<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
		>
<channel>
	<title>Comments on: Why I Love the Church (Part 1)</title>
	<atom:link href="http://www.sfpulpit.com/2007/07/03/why-i-love-the-church-part-1/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://www.sfpulpit.com/2007/07/03/why-i-love-the-church-part-1/</link>
	<description>A Ministry of Shepherds' Fellowship</description>
	<lastBuildDate>Sun, 01 Mar 2009 19:54:00 -0800</lastBuildDate>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=2.9.2</generator>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
		<item>
		<title>By: Cheryl</title>
		<link>http://www.sfpulpit.com/2007/07/03/why-i-love-the-church-part-1/comment-page-1/#comment-171919</link>
		<dc:creator>Cheryl</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sun, 20 Jul 2008 05:13:18 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.sfpulpit.com/2007/07/03/why-i-love-the-church-part-1/#comment-171919</guid>
		<description>I was an protestant evangelical Christian for most of my life.  I have a very close personal relationship with out Lord.  I was involved with street evangelism I learned rom &quot;The Way of The Master&quot; and have learned many truths from my church.  Still, I wondered how come there are so many churches  claiming the Bible is our only source of Christianity.   Why are there such vast diferences of doctrines?  So many pastors spoke of recapturing the early church.  I never realized there was so much written history from the early church fathers.  I made a decision to learn for myself.  It did not take long before I realized the Church Christ established is indeed the Catholic Church.  Remember, I was brought up in fundlementalist environment which is against the teachings of the Catholic Church.  I always felt it was necessary to evangelize the poor lost catholics.  Everything I learned about the Catholic Church was from Protestants.  Bottom line for all my christian brothers and sisters is to read some books on the catholic church BY the catholic church.  It&#039;s an amazing, loving, logical and scriptually based Church.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>I was an protestant evangelical Christian for most of my life.  I have a very close personal relationship with out Lord.  I was involved with street evangelism I learned rom &#8220;The Way of The Master&#8221; and have learned many truths from my church.  Still, I wondered how come there are so many churches  claiming the Bible is our only source of Christianity.   Why are there such vast diferences of doctrines?  So many pastors spoke of recapturing the early church.  I never realized there was so much written history from the early church fathers.  I made a decision to learn for myself.  It did not take long before I realized the Church Christ established is indeed the Catholic Church.  Remember, I was brought up in fundlementalist environment which is against the teachings of the Catholic Church.  I always felt it was necessary to evangelize the poor lost catholics.  Everything I learned about the Catholic Church was from Protestants.  Bottom line for all my christian brothers and sisters is to read some books on the catholic church BY the catholic church.  It&#8217;s an amazing, loving, logical and scriptually based Church.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Gerry</title>
		<link>http://www.sfpulpit.com/2007/07/03/why-i-love-the-church-part-1/comment-page-1/#comment-34888</link>
		<dc:creator>Gerry</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Fri, 06 Jul 2007 22:34:13 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.sfpulpit.com/2007/07/03/why-i-love-the-church-part-1/#comment-34888</guid>
		<description>John,

Please find two links below that deal with Webster&#039;s comments.  1st is Ray&#039;s rebuttals to Webster and the second is Armstrong.

http://www.catholic-convert.com/Default.aspx?tabid=118

http://ic.net/~erasmus/RAZ31.HTM#I.%20Protestant%20Historians%20on%20Church%20Fathers&#039;%20View</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>John,</p>
<p>Please find two links below that deal with Webster&#8217;s comments.  1st is Ray&#8217;s rebuttals to Webster and the second is Armstrong.</p>
<p><a href="http://www.catholic-convert.com/Default.aspx?tabid=118" rel="nofollow">http://www.catholic-convert.com/Default.aspx?tabid=118</a></p>
<p><a href="http://ic.net/~erasmus/RAZ31.HTM#I.%20Protestant%20Historians%20on%20Church%20Fathers" rel="nofollow">http://ic.net/~erasmus/RAZ31.HTM#I.%20Protestant%20Historians%20on%20Church%20Fathers</a>&#8216;%20View</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Gerry</title>
		<link>http://www.sfpulpit.com/2007/07/03/why-i-love-the-church-part-1/comment-page-1/#comment-34878</link>
		<dc:creator>Gerry</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Fri, 06 Jul 2007 22:02:32 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.sfpulpit.com/2007/07/03/why-i-love-the-church-part-1/#comment-34878</guid>
		<description>John,

I am interested in your take about Augustine&#039;s Catholic beliefs as mentioned in my prior post, since you admitted he is part of the &quot;true Church&quot;.

Nate,

Since the topic is The Church, I will quote some of the fathers that you quote in defense of the sola’s on their view of The Church. I can address the sola’s at another time shortly.  First off, a very small sampling of Tertullian.

I apologize for the long post but I believe that it is releveant to the discussion at hand.

Tertullian in chap. 6 “Prescription against Heretics” says:
“In the Lord&#039;s apostles we possess our authority; for even they did not of themselves choose to introduce anything, but faithfully delivered to the nations (of mankind) the doctrine which they had received from Christ. If, therefore, even &quot;an angel from heaven should preach any other gospel&quot; (than theirs), he would be called accursed by us”

(He is speaking of an authoritative Church and Tradition)

Chapter 15. Heretics Not to Be Allowed to Argue Out of the Scriptures. The Scriptures, in Fact, Do Not Belong to Them.
We are therefore come to (the gist of) our position; for at this point we were aiming, and for this we were preparing in the preamble of our address (which we have just completed),—so that we may now join issue on the contention to which our adversaries challenge us. They put forward the Scriptures, and by this insolence of theirs they at once influence some. In the encounter itself, however, they weary the strong, they catch the weak, and dismiss waverers with a doubt. Accordingly, we oppose to them this step above all others, of not admitting them to any discussion of the Scriptures.
If in these lie their resources, before they can use them, it ought to be clearly seen to whom belongs the possession of the Scriptures, that none may be admitted to the use thereof who has no title at all to the privilege.

(He speaks of the scriptures belonging to The Church not individuals.

Chapter 19. Appeal, in Discussion of Heresy, Lies Not to the Scriptures. The Scriptures Belong Only to Those Who Have the Rule of Faith.
Our appeal, therefore, must not be made to the Scriptures; nor must controversy be admitted on points in which victory will either be impossible, or uncertain, or not certain enough. But even if a discussion from the Scriptures should not turn out in such a way as to place both sides on a par, (yet) the natural order of things would require that this point should be first proposed, which is now the only one which we must discuss: &quot;With whom lies that very faith to which the Scriptures belong. From what and through whom, and when, and to whom, has been handed down that rule, by which men become Christians?&quot; For wherever it shall be manifest that the true Christian rule and faith shall be, there will likewise be the true Scriptures and expositions thereof, and all the Christian traditions.

