Are there any other christian church as old

[Fr_Ambrose]

mayra hart:

We also know that St. Peter himself presides over and opens the first council of Christian Church, he lays down principles afterward accepted by it (Acts 15:7-11). It is St. Peter’s words that settles the dispute (v.7) that was raging among the apostles and elders, when St. Peter was done speaking all the multitude was silent (v.12).

St. Peter also shows his authority by correcting those who would misuse Paul’s writings (2 Pt 3:15-16)

This does not seem to be the understanding of the Fathers of the early Church. The commentary of Saint John Chrysostom is fascinating. He is the most voluminous of all the Church Fathers to comment on the New Testament.

He lived in the 4th century, and his words reflect 300 years of the Church’s reflection on the Council of Jerusalem. He speaks of Peter’s role in it, Paul’s place and also James’s role and he gives primacy not to Peter but to James.

Here are his words:

“Then all the multitude kept silence,” etc. (v. 12.) There was no arrogance in the Church. After Peter Paul speaks, and none silences him: James waits patiently, not starts up (for the next word). Great the orderliness (of the proceedings). No word speaks John here, no word the other Apostles, but held their peace, for James was invested with the chief rule, and think it no hardship. So clean was their soul from love of glory. “And after that they had held their peace, James answered,” etc. (v. 13.) (b) Peter indeed spoke more strongly, but James here more mildly: for thus it behooves one in high authority, to leave what is unpleasant for others to say, while he himself appears in the milder part."

ccel.org/fathers/NPNF1-1…Acts-Hom33.html

 

[prodromos]

Dear Berean,
can you post any evidence of Christians holding the same beliefs and worshipping in the same manner as the church in which you belong in the first nineteen centuries after Christ established His church. If your church is the true church then we should be able to trace its existence from Pentecost until today, since Christ called the church the “pillar and ground of truth” and promised that the gates of Hades would not prevail against her.

John.

 

[DominvsVobiscvm]

Berean:

It’s stupid to think anyone will take you seriously when all you do is provide a laundry-list of supposed Catholic add-ons. If you want to have a discussion, let’s do it; but one issue at a time.

I’ll even let you pick it.

Meanwhile, your citation of the Council of Tolouse was already explained. Did you even bother to read the explanation offered to you? Quit repeating yourself if you won’t even take our replies into account.

 

[jimmy]

Berean:

These are some Roman Catholic Doctrines and Practices Contradicted by the bible. None of them in the First Century Church.

1. THE MASS

(a) A sacrifice for sins, ‘vs.’-Heb. 10:11-17, 7:27; Rom. 6:9-10; Heb. 9:11-12, 22-28; I Pet. 3:18.

(b) Eating and drinking the literal body and blood of Christ. ‘vs.’ Mt. 24:23; Ex. 20:13; Acts 15:20; Is. 44:14-20; Acts 17:24-25, 19:26; Jn. 10:9, 15:5, 6:63; Jer. 15:16. 2. CELIBACY

Priests and nuns vow never to marry ‘vs.’ I Tim… 3:2-6, 3:12, 4:1-3; Mt. 8:14; I Cor.9:5; Eph. 5:31-32; Acts 21:8-9.

1. MARY, QUEEN OF HEAVEN

Jer. 7:18, 44:17, 25.

MARY, MEDIATRIX - I Tim. 3:5; Mt.11:28; Jn. 14:13-14; I Ki. 8:39; II Chr. 6:30; Ecc. 9:6.

MARY, SINLESS - Lk. 1:46-47, 2:22-24 (a ‘sin sacrifice’); Rom. 3:23, 3:10-19. MARY, EVER VIRGIN - Mt. 1:25, 13:55-56, 12:46; Mk. 6:3; Jn. 2:12; Acts: 1:14; Mk. 3:31. MARY, WORSHIP - Rom. 1:25; Is. 42:8; Lk. 2:48-49; Mk. 3:31-33; Jn. 2:2-4, 7:10. MARY, CO-REDEMPTRIX - Acts 4:12; Jn. 14:6; Rom. 5:17; I Jn. 2:1-2; Heb. 7:25; Jn. 10:1, 9; Ps.146:5, 71:5; Jer. 17:7; Joel. 3:16; I Tim. 1:1; Col. 1:27; I Pet. 1:21; Heb. 7:25. MARY, MOTHER OF GOD – Mt. 12:46-50; Mk. 8: 19-21; Acts 1:14; Jn. 2:3-4. 4. PETER, THE ROCK

