Is there really that much of a conversion between Anglicanism and RCC? Forgive my ignorance, but I thought it was just a matter of who’s your pope…the English monarch or the Roman bishop…

“The foolishness of God is wiser than men, and the weakness of God is stronger than men.” Blind guides have led them astray, and they, in turn, will do the same. The RCC’s great stance on abortion and marriage have created the illusion of shared beliefs.

But you will find good, decent teachings in all false cults. Mormons, Jehovah’s Witnesses, Muslims, every group will be found to promote worthy family-based values. But that does not mean we need to embrace them, and pretend their abominable false doctrines do not exist!

The Roman Catholic church must be seen in the light of its unscriptural dogmas, and its dark history of denying and persecuting the truth of the Word of God. When the pope came to Brazil last week, he made a statement by his chosen destination: the city of Aparecida, in the state of Sao Paulo. The Mariolatry in that city is on a par with the worship of the heathern goddess Diana in the city of Ephesus.

If the Roman Catholic Church and its infallible representative, Pope Benedictus XVI, wanted to dissuade its follwers from worshipping Mary, and teach justification by faith in Christ alone, a wonderful opportunity was thrown out the window. But this is exactly what the Catholics do NOT intend to teach. Only naive intellectuals, self-infatuated thinkers, think they can reconcile the truth of the Scriptures with the lies and deception of the pompous hierarchy called the Roman Catholic church.

As a church-planting missionary in Brazil, with its rich Catholic traditions, I know first-hand how this wonderful “mother church” permeates culture, religion, and the Brazilian mindset. If the RCC is preaching the truth, I should pack up and go home. But not until they stop worshipping idols, trusting Mary, praying to men, confessing to men, leading the simple-minded astray. When they’ve turned to God FROM THE IDOLS of the Catholic church, we will be truly grateful to God.

But please do not nauseate me with sympathetic words for imbeciles and traitors who rationalize, condone, and join the rank unbelief of the RCC while trampling martyrs who, even though dead, yet speak (Heb. 11).

You said:
1.You obviously don’t concur with the inspired greek text of Matthew? Petros translated wrong? Should the Nt have been written in Aramaic in order to get a truly inspired scripture?

I say: Jesus did speak in Aramaic and the early church fathers overwhelmingly refer to Peter as Cephas..

Tatian the Syrian
“Simon Cephas answered and said, ‘You are the Messiah, the Son of the living God.’ Jesus answered and said unto him, ‘Blessed are you, Simon, son of Jonah: flesh and blood has not revealed it unto thee, but my Father which is in heaven. And I say unto thee also, that you are Cephas, and on this rock will I build my Church; and the gates of hades shall not prevail against it” (The Diatesseron 23 [A.D. 170

You said: So according to you God the Holy Spirit should have inspired the text in Aramaic in order to show that Peter was the first Pope. He picked his words wrong. So we have an infallible Pope and a falibble Holy Spirit. Now that’s an interesting concept.

I say: No, what I said or meant was that meanings are sometimes lost in translation..

You said: And you failed to answer why JAMES, not Peter, made the ruling decision “ex cathedra” in Acts 15. Was he sitting on Peter’s chair? No they made it TOGETHER which is how apostolic authority worked. Although anyone as I said reading the NT would definitely say (including peter) that it is Paul not Peter who mostly defined NT church apostolic teaching – if you stick to the Bible that is. Moses is replaced by Christ in the NC NOT PETER. John 1, Heb1, Heb 12.

I say: If you read a couple of verses before James speaks, Peter already spoke. James was the Bishop of Jerusalem so it was right for him to speak, BUT he spoke after Peter.
I can’t agree more with your satement that Christ IS The Head of The Church- no arguement..but I will argue and have argued that Christ placed Peter (and his successors) as Vicar when he ascended into heaven.

You said: the authority was given to the 12 plus Paul not only Peter. Acts 15 is undeniable. the foundation and the ability to define (bind and loose) doctrine is APOSTLES PLURAL not peter. The Nt apostolic doctrine through the epistles is PLURAL. Mono-episcopacy, YOU KNOW came LATER. we will say erroneously – you will say it was inspired and revealed. It definitely was not there – especially if one looks at pauls apostleship being to the gentiles whilst peter’s was mainly to the Jews.