(Again, he equates the scriptures belonging to The Church and agreeing with Traditionas the valid interpretation)

Chapter 20. Christ First Delivered the Faith. The Apostles Spread It; They Founded Churches as the Depositories Thereof. That Faith, Therefore, is Apostolic, Which Descended from the Apostles, Through Apostolic Churches.
Christ Jesus our Lord (may He bear with me a moment in thus expressing myself!), whosoever He is, of what God soever He is the Son, of what substance soever He is man and God, of what faith soever He is the teacher, of what reward soever He is the Promiser, did, while He lived on earth, Himself declare what He was, what He had been, what the Father&#039;s will was which He was administering, what the duty of man was which He was prescribing; (and this declaration He made,) either openly to the people, or privately to His disciples, of whom He had chosen the twelve chief ones to be at His side, Mark 4:34 and whom He destined to be the teachers of the nations. Accordingly, after one of these had been struck off, He commanded the eleven others, on His departure to the Father, to &quot;go and teach all nations, who were to be baptized into the Father, and into the Son, and into the Holy Ghost.&quot; Matthew 28:19 Immediately, therefore, so did the apostles, whom this designation indicates as &quot;the sent.&quot; Having, on the authority of a prophecy, which occurs in a psalm of David, chosen Matthias by lot as the twelfth, into the place of Judas, they obtained the promised power of the Holy Ghost for the gift of miracles and of utterance; and after first bearing witness to the faith in Jesus Christ throughout Judæa, and founding churches (there), they next went forth into the world and preached the same doctrine of the same faith to the nations. They then in like manner founded churches in every city, from which all the other churches, one after another, derived the tradition of the faith, and the seeds of doctrine, and are every day deriving them, that they may become churches. Indeed, it is on this account only that they will be able to deem themselves apostolic, as being the offspring of apostolic churches. Every sort of thing must necessarily revert to its original for its classification. Therefore the churches, although they are so many and so great, comprise but the one primitive church, (founded) by the apostles, from which they all (spring). In this way all are primitive, and all are apostolic, while they are all proved to be one, in (unbroken) unity, by their peaceful communion, and title of brotherhood, and bond of hospitality,—privileges which no other rule directs than the one tradition of the selfsame mystery.

(Interesting quote “derived the tradition of the faith, and the seeds of doctrine” speaks of authority of Tradition)

Chapter 21. All Doctrine True Which Comes Through the Church from the Apostles, Who Were Taught by God Through Christ. All Opinion Which Has No Such Divine Origin and Apostolic Tradition to Show, is Ipso Facto False.
From this, therefore, do we draw up our rule. Since the Lord Jesus Christ sent the apostles to preach, (our rule is) that no others ought to be received as preachers than those whom Christ appointed; for &quot;no man knows the Father save the Son, and he to whomsoever the Son will reveal Him.&quot; Matthew 11:27 Nor does the Son seem to have revealed Him to any other than the apostles, whom He sent forth to preach—that, of course, which He revealed to them. Now, what that was which they preached—in other words, what it was which Christ revealed to them—can, as I must here likewise prescribe, properly be proved in no other way than by those very churches which the apostles founded in person, by declaring the gospel to them directly themselves, both vivâ voce, as the phrase is, and subsequently by their epistles. If, then, these things are so, it is in the same degree manifest that all doctrine which agrees with the apostolic churches—those moulds and original sources of the faith must be reckoned for truth, as undoubtedly containing that which the (said) churches received from the apostles, the apostles from Christ, Christ from God. Whereas all doctrine must be prejudged as false which savours of contrariety to the truth of the churches and apostles of Christ and God. It remains, then, that we demonstrate whether this doctrine of ours, of which we have now given the rule, has its origin in the tradition of the apostles, and whether all other doctrines do not ipso factoproceed from falsehood. We hold communion with the apostolic churches because our doctrine is in no respect different from theirs. This is our witness of truth.

(Speaks of TWO authoritative modes Oral and Written and the Authority of Tradition)


In chap 22: Was anything withheld from the knowledge of Peter, who is called &quot;the rock on which the church should be built,&quot; who also obtained &quot;the keys of the kingdom of heaven,&quot; with the power of &quot;loosing and binding in heaven and on earth?&quot;

(Peter&#039;s primacy and authority)

In Chap 23:
But the fact is, having been converted from a persecutor to a preacher, he is introduced as one of the brethren to brethren, by brethren—to them, indeed, by men who had put on faith from the apostles&#039; hands. Afterwards, as he himself narrates, he &quot;went up to Jerusalem for the purpose of seeing Peter,&quot; Galatians 1:18 because of his office, no doubt, and by right of a common belief and preaching. Now they certainly would not have been surprised at his having become a preacher instead of a persecutor, if his preaching were of something contrary; nor, moreover, would they have &quot;glorified the Lord,&quot; Galatians 1:24 because Paul had presented himself as an adversary to Him. They accordingly even gave him &quot;the right hand of fellowship,&quot; Galatians 2:9 as a sign of their agreement with him, and arranged amongst themselves a distribution of office, not a diversity of gospel, so that they should severally preach not a different gospel, but (the same), to different persons, Peter to the circumcision, Paul to the Gentiles. Forasmuch, then, as Peter was rebuked because, after he had lived with the Gentiles, he proceeded to separate himself from their company out of respect for persons, the fault surely was one of conversation, not of preaching. For it does not appear from this, that any other God than the Creator, or any other Christ than (the son) of Mary, or any other hope than the resurrection, was (by him) announced.

Chap 26: Although, even supposing that among intimate friends, so to speak, they did hold certain discussions, yet it is incredible that these could have been such as to bring in some other rule of faith, differing from and contrary to that which they were proclaiming through the Catholic churches,—as if they spoke of one God in the Church, (and) another at home, and described one substance of Christ, publicly, (and) another secretly, and announced one hope of the resurrection before all men, (and) another before the few; although they themselves, in their epistles, besought men that they would all speak one and the same thing, and that there should be no divisions and dissensions in the church,

Chapter 28. The One Tradition of the Faith, Which is Substantially Alike in the Churches Everywhere, a Good Proof that the Transmission Has Been True and Honest in the Main.
Grant, then, that all have erred; that the apostle was mistaken in giving his testimony; that the Holy Ghost had no such respect to any one (church) as to lead it into truth, although sent with this view by Christ, John 14:26 and for this asked of the Father that He might be the teacher of truth; John 15:26 grant, also, that He, the Steward of God, the Vicar of Christ, neglected His office, permitting the churches for a time to understand differently, (and) to believe differently, what He Himself was preaching by the apostles,—is it likely that so many churches, and they so great, should have gone astray into one and the same faith? No casualty distributed among many men issues in one and the same result. Error of doctrine in the churches must necessarily have produced various issues. When, however, that which is deposited among many is found to be one and the same, it is not the result of error, but of tradition. Can any one, then, be reckless enough to say that they were in error who handed on the tradition?

(One more time: Can any one, then, be reckless enough to say that they were in error who handed on the tradition?


In chap 30:
Where was Marcion then, that shipmaster of Pontus, the zealous student of Stoicism? Where was Valentinus then, the disciple of Platonism? For it is evident that those men lived not so long ago,—in the reign of Antoninus for the most part,—and that they at first were believers in the doctrine of the Catholic Church, in the church of Rome under the episcopate of the blessed Eleutherus, until on account of their ever restless curiosity, with which they even infected the brethren, they were more than once expelled. Marcion, indeed, [went] with the two hundred sesterces which he had brought into the church, and, when banished at last to a permanent excommunication, they scattered abroad the poisons of their doctrines.

(He speaks of The Catholic Church and the bishop of Rome (Pope) Eleutherus)

Chapter 32. None of the Heretics Claim Succession from the Apostles. New Churches Still Apostolic, Because Their Faith is that Which the Apostles Taught and Handed Down. The Heretics Challenged to Show Any Apostolic Credentials.
But if there be any (heresies) which are bold enough to plant themselves in the midst of the apostolic age, that they may thereby seem to have been handed down by the apostles, because they existed in the time of the apostles, we can say: Let them produce the original records of their churches; let them unfold the roll of their bishops, running down in due succession from the beginning in such a manner that [that first bishop of theirs] bishop shall be able to show for his ordainer and predecessor some one of the apostles or of apostolic men,—a man, moreover, who continued steadfast with the apostles. For this is the manner in which the apostolic churches transmit their registers: as the church of Smyrna, which records that Polycarp was placed therein by John; as also the church of Rome, which makes Clement to have been ordained in like manner by Peter. In exactly the same way the other churches likewise exhibit (their several worthies), whom, as having been appointed to their episcopal places by apostles, they regard as transmitters of the apostolic seed. Let the heretics contrive something of the same kind. For after their blasphemy, what is there that is unlawful for them (to attempt)? But should they even effect the contrivance, they will not advance a step. For their very doctrine, after comparison with that of the apostles, will declare, by its own diversity and contrariety, that it had for its author neither an apostle nor an apostolic man; because, as the apostles would never have taught things which were self-contradictory, so the apostolic men would not have inculcated teaching different from the apostles, unless they who received their instruction from the apostles went and preached in a contrary manner. To this test, therefore will they be submitted for proof by those churches, who, although they derive not their founder from apostles or apostolic men (as being of much later date, for they are in fact being founded daily), yet, since they agree in the same faith, they are accounted as not less apostolic because they are akin in doctrine. Then let all the heresies, when challenged to these two tests by our apostolic church, offer their proof of how they deem themselves to be apostolic. But in truth they neither are so, nor are they able to prove themselves to be what they are not. Nor are they admitted to peaceful relations and communion by such churches as are in any way connected with apostles, inasmuch as they are in no sense themselves apostolic because of their diversity as to the mysteries of the faith.

