithful men] who exist everywhere.” Irenaeus, Against Heresies, 3:3:2 (A.D. 180).

“And he says to him again after the resurrection, ‘Feed my sheep.’ It is on him that he builds the Church, and to him that he entrusts the sheep to feed. And although he assigns a like power to all the apostles, yet he founded a single Chair, thus establishing by his own authority the source and hallmark of the (Church’s) oneness. No doubt the others were all that Peter was, but a primacy is given to Peter, and it is (thus) made clear that there is but one flock which is to be fed by all the apostles in common accord. If a man does not hold fast to this oneness of Peter, does he imagine that he still holds the faith? If he deserts the Chair of Peter upon whom the Church was built, has he still confidence that he is in the Church? This unity firmly should we hold and maintain, especially we bishops, presiding in the Church, in order that we may approve the episcopate itself to be the one and undivided.” Cyprian, The Unity of the Church, 4-5 (A.D. 251-256).

All churches is also an impossibility to prove and reasonably should not be claimed.

Can you show me Scripture that says all churches have to agree with the Catholic Church. Irenaeus is not an authority that I recognize and follow. I am not saying erase his work. But his words are not God’s words. They are his own.

 

[Ben1445]

“Although free church groups in ancient and medieval times sometimes promoted doctrines and practices agreeable to modern Baptists, when judged by standards now acknowledged as baptistic, not one of them merits recognition as a Baptist church.”

There it is.

The so called “free church groups” were heretical groups that died out, having no connection with the Apostolic lineage or the Church at large.

These are the churches that Patrick and Pallidius found and was pleased to see. But they were independent.
I don’t care either if he, or the churches that he found were Catholic or Baptist.
The attachment is from the Annals of Ulster.

 

[Ben1445]

Rand Corporation had a term called the “ Firehose of falsehood “, to describe the Soviet Communist propaganda technique.
They would flood falsehoods in the media to drown out the truth.

The first attempt to drown out the Truth in Western Civilisation was the Protestant Revolution of October 1517, with Luther’s mobilisation of the peasants, who he later betrayed.
The second attempt came 400 years later to the month, in October 1917 with the Communist revolution, again mobilising the peasants.

In each case we see massive use of false propaganda, the Fire hosing of falsehoods, particularly against the Catholic Church.

This was well predicted in Revelation however, the tools of darkness are the same.

“Then from his mouth the serpent spewed water like a river, to overtake the woman and sweep her away with the torrent. 16 But the earth helped the woman by opening its mouth and swallowing the river that the dragon had spewed out of his mouth.” Revelation 12

Both Protestantism and Communism had the same catch cry of equality and ardent hatred of heirachy and Authority. Both promised the common man equal status and liberation, both failed in their promises.

Constantine used the “firehose of falsehood” before Luther “used it.”

The woman in the text you are quoting is Israel and not the Catholic Church.

 

[Cathode]

All churches is also an impossibility to prove and reasonably should not be claimed.

All the ancient Churches hold to the same Eucharistic belief in the Real Presence , Catholic, Orthodox and Coptic.
These all have the same continuous doctrine from ancient times.

Can you show me Scripture that says all churches have to agree with the Catholic Church. Irenaeus is not an authority that I recognize and follow. I am not saying erase his work. But his words are not God’s words. They are his own.

There is only one Church, though geographically there are many Churches with Bishops at the head of them. They all answered to the Bishop of Rome, the Chair of Peter.

Irenaeus was a Bishop, and head of his Church in Lyon France, and he clearly points to Rome and it’s succession of Bishops as having pre-eminent Authority over all Churches.

 

[Ben1445]

All the ancient Churches hold to the same Eucharistic belief in the Real Presence , Catholic, Orthodox and Coptic.
These all have the same continuous doctrine from ancient times.



There is only one Church, though geographically there are many Churches with Bishops at the head of them. They all answered to the Bishop of Rome, the Chair of Peter.

Irenaeus was a Bishop, and head of his Church in Lyon France, and he clearly points to Rome and it’s succession of Bishops as having pre-eminent Authority over all Churches.

So you just ignore the historical evidence contradicting your claims ?

 

[Cathode]

These are the churches that Patrick and Pallidius found and was pleased to see. But they were independent.
I don’t care either if he, or the churches that he found were Catholic or Baptist.
The attachment is from the Annals of Ulster.

