In Christ, Martin

An Aristotlean definition of God is as follows:

One and Simple.

Meaning God is not contingent on anything and all is contingent on God (simple); so too God is God, anything which properly defines God only properly defines God and nothing else (one).

So too Shroedinger's Equation predicts all physical properties of matter and light (simple). Furthermore, we're finding that the physical surroundings are even more simple than that as we further discover how united matter, energy, and gravitational forces are (one).

Gravity is another example of both simpleness and oneness.

This question is posed in a manner an agnostic could answer well and atheist spit upon Aristotle, but primarily honors the Catholic Tradition handed on from the Apostles and exemplified in St. Augustine's "The Confessions" written around 400 A.D..

[We're speaking English so God is a masculine word. If saying "he" offends you, pick a different language where the word "God" is neuter]

I begin with a partial induction [a fallacy]. That everything is ordered unto some end.

(Atheists have an easier time with that than most Christians; if you don't see that, you've never asked the question, to what end does the Bible serve and why was it compiled)

I further apply that to a plenary induction [an absolute fact] that every man wishes to be happy.

Id est dicere that the operation of man's will is to be pick what he thinks might make him happy (the action of his intellect) in accord with his personal experience (drawn from his memory).

Therefore, I conclude that man was made for happiness as dogs are made for happiness. [This concludes the first ethical argument]

Well, if you accept my first premise, you have the proof for God.

If you don't, you won't be obliged to introspect further as to the natural consequences (Protestants beware!). [This concludes the first emotional argument]

Man's desires may be listed in three categories as one thing.

-He wishes to be happy has possible. (ideally, absolutely happy beyond one's ability to contain the joy)

-He wishes for the happiness to never end nor need repetition.

-He does not wish to be afraid that it might be taken away.

All temporal things fail all three markers.

God cannot be fail in any of these respects, otherwise it's better to avoid God and die ignorant & go to Hell. [last ethical argument]

Are you even trying to find what you were made for? [final emotional argument]

....

Thoughts?

Has Aristotle's proof for God in Book IX of "On Physics" been entirely forgotten?

I know the four causes are not taught in physics anymore because physics is difficult enough without asking what is the fundamental agent and end of something while it loosely examines form (but only for pragmatic reasons) and focuses on the material causes of things.

In Short:

Can we speak of God as a being as opposed to generalizing "god" with multiple ideas of "God" such as a Baptist's idea of Jesus is extremely different from that of a Lutheran or Hindu.

If we generalize, we'd put all the false ideas next to the only possible truth the contradict. Can we speak of [a] principle being[s] necessary for all other things to exist is a forum such as this?

Keyword: "principle"

At Length:

As I read some threads, I'm caught up by my memory of a conversation with a Pentecostal who refused to hear me because I preached that reason cannot contradict faith, a tenant of the Catholic faith (whether it's practiced or not). She, however, was not put off by my fidelity to the Catholic Church by my faith in absolute truth... which speaks to the relativism prevailing is our times.

Ultimately, this question hinges on the Principle of Non-Contradiction, as any deduction requires a major (aka. universal) premise from which a minor (aka. particular) premise is placed upon in order to produce a certain conclusion.

Would one have to argue that all creeds worship "god," or would the only responsible thing to do be to compare each individual creed to the next tediously? If so, how would you determine one more credible than another? I'd be interested in how one would do that with varying moral codes of atheists as well.

Atheists have the natural use of reason and comprehend the fundamental principle of ethics... no different for Christians. In fact, by Christian principle, the atheists are more moral than us hypocrites because they lack any pursuit of Truth as God. Those Christians, who refuse to recognize the roots of "Ho Logos" (Gk. in John 1:14) as a reminder that Our God is the creator of both the natural law of this world and the only moral law which is conducive toward happiness, are a great scandal to the Holy Name of Jesus.

Hark ye militant atheists, study the four principle causes... a lot of confusion in conversation is over these.

Voe Christianibus Obdurantibus, don't be blinded by words which are mysteries and think that others start with any grace of faith. Solid reason produces a natural point to take the leap of faith as the only natural conclusion, build that foundation as Peter commands in 1 Peter 3:15

Little background: I am a Catholic convert and a strong Thomist ("Tome-ist") with an emphasis on natural science (physics). So too, having left protestant communities, I find that I never once asked this question as a protestant: "How can I better love my Lord's Bride, The Church."

The Catholic answer is self-evident as the appropriate title of the church is "Holy Mother Church" and her public prayers are laced with such notions...