(He speaks of Apostolic succession and Papal succession as being proof of the True Church.  Do you have bishops? Can you trace them back to the apostles? Catholics can)
Again: as also the church of Rome, which makes Clement to have been ordained in like manner by Peter.

In Chap 36:
How happy is its church, on which apostles poured forth all their doctrine along with their blood! where Peter endures a passion like his Lord&#039;s! where Paul wins his crown in a death like John&#039;s where the Apostle John was first plunged, unhurt, into boiling oil, and thence remitted to his island-exile! See what she has learned, what taught, what fellowship has had with even (our) churches in Africa! One Lord God does she acknowledge, the Creator of the universe, and Christ Jesus (born) of the Virgin Mary, the Son of God the Creator; and the Resurrection of the flesh; the law and the prophets she unites in one volume with the writings of evangelists and apostles, from which she drinks in her faith. This she seals with the water (of baptism), arrays with the Holy Ghost, feeds with the Eucharist, cheers with martyrdom, and against such a discipline thus (maintained) she admits no gainsayer. This is the discipline which I no longer say foretold that heresies should come, but from which they proceeded

(“Feeds with The Eucharist”)</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>John,</p>
<p>I am interested in your take about Augustine&#8217;s Catholic beliefs as mentioned in my prior post, since you admitted he is part of the &#8220;true Church&#8221;.</p>
<p>Nate,</p>
<p>Since the topic is The Church, I will quote some of the fathers that you quote in defense of the sola’s on their view of The Church. I can address the sola’s at another time shortly.  First off, a very small sampling of Tertullian.</p>
<p>I apologize for the long post but I believe that it is releveant to the discussion at hand.</p>
<p>Tertullian in chap. 6 “Prescription against Heretics” says:<br />
“In the Lord&#8217;s apostles we possess our authority; for even they did not of themselves choose to introduce anything, but faithfully delivered to the nations (of mankind) the doctrine which they had received from Christ. If, therefore, even &#8220;an angel from heaven should preach any other gospel&#8221; (than theirs), he would be called accursed by us”</p>
<p>(He is speaking of an authoritative Church and Tradition)</p>
<p>Chapter 15. Heretics Not to Be Allowed to Argue Out of the Scriptures. The Scriptures, in Fact, Do Not Belong to Them.<br />
We are therefore come to (the gist of) our position; for at this point we were aiming, and for this we were preparing in the preamble of our address (which we have just completed),—so that we may now join issue on the contention to which our adversaries challenge us. They put forward the Scriptures, and by this insolence of theirs they at once influence some. In the encounter itself, however, they weary the strong, they catch the weak, and dismiss waverers with a doubt. Accordingly, we oppose to them this step above all others, of not admitting them to any discussion of the Scriptures.<br />
If in these lie their resources, before they can use them, it ought to be clearly seen to whom belongs the possession of the Scriptures, that none may be admitted to the use thereof who has no title at all to the privilege.</p>
<p>(He speaks of the scriptures belonging to The Church not individuals.</p>
<p>Chapter 19. Appeal, in Discussion of Heresy, Lies Not to the Scriptures. The Scriptures Belong Only to Those Who Have the Rule of Faith.<br />
Our appeal, therefore, must not be made to the Scriptures; nor must controversy be admitted on points in which victory will either be impossible, or uncertain, or not certain enough. But even if a discussion from the Scriptures should not turn out in such a way as to place both sides on a par, (yet) the natural order of things would require that this point should be first proposed, which is now the only one which we must discuss: &#8220;With whom lies that very faith to which the Scriptures belong. From what and through whom, and when, and to whom, has been handed down that rule, by which men become Christians?&#8221; For wherever it shall be manifest that the true Christian rule and faith shall be, there will likewise be the true Scriptures and expositions thereof, and all the Christian traditions.</p>
<p>(Again, he equates the scriptures belonging to The Church and agreeing with Traditionas the valid interpretation)</p>
<p>Chapter 20. Christ First Delivered the Faith. The Apostles Spread It; They Founded Churches as the Depositories Thereof. That Faith, Therefore, is Apostolic, Which Descended from the Apostles, Through Apostolic Churches.<br />
Christ Jesus our Lord (may He bear with me a moment in thus expressing myself!), whosoever He is, of what God soever He is the Son, of what substance soever He is man and God, of what faith soever He is the teacher, of what reward soever He is the Promiser, did, while He lived on earth, Himself declare what He was, what He had been, what the Father&#8217;s will was which He was administering, what the duty of man was which He was prescribing; (and this declaration He made,) either openly to the people, or privately to His disciples, of whom He had chosen the twelve chief ones to be at His side, Mark 4:34 and whom He destined to be the teachers of the nations. Accordingly, after one of these had been struck off, He commanded the eleven others, on His departure to the Father, to &#8220;go and teach all nations, who were to be baptized into the Father, and into the Son, and into the Holy Ghost.&#8221; Matthew 28:19 Immediately, therefore, so did the apostles, whom this designation indicates as &#8220;the sent.&#8221; Having, on the authority of a prophecy, which occurs in a psalm of David, chosen Matthias by lot as the twelfth, into the place of Judas, they obtained the promised power of the Holy Ghost for the gift of miracles and of utterance; and after first bearing witness to the faith in Jesus Christ throughout Judæa, and founding churches (there), they next went forth into the world and preached the same doctrine of the same faith to the nations. They then in like manner founded churches in every city, from which all the other churches, one after another, derived the tradition of the faith, and the seeds of doctrine, and are every day deriving them, that they may become churches. Indeed, it is on this account only that they will be able to deem themselves apostolic, as being the offspring of apostolic churches. Every sort of thing must necessarily revert to its original for its classification. Therefore the churches, although they are so many and so great, comprise but the one primitive church, (founded) by the apostles, from which they all (spring). In this way all are primitive, and all are apostolic, while they are all proved to be one, in (unbroken) unity, by their peaceful communion, and title of brotherhood, and bond of hospitality,—privileges which no other rule directs than the one tradition of the selfsame mystery.</p>
<p>(Interesting quote “derived the tradition of the faith, and the seeds of doctrine” speaks of authority of Tradition)</p>
<p>Chapter 21. All Doctrine True Which Comes Through the Church from the Apostles, Who Were Taught by God Through Christ. All Opinion Which Has No Such Divine Origin and Apostolic Tradition to Show, is Ipso Facto False.<br />
From this, therefore, do we draw up our rule. Since the Lord Jesus Christ sent the apostles to preach, (our rule is) that no others ought to be received as preachers than those whom Christ appointed; for &#8220;no man knows the Father save the Son, and he to whomsoever the Son will reveal Him.&#8221; Matthew 11:27 Nor does the Son seem to have revealed Him to any other than the apostles, whom He sent forth to preach—that, of course, which He revealed to them. Now, what that was which they preached—in other words, what it was which Christ revealed to them—can, as I must here likewise prescribe, properly be proved in no other way than by those very churches which the apostles founded in person, by declaring the gospel to them directly themselves, both vivâ voce, as the phrase is, and subsequently by their epistles. If, then, these things are so, it is in the same degree manifest that all doctrine which agrees with the apostolic churches—those moulds and original sources of the faith must be reckoned for truth, as undoubtedly containing that which the (said) churches received from the apostles, the apostles from Christ, Christ from God. Whereas all doctrine must be prejudged as false which savours of contrariety to the truth of the churches and apostles of Christ and God. It remains, then, that we demonstrate whether this doctrine of ours, of which we have now given the rule, has its origin in the tradition of the apostles, and whether all other doctrines do not ipso factoproceed from falsehood. We hold communion with the apostolic churches because our doctrine is in no respect different from theirs. This is our witness of truth.</p>
<p>(Speaks of TWO authoritative modes Oral and Written and the Authority of Tradition)</p>