I say: Yes, authority is given to the 12, BUT Peter, as I have shown, is given “Primacy” among them. And please show me when you believe that this mono episcopacy came later. I have shown that it was believed from the beginning.

You said: And a PRIEST is not an ELDER/PASTOR (prebuteros). All believers share that role in the NC, because as you said IT IS SUPERIOR. We now ALL offer sacrifices. You have Judaized the faith in many ways thereby putting people in bondage instead of setting them free. Stones built upon the Rock. New priesthood, far superior.

I say: Yes, we do all share is the “priesthood of believers” BUT that does NOT negate the “Ordained Priesthood”. It is superior in the NEW, because in the Old ONLY Levites could be priests..BUT in the New, any man from any tribe or nation can be a priest. Again, I have clearly shown the ordained offices of Bishop, Priest and Deacon existed from the beginning. So what “pure offering” as stated in Malachi do you offer?

You said: Sorry, Gerry, my intelligent, articulate paisan, but as the saying goes I’ve been there, seen it, done that. And as a famous rabbi once said “the best way to judge a tree is by its fruit

I say: Thank you for the compliment, but I am nothing other than a lay Catholic with no special degrees and just a love of Jesus Christ (My Lord AND Savior)and His Church- His bride and Our Mother. So as an Italian-American, I get pretty agitated when people make fun of “My Mother”. As far as judging a tree by it’s fruit, there are tens of thousands of Saints (members of the Catholic Church) through the ages that have given their lives willingly for Jesus Christ..Read their stories. I am partial to San Gennaro (Bishop circa 400)since my name is Gennaro.

Ciao, Mio Fratello..

1.You obviously don’t concur with the inspired greek text of Matthew? Petros translated wrong? Should the Nt have been written in Aramaic in order to get a truly inspired scripture?

“Your definition of Peter as the Greek “Petros” is an erroneous translation”, then the whole masculine, feminine thing which I understand well speaking Italian. La pietra. Problem is petra and petros don’t MEAN the same thing in greek. one is a rock and the other is a stone. Its got nothing to do with gender. So according to you God the Holy Spirit should have inspired the text in Aramaic in order to show that Peter was the first Pope. He picked his words wrong. So we have an infallible Pope and a falibble Holy Spirit. Now that’s an interesting concept.

And having been to Caesarea Phillipi recently and seen the context of where this was said it becomes very apparent as to what Christ was saying. There is a huge Rock out of which the water flows at the foot of Mt hermon and in the stream there are millions of stones. That Rock-face was the seat of ancient pagan worship in honour of a now deified Emperor. You want us to believe that Christ replaced that hellish seat and symbol of rebellion against God with PETER? Who a few verse later He calls SATAN?

But what does Paul say when explaing these gospel texts in APOSTOLIC TEACHING in the epistles. If you can find the concept of Peter, the first infallible Pope in the NT go ahead. But Paul and Peter both make it CLEAR who the ROCK is (Rom 9,1Cor 10, 1peter 2) and who the cornerstone is (Eph2, 1Pet 2).But as usual the epistles where TRUE APOSTOLIC DOCTRINE is obtained are ignored in the interpreting the gospel text correctly.

And you failed to answer why JAMES, not Peter, made the ruling decision “ex cathedra” in Acts 15. Was he sitting on Peter’s chair? No they made it TOGETHER which is how apostolic authority worked. Although anyone as I said reading the NT would definitely say (including peter) that it is Paul not Peter who mostly defined NT church apostolic teaching – if you stick to the Bible that is. Moses is replaced by Christ in the NC NOT PETER. John 1, Heb1, Heb 12.

Acts 15:19 Wherefore my sentence is, that we trouble not them, which from among the Gentiles are turned to God:

Acts 15:22 ¶ Then pleased it the apostles and elders, with the whole church, to send chosen men of their own company to Antioch with Paul and Barnabas; [namely], Judas surnamed Barsabas, and Silas, chief men among the brethren:

the authority was given to the 12 plus Paul not only Peter. Acts 15 is undeniable. the foundation and the ability to define (bind and loose) doctrine is APOSTLES PLURAL not peter. The Nt apostolic doctrine through the epistles is PLURAL. Mono-episcopacy, YOU KNOW came LATER. we will say erroneously – you will say it was inspired and revealed. It definitely was not there – especially if one looks at pauls apostleship being to the gentiles whilst peter’s was mainly to the Jews.