The closest thing to this I remember among protestants is the line from Saint Paul, "for the building up of the church." That is by preaching you increase your number and "save individuals;" hence, I wonder if there is any greater depth than this for protestants?

Does Islam claim Qur'an to be infallible in scientific matters? I.E. Astrology & Anatomy

Mind I do not intend to attack Islam by this question, but merely await the enlightenment I lack; as only the fool does not listen but considers himself wise in his own eyes.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lB_lkj-u0Uc&feature... brings me to this question and if you'd like to rebuttle this man for me (not on You Tube but explaining me why he is wrong) and I would much appreciate it.

***Simply what verses give the Protestant Canon according to Sola Scriptura & ZERO Tradition? if some history (which is all tradition is) is required let her loose?**** Everything below is a recap of my question in my own pursuit of the answer with an educating of how the Catholic Canon came to be with dates and names and documents.

I'm merely searching for Bible verses that explain the Protestant or Lutheran Canon of the Bible, I've done much research over the past 3 years of my life specifically for the Catholic Defense which according to logic is the much more complicated one to understand since Sola Scriptura means only a few Bible Verses defines it clearly.. otherwise Sola Scriptura is self-contradicting all together and one must do research of traditions (which means the history carried down from the past by word & letter). I've spent the past 3 hours looking for a verse other than Luke 16:16 "The law and the prophets lasted until John.." which would go against the Protestant rebuke of Maccabees & Tobit as there being a "silent period where God did not send any messengers nor angels" (Pardon me if you know a different rebuke but that's the consistent one I have gained from pastors and friends)

Though if you do not spout complete rigid sola-scriptura I would still enjoy knowing how you weave the Bible to support Protestantism.

To support the Catholic Canon I merely quote Acts 2:42, 2 Thessalonians 2:15, closing 1st & 2nd Peter's calling anyone who interprets scipture on their own prophetic ideas they are risking the damnation of themselves and others. Following though I give times & dates of the Church's compiling of the Bible into one Latin Canon with reference to the earlier Greek Canon that it is translated from. The references of the Greek is by the Early Church Fathers before 200 AD.

Simply that, Catholicism has a Tradition that is pinpoint latest to 419 AD in Carthage. Further back though since the See of Constantinople, Rome, Jerusalem, Antioch, & Alexandra all condemned St. Jerome's bias belief that God would have preserved all scripture's original text if it is inspired by him (which we learn 1600 years later to be absolutely false due to lack of original Hebrew translation of the Torah & much the Old). St. Jerome gained that bias as he studied under a Jewish Scribe Hebrew & Talmud theology so to learn it. Father Martin Luther the monk who spouted "Sola Scriptura!" and gave birth to protestantism -though this would never have occured without the heresies of the Lollards & Hussites in France-England & Germany-Austria-Switzerland.

The binding of St. Jerome to include the Dueterocanonical books in his Vulgate Translation puts a minimum date to 350 AD, but then at the First Council of Nicaea (325 AD) the entirety of Christendom gathered and burned many apocrypha of the Arians, Gnostics, & more; with a side purpose to compile the New Testament (that is the books along with the Sacred books of the Septuagint during the Most Holy Mass -check out St. Justin the Martyr's 1st Apology and "St. Justin the Martyr's Debate with Typhro the Jew" to date that tradition before 150AD [40 years after St. John the Apostle's death]....St. Justin the disciple of St. Polycarp, St. Polycarp the disciple of St. John the Apostle)

Sooo the Catholic Canon by Tradition dates to 150 AD at the earliest known document but if we go by the idea of "Profession of Schools" as the philosophers did Thales of Miletus all the way down to Socrates & directly after him was Plato completing what is known as the Ionic Philosophy with Socrates and merging Thales's school with Pythagorea of the Italia School. They carried material from one teacher to the next all the way to this very day less affective than the Apostles taught with the Holy Spirit their successors. So we can firmly date the Canon to that which the Apostles gave forth & Christ himself backed / taught.

That is the Catholic Sacred Tradition that backs the Catholic Canon, what backs the canon that was called forth with the Talmud to destroy Christianity in 100AD at the Council of Jamnia by the non-biblical and Rabbinic Jews.

I know almost completely all Christian denominations agree that if you do not discern your sins before you receive "communion" you commit a very grave sin.

1 Corinthians 11:27-29

"Therefore whoever eats the bread or drinks the cup of the Lord unworthily will have to answer for the body and blood of the Lord. A person should examine himself, and so eat the bread and drink the cup. For anyone who eats and drinks without discerning the body, eats and drinks judgment on himself."