<p>In chap 22: Was anything withheld from the knowledge of Peter, who is called &#8220;the rock on which the church should be built,&#8221; who also obtained &#8220;the keys of the kingdom of heaven,&#8221; with the power of &#8220;loosing and binding in heaven and on earth?&#8221;</p>
<p>(Peter&#8217;s primacy and authority)</p>
<p>In Chap 23:<br />
But the fact is, having been converted from a persecutor to a preacher, he is introduced as one of the brethren to brethren, by brethren—to them, indeed, by men who had put on faith from the apostles&#8217; hands. Afterwards, as he himself narrates, he &#8220;went up to Jerusalem for the purpose of seeing Peter,&#8221; Galatians 1:18 because of his office, no doubt, and by right of a common belief and preaching. Now they certainly would not have been surprised at his having become a preacher instead of a persecutor, if his preaching were of something contrary; nor, moreover, would they have &#8220;glorified the Lord,&#8221; Galatians 1:24 because Paul had presented himself as an adversary to Him. They accordingly even gave him &#8220;the right hand of fellowship,&#8221; Galatians 2:9 as a sign of their agreement with him, and arranged amongst themselves a distribution of office, not a diversity of gospel, so that they should severally preach not a different gospel, but (the same), to different persons, Peter to the circumcision, Paul to the Gentiles. Forasmuch, then, as Peter was rebuked because, after he had lived with the Gentiles, he proceeded to separate himself from their company out of respect for persons, the fault surely was one of conversation, not of preaching. For it does not appear from this, that any other God than the Creator, or any other Christ than (the son) of Mary, or any other hope than the resurrection, was (by him) announced.</p>
<p>Chap 26: Although, even supposing that among intimate friends, so to speak, they did hold certain discussions, yet it is incredible that these could have been such as to bring in some other rule of faith, differing from and contrary to that which they were proclaiming through the Catholic churches,—as if they spoke of one God in the Church, (and) another at home, and described one substance of Christ, publicly, (and) another secretly, and announced one hope of the resurrection before all men, (and) another before the few; although they themselves, in their epistles, besought men that they would all speak one and the same thing, and that there should be no divisions and dissensions in the church,</p>
<p>Chapter 28. The One Tradition of the Faith, Which is Substantially Alike in the Churches Everywhere, a Good Proof that the Transmission Has Been True and Honest in the Main.<br />
Grant, then, that all have erred; that the apostle was mistaken in giving his testimony; that the Holy Ghost had no such respect to any one (church) as to lead it into truth, although sent with this view by Christ, John 14:26 and for this asked of the Father that He might be the teacher of truth; John 15:26 grant, also, that He, the Steward of God, the Vicar of Christ, neglected His office, permitting the churches for a time to understand differently, (and) to believe differently, what He Himself was preaching by the apostles,—is it likely that so many churches, and they so great, should have gone astray into one and the same faith? No casualty distributed among many men issues in one and the same result. Error of doctrine in the churches must necessarily have produced various issues. When, however, that which is deposited among many is found to be one and the same, it is not the result of error, but of tradition. Can any one, then, be reckless enough to say that they were in error who handed on the tradition?</p>
<p>(One more time: Can any one, then, be reckless enough to say that they were in error who handed on the tradition?</p>
<p>In chap 30:<br />
Where was Marcion then, that shipmaster of Pontus, the zealous student of Stoicism? Where was Valentinus then, the disciple of Platonism? For it is evident that those men lived not so long ago,—in the reign of Antoninus for the most part,—and that they at first were believers in the doctrine of the Catholic Church, in the church of Rome under the episcopate of the blessed Eleutherus, until on account of their ever restless curiosity, with which they even infected the brethren, they were more than once expelled. Marcion, indeed, [went] with the two hundred sesterces which he had brought into the church, and, when banished at last to a permanent excommunication, they scattered abroad the poisons of their doctrines.</p>
<p>(He speaks of The Catholic Church and the bishop of Rome (Pope) Eleutherus)</p>
<p>Chapter 32. None of the Heretics Claim Succession from the Apostles. New Churches Still Apostolic, Because Their Faith is that Which the Apostles Taught and Handed Down. The Heretics Challenged to Show Any Apostolic Credentials.<br />
But if there be any (heresies) which are bold enough to plant themselves in the midst of the apostolic age, that they may thereby seem to have been handed down by the apostles, because they existed in the time of the apostles, we can say: Let them produce the original records of their churches; let them unfold the roll of their bishops, running down in due succession from the beginning in such a manner that [that first bishop of theirs] bishop shall be able to show for his ordainer and predecessor some one of the apostles or of apostolic men,—a man, moreover, who continued steadfast with the apostles. For this is the manner in which the apostolic churches transmit their registers: as the church of Smyrna, which records that Polycarp was placed therein by John; as also the church of Rome, which makes Clement to have been ordained in like manner by Peter. In exactly the same way the other churches likewise exhibit (their several worthies), whom, as having been appointed to their episcopal places by apostles, they regard as transmitters of the apostolic seed. Let the heretics contrive something of the same kind. For after their blasphemy, what is there that is unlawful for them (to attempt)? But should they even effect the contrivance, they will not advance a step. For their very doctrine, after comparison with that of the apostles, will declare, by its own diversity and contrariety, that it had for its author neither an apostle nor an apostolic man; because, as the apostles would never have taught things which were self-contradictory, so the apostolic men would not have inculcated teaching different from the apostles, unless they who received their instruction from the apostles went and preached in a contrary manner. To this test, therefore will they be submitted for proof by those churches, who, although they derive not their founder from apostles or apostolic men (as being of much later date, for they are in fact being founded daily), yet, since they agree in the same faith, they are accounted as not less apostolic because they are akin in doctrine. Then let all the heresies, when challenged to these two tests by our apostolic church, offer their proof of how they deem themselves to be apostolic. But in truth they neither are so, nor are they able to prove themselves to be what they are not. Nor are they admitted to peaceful relations and communion by such churches as are in any way connected with apostles, inasmuch as they are in no sense themselves apostolic because of their diversity as to the mysteries of the faith.</p>
<p>(He speaks of Apostolic succession and Papal succession as being proof of the True Church.  Do you have bishops? Can you trace them back to the apostles? Catholics can)<br />
Again: as also the church of Rome, which makes Clement to have been ordained in like manner by Peter.</p>
<p>In Chap 36:<br />
How happy is its church, on which apostles poured forth all their doctrine along with their blood! where Peter endures a passion like his Lord&#8217;s! where Paul wins his crown in a death like John&#8217;s where the Apostle John was first plunged, unhurt, into boiling oil, and thence remitted to his island-exile! See what she has learned, what taught, what fellowship has had with even (our) churches in Africa! One Lord God does she acknowledge, the Creator of the universe, and Christ Jesus (born) of the Virgin Mary, the Son of God the Creator; and the Resurrection of the flesh; the law and the prophets she unites in one volume with the writings of evangelists and apostles, from which she drinks in her faith. This she seals with the water (of baptism), arrays with the Holy Ghost, feeds with the Eucharist, cheers with martyrdom, and against such a discipline thus (maintained) she admits no gainsayer. This is the discipline which I no longer say foretold that heresies should come, but from which they proceeded</p>
<p>(“Feeds with The Eucharist”)</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: John</title>
		<link>http://www.sfpulpit.com/2007/07/03/why-i-love-the-church-part-1/comment-page-1/#comment-34777</link>
		<dc:creator>John</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Fri, 06 Jul 2007 17:54:01 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.sfpulpit.com/2007/07/03/why-i-love-the-church-part-1/#comment-34777</guid>
		<description>@ Gerry

You know that Webster has written 3 rebuttals?  And that your link is the Ray&#039;s response to Websters 1st rebuttal?