‘vs.’ God, Christ the Rock … Dt. 32:3, 4, 15, 18, 31; I Sam. 2:2; II Sam. 22:47; Ps. 18:31, 28:1, 62:2, 94:22; Mt. 16:23; I Cor. 10:4; I Pet. 2:6-8; I Cor. 3:11; Acts 4:12., Eph. 2:20; Mt. 21:42.

1. NO MEAT ON FRIDAY, LENT, FAST DAYS, ETC.

‘vs.’ I Tim. 4:1-3; Gal. 4:9-11; Col. 2:20-22.

1. AURICULAR CONFESSION

‘vs.’ Ps. 32:5; Rev. 14:12; Lk. 18:14; Is. 55:7; Acts 8:22; Ezra 10:11; I Jn. 1:9; Ps. 32:5; I Tim. 2:5; I Jn. 2:1-2.

1. PURGATORY

‘vs.’ I Jn. 1:7; Heb. 1:1-3; Jn. 14:1-6; Rom. 8:38; II Tim.1:12; II Cor.5:8; Lk.23:43; Rev. 5.:91

1. ROSARY

''vs. 'Mt. 6:7.

1. SALVATION BY MERIT, WORKS, SACRAMENTS, WATER BAPTISM

‘vs.’ Eph. 2:8-9; Rom.10:9-13; Jn. 3:16, 3:36, 5:24; Acts 16:31; II Jn. 5:10-13; Gal. 2:16; Rom. 3:27, 4:2, 4:6, 11:6; Gal. 2:16, 3:2, 3:5, 3:10; Titus 3:4-7; Gal. 3:24-25; I Pet. 1:18-23.

1. ADDRESSING A PRIEST AS “FATHER”

‘vs’.'Mt. 23:9.

1. MIRACULOUS MEDALS, SCAPULARS, CRUCIFIXES, IMAGES, BLEEDING HEARTS, ETC.

vs.’ Ex. 20:4-5; Dt. 4:16; Is. 42:8, 44:9; Lev. 26:1; Dt. 4:23.

1. POPE AS “HEAD OF THE CHURCH”

‘vs.’ Eph.5:23; Col.1:18; Gal.2:11; II Cor 11:5, 12:11, 11:28; Lk. 22:24; Mt 20:25-27; Acts l5:13-19; II Thess.2:3, 2:4, 2:9-12; I Jn. 2:18: Rev. 13:18.

1. TRADITION

‘vs.’ Mt. 15:3; Mk. 7:7-8; Col, 3:8.

1. PRAYERS FOR THE DEAD

‘vs.’ II Cor. 6:2; Jn. 3:18, 3:36; Prov. 29:1; Jer. 7:16.

1. PRIESTS

‘vs.’ Heb. 8:4; Eph. 4:11; Heb. 4:14-15, 7:26, 8:1; Mt. 24:4-5, 23-24; 23:9-23.

1. NEGLECT OF INDIVIDUAL SCRIPTURES STUDY AND INTERPRETATION AND OBEDIENCE THERETO, AS THE SOLE RULE OF FAITH

‘vs.’ Isa. 8:20; Dt. 17:19; Josh. 1:8; Isa. 34:16; Jn. 5:39; Acts 17:11; II Tim. 2:15; Rom. 15:4; Ps. 119:11, 103; II Tim. 3:15-16; Col. 3:16; Ps. 119:105, 130, 72, 97.140; Jer. 15:16; Eph. 6:17; Heb. 4:12; Ps. 119:9 Jn. 15:3, 17:17, 20:31; Dt. 11:19; II Chr. 17:9; Mt. 22:29; Isa. 30:9; Hos. 4:6; Amos 2:4; Mk. 7:9; Rev. 22:18-19.