And a PRIEST is not an ELDER/PASTOR (prebuteros). All believers share that role in the NC, because as you said IT IS SUPERIOR. We now ALL offer sacrifices. You have Judaized the faith in many ways thereby putting people in bondage instead of setting them free. Stones built upon the Rock. New priesthood, far superior.

Finally, Jude’s statement “to contend” makes no sense. Because according to you guys, the faith had not yet been defined. It was an ongoing process of revelation by “nice Godly men” extending apparently even into the 1800’s where we finally get to understand the true role of Mary, co-mediatrix and immaculately conceived (or was it the 1900’s?).

Sorry, Gerry, my intelligent, articulate paisan, but as the saying goes I’ve been there, seen it, done that. And as a famous rabbi once said “the best way to judge a tree is by its fruit”.

John (fellow paisan),

Is the term “Chair of Peter” explicitly mentioned in writing in scripture..no..but I think that you will agree that neither is “Trinity” or “Incarnation”..but they are all clearly implied and taught and present in the writings of the early church fathers.

Your definition of Peter as the Greek “Petros” is an erroneous translation, since Jesus spoke Aramaic and in Aramaic it is “Kephas”. I will defer to Karl Keating’s very clear explanation of the Kephas Vs Petros discussion:

“We know that Jesus spoke Aramaic because some of his words are preserved for us in the Gospels. Look at Matthew 27:46, where he says from the cross, ‘Eli, Eli, lama sabachthani?’ That isn’t Greek; it’s Aramaic, and it means, ‘My God, my God, why have you forsaken me?’

“What’s more,” I said, “in Paul’s epistles—four times in Galatians and four times in 1 Corinthians—we have the Aramaic form of Simon’s new name preserved for us. In our English Bibles it comes out as Cephas. That isn’t Greek. That’s a transliteration of the Aramaic word Kepha (rendered as Kephas in its Hellenistic form).

“And what does Kepha mean? It means a rock, the same as petra. (It doesn’t mean a little stone or a pebble. What Jesus said to Simon in Matthew 16:18 was this: ‘You are Kepha, and on this kepha I will build my Church.’

“When you understand what the Aramaic says, you see that Jesus was equating Simon and the rock; he wasn’t contrasting them. We see this vividly in some modern English translations, which render the verse this way: ‘You are Rock, and upon this rock I will build my church.’ In French one word, pierre, has always been used both for Simon’s new name and for the rock.”

“Wait a second,” he said. “If kepha means the same as petra, why don’t we read in the Greek, ‘You are Petra, and on this petra I will build my Church’? Why, for Simon’s new name, does Matthew use a Greek word, Petros, which means something quite different from petra?”

“Because he had no choice,” I said. “Greek and Aramaic have different grammatical structures. In Aramaic you can use kepha in both places in Matthew 16:18. In Greek you encounter a problem arising from the fact that nouns take differing gender endings.

“You have masculine, feminine, and neuter nouns. The Greek word petra is feminine. You can use it in the second half of Matthew 16:18 without any trouble. But you can’t use it as Simon’s new name, because you can’t give a man a feminine name—at least back then you couldn’t. You have to change the ending of the noun to make it masculine. When you do that, you get Petros, which was an already-existing word meaning rock.

Beyond the grammatical evidence, the structure of the narrative does not allow for a downplaying of Peter’s role in the Church. Look at the way Matthew 16:15-19 is structured. After Peter gives a confession about the identity of Jesus, the Lord does the same in return for Peter. Jesus does not say, “Blessed are you, Simon Bar-Jona! For flesh and blood has not revealed this to you, but my Father who is in heaven. And I tell you, you are an insignificant pebble and on this rock I will build my Church. . . . I will give you the keys of the kingdom of heaven.” Jesus is giving Peter a three-fold blessing, including the gift of the keys to the kingdom, not undermining his authority. To say that Jesus is downplaying Peter flies in the face of the context. Jesus is installing Peter as a form of chief steward or prime minister under the King of Kings by giving him the keys to the kingdom. As can be seen in Isaiah 22:22, kings in the Old Testament appointed a chief steward to serve under them in a position of great authority to rule over the inhabitants of the kingdom. Jesus quotes almost verbatum from this passage in Isaiah, and so it is clear what he has in mind. He is raising Peter up as a father figure to the household of faith (Is. 22:21), to lead them and guide the flock (John 21:15-17). This authority of the prime minister under the king was passed on from one man to another down through the ages by the giving of the keys, which were worn on the shoulder as a sign of authority. Likewise, the authority of Peter has been passed down for 2000 years by means of the papacy”.