It&#039;s kinda hectic.  I&#039;ll get back to you when (and if) i can read them.

@ Chad

Sorry about the link its www.christiantruth.com !</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>@ Gerry</p>
<p>You know that Webster has written 3 rebuttals?  And that your link is the Ray&#8217;s response to Websters 1st rebuttal?</p>
<p>It&#8217;s kinda hectic.  I&#8217;ll get back to you when (and if) i can read them.</p>
<p>@ Chad</p>
<p>Sorry about the link its <a href="http://www.christiantruth.com" rel="nofollow">http://www.christiantruth.com</a> !</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Nate B.</title>
		<link>http://www.sfpulpit.com/2007/07/03/why-i-love-the-church-part-1/comment-page-1/#comment-34773</link>
		<dc:creator>Nate B.</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Fri, 06 Jul 2007 17:32:10 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.sfpulpit.com/2007/07/03/why-i-love-the-church-part-1/#comment-34773</guid>
		<description>The Roman Catholic issue was discussed at length in a prior series here on &lt;em&gt;Pulpit&lt;/em&gt;. We would direct our readers to that series, and the comments found there, for more on this particular subject.

&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.sfpulpit.com/2007/05/14/scripture-tradition-and-the-roman-catholic-church-part-1/&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Scripture, Tradition, and Rome (Part 1)&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/a&gt;

&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.sfpulpit.com/2007/05/15/scripture-tradition-and-rcc-part-2/&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Scripture, Tradition, and Rome (Part 2)&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/a&gt;

&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.sfpulpit.com/2007/05/16/scripture-tradition-and-rome-part-3/&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Scripture, Tradition, and Rome (Part 3)&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/a&gt;

&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.sfpulpit.com/2007/05/17/scripture-tradition-and-rome-part-4/&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Scripture, Tradition, and Rome (Part 4)&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/a&gt;

&lt;strong&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.sfpulpit.com/2007/05/18/scripture-tradition-and-rome-part-5/&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Scripture, Tradition, and Rome (Part 5)&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/strong&gt;

&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.sfpulpit.com/2007/05/19/scripture-tradition-and-rome-part-6/&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Scripture, Tradition, and Rome (Part 6)&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/a&gt;

&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.sfpulpit.com/2007/05/22/rome-in-review/&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Rome in Review&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/a&gt;</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>The Roman Catholic issue was discussed at length in a prior series here on <em>Pulpit</em>. We would direct our readers to that series, and the comments found there, for more on this particular subject.</p>
<p><a href="http://www.sfpulpit.com/2007/05/14/scripture-tradition-and-the-roman-catholic-church-part-1/" rel="nofollow" rel="nofollow"><strong>Scripture, Tradition, and Rome (Part 1)</strong></a></p>
<p><a href="http://www.sfpulpit.com/2007/05/15/scripture-tradition-and-rcc-part-2/" rel="nofollow" rel="nofollow"><strong>Scripture, Tradition, and Rome (Part 2)</strong></a></p>
<p><a href="http://www.sfpulpit.com/2007/05/16/scripture-tradition-and-rome-part-3/" rel="nofollow" rel="nofollow"><strong>Scripture, Tradition, and Rome (Part 3)</strong></a></p>
<p><a href="http://www.sfpulpit.com/2007/05/17/scripture-tradition-and-rome-part-4/" rel="nofollow" rel="nofollow"><strong>Scripture, Tradition, and Rome (Part 4)</strong></a></p>
<p><strong><a href="http://www.sfpulpit.com/2007/05/18/scripture-tradition-and-rome-part-5/" rel="nofollow">Scripture, Tradition, and Rome (Part 5)</a></strong></p>
<p><a href="http://www.sfpulpit.com/2007/05/19/scripture-tradition-and-rome-part-6/" rel="nofollow" rel="nofollow"><strong>Scripture, Tradition, and Rome (Part 6)</strong></a></p>
<p><a href="http://www.sfpulpit.com/2007/05/22/rome-in-review/" rel="nofollow" rel="nofollow"><strong>Rome in Review</strong></a></p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Gerry</title>
		<link>http://www.sfpulpit.com/2007/07/03/why-i-love-the-church-part-1/comment-page-1/#comment-34690</link>
		<dc:creator>Gerry</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Fri, 06 Jul 2007 14:44:26 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.sfpulpit.com/2007/07/03/why-i-love-the-church-part-1/#comment-34690</guid>
		<description>John,

Did you read link I supplied in reply to your &quot;christian truth&quot; link?  I linked it again below and it thoroughly answers Webster&#039;s claims.  I read your links, so I would hope that you can do the same if our dialogue is to be complete.

http://www.cin.org/users/jgallegos/web_aug.htm

If you believe that Augustine was in the &quot;True Church&quot; then you can&#039;t overlook all the rest of his writings like his belief in the Papacy, Tradition, the seven sacraments, Purgatory, the authority of the Catholic Church, etc..  A little sampling below...


On the True Church:

&quot;We must hold to the Christian religion and to communication in her Church, which is Catholic and which is called Catholic not only by her own members but even by all her enemies. For when heretics or the adherents of schisms talk about her, not among themselves but with strangers, willy-nilly they call her nothing else but Catholic. For they will not be understood unless they distinguish her by this name which the whole world employs in her regard&quot; (The True Religion 7:12 [A.D. 390]). 

&quot;We believe in the holy Church, that is, the Catholic Church; for heretics and schismatics call their own congregations churches. But heretics violate the faith itself by a false opinion about God; schismatics, however, withdraw from fraternal love by hostile separations, although they believe the same things we do. Consequently, neither heretics nor schismatics belong to the Catholic Church; not heretics, because the Church loves God, and not schismatics, because the Church loves neighbor&quot; (Faith and Creed 10:21 [A.D. 393]). 

&quot;&quot;If you should find someone who does not yet believe in the gospel, what would you [Mani] answer him when he says, ‘I do not believe’? Indeed, I would not believe in the gospel myself if the authority of the Catholic Church did not move me to do so&quot; (ibid., 5:6). 

On Tradition:

&quot;[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&quot; (On Baptism, Against the Donatists 5:23[31] [A.D. 400]). 

&quot;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&quot; (ibid., 5:26[37]). 

&quot;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&quot; (Letter to Januarius [A.D. 400]). 

On Apostolic Succession:

&quot;[T]here are many other things which most properly can keep me in [the Catholic Church’s] bosom. The unanimity of peoples and nations keeps me here. Her authority, inaugurated in miracles, nourished by hope, augmented by love, and confirmed by her age, keeps me here. The succession of priests, from the very see of the apostle Peter, to whom the Lord, after his resurrection, gave the charge of feeding his sheep [John 21:15–17], up to the present episcopate, keeps me here. And last, the very name Catholic, which, not without reason, belongs to this Church alone, in the face of so many heretics, so much so that, although all heretics want to be called ‘Catholic,’ when a stranger inquires where the Catholic Church meets, none of the heretics would dare to point out his own basilica or house&quot; (Against the Letter of Mani Called &quot;The Foundation&quot; 4:5 [A.D. 397]). 