If you took the time to go through just some of these you would see that these practices were added. I know you think the Church has the authority to add what ever they want but I don’t. This does not mean that don’t share Yeshua as Savior does it?

Am I mistaken or did excatholic cut and paste this exact same list? Where did you get this from Berean

 

[DominvsVobiscvm]

Father Ambrose:

I stand by the overall orthodox Catholicism of the early Celtic Church. Yes, there were extremists (among both Anglos and Romans) and even quasi-schismatics; but overall the Celtic Church was Catholic. This was a period of time when there was much in the way of jurisdiction and sicipline that was in flux, and so things were not as smoothed out as they would later be.

As the Catholic Encyclopedia notes:

There were still bardic schools, as there was still paganism, but in the seventh century paganism had all but disappeared, and the bardic were overshadowed by the monastic schools. Frequented by the best of the Irish, and by students from abroad, these latter diffused knowledge over western Europe, and Ireland received and merited the title of Island of Saints and Scholars. The holy men who laboured with St. Patrick and immediately succeeded him were mostly bishops and founders of churches; those of the sixth century were of the monastic order; those of the seventh century were mostly anchorites who loved solitude, silence, continued prayer, and the most rigid austerities. Nor were the women behindhand in this contest for holiness. St. Brigid is a name still dear to Ireland, and she, as well as St. Ita, St. Fanchea and others, founded many convents tenanted by pious women, whose sanctity and sacrifices it would be indeed difficult to surpass. Nor was the Irish Church, as has been sometimes asserted, out of communion with the See of Rome. The Roman and Irish tonsures differed, it is true, and the methods of computing Easter, and it may be that Pelagianism found some few adherents, though Arianism did not, nor the errors as to the natures and wills of Christ. In the number of its sacraments, in its veneration for the Blessed Virgin, in its belief in the Mass and in Purgatory, in its obedience to the See of Rome, the creed of the early Irish Church was the Catholic creed of to-day. Abroad as well as at home Irish Christian zeal was displayed. In 563 St. Columba, a native of Donegal, accompanied by a few companions, crossed the sea to Caledonia and founded a monastery on the desolate island of Iona.

and again:

It would seem that in the interests of anti-papal controversy, a great deal too much has been made of the divergent customs of the Roman and Celtic missionaries. Both in Scotland and on the Continent, Irish Christianity was thoroughly loyal in spirit to the See of Rome. Such men as St. Cuthbert, St. Cedd, St. Chad, and St. Wilfrid co-operated heartily with the efforts to preach the Gospel made by the teachers sent from Canterbury. The Celtic customs had already received their death-blow in the choice made by the Northumbrian King Oswiu, when at the Synod of Whitby (664) he elected to stand by the Roman Key-bearer, St. Peter. In fact, after the lapse of a few years they are no more heard of.

 

[DominvsVobiscvm]

And as F. E. Warren notes:

On the other hand, a catena of evidence can be produced to disprove the charge of heresy and in support of the orthodoxy of the first Church of the British Isles. Hilary of Poitiers (A.D 358) congratulates the bishops of the British provinces on ‘their having continued uncontaminated and uninjured by any contact with the detestable heresy’ (of Arianism). Athanasius (A.D. 363) states that the British Churches had signified by letter to him their adhesion to the Nicene faith. St. Chrysostom (A.D. 386-398) said that ‘even the British Isles have felt the power of the word, for there too churches and altars have been erected. There too, as on the shores of the Euxine or in the South, men may be heard discussing points in Scripture, with differing voices but not with differing belief, with varying tongues but not with varying faith.’ St. Jerome (c. A.D. 400) asserted that ‘Britain in common with Rome, Gaul, Africa, Persia, the East, and India, adores one Christ, observes one rule of faith.’ Venantius Fortunatus (c. A.D. 580) testified to British orthodoxy in the sixth century, and Wilfrid in the seventh century. The testimony of the latter, whose hostility to the Celtic Church was notorious, is as honourable to himself, as it is placed beyond all suspicion of inaccuracy or exaggeration. Present at Rome A.D. 680 at a council of a hundred and twenty-five bishops, held in anticipation of the Ecumenical Council of Constantinople in the same year against the Monothelites, Wilfrid asserted that the true Catholic faith was held by the Irish, Scottish, and British, as well as by the Anglo-Saxon Church. It had therefore been no vain boast of Columbanus to Pope Boniface (A.D. 612) that his Church was not schismatical or heretical, but that it held the whole Catholic faith.