I couldn’t have said it better myself..
Let’s look at what the early church fathers (very small sample) say about “The Chair of Peter” and it’s primacy(notice the dates…since you mention the papacy took 500 yrs to develop):

Cyprian of Carthage
“The Lord says to Peter: ‘I say to you,’ he says, ‘that you are Peter, and upon this rock I will build my Church, and the gates of hell will not overcome it. And to you I will give the keys of the kingdom of heaven; and whatever things you bind on earth shall be bound also in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth, they shall be loosed also in heaven’ [Matt. 16:18–19]). … On him [Peter] he builds the Church, and to him he gives the command to feed the sheep [John 21:17], and although he assigns a like power to all the apostles, yet he founded a single chair [cathedra], and he established by his own authority a source and an intrinsic reason for that unity. Indeed, the others were also what Peter was [i.e., apostles], but a primacy is given to Peter, whereby it is made clear that there is but one Church and one chair. So too, all [the apostles] are shepherds, and the flock is shown to be one, fed by all the apostles in single-minded accord. If someone does not hold fast to this unity of Peter, can he imagine that he still holds the faith? If he [should] desert the chair of Peter upon whom the Church was built, can he still be confident that he is in the Church?” (The Unity of the Catholic Church 4; 1st edition [A.D. 251]).

“Cyprian to [Pope] Cornelius, his brother. Greeting. . . . We decided to send and are sending a letter to you from all throughout the province [where I am] so that all our colleagues might give their decided approval and support to you and to your communion, that is, to both the unity and the charity of the Catholic Church” (Letters 48:1, 3 [A.D. 253]).

Cyprian of Carthage
“The Lord says to Peter: ‘I say to you,’ he says, ‘that you are Peter, and upon this rock I will build my Church, and the gates of hell will not overcome it. And to you I will give the keys of the kingdom of heaven . . . ’ [Matt. 16:18–19]. On him [Peter] he builds the Church, and to him he gives the command to feed the sheep [John 21:17], and although he assigns a like power to all the apostles, yet he founded a single chair [cathedra], and he established by his own authority a source and an intrinsic reason for that unity. Indeed, the others were that also which Peter was [i.e., apostles], but a primacy is given to Peter, whereby it is made clear that there is but one Church and one chair. . . . If someone does not hold fast to this unity of Peter, can he imagine that he still holds the faith? If he [should] desert the chair of Peter upon whom the Church was built, can he still be confident that he is in the Church?” (The Unity of the Catholic Church 4; 1st edition [A.D. 251]).

Optatus
“You cannot deny that you are aware that in the city of Rome the episcopal chair was given first to Peter; the chair in which Peter sat, the same who was head—that is why he is also called Cephas [‘Rock’]—of all the apostles; the one chair in which unity is maintained by all” (The Schism of the Donatists 2:2 [A.D. 367]).

Jerome
“‘But,’ you [Jovinian] will say, ‘it was on Peter that the Church was founded’ [Matt. 16:18]. Well . . . one among the twelve is chosen to be their head in order to remove any occasion for division” (Against Jovinian 1:26 [A.D. 393]).

“I follow no leader but Christ and join in communion with none but your blessedness [Pope Damasus I], that is, with the chair of Peter. I know that this is the rock on which the Church has been built. Whoever eats the Lamb outside this house is profane. Anyone who is not in the ark of Noah will perish when the flood prevails” (Letters 15:2 [A.D. 396]).

Augustine
“If the very order of episcopal succession is to be considered, how much more surely, truly, and safely do we number them [the bishops of Rome] from Peter himself, to whom, as to one representing the whole Church, the Lord said, ‘Upon this rock I will build my Church, and the gates of hell shall not conquer it.’ Peter was succeeded by Linus, Linus by Clement. … In this order of succession a Donatist bishop is not to be found” (Letters 53:1:2 [A.D. 412]).

Council of Ephesus
“Philip, the presbyter and legate of the Apostolic See [Rome], said: ‘There is no doubt, and in fact it has been known in all ages, that the holy and most blessed Peter, prince and head of the apostles, pillar of the faith, and foundation of the Catholic Church, received the keys of the kingdom from our Lord Jesus Christ, the Savior and Redeemer of the human race, and that to him was given the power of loosing and binding sins: who down even to today and forever both lives and judges in his successors’” (Acts of the Council, session 3 [A.D. 431]).