On the Authority of the Pope:

&quot;There are many other things which rightly keep me in the bosom of the Catholic Church. The consent of the people and nations keeps me, her authority keeps me, inaugurated by miracles, nourished in hope, enlarged by love, and established by age. The succession of priests keep me, from the very seat of the apostle Peter (to whom the Lord after his resurrection gave charge to feed his sheep) down to the present episcopate [of Pope Siricius]&quot; (Against the Letter of Mani Called &quot;The Foundation&quot; 5 [A.D. 397]). 

&quot;[On this matter of the Pelagians] two councils have already been sent to the Apostolic See [the bishop of Rome], and from there rescripts too have come. The matter is at an end; would that the error too might be at an end!&quot; (Sermons 131:10 [A.D. 411]). 

On Peter as first Pope and his Primacy:

&quot;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&quot; (Letters 53:1:2 [A.D. 412]). 

&quot;Among these [apostles] Peter alone almost everywhere deserved to represent the whole Church. Because of that representation of the Church, which only he bore, he deserved to hear ‘I will give to you the keys of the kingdom of heaven’&quot; (Sermons 295:2 [A.D. 411]). 

&quot;Some things are said which seem to relate especially to the apostle Peter, and yet are not clear in their meaning unless referred to the Church, which he is acknowledged to have represented in a figure on account of the primacy which he bore among the disciples. Such is ‘I will give unto you the keys of the kingdom of heaven,’ and other similar passages. In the same way, Judas represents those Jews who were Christ’s enemies&quot; (Commentary on Psalm 108 1 [A.D. 415]). 

&quot;Who is ignorant that the first of the apostles is the most blessed Peter?&quot; (Commentary on John 56:1 [A.D. 416]). 

On the sacrifice of The Mass:

&quot; &#039;And was carried in His Own Hands:&#039; how &#039;carried in His Own Hands&#039;? Because when He commended His Own Body and Blood, He took into His Hands that which the faithful know; and in a manner carried Himself, when He said, &#039;This is My Body.&#039; &quot;
Augustine,On the Psalms,33:1,10(A.D. 392-418),in NPNF1,VIII:73

On confession:

&quot;All mortal sins are to be submitted to the keys of the Church and all can be forgiven; but recourse to these keys is the only, the necessary, and the certain way to forgiveness. Unless those who are guilty of grevious sin have recourse to the power of the keys, they cannot hope for eternal salvation. Open your lips, them, and confess your sins to the priest. Confession alone is the true gate to Heaven.&quot;
Augustine,Christian Combat(A.D. 397)

On Confirmation:

&quot;Why, therefore, is the Head itself, whence that ointment of unity descended, that is, the spiritual fragrance of brotherly love,--why, I say, is the Head itself exposed to your resistance, while it testifies and declares that &quot;repentance and remission of sins should be preached in His name among all nations, beginning at Jerusalem&quot;? And by this ointment you wish the sacrament of chrism to be understood, which is indeed holy as among the class of visible signs, like baptism itself...&quot;
Augustine,Letters of Petilian the Donatist,2,104:239(A.D. 403),in NPNF1,IV:592

On Sacraments of Marraige and Holy Orders:

&quot;Therefore the good of marriage throughout all nations and all men stands in the occasion of begetting, and faith of chastity: but, so far as pertains unto the People of God, also in the sanctity of the Sacrament, by reason of which it is unlawful for one who leaves her husband, even when she has been put away, to be married to another, so long as her husband lives, no not even for the sake of bearing children: and, whereas this is the alone cause, wherefore marriage takes place, not even where that very thing, wherefore it takes place, follows not, is the marriage bond loosed, save by the death of the husband or wife. In like manner as if there take place an ordination of clergy in order to form a congregation of people, although the congregation of people follow not, yet there remains in the ordained persons the Sacrament of Ordination; and if, for any fault, any be removed from his office, he will not be without the Sacrament of the Lord once for all set upon him, albeit continuing unto condemnation.&quot;
Augustine,On the Good of Marriage,24:32(A.D. 401),in NPNF1,III:412

On Purgatory:

Augustine
&quot;There is an ecclesiastical discipline, as the faithful know, when the names of the martyrs are read aloud in that place at the altar of God, where prayer is not offered for them. Prayer, however, is offered for other dead who are remembered. It is wrong to pray for a martyr, to whose prayers we ought ourselves be commended&quot; (Sermons 159:1 [A.D. 411]). 

&quot;But by the prayers of the holy Church, and by the salvific sacrifice, and by the alms which are given for their spirits, there is no doubt that the dead are aided, that the Lord might deal more mercifully with them than their sins would deserve. The whole Church observes this practice which was handed down by the Fathers: that it prays for those who have died in the communion of the Body and Blood of Christ, when they are commemorated in their own place in the sacrifice itself; and the sacrifice is offered also in memory of them, on their behalf. If, then, works of mercy are celebrated for the sake of those who are being remembered, who would hesitate to recommend them, on whose behalf prayers to God are not offered in vain? It is not at all to be doubted that such prayers are of profit to the dead; but for such of them as lived before their death in a way that makes it possible for these things to be useful to them after death&quot; (ibid., 172:2). 

&quot;Temporal punishments are suffered by some in this life only, by some after death, by some both here and hereafter, but all of them before that last and strictest judgment. But not all who suffer temporal punishments after death will come to eternal punishments, which are to follow after that judgment&quot; (The City of God 21:13 [A.D. 419]). 

&quot;That there should be some fire even after this life is not incredible, and it can be inquired into and either be discovered or left hidden whether some of the faithful may be saved, some more slowly and some more quickly in the greater or lesser degree in which they loved the good things that perish, through a certain purgatorial fire&quot; (Handbook on Faith, Hope, and Charity 18:69 [A.D. 421]). 

&quot;The time which interposes between the death of a man and the final resurrection holds souls in hidden retreats, accordingly as each is deserving of rest or of hardship, in view of what it merited when it was living in the flesh. Nor can it be denied that the souls of the dead find relief through the piety of their friends and relatives who are still alive, when the Sacrifice of the Mediator [Mass] is offered for them, or when alms are given in the Church. But these things are of profit to those who, when they were alive, merited that they might afterward be able to be helped by these things. There is a certain manner of living, neither so good that there is no need of these helps after death, nor yet so wicked that these helps are of no avail after death&quot; (ibid., 29:109). 


The Church that Augustine belonged to was The Catholic Church, so if you believe that Augustine was in the True Church then you must be part of Her.

As he said:
 &quot;By the same word, by the same Sacrament you were born, but you will not come to the same inheritance of eternal life, unless you return to the CATHOLIC CHURCH.&quot;
St. Augustine, Sermons, 3, 391 A.D.