Had it been otherwise, could British bishops have been present certainly at the Council of Arles A.D. 314, perhaps at Nice A.D. 325, probably at Sardica A.D. 347. Could the conferences have taken place at Augustine’s Oak A.D. 603, and at Whitby A.D. 664, without at all events far more serious questions having been raised than the form of the tonsure or the calculation of Easter? Would Wini Bishop of Winchester have associated two British bishops with himself in the consecration of St. Chad A.D. 664.

Regarding the Council of Jerusalem . . . even if we concede that it was James who presided, Saint John Cheysostom explains why this would be:

If anyone should say, “Why then was it James who received the See of Jerusalem?” I should reply that he [Christ] made Peter the teacher not of that See, but of the world."

For futher documentation, go here.

 

[mercygate]

Berean:

Thank you for the prayer it was great. You are right we are brothers in Christ. I could never return to the Catholic Church because of the many differences I hold with it. Bottom line is that we have Christ in Common if nothing else.

Berean, I deeply regret whatever it might have been in the Church that caused you to leave. But from your posts here, I see that nearly everything you believe about the Church is so inaccurate, distorted, or so falsly supported by spurious “history” that your “differences” with the church are completely artificial. Moreover, your views show a predictable pattern that we see all across a certain fundamentalist spectrum which seems to be more intent on attacking the Catholic Church than on preaching the gospel.

I say this because I spent the early years of my Christian walk in just such an environment. It was a false gospel, and it was toxic.

 

[Kurt_G]

For Mercygate: It must be by God’s grace that you are able to answer someone like Berean in such a charitable manner… I was all ready to send Berean a “more aggressive” list of Holy Scriptures to support the Church, but your response I think is much more appropriate.

GOD BLESS US ALL (Even Berean!)

 

[mercygate]

Kurt G.:

For Mercygate: It must be by God’s grace that you are able to answer someone like Berean in such a charitable manner… I was all ready to send Berean a “more aggressive” list of Holy Scriptures to support the Church, but your response I think is much more appropriate.

GOD BLESS US ALL (Even Berean!)

Thanks Kurt. I didn’t have quite as toxic an experience as Berean but I got a sufficient dose to keep me out of the Church for decades, even after I recognized that the Catholic Church is Christ’s Church. Berean has guts to come here; I believe the Holy Spirit has brought him.

 

[Sarah_Jane]

Fr Ambrose:

This does not seem to be the understanding of the Fathers of the early Church. The commentary of Saint John Chrysostom is fascinating. He is the most voluminous of all the Church Fathers to comment on the New Testament.

He lived in the 4th century, and his words reflect 300 years of the Church’s reflection on the Council of Jerusalem. He speaks of Peter’s role in it, Paul’s place and also James’s role and he gives primacy not to Peter but to James.

Here are his words:

“Then all the multitude kept silence,” etc. (v. 12.) There was no arrogance in the Church. After Peter Paul speaks, and none silences him: James waits patiently, not starts up (for the next word). Great the orderliness (of the proceedings). No word speaks John here, no word the other Apostles, but held their peace, for James was invested with the chief rule, and think it no hardship. So clean was their soul from love of glory. “And after that they had held their peace, James answered,” etc. (v. 13.) (b) Peter indeed spoke more strongly, but James here more mildly: for thus it behooves one in high authority, to leave what is unpleasant for others to say, while he himself appears in the milder part."

ccel.org/fathers/NPNF1-1…Acts-Hom33.html

“Peter, that head of the Apostles, the first in the Church, the friend of Christ, who recieved revelation not from man but from the Father…this Peter, and when I say Peter, I mean that unbroken Rock, the unshaken foundation, the great Apostle, the first of the disciples, the first called, the first to obey”
St. John Chrysostom, De Eleemosyna, 3:4 (ante A.D. 407)

 

[Berean]

jimmy:

Am I mistaken or did excatholic cut and paste this exact same list? Where did you get this from Berean

When I applied here it said that other faiths and their views were welcomed. This is the true meaning of Apologetics and perhaps the people here aren’t quite ready for it yet? Some have even stated I need to learn how to read. I was hoping for more of a challenge.

