The logic or illogic of contradiction

[1Cor15.54 (Massimiliano)]

@ShawnTMurphy

they might have been the only Christianity left until the Reformation, though

Do you know what happened before the reformation? Because it looks like you want to enlighten me without actually knowing what you are talking about (history is my field, I’m sorry). If you claim that Catholicism “might have been the only Christianity left until the Reformation” I guess there are many holes in your knowledge.

[1Cor15.54 (Massimiliano)]

@ShawnTMurphy

• Emerging “proto-orthodox” Christians — a modern label for communities that emphasized continuity with the apostles, shared scripture, and the authority of bishops. They were not yet one fully uniform bloc

Even in that period, orthodox Christianity had Rome as its headquarter.

Let me quote myself from when I cited Von Harnack (who could be accused of many things but certainly not of having been a Roman Catholic , which apparently is the worst thing that can happen to a man)

@1Cor15.54

From the close of the first century the Roman church was in a position of practical primacy over Christendom.” And at the end: “ it was a cardinal duty to “strengthen the brethren,” and this duty Rome amply discharged.”

Source: Adolf von Harnack, The Mission and Expansion of Christianity in the First Three Centuries, Vol. II, Book III, Excursus III, The Primacy of Rome in Relation to the Mission, p. 485. Adolf Harnack: Mission and Expansion of Christianity in the First Three Centuries - Christian Classics Ethereal Library

2. “Before general synods and patriarchs arose within the church, prior even to the complete development of the metropolitan system, there was a catholic confederation which embraced the majority of the Christian churches in the East and the West alike. It came into being during the gnostic controversies; it assumed a relatively final shape during the Montanist controversy; and its headquarters were at Rome. The federation had no written constitution. It did not possess one iota of common statutes. Nevertheless, it was a fact. Its common denominator consisted of the apostles’ creed, the apostolic canon, and belief in the apostolical succession of the episcopate.”

Source: Adolf von Harnack, The Mission and Expansion of Christianity in the First Three Centuries, Vol. II, Book III, Excursus II, The Catholic Confederation and the Mission, p. 483. Adolf Harnack: Mission and Expansion of Christianity in the First Three Centuries - Christian Classics Ethereal Library

3. “All these causes combined to convert the Christian communities into a real confederation under the primacy of the Roman Church”

Source: Adolf von Harnack, History of Dogma, Vol. II, Excursus Catholic and Roman, pp. 159–160. Adolf Harnack: History of Dogma - Volume II - Christian Classics Ethereal Library . Rome’s apostolic foundation and episcopal succession — BEFORE the quotation (pp. 153–154, 158–159)

Harnack considers Rome’s association with the apostles Peter and Paul, together with its early documentation of episcopal succession, an important element in its exceptional standing among the ancient Christian communities, he observes that Rome is the earliest Church for which historians can demonstrate the existence of a list of bishops extending back to the apostles. He also argues that the Roman bishops were among the first to employ the concept of apostolic episcopal succession as an institutional and doctrinal argument.

Most significantly, immediately before his statement about Roman primacy, Harnack returns to this subject. On page 159, he emphasizes that by approximately AD 180 the Roman Church could point to an episcopal succession tracing its origins to Peter and Paul.Thus, apostolic succession is not something Harnack introduces after declaring Rome’s primacy. It is part of the historical evidence he has already presented when he reaches that conclusion.

Harnack also argues that the Roman Church developed an especially clear and authoritative formulation of the apostolic rule of faith.

According to his reconstruction, by around AD 180 Rome possessed a precisely formulated baptismal confession regarded as a standard of apostolic teaching, which, during the Gnostic controversies, enabled the Roman Church to distinguish what it regarded as authentic apostolic Christianity from competing doctrines.

On page 159, immediately before his conclusion concerning Roman primacy, Harnack emphasizes Rome’s firmness during these controversies and her established rule of faith.