&quot;This Church is holy, the one Church, the true Church, the Catholic Church, fighting as she does against all heresies. She can fight, but she cannot be beaten. All heresies are expelled from her, like the useless loppings pruned from a vine. She remains fixed in her root, in her vine, in her love. The gates of hell shall NOT conquer her.&quot;
St. Augustine, Sermon to Catechumens, on the Creed, 6,14, 395 A.D.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>John,</p>
<p>Did you read link I supplied in reply to your &#8220;christian truth&#8221; link?  I linked it again below and it thoroughly answers Webster&#8217;s claims.  I read your links, so I would hope that you can do the same if our dialogue is to be complete.</p>
<p><a href="http://www.cin.org/users/jgallegos/web_aug.htm" rel="nofollow">http://www.cin.org/users/jgallegos/web_aug.htm</a></p>
<p>If you believe that Augustine was in the &#8220;True Church&#8221; then you can&#8217;t overlook all the rest of his writings like his belief in the Papacy, Tradition, the seven sacraments, Purgatory, the authority of the Catholic Church, etc..  A little sampling below&#8230;</p>
<p>On the True Church:</p>
<p>&#8220;We must hold to the Christian religion and to communication in her Church, which is Catholic and which is called Catholic not only by her own members but even by all her enemies. For when heretics or the adherents of schisms talk about her, not among themselves but with strangers, willy-nilly they call her nothing else but Catholic. For they will not be understood unless they distinguish her by this name which the whole world employs in her regard&#8221; (The True Religion 7:12 [A.D. 390]). </p>
<p>&#8220;We believe in the holy Church, that is, the Catholic Church; for heretics and schismatics call their own congregations churches. But heretics violate the faith itself by a false opinion about God; schismatics, however, withdraw from fraternal love by hostile separations, although they believe the same things we do. Consequently, neither heretics nor schismatics belong to the Catholic Church; not heretics, because the Church loves God, and not schismatics, because the Church loves neighbor&#8221; (Faith and Creed 10:21 [A.D. 393]). </p>
<p>&#8220;&#8221;If you should find someone who does not yet believe in the gospel, what would you [Mani] answer him when he says, ‘I do not believe’? Indeed, I would not believe in the gospel myself if the authority of the Catholic Church did not move me to do so&#8221; (ibid., 5:6). </p>
<p>On Tradition:</p>
<p>&#8220;[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&#8221; (On Baptism, Against the Donatists 5:23[31] [A.D. 400]). </p>
<p>&#8220;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&#8221; (ibid., 5:26[37]). </p>
<p>&#8220;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&#8221; (Letter to Januarius [A.D. 400]). </p>
<p>On Apostolic Succession:</p>
<p>&#8220;[T]here are many other things which most properly can keep me in [the Catholic Church’s] bosom. The unanimity of peoples and nations keeps me here. Her authority, inaugurated in miracles, nourished by hope, augmented by love, and confirmed by her age, keeps me here. The succession of priests, from the very see of the apostle Peter, to whom the Lord, after his resurrection, gave the charge of feeding his sheep [John 21:15–17], up to the present episcopate, keeps me here. And last, the very name Catholic, which, not without reason, belongs to this Church alone, in the face of so many heretics, so much so that, although all heretics want to be called ‘Catholic,’ when a stranger inquires where the Catholic Church meets, none of the heretics would dare to point out his own basilica or house&#8221; (Against the Letter of Mani Called &#8220;The Foundation&#8221; 4:5 [A.D. 397]). </p>
<p>On the Authority of the Pope:</p>
<p>&#8220;There are many other things which rightly keep me in the bosom of the Catholic Church. The consent of the people and nations keeps me, her authority keeps me, inaugurated by miracles, nourished in hope, enlarged by love, and established by age. The succession of priests keep me, from the very seat of the apostle Peter (to whom the Lord after his resurrection gave charge to feed his sheep) down to the present episcopate [of Pope Siricius]&#8221; (Against the Letter of Mani Called &#8220;The Foundation&#8221; 5 [A.D. 397]). </p>
<p>&#8220;[On this matter of the Pelagians] two councils have already been sent to the Apostolic See [the bishop of Rome], and from there rescripts too have come. The matter is at an end; would that the error too might be at an end!&#8221; (Sermons 131:10 [A.D. 411]). </p>
<p>On Peter as first Pope and his Primacy:</p>
<p>&#8220;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. &#8230; In this order of succession a Donatist bishop is not to be found&#8221; (Letters 53:1:2 [A.D. 412]). </p>
<p>&#8220;Among these [apostles] Peter alone almost everywhere deserved to represent the whole Church. Because of that representation of the Church, which only he bore, he deserved to hear ‘I will give to you the keys of the kingdom of heaven’&#8221; (Sermons 295:2 [A.D. 411]). </p>
<p>&#8220;Some things are said which seem to relate especially to the apostle Peter, and yet are not clear in their meaning unless referred to the Church, which he is acknowledged to have represented in a figure on account of the primacy which he bore among the disciples. Such is ‘I will give unto you the keys of the kingdom of heaven,’ and other similar passages. In the same way, Judas represents those Jews who were Christ’s enemies&#8221; (Commentary on Psalm 108 1 [A.D. 415]). </p>
<p>&#8220;Who is ignorant that the first of the apostles is the most blessed Peter?&#8221; (Commentary on John 56:1 [A.D. 416]). </p>
<p>On the sacrifice of The Mass:</p>
<p>&#8221; &#8216;And was carried in His Own Hands:&#8217; how &#8216;carried in His Own Hands&#8217;? Because when He commended His Own Body and Blood, He took into His Hands that which the faithful know; and in a manner carried Himself, when He said, &#8216;This is My Body.&#8217; &#8221;<br />
Augustine,On the Psalms,33:1,10(A.D. 392-418),in NPNF1,VIII:73</p>
<p>On confession:</p>
<p>&#8220;All mortal sins are to be submitted to the keys of the Church and all can be forgiven; but recourse to these keys is the only, the necessary, and the certain way to forgiveness. Unless those who are guilty of grevious sin have recourse to the power of the keys, they cannot hope for eternal salvation. Open your lips, them, and confess your sins to the priest. Confession alone is the true gate to Heaven.&#8221;<br />
Augustine,Christian Combat(A.D. 397)</p>
<p>On Confirmation:</p>
<p>&#8220;Why, therefore, is the Head itself, whence that ointment of unity descended, that is, the spiritual fragrance of brotherly love,&#8211;why, I say, is the Head itself exposed to your resistance, while it testifies and declares that &#8220;repentance and remission of sins should be preached in His name among all nations, beginning at Jerusalem&#8221;? And by this ointment you wish the sacrament of chrism to be understood, which is indeed holy as among the class of visible signs, like baptism itself&#8230;&#8221;<br />
Augustine,Letters of Petilian the Donatist,2,104:239(A.D. 403),in NPNF1,IV:592</p>
<p>On Sacraments of Marraige and Holy Orders:</p>
<p>&#8220;Therefore the good of marriage throughout all nations and all men stands in the occasion of begetting, and faith of chastity: but, so far as pertains unto the People of God, also in the sanctity of the Sacrament, by reason of which it is unlawful for one who leaves her husband, even when she has been put away, to be married to another, so long as her husband lives, no not even for the sake of bearing children: and, whereas this is the alone cause, wherefore marriage takes place, not even where that very thing, wherefore it takes place, follows not, is the marriage bond loosed, save by the death of the husband or wife. In like manner as if there take place an ordination of clergy in order to form a congregation of people, although the congregation of people follow not, yet there remains in the ordained persons the Sacrament of Ordination; and if, for any fault, any be removed from his office, he will not be without the Sacrament of the Lord once for all set upon him, albeit continuing unto condemnation.&#8221;<br />
Augustine,On the Good of Marriage,24:32(A.D. 401),in NPNF1,III:412</p>
<p>On Purgatory:</p>
<p>Augustine<br />
&#8220;There is an ecclesiastical discipline, as the faithful know, when the names of the martyrs are read aloud in that place at the altar of God, where prayer is not offered for them. Prayer, however, is offered for other dead who are remembered. It is wrong to pray for a martyr, to whose prayers we ought ourselves be commended&#8221; (Sermons 159:1 [A.D. 411]). </p>
<p>&#8220;But by the prayers of the holy Church, and by the salvific sacrifice, and by the alms which are given for their spirits, there is no doubt that the dead are aided, that the Lord might deal more mercifully with them than their sins would deserve. The whole Church observes this practice which was handed down by the Fathers: that it prays for those who have died in the communion of the Body and Blood of Christ, when they are commemorated in their own place in the sacrifice itself; and the sacrifice is offered also in memory of them, on their behalf. If, then, works of mercy are celebrated for the sake of those who are being remembered, who would hesitate to recommend them, on whose behalf prayers to God are not offered in vain? It is not at all to be doubted that such prayers are of profit to the dead; but for such of them as lived before their death in a way that makes it possible for these things to be useful to them after death&#8221; (ibid., 172:2). </p>
<p>&#8220;Temporal punishments are suffered by some in this life only, by some after death, by some both here and hereafter, but all of them before that last and strictest judgment. But not all who suffer temporal punishments after death will come to eternal punishments, which are to follow after that judgment&#8221; (The City of God 21:13 [A.D. 419]). </p>
<p>&#8220;That there should be some fire even after this life is not incredible, and it can be inquired into and either be discovered or left hidden whether some of the faithful may be saved, some more slowly and some more quickly in the greater or lesser degree in which they loved the good things that perish, through a certain purgatorial fire&#8221; (Handbook on Faith, Hope, and Charity 18:69 [A.D. 421]). </p>
<p>&#8220;The time which interposes between the death of a man and the final resurrection holds souls in hidden retreats, accordingly as each is deserving of rest or of hardship, in view of what it merited when it was living in the flesh. Nor can it be denied that the souls of the dead find relief through the piety of their friends and relatives who are still alive, when the Sacrifice of the Mediator [Mass] is offered for them, or when alms are given in the Church. But these things are of profit to those who, when they were alive, merited that they might afterward be able to be helped by these things. There is a certain manner of living, neither so good that there is no need of these helps after death, nor yet so wicked that these helps are of no avail after death&#8221; (ibid., 29:109). </p>
<p>The Church that Augustine belonged to was The Catholic Church, so if you believe that Augustine was in the True Church then you must be part of Her.</p>
<p>As he said:<br />
 &#8220;By the same word, by the same Sacrament you were born, but you will not come to the same inheritance of eternal life, unless you return to the CATHOLIC CHURCH.&#8221;<br />
St. Augustine, Sermons, 3, 391 A.D.</p>
<p>&#8220;This Church is holy, the one Church, the true Church, the Catholic Church, fighting as she does against all heresies. She can fight, but she cannot be beaten. All heresies are expelled from her, like the useless loppings pruned from a vine. She remains fixed in her root, in her vine, in her love. The gates of hell shall NOT conquer her.&#8221;<br />
St. Augustine, Sermon to Catechumens, on the Creed, 6,14, 395 A.D.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Chad</title>
		<link>http://www.sfpulpit.com/2007/07/03/why-i-love-the-church-part-1/comment-page-1/#comment-34678</link>
		<dc:creator>Chad</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Fri, 06 Jul 2007 13:41:45 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.sfpulpit.com/2007/07/03/why-i-love-the-church-part-1/#comment-34678</guid>
		<description>Also, it seems hard for me to believe that the Protestant doctrine of scripture alone could have come out of a time prior to the Gutenburg (sp?) press. When 99% of the population can&#039;t read, I find it hard to believe the Church was saying &quot;turn to the scriptures&quot; for everything you need to know to guide your life. Again, it just isn&#039;t plausible or even something that would be relevant to most believers.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Also, it seems hard for me to believe that the Protestant doctrine of scripture alone could have come out of a time prior to the Gutenburg (sp?) press. When 99% of the population can&#8217;t read, I find it hard to believe the Church was saying &#8220;turn to the scriptures&#8221; for everything you need to know to guide your life. Again, it just isn&#8217;t plausible or even something that would be relevant to most believers.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Chad</title>
		<link>http://www.sfpulpit.com/2007/07/03/why-i-love-the-church-part-1/comment-page-1/#comment-34677</link>
		<dc:creator>Chad</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Fri, 06 Jul 2007 13:38:09 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.sfpulpit.com/2007/07/03/why-i-love-the-church-part-1/#comment-34677</guid>
		<description>John,