Is this equally applied as in the Gospel Jesus says at Capernaum in John 6:53

"Jesus said to them, 'Amen, amen, I say to you unless you eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink his blood, you do not have life within you."

Does this apply to communion? If your theology says "communion" gives life or not to he/she that receives it just tell me so, I'd do a back flip (if I was able) if you can give me where in a book or letter of a theologian says their opinion on such a thing. [especially founder theologians like Luther, Zwingli, Calvin, Knoxs, or any other (Even Smith)]

(which I am aware differs denomination to denomination from Catholic to Anglican to Methodist to Baptist to Lutheran the scope is huge)

I'm happy to accept what ones Pastor says at your church !

I ask because I'm aware that in the "Last Supper" many denominations claim that Jesus's "body" or "flesh" and "blood" is symbolic in it's association with the bread and wine, but claim the bread and wine to be "The Lord's" and therefore must be respected and eaten with reflection on their own personal sin. Does this also mean that there is a reward of life (at least an increase in spiritual life) given to the one who receives "communion" after reflecting on their sins and not receiving "communion" as simple food but spiritual food?? (1 Cor 10:16-17 & 11:34)

Catholics Read the Council of Ephesus if you want to know what The Church says, I know the Catholic theology. I do not know the Protestant theology on this. Catholic statements have no merit in this, unless you're referring to what other denominations say..

I ask this with knowledge that Mark was the disciple of Peter in Rome, but why does that matter in the least?

My confusion is if it is because he was a disciple of Peter then why not take the "3rd Pope" Clement I (The First) as equally accredited as a disciple of Peter who held no argument with his peer Mark.

Is there another reason for not listening to this man's written teachings? or the collective written teachings of him and his Contemporaries of the 1st century about Jesus Christ?

Please stray from these topics and focus on the Book "The Gospel of Mark's" value itself

1.I'm NOT asking why do we still have the Gospel or how did it survive until gathered at the Council of Nicea nor canonized in the Council of Hippo nor ratified in the Council of Florence nor composited by Luther nor dogmatically announced at the Council of Trent. So please stay away from any of those topics

2. Please don't give the "sola scriptura" that you cannot trust anything that is outside the Bible, why can you trust this one book in the Bible is my question. Deductive Reasoning is my goal

3. Stay away from Hebrews, it's a completely different battle with all the assumed writers of it. I know of only one consensus "one of the 'Early Church Fathers" wrote it, or "disciples of an Apostle." anyone from Ignatius to Polycarp to some Jewish Convert who did no preaching at all... Please pardon my nonchalant statement on Hebrews, I want to stay off that.

4. Preaching all together I want to stray from if you can. Reasoning is my dream. . far from reality it is.

My deduction is: "If you trust Mark because he is a disciple of Peter and two other disciples followed with separate Gospels -relying on his- that were read in congregations of Christians, you should trust Polycarp and Ignatius of Antioch whom were disciples of Peter and John the Apostles and wrote letters with that authority denouncing 'heresies' and were read in congregations of the very same Christians, whom gathered their writings with the 3 gospels at the Nicene Council."

I come to that deduction for lacking any other sources to discern, so give me other fields of opinion; that I may look beyond the logic: "know from whom (you / they) learned from as reason to believe in a teaching and remain faithful to it."

Polycarp is of John

Ignatius of Antioch is of Peter

Clement I of Rome is of Peter

Mark of Alexandra is of Peter (Author is The Gospel of Mark)

Give me more opinions and I shall rejoice!

Feel free to add the "100's" of faith alone = salvation verses with verses that support them and for the opposing side, the salvation by Romans 10:8-9/Romans 25:31-46 and Malachi 6:8/Ecclesiastes 18:20-21 The way Christians are to do it under the New Covenant and the Eternal Old Covenant's one requirement and grace of mercy.

So

"Sola Fide" vs "Sola Gratia"

Solely Faith vs Solely Grace

What Bible verses tell us to use what as the foundation of our faith and what to define our faith?