Palladius was sent by Pope Celestine I, before Patrick was in Ireland on mission. The independence Patrick had was from the British bishops oversight, but all bishops answered to Rome.

 

[Ben1445]

Palladius was sent by Pope Celestine I, before Patrick was in Ireland on mission. The independence Patrick had was from the British bishops oversight, but all bishops answered to Rome.

And the churches that were found that were “acephalous” were what may be defined as lacking a clear leader. That means they didn’t report to the bishops. But they aren’t recorded as pagan, only that the recorder of the history recognized them as independent of your bishops.

 

[Cathode]

So you just ignore the historical evidence contradicting your claims ?

No, you are ignoring that the Eucharist is universal Christian belief for the first 1500 years.
It is the easiest thing for you to verify for yourself, if the truth matters to you.

If the words of Christ Himself doesn’t convince you, all the Church Fathers and Apostolic Fathers, then you would not be convinced if someone was raised from the dead in front of you.

The fact is you don’t want to be convinced, you won’t concede one point of history no matter what is presented to you.

You have decided not to believe anything presented.

 

[Cathode]

And the churches that were found that were “acephalous” were what may be defined as lacking a clear leader. That means they didn’t report to the bishops. But they aren’t recorded as pagan, only that the recorder of the history recognized them as independent of your bishops.

If you are referring to schismatic churches of Eastern Orthodoxy. But remember there was a schism if you recall.
Even so, they believe in the real presence in the Eucharist, even in schism.

 

[Ben1445]

If you are referring to schismatic churches of Eastern Orthodoxy. But remember there was a schism if you recall.
Even so, they believe in the real presence in the Eucharist, even in schism.

I’m referring to the independent churches that had no bishops that are referred to in the Annuls of Ulster. Because you don’t want to see them, you refuse to acknowledge them.
Because they had no leadership reporting to bishops, neither of us know what they believed and it is a baseless claim to say that you do.
But you clearly won’t be swayed by the historical evidence of independent churches, neither east nor west, in the records of history.

 

[Ben1445]

And, here you are on the 'Other Christian Denominations' forum making ridiculous claims about whether or not Eastern Catholic Churches and Western Catholic Churches are actually Catholic. We know they're Catholic because they confessed to be AND until Martin Luther they had a common confession of faith that was Catholic. Oh, and you won't find any intellectually honest historians that would claim they weren't Catholic.

You probably have entrenched yourself in Carroll's book 'Trail of Blood' which has been completely debunked.
Thankfully intellectually honest Baptists, such as James McGoldrick who was once himself a believer in Baptist successionism are conceding that this “trail of blood” view is, frankly, bogus. McGoldrick writes:

I’m not trailing anyone.
I was just saying that your catholic history is as much bunk as you claim the Baptist history.
Your church is not as universal as it claims to be, past or present.

 

[Cathode]

These are the churches that Patrick and Pallidius found and was pleased to see. But they were independent.
I don’t care either if he, or the churches that he found were Catholic or Baptist.
The attachment is from the Annals of Ulster.

It says “acephalous christians” not acephalous Bishops. It means that there was a Christian community there without a bishop.
This has been the case many times in history where Christians have settled in places where no ecclesial oversight exists.
That’s all that means.

 

[Walter]

I’m not trailing anyone.
I was just saying that your catholic history is as much bunk as you claim the Baptist history.
Your church is not as universal as it claims to be, past or present.

Ok, Ben. I'm all ears. I have been a member of this board as a Catholic for close to fifteen years and one of the reasons I participate here is that I have learned a great deal over those years. Remember, I came here as a Baptist originally and after long debates with Catholics I became convinced that the Catholic Church was and is the Church established by Christ.

Present your case that the Catholic Church is not 'as universal as it claims to be, past or present'. Perhaps you would like to start another thread as this one has sidetracked somewhat from the OP and is also coming upon the point where the moderators close them. Sixteen pages is usually the max.

Btw, I am glad you are a new participant on the board. You post respectfully and thoughtfully. We see rabid anti-Catholics appear on some threads and the threads sometimes become toxic and certainly not edifying in any way.

 

[Cathode]

I’m referring to the independent churches that had no bishops that are referred to in the Annuls of Ulster. Because you don’t want to see them, you refuse to acknowledge them.
Because they had no leadership reporting to bishops, neither of us know what they believed and it is a baseless claim to say that you do.
But you clearly won’t be swayed by the historical evidence of independent churches, neither east nor west, in the records of history.