I went to the Christian Truths website and they wanted me to sign up for some money making scheme. Did you get the link right? 

Regardless, it really boils down to plausibility. I&#039;ve read different arguments by fundamentalist apologists, tracing their lineage to the apostles, and I am not convinced. Even outside religious circles, where there&#039;s nothing to gain either way, most academic historians would find the methodology of fundamentalists unsound, and consequently their conclusions outside the realm of plausibility. All that combined, I just don&#039;t give much credence to people saying, for instance, that somehow early Christians believed in something like faith alone or scripture alone. 

Even from just a logical/life experience point of view, it just doesn&#039;t ring true for me...and the fruit it bears I find dubious.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>John,</p>
<p>I went to the Christian Truths website and they wanted me to sign up for some money making scheme. Did you get the link right? </p>
<p>Regardless, it really boils down to plausibility. I&#8217;ve read different arguments by fundamentalist apologists, tracing their lineage to the apostles, and I am not convinced. Even outside religious circles, where there&#8217;s nothing to gain either way, most academic historians would find the methodology of fundamentalists unsound, and consequently their conclusions outside the realm of plausibility. All that combined, I just don&#8217;t give much credence to people saying, for instance, that somehow early Christians believed in something like faith alone or scripture alone. </p>
<p>Even from just a logical/life experience point of view, it just doesn&#8217;t ring true for me&#8230;and the fruit it bears I find dubious.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: John</title>
		<link>http://www.sfpulpit.com/2007/07/03/why-i-love-the-church-part-1/comment-page-1/#comment-34674</link>
		<dc:creator>John</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Fri, 06 Jul 2007 13:06:21 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.sfpulpit.com/2007/07/03/why-i-love-the-church-part-1/#comment-34674</guid>
		<description>@ Chad

Did you read the links I put on here.  I know its a lot, but the lineage we claim can be CLEARLY traced back to the Apostles --&gt; I might even do that...

If you read my www.christiantruths.com link you will see that the cherry pickers are Roman Catholics not Evangelicals  --&gt; go see for yourself (not to mention things like the dispute of whether Peter ever was a bishop of Rome and how Rome had a plurality of elders...)

@ Gerry

Sorry, lots of stuff on here, didn&#039;t see that question.

Yes, I believe Augustine was in the true Church - he depends on Christ alone and faith alone for his justification.

Everyone in the church does.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>@ Chad</p>
<p>Did you read the links I put on here.  I know its a lot, but the lineage we claim can be CLEARLY traced back to the Apostles &#8211;&gt; I might even do that&#8230;</p>
<p>If you read my <a href="http://www.christiantruths.com" rel="nofollow">http://www.christiantruths.com</a> link you will see that the cherry pickers are Roman Catholics not Evangelicals  &#8211;&gt; go see for yourself (not to mention things like the dispute of whether Peter ever was a bishop of Rome and how Rome had a plurality of elders&#8230;)</p>
<p>@ Gerry</p>
<p>Sorry, lots of stuff on here, didn&#8217;t see that question.</p>
<p>Yes, I believe Augustine was in the true Church &#8211; he depends on Christ alone and faith alone for his justification.</p>
<p>Everyone in the church does.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Gerry</title>
		<link>http://www.sfpulpit.com/2007/07/03/why-i-love-the-church-part-1/comment-page-1/#comment-34542</link>
		<dc:creator>Gerry</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Fri, 06 Jul 2007 01:21:13 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.sfpulpit.com/2007/07/03/why-i-love-the-church-part-1/#comment-34542</guid>
		<description>Chad,

You are very astute! That&#039;s exactly what happens.  Since the protestants do not have a history before the 1500&#039;s, they must try and force their theological square pegs in the round hole of 2000 yrs of consistent Catholic teaching.  

John,

BTW, you never answered my question concerning Augustine.  Was he in the &quot;True Church&quot;?</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Chad,</p>
<p>You are very astute! That&#8217;s exactly what happens.  Since the protestants do not have a history before the 1500&#8217;s, they must try and force their theological square pegs in the round hole of 2000 yrs of consistent Catholic teaching.  </p>
<p>John,</p>
<p>BTW, you never answered my question concerning Augustine.  Was he in the &#8220;True Church&#8221;?</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
</channel>
</rss>