Verses to search for

"Sola Scriptura" -Majority Protestantism Dogmas =Believe ONLY the Bible

"Prima Scriptura" -Majority Pop of Protestants =Follow Sacred Tradition but only if it is founded in the Bible

"Doctrine Fidei" -Doctrine of Faith or collection of writings passed on by the apostles' disciples= Follow the Apostle's Teachings known as "Sacred Tradition" .. This includes The Bible and Ecclesial works

I'm looking for verses to support all three. So reach into every pool of water, I'm not looking for any apostolic letters like St. Clement I or St. Ignatious of Antioch nor the Catholic Apocrypha (this is not the Dueterocanolitical books, but books like St. Jame's Gospel, and does not include The Gospel of Thomas or Mary which were written by Gnostics.. That said I don't want any (Neo)Gnostic books either; Just full force Salvational Works AKA Biblical) If your Ecoptic or Eastern or Western catholic feel free to use your own Canon to explain but make note of which Canon you use, I believe it safe to assume all Protestants shall use the Canon created by Martin Luther's Confession of Augsburg and Western catholics the Alexandrian Canon from The Council of Hippo.

Catholicism claims to have Holy Spirit Guidence, Protestism denys that she does; hense the protesting of Catholicism, but that confuses me because the Bible talks about how the Holy Spirit is to Guide the church of God... This is my confusion and I seek enlightenment on such things. Please be respectful and Christ-bound in your words. Ephesians 4:2-3; 5:1,4 alongside the tact of 1 Peter 3:15 be the measure of your language.

What does Protestantism say to these verses,

2 Peter 1:16-21 emphasize verse 21; I've gained understanding this is the verse Luther says is responsible for there being soo many Protestant sects and no ability to check new denominations(every claims divine inspiration, but they claim it comes from the Holy Spirit not the Apostles--correct me if I'm wrong and see 2 Pet 1:16 for belief that it must be in union with "Apostolic Witness" and Acts 2:42 for Apostolic Teachers = Law--1 Teaching, not many)

1 Timothy 3:15 and adjacent verses. Paul explains how to order his churches' hierarchy. He also says that the church of the believers have the power to declare Truth in accordance to God by the Holy Spirit.. at least they know how to decipher what is False and True, to the point of being The Pillar of Truth... . Where did these Truths get written down? How were they upheld? How does Protestantism stand to these Truths that Paul knew those of a church could know by his oral "traditions" (2 Thessalonians 2:14 and adjacent verses) and Great Advocate..

I also ask where the line of "those laid hands on and conferred the Holy Spirit" is at in this day. (Acts 1:25-26,8:17-18,19:6 w/ adjacent verses on all 3)

My final question where is the line of "shepherds" (Acts 20:28) of the church of God.

I welcome multi/inter-denominational answers, but my goal is merely to gain understanding and lose anger of viewing other faiths has hypocritical and self-contradictory. Use this to increase your own faith and increase my confidence in others' logic. I've failed to link things together and am incapable to theologically or historically put things together. I'm going to a Non-Denominational Baptist Pastor who's been through seminary for his education but give me your best shot. Love all who work miracles in Christ's Name (Mark 9:38-41), this holds my rage back very well but I do not want any rage at all. Cleanse this hatred for "Academicism" of mine, which is the idea of partial truth; If I can see a solid line I am happy.. at the very least if I can watch a person show a solid line, then I can research more and learn more until Truth is refined further.. Please my Mormon brothers, if you make the Apostasy claim though, show me historical proof, If you deny the Apostolic Letters written by Ignatious and Polycarp deny also the Gospel of John, which they heavily promoted under claim that John the Apostle taught them, to have them teach The Bride of Christ, while St.John who wrote the Gospel of John was still alive as Bishop of Ephesus.

Matt 28:20 "teach them all that I have commanded"

Acts 1:20-26 "Take his office" (matthias replaces Judis the Iscariot)

2 Peter 2:1 "There were also false prophets among the people, just as there will be false teachers among you, who will introduce destructive heresies and even deny the Master who ransomed them, bringing swift destruction on themselves."

2 Peter 1:19-20 "19 Moreover, we ['eyewitnesses'] possess the prophetic message that is altogether reliable. You will do well to be attentive to it, as to a lamp shining in a dark place, until day dawns and the morning star rises in your hearts. 20 Know this first of all, that there is no prophecy of scripture that is of personal interpretation"

more over

Acts 1:8 The "Advocate" or Holy Spirit comes to aid the "Disciples" not just Apostles.

Now try not to resort to the below verse for my question.

Matt. 16:18 The rock of the Church that Christ Founds; now I have an interesting argument that Jesus founded his "Church" on Peter's faith not Peter himself.

I'm not looking for Early Church Fathers' Words but people's opinions.

Debates__________

------ If no Institution explain

1. If it is not a institutional church Christ founds or forms with his "Disciples" why would there be offices for Apostles? Also Acts 11:19 (how can those who are not united be scattered) but I understand that if one leaves the source they can be corrupted.