In other words, Rome’s doctrinal authority is not presented merely as a consequence of the city’s political importance. Harnack also regards the Roman Church’s perceived fidelity to apostolic teaching as an important reason for its influence throughout Christendom.

This is especially relevant because his historical argument concerns not only Rome’s prestige but also her role in establishing and maintaining doctrinal unity across different Christian communities.

Harnack describes the Roman Church as exercising an exceptional influence over Christian communities outside its own geographical region.

He discusses several pieces of evidence.

First, he examines the First Epistle of Clement, written to the Corinthians toward the end of the first century. Harnack interprets this intervention as evidence that Rome already exercised a particular responsibility for communities beyond its immediate jurisdiction.

Second, he examines Ignatius of Antioch’s letter to the Romans, arguing that Ignatius acknowledged Rome’s distinctive precedence among the Churches.

Third, he discusses Dionysius of Corinth, whose correspondence with the Roman bishop Soter illustrates the extensive assistance provided by Rome to Christian communities across the Mediterranean.

So as you can see things were in a certain way from the beginning. It doesn’t mean that everything was already fully defined, not even the trinitarian belief was fully defined in the earlier centuries (and there were fathers who were subordinationist and held beliefs that would have been erroneous in light of Nicaea), but the roots of everything was already there.

When Von Harnack says “From the close of the first century the Roman church was in a position of practical primacy over Christendom.” And at the end: “ it was a cardinal duty to “strengthen the brethren,” and this duty Rome amply discharged.” He is saying something quite significative.

[ShawnTMurphy]

This is the discussion

I asked where is all the truth, and you answered:

@1Cor15.54

It is found in the living witness of the Church He Himself founded, a witness that has continued uninterrupted for 2000 years through apostolic succession.

I was just demonstrating that it was not uninterrupted as you claimed. Besides the fact that Catholicism does not teach all of the truth as you claim. Had they done this, then would not have convicted Galilleo nor killed Joan of Arc, an countless other innocents.

[1Cor15.54 (Massimiliano)]

@ShawnTMurphy

I was just demonstrating that it was not uninterrupted as you claimed

How is it not interrupted? The existence of heresies were and are a fact but they were never endorsed by Rome.

[ShawnTMurphy]

Catholicism did not start to emerge until the 3rd century.

But you keep ducking the main question, which is your claim that Catholicism teaches all the truth that Jesus promised.

[1Cor15.54 (Massimiliano)]

@ShawnTMurphy

Catholicism did not start to emerge until the 3rd century.

This is a falsehood that I have already refuted. I have literally quoted a well-known historian whose word is much more valuable and authoritative than yours on the subject.

[1Cor15.54 (Massimiliano)]

@ShawnTMurphy

Besides the fact that Catholicism does not teach all of the truth as you claim. Had they done this, then would not have convicted Galilleo nor killed Joan of Arc, an countless other innocents.

@ShawnTMurphy

was just demonstrating that it was not uninterrupted as you claimed

How is it not interrupted? The existence of heresies were and are a fact but they were never endorsed by Rome.

@ShawnTMurphy

Besides the fact that Catholicism does not teach all of the truth as you claim. Had they done this, then would not have convicted Galilleo nor killed Joan of Arc, an countless other innocents.

You are confusing the Church as a whole and her deposite of faith with the sinfulness of some of their men.

The reformers were pigs who advocated the slaughter of innocents and Luther in particular was as antisemite as Hitler and you see him as someone good in opposition to Rome, as someone who had the moral high ground.

You are just an anticatholic who would side with Satan himself if it meant tearing down the Church you hate (like most of the world, I wonder why the world doesn’t hate the other MANMADE “churches”, then I read Luke 6:25 and I get the answer ), you aren’t interested in truth at all.

If Epstein had attacked the Church you would side even with him.

[1Cor15.54 (Massimiliano)]

@1Cor15.54

then I read Luke 6:25 and I get the answer

I meant Luke 6:26.