Irenaeus
“But since it would be too long to enumerate in such a volume as this the succession of all the churches, we shall confound all those who, in whatever manner, whether through self-satisfaction or vainglory, or through blindness and wicked opinion, assemble other than where it is proper, by pointing out here the successions of the bishops of the greatest and most ancient church known to all, founded and organized at Rome by the two most glorious apostles, Peter and Paul, that church which has the tradition and the faith which comes down to us after having been announced to men by the apostles. With that church, because of its superior origin, all the churches must agree, that is, all the faithful in the whole world, and it is in her that the faithful everywhere have maintained the apostolic tradition” (Against Heresies 3:3:2 [A.D. 189]).

As far as your statement against Peter’s “fallibility” in Galatians, Paul rebuked him for his “conduct” NOT his teaching. Infallibility has nothing to do with perfection or sinlessness, but as Christ promised in Matthew 16, “The Gates of hell WILL NOT overcome it” which means doctrinal error cannot enter the Church when it is pronounced “ex cathedra” (from “The Chair”).

Funny…I read the bible and there is nothing I see that disagrees with Church teaching. I can think of several verses that you may issues with just off the top of my head like Luke 1:48, John 20:20-23, James 2:24, 1 Peter 3:21, entire chapter of John 6…I could go on and on..since scripture no where claims “sola scriptura” which leads me into “Tradition”..

What does scripture say about “Tradition”?

Thus Paul tells the Corinthians, “I commend you because you remember me in everything and maintain the traditions even as I have delivered them to you” (1 Cor. 11:2), and he commands the Thessalonians, “So then, brethren, stand firm and hold to the traditions which you were taught by us, either by word of mouth or by letter” (2 Thess. 2:15). He even goes so far as to order, “Now we command you, brethren, in the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, that you keep away from any brother who is living in idleness and not in accord with the tradition that you received from us” (2 Thess. 3:6).

To make sure that the apostolic tradition would be passed down after the deaths of the apostles, Paul told Timothy, “[W]hat you have heard from me before many witnesses entrust to faithful men who will be able to teach others also” (2 Tim. 2:2). In this passage he refers to the first four generations of apostolic succession—his own generation, Timothy’s generation, the generation Timothy will teach, and the generation they in turn will teach.

What do the early church fathers say about “Tradition”?:

Papias
“Papias [A.D. 120], who is now mentioned by us, affirms that he received the sayings of the apostles from those who accompanied them, and he, moreover, asserts that he heard in person Aristion and the presbyter John. Accordingly, he mentions them frequently by name, and in his writings gives their traditions [concerning Jesus]. . . . [There are] other passages of his in which he relates some miraculous deeds, stating that he acquired the knowledge of them from tradition” (fragment in Eusebius, Church History 3:39 [A.D. 312]).

Eusebius of Caesarea
“At that time [A.D. 150] there flourished in the Church Hegesippus, whom we know from what has gone before, and Dionysius, bishop of Corinth, and another bishop, Pinytus of Crete, and besides these, Philip, and Apollinarius, and Melito, and Musanus, and Modestus, and, finally, Irenaeus. From them has come down to us in writing, the sound and orthodox faith received from tradition” (Church History 4:21).

Irenaeus
“As I said before, the Church, having received this preaching and this faith, although she is disseminated throughout the whole world, yet guarded it, as if she occupied but one house. She likewise believes these things just as if she had but one soul and one and the same heart; and harmoniously she proclaims them and teaches them and hands them down, as if she possessed but one mouth. For, while the languages of the world are diverse, nevertheless, the authority of the tradition is one and the same” (Against Heresies 1:10:2 [A.D. 189]).

“That is why it is surely necessary to avoid them [heretics], while cherishing with the utmost diligence the things pertaining to the Church, and to lay hold of the tradition of truth. . . . What if the apostles had not in fact left writings to us? Would it not be necessary to follow the order of tradition, which was handed down to those to whom they entrusted the churches?” (ibid., 3:4:1).
…
“It is possible, then, for everyone in every church, who may wish to know the truth, to contemplate the tradition of the apostles which has been made known throughout the whole world. And we are in a position to enumerate those who were instituted bishops by the apostles and their successors to our own times—men who neither knew nor taught anything like these heretics rave about.