2. Why was there a council in Jerusalem of the "Disciples" headed by Peter and James-- both Apostles-- if there was no singular belief and church?

(I understand in the Catholic Church that belief is called the "Apostle's Creed")

-------------- If it is an institution

3. Where is the Church? The Church empowered by the Advocate (Acts 1:8) and founded to spread Christ's Teachings (Matthew 28:20)?

4. What ideals did the scattered "Disciples" teach? (Acts 11:19) I pose this question on reflection of Jesus's Parable of the Sower taking root only in rich soil will live (Luke 8:11-15)

------ Either belief

5. What is personal Interpretation? (2 Peter 1:20)

------ Big Questions

6. How did the teachings of Christ spread before they had letters written to one another? I understand there was no Bible compiled prior the 300's AD.

________________________________________________________________

History Lesson before Answers:

I recollect there being several "Churches" in the early days prior the "Great Schism." Gnosticism, Arianism, and Catholicism. I also know that in that time period the Catholic Church considered the Pope to be = to all other Bishops and no infallibility past that of the communion of Bishops, but by some writings many people still considered "The Pope" after Peter to be their "Shepherd" --Ignatius & Cyprian.

There is Historical Evidence that states Peter, Paul, and John the apostles were all strong figures in the Catholicism faith; Peter and Paul both buried in Rome and John the Apostle in Ephesus teaching Polycarp personally as Peter taught Clement the 4th pope Martyred C 97 AD) personally. Both claim to be of Catholicism.

---I don't want any repetition of those histories above---

I have nothing against faith by faith or the belief that the Catholic Church is wrong, I merely question if you put the the Bible and the teachings passed on by the Apostles to the "Disciples" together if it's Biblically possible.

I've composed my complete argument and could use some recounting.

"Like a a golden earring, or a necklace of fine gold, is a wise reprover to an obedient ear" -Proverbs 25:11

4. Magistrate—the power to declare true or holy of the Catholic Church

4.1

o "Remind them to be under the control of magistrates and authorites, to be obedient, to be open to every good enterprise."(3 Titus 3:1)

4.2

o "16We did not follow cleverly devised myths when we made known to you the power and coming of our Lord Jesus Christ, but we had been eyewitnesses of his majesty"

"19 Moreover, we ['eyewitnesses'] possess the prophetic message that is altogether reliable. You will do well to be attentive to it, as to a lamp shining in a dark place, until day dawns and the morning star rises in your hearts. 20 Know this first of all, that there is no prophecy of scripture that is of personal interpretation,21 for no prophecy ever came through human will; but rather human beings moved by the holy Spirit spoke under the influence of God.

Chapter 2

1 There were also false prophets among the people, just as there will be false teachers among you, who will introduce destructive heresies and even deny the Master who ransomed them, bringing swift destrction on themselves." (2 Peter 1:16,19-21; 2:1)

4.3

o The promise Christ gave the Apostles [Matt. 28:20](and another time to all his Disciples [Acts 1:8]) was he would always be with "you" (in both statements) until the end of days. Think in the context of the Lord (and the recorder,Matthew= the apostle Matthew, Acts= Luke remember one disciple was already the first martyr) as he knew all those disciples and apostles would die before the end of the world. That would mean by the classic "you means them" philosophy God would have had to lie and Christianity is a sham! Now if Christ meant Christianity, well... that would mean he intended for us to be separated and divided. Now the only possibility was to give a organization hope that they will be guided (in this case The Holy Spirit). By this statement the Catholic Church holds firm that it shall be here and on the day of the return of Jesus Christ she shall be waiting ever pure and more Holy than she's ever been before (thanks to that Divine Guidence). This spirit of Divine Wisdom (The Holy Spirit) is what gave the magestrate the knowledge and wisdom to gather the books of sacred scripture (those that are read in Churches prior Councils of Hippo [393] and Carthage [397]) from all over the Church and agree on which are neccesary for Salvation and to protect Her (The Catholic Church) from Heresies. The Roman Catholic Church has never changed it's changed Her Doctrine, unlike many others, and possibly the only one (depending on how you look at the Great Schism).

I ask this because in the Bible it talks in the old testament and new about Incorruptible bodies/flesh? How can a person believe in the Bible and not believe in them? What would you do if you saw one of these?

How do you explain this claim?

