
Originally Posted by
Cardinal Bunal
Your history is biased...
But your history is just plain FALSE. You have not been able to offer a shred of evidence to back up your fantasies.
Even before John penned the last book in Patmos, almost all of the congregations had COPIES of the sacred documents, but of course this wasn't without some confusion with other so-called epistles because apostates have already arose...
In other words, they
DID NOT have an authoritative nor accurate canon at all! If such Scripture is the "word of God", then how is it that such egregious errors are in them?
You just shot yourself in the foot.
(and mind you, these congregations were autonomous - to Rome; one can be sure of that.
If you imply they were totally independent, you're wrong again. There was ONE Church, Holy and Apostolic. All these other local churches were part of the one Church and they ALL recognized the primacy of the See of Peter.
Ignatius of Antioch was the first to introduce these teachings of heterodox, most of them accorded to the earliest beliefs of "real presence" in the bread of the altar.... His authority didn't necessarily come from Peter.
But he had
NO PERSONAL AUTHORITY to define Scripture or define doctrine. That's why his teachings had to comply with those of the Church for it to be doctrinal.
You are totally ignorant of history. St. Ignatiius in AD 110 already recognized the authority of the Papacy:
"Ignatius . . . to the church also which holds the presidency, in the location of the
country of the Romans, worthy of God, worthy of honor, worthy of blessing, worthy of praise,
worthy of success, worthy of sanctification, and, because you hold the presidency in love, named
after Christ and named after the Father" (Letter to the Romans 1:1 [A.D. 110]).
"You [the church at Rome] have envied no one, but others you have taught. I desire only that what
you have enjoined in your instructions may remain in force" (ibid., 3:1).
St. Irenaeus also recognized the authority and primacy of the the Church in Rome, and acknowledged that all local churches were subject to it:
"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])
It was always known as the Catholic Church, but because of Pope Leo IX, she was known as the
Roman Catholic Church in 1094 A.D.
No. That was not really a well-known name of the Church until the Anglicans used it to differentiate themselves (as supposedly the "true" catholics).
But then that is just semantics really. What makes the Church the same one as the one founded by Christ is the unbroken chain of formal authority passed on to the successors of the Apostles, and also the doctrinal consistency (adherence to the teachings of Christ through His Apostles).
No other church can claim that. Only the Catholic Church can truthfully do so.
it's role as Helper and intercessor in general (Christ and the Spirit are interchangeable) have mostly been transferred to a highly exlated Roman Catholic version of "Mary", one of whose titles are Mediatrix of Graces.
We have to call a spade a spade here.
You are truly a LIAR. You deliberately MISREPRESENT the role of Mary in the teachings of the Church.
You cannot name even a single official/doctrirnal Church document equating Mary to the Holy Spirit. Not a single one! Your allegations are FALSE. You are LYING.
You should know better than to peddle such easily-exposed lies in this forum. As Dacs asked, have you no shame? And you call yourself a Christian?
What HYPOCRISY!
Again, this is on the premise that I disagree that the Roman Church has derived it's authority from the apostles.
A premise with no evidence whatsoever to support it! We have shown time and again that the local Christian churches were never doctrinally or formally independent from the Papacy, which already existed from the beginning in the primacy of Peter.