“But since it would be too long to enumerate in such a volume as this the successions of all the churches, we shall confound all those who, in whatever manner, whether through self-satisfaction or vainglory, or through blindness and wicked opinion, assemble other than where it is proper, by pointing out here the successions of the bishops of the greatest and most ancient church known to all, founded and organized at Rome by the two most glorious apostles, Peter and Paul, that church which has the tradition and the faith which comes down to us after having been announced to men by the apostles.

“With this church, because of its superior origin, all churches must agree—that is, all the faithful in the whole world—and it is in her that the faithful everywhere have maintained the apostolic tradition” (ibid., 3:3:1–2).

Clement of Alexandria
“Well, they preserving the tradition of the blessed doctrine derived directly from the holy apostles, Peter, James, John, and Paul, the sons receiving it from the father (but few were like the fathers), came by God’s will to us also to deposit those ancestral and apostolic seeds. And well I know that they will exult; I do not mean delighted with this tribute, but solely on account of the preservation of the truth, according as they delivered it. For such a sketch as this, will, I think, be agreeable to a soul desirous of preserving from loss the blessed tradition” (Miscellanies 1:1 [A.D. 208]).

Origen
“Although there are many who believe that they themselves hold to the teachings of Christ, there are yet some among them who think differently from their predecessors. The teaching of the Church has indeed been handed down through an order of succession from the apostles and remains in the churches even to the present time. That alone is to be believed as the truth which is in no way at variance with ecclesiastical and apostolic tradition” (The Fundamental Doctrines 1:2 [A.D. 225]).

Cyprian of Carthage
“[T]he Church is one, and as she is one, cannot be both within and without. For if she is with Novatian, she was not with [Pope] Cornelius. But if she was with Cornelius, who succeeded the bishop Fabian by lawful ordination, and whom, beside the honor of the priesthood the Lord glorified also with martyrdom, Novatian is not in the Church; nor can he be reckoned as a bishop, who, succeeding to no one, and despising the evangelical and apostolic tradition, sprang from himself. For he who has not been ordained in the Church can neither have nor hold to the Church in any way” (Letters 75:3 [A.D. 253]).

Athanasius
“Again we write, again keeping to the apostolic traditions, we remind each other when we come together for prayer; and keeping the feast in common, with one mouth we truly give thanks to the Lord. Thus giving thanks unto him, and being followers of the saints, ‘we shall make our praise in the Lord all the day,’ as the psalmist says. So, when we rightly keep the feast, we shall be counted worthy of that joy which is in heaven” (Festal Letters 2:7 [A.D. 330]).

“But you are blessed, who by faith are in the Church, dwell upon the foundations of the faith, and have full satisfaction, even the highest degree of faith which remains among you unshaken. For it has come down to you from apostolic tradition, and frequently accursed envy has wished to unsettle it, but has not been able” (ibid., 29).

Basil the Great
“Of the dogmas and messages preserved in the Church, some we possess from written teaching and others we receive from the tradition of the apostles, handed on to us in mystery. In respect to piety, both are of the same force. No one will contradict any of these, no one, at any rate, who is even moderately versed in matters ecclesiastical. Indeed, were we to try to reject unwritten customs as having no great authority, we would unwittingly injure the gospel in its vitals; or rather, we would reduce [Christian] message to a mere term” (The Holy Spirit 27:66 [A.D. 375]).

Epiphanius of Salamis
“It is needful also to make use of tradition, for not everything can be gotten from sacred Scripture. The holy apostles handed down some things in the scriptures, other things in tradition” (Medicine Chest Against All Heresies 61:6 [A.D. 375]).

Augustine
“[T]he custom [of not rebaptizing converts] . . . may be supposed to have had its origin in apostolic tradition, just as there are many things which are observed by the whole Church, and therefore are fairly held to have been enjoined by the apostles, which yet are not mentioned in their writings” (On Baptism, Against the Donatists 5:23[31] [A.D. 400]).

“But the admonition that he [Cyprian] gives us, ‘that we should go back to the fountain, that is, to apostolic tradition, and thence turn the channel of truth to our times,’ is most excellent, and should be followed without hesitation” (ibid., 5:26[37]).