I have a wikipedia that's a start right?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Incorruptibility

1

Sacraments

this is to show where the foundations of Catholic beliefs are

1. EUCHARIST—The gift given to priests to ordain bread and wine into the Body and Blood of Christ

1.1

o "Heretics abstain from the Eucharist and from prayer, because they do not confess that the Eucharist is the Flesh of our Savior Jesus Christ." (St. Ignatius of Antioch, "Epistle to the Smyrneans" 6:8-9, c. 105 A.D.)

1.2

o "26While they were eating, Jesus took bread, said the blessing, broke it, and giving it to his disciples said, 'Take and eat; this is my body.'27 Then he took a cup gave thanks, and gave it to them, saying, 'Drink from it, all of you,28 for this is my blood of the covenant, which will be shed on behalf of many for the forgiveness of sins." (Matthew 26:26-28)

c.f.

"The Jews quarreled among themselves, saying, 'How can this man give us [his] flesh to eat?' Jesus said to them, ' Amen, [let the truth be so], I say to you, unless you eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink his blood, you do not have life within you. Whoever eats my flesh and drinks my blood has eternal life, and I will raise him on the last day. For my flesh is true food, and my blood is true drink. Whoever eats my flesh and drinks my blood remains in me and I in him." (John 6:52-59)

c.f.

"Then he took the bread, said the blessing, broke it, and gave it to them, saying, ' This is my body, which will be given for you; do this in memory of me." (Luke 22:19)

The Jewish people ran when Jesus said the bread was his actual flesh and blood; if it was a symbol, wouldn't you think it wise (having a God of Wisdom and Knowledge and all that good stuff) to tell the disciples while they were leaving Jesus it was only a symbol? Instead he told his Disciple to do the exact thing in remembrance of him and only the Apostles remained (John 6:66-71).

1.3

o "Then he returned to Cana in Galilee, where he had made the water to wine" (John 4:46) and heals a child (John 4:47-51) but to rebuke the people of Galilee, and frankly many modern Christians, he says "Unless you people see signs and wonders, you will not believe." (John 4:48)

C.F.

John 2:7-9

"7Jesus told [the servants Mary, the Mother of God, instructed to tend to his words], 'Fill the jars with water.' So they filled them to the brim. 8Then he told them, 'Draw some out now and take it to the headwaiter.' So they took it. 9And when the headwaiter tasted the water that had become wine, without knowing where it came from (although the servers who had drawn the water knew)."

One could wager a question whether the water was wine before or after the headwaiter drank of it, but he did command people to do actions which led to the transformation of the water to wine-- by his grace. It can be done.

2. Holy Orders—[Priesthood,Bishop,Pope]

2.1

o "For it is written in the Book of Psalms:

'Let his encampment become desolate,

and may no one dwell in it.'

and

'May another take his office"

(Acts 1: 20)

2.2

o "to take the place in this apostolic ministry from which Judas turned away to go to his own place.' Then they gave lots to them [Justus and Matthias], and the lot fell upon Matthias, and he was counted with the eleven apostles."(Acts 1:25-26)

2.3

o Full quote: “ Through countryside and city [the apostles] preached, and they appointed their earliest converts, testing them by the Spirit, to be bishops and deacons of future believers. Nor was this a novelty, for bishops and deacons had been written about a long time earlier....Our apostles knew through our Lord Jesus Christ that there would be strife for the office of bishop. For this reason, therefore, having received perfect foreknowledge, they appointed those who have already been mentioned and afterwards added further provision that, if they should die, other approved men should succeed to their ministry." (Pope Clement, Letter to the Corinthians, 42:4-5,44:1-3). [Pope Clement served as Pope from 88 to the year of his Martyrdom 97 AD]

2.4

o full quote by Cyprian of Carthage is: “There is one God and one Christ, and one Church, and one chair founded on Peter by the word of the Lord.[c.f. matt 16:18] It is not possible to set up another altar or for there to be another priesthood besides that one altar and that one priesthood. Whoever has gathered elsewhere is scattering[c.f. John 21:17]," (Letters 43[40]:5 [A.D. 253]).

2.5

o St. Linus, the Pope following Peter, in 2 Timothy 4:21 is requested by St. Paul to meet Timothy with 2 other prominent men as advocates for being Pope before Winter in the year of Peter's Death. Imprisoned, Paul's death was scheduled Spring the following year of Peter's death — which was also in spring. That left a problem for The Catholic Church, Paul knew what was to be done with his life and that there needed to be a new Pope, but he wouldn't do it without his friend to be witness. With that and with his blessing "The Lord be with your spirit. Grace be with all of you" (2 Timot