“Acephalous Christians” means that there were christians in Ireland before Palladius the first Bishop.
This doesn’t mean that a Church existed there.

Without a Bishop there is no Church in a place. This is a consistent rule of the Church, no Bishop no Church.

Everything centred around the Bishop as the ecclesiastical head.

Once a bishopric is established in a place, then the “acephalous Christians” whoever they might be, answer to him.

 

[Cathode]

“See that ye all follow the bishop, even as Christ Jesus does the Father, and the presbytery as ye would the apostles. Do ye also reverence the deacons, as those that carry out the appointment of God. Let no man do anything connected with the Church without the bishop. Let that be deemed a proper Eucharist, which is [administered] either by the bishop, or by one to whom he has entrusted it. Wherever the bishop shall appear, there let the multitude also be; by the bishop, or by one to whom he has entrusted it. Wherever the bishop shall appear, there let the multitude also be; even as, wherever Jesus Christ is, there is the Catholic Church.” Ignatius of Antioch, Epistle to the Smyrneans, 8:2 (c. A.D. 110).

 

[Walter]

“Acephalous Christians” means that there were christians in Ireland before Palladius the first Bishop.
This doesn’t mean that a Church existed there.

Without a Bishop there is no Church in a place. This is a consistent rule of the Church, no Bishop no Church.

Everything centred around the Bishop as the ecclesiastical head.

Once a bishopric is established in a place, then the “acephalous Christians” whoever they might be, answer to him.

A good current example of this are the 'Old Believer' Christians here in Oregon. When they left Russia as a schismatic sect they had no bishops. Without bishops when their priests died off they had no way of celebrating the Eucharist and their daily worship centers around a Liturgy of the Hours. They do not refer to themselves as being 'a church' but, as I said, 'Old Believers'. Some of these groups have reestablished oversight by Orthodox bishops and have priests to celebrate the Eucharist. I believe most of the 'Old Believers' in Alaska are now reestablished with Orthodox bishops as well.

 

[Cathode]

A good current example of this are the 'Old Believer' Christians here in Oregon. When they left Russia as a schismatic sect they had no bishops. Without bishops when their priests died off they had no way of celebrating the Eucharist and there daily worship centers around a Liturgy of the Hours. They do not refer to themselves as being 'a church' but, as I said, 'Old Believers'. Some of these groups have reestablished oversight by Orthodox bishops and have priests to celebrate the Eucharist. I believe most of the 'Old Believers' in Alaska are now reestablished with Orthodox bishops as well.

That’s a good modern example. As Ignatius points out, nothing is done without the bishop or one entrusted by the bishop.
At one stage there was no bishop in Scotland under the persecutions and only 3 priests operating in secret. However they came under the authority of an external bishop due to the extreme circumstances, they were “ entrusted “ by the bishop as his representative.

 

[Ben1445]

It says “acephalous christians” not acephalous Bishops. It means that there was a Christian community there without a bishop.
This has been the case many times in history where Christians have settled in places where no ecclesial oversight exists.
That’s all that means.

That is the equivalent of an independent church. I’m glad you figured out what I was saying. There were churches that didn’t report and Iranaeus didn’t know anything about them.
Like I said, All is an exaggeration.

 

[Cathode]

That is the equivalent of an independent church. I’m glad you figured out what I was saying. There were churches that didn’t report and Iranaeus didn’t know anything about them.
Like I said, All is an exaggeration.

The Christians in Ireland before the time of Palladius’ arrival were acephalous, because a Bishop hadn’t arrived yet. It just means they had no head which is always the Bishop.

Just because there are Christians in a place does not mean that a Church is in that place.

A Church is only established if a Bishop is there.

You are totally misunderstanding the meaning in this context. Wilfully so.

This is not the equivalent of an independent Church, you are reading into this far beyond what is said.

A few Christians in a place does not make a Church, what makes it a Church is a Bishop.

 

[Cathode]

That is the equivalent of an independent church. I’m glad you figured out what I was saying. There were churches that didn’t report and Iranaeus didn’t know anything about them.
Like I said, All is an exaggeration.

It doesn’t say there were churches, it says there were acephalous Christians, Christians without a head.
Of course it was the case, there was no bishop yet, Palladius was the first Bishop in Ireland, sent by Pope Celestine 1.