“But in regard to those observances which we carefully attend and which the whole world keeps, and which derive not from Scripture but from Tradition, we are given to understand that they are recommended and ordained to be kept, either by the apostles themselves or by plenary [ecumenical] councils, the authority of which is quite vital in the Church” (Letter to Januarius [A.D. 400]).

John Chrysostom
“[Paul commands,] ‘Therefore, brethren, stand fast and hold the traditions which you have been taught, whether by word or by our letter’ [2 Thess. 2:15]. From this it is clear that they did not hand down everything by letter, but there is much also that was not written. Like that which was written, the unwritten too is worthy of belief. So let us regard the tradition of the Church also as worthy of belief. Is it a tradition? Seek no further” (Homilies on Second Thessalonians [A.D. 402]).

Vincent of Lerins
“With great zeal and closest attention, therefore, I frequently inquired of many men, eminent for their holiness and doctrine, how I might, in a concise and, so to speak, general and ordinary way, distinguish the truth of the Catholic faith from the falsehood of heretical depravity.

“I received almost always the same answer from all of them—that if I or anyone else wanted to expose the frauds and escape the snares of the heretics who rise up, and to remain intact and in sound faith, it would be necessary, with the help of the Lord, to fortify that faith in a twofold manner: first, of course, by the authority of divine law [Scripture] and then by the tradition of the Catholic Church.

“Here, perhaps, someone may ask: ‘If the canon of the scriptures be perfect and in itself more than suffices for everything, why is it necessary that the authority of ecclesiastical interpretation be joined to it?’ Because, quite plainly, sacred Scripture, by reason of its own depth, is not accepted by everyone as having one and the same meaning. . . .

“Thus, because of so many distortions of such various errors, it is highly necessary that the line of prophetic and apostolic interpretation be directed in accord with the norm of the ecclesiastical and Catholic meaning” (The Notebooks [A.D. 434]).

In summary, you can see from this and many previous posts that I have documented the Catholic position from not only scripture, but ALSO from the early church fathers. Some of you mention the early fathers, but are not able to find your own “teachings” contained in their writings? So I ask you in all sincerity and charity, who or what body is following “the traditions of men”?

God bless..

Excellent point. And I would agree with your thoughts. Some Cathoic people (family attended our church) have attended the church I pastored and agreed with our doctrinal postion of salvation, and maybe the Lord by his graces saved them. But they would return to the Catholic church. That’s possible. One dear lady said, I agree with what you are preaching, but just in case, I will continue doing what my church is telling me to do to get to heaven.

Many in our churches do not even know the doctrinal position that the elders take. Many preachers never preach Justification by Grace Alone, but would believe that its by grace alone.

Nevertheless, salvation rest in the hand of the Lord Jesus Christ.

Charles

“He refers to the teaching authority of the “seat of Moses” which in the New Covenent is the “Chair of Peter”.”

Chair of Peter? Scripture and verse please?

in Acts 15 it looks an awful lot like James is presiding and according to Peter the predominant “binder” of NT doctrine is Paul (2Pet 3). In any case apostolic authority was never singular and definitely had nothing to do with Rome. Rome was the HQ of something “important” such as Emperor worship and world pagan domination – nothing much changes as far as that is concerned. The church originated in Jerusalem from Jewish converts.

Moses is the mediator of the OT. His “seat” is replaced by CHRIST, the PETRA, not by Peter, a “petros” and that’s the whole point. The primacy of Peter is a figment of RC imaginations which was never the view of the apostles (again, see acts 15, first church council) or the early church. Again this took 500 years to “develop”.

Not to mention Peter’s obvious fallibility in matters of binding doctrine alone. Gal 2, 2Peter3.

Interestingly both my 70 year-old Italian catholic mother and myself both made the same amazing startling discovery when God opened our eyes and WE STARTED READING THE BIBLE. The supremacy of Paul if anything, not Peter, in the development of NT theology and early church (Acts).

And again, I stress, that by the time of Jude’s epistle, it seems that the matter of apostolic authority is very much a settled matter “sans” the supremacy of Peter or Rome in ecclesiastical affairs. The orthodox church quite rightly never bought that one. Thank God neither did Luther, Calvin, Wycliffe, Tyndale and the millions who stood against this tyranny at the cost of their very lives, like their Saviour before them. This infallible “chair” by the way is the same one that put the Bible in the vernacular on the index of BANNED BOOKS. Wonder why?