 

[Berean]

mercygate:

Berean, I deeply regret whatever it might have been in the Church that caused you to leave. But from your posts here, I see that nearly everything you believe about the Church is so inaccurate, distorted, or so falsly supported by spurious “history” that your “differences” with the church are completely artificial. Moreover, your views show a predictable pattern that we see all across a certain fundamentalist spectrum which seems to be more intent on attacking the Catholic Church than on preaching the gospel.

I say this because I spent the early years of my Christian walk in just such an environment. It was a false gospel, and it was toxic.

Mercygate I would love to dialogue with you in regard to false Gospel, Why don’t you start a thread or if you like I could. I am prepared to defend my views with God’ Word. Mind you I would never dispute the fact that Roman Catholics are Christians, but I am prepared to argue my position on sola scriptura Vs. Tradition, and really this is where we differ. Christ’ love to you I pray.

 

[Berean]

Kurt G.:

For Mercygate: It must be by God’s grace that you are able to answer someone like Berean in such a charitable manner… I was all ready to send Berean a “more aggressive” list of Holy Scriptures to support the Church, but your response I think is much more appropriate.

GOD BLESS US ALL (Even Berean!)

Thanks Kurt I hope you were sincere, I must say I did detect a bit of Sinicism. Any way if you were to defend your faith solely amongst Catholics what challenge would there be in that? I am sorry to have upset you I will try to present my views in a manner that is perceived less hostile. If you and Mercygate would care to opine I would love the challenge, however I don’t want there to be animosity as I detected form your post God bless you and Love to you in Christ.

 

[mercygate]

Berean:

Mercygate I would love to dialogue with you in regard to false Gospel, Why don’t you start a thread or if you like I could. I am prepared to defend my views with God’ Word. Mind you I would never dispute the fact that Roman Catholics are Christians, but I am prepared to argue my position on sola scriptura Vs. Tradition, and really this is where we differ. Christ’ love to you I pray.

All I meant by “false gospel” was that the virulently anti-Catholic strain of some traditions is utterly false to Christ himself. I was fed a LOT of misinformation as “gospel truth.”

Others debate Sola Scriptura far better than I can. Besides, the Protestant position on Scripture results entirely from the rejection of the Church. Protestants MUST view Scripture as the sole rule of faith because they reject the living Apostolic Church. What else can they do? There is no median position.

On the Protestant side of the debate, R. C. Sproul – a card-carrying Sola Scriptura/Sola Fide Protestant – makes the *Sola Scriptura *position almost cogent. But as an honest scholar, he cites the early history of the Church as the formative period of the canon, and allows that the Church was the authority in that time. Sproul says that once the canon of Scripture was settled in the late 4th Century, *then *the Bible could stand on its own as the sole rule of faith. Sproul’s final position is that for Catholics, the Bible is an infallible collection of infallible books, while for Protestants, the Bible is a fallible collection of infallible books.

Pick one. Guess which position makes most sense to me?

Scripture alone is, to my mind, a framed-out house without plumbing, heating, or electricity. The basic pattern and purpose of the structure can be found, but a lot of important parts are missing.

 

[mercygate]

Berean:

Mercygate I would love to dialogue with you in regard to false Gospel, Why don’t you start a thread or if you like I could. I am prepared to defend my views with God’ Word. Mind you I would never dispute the fact that Roman Catholics are Christians, but I am prepared to argue my position on sola scriptura Vs. Tradition, and really this is where we differ. Christ’ love to you I pray.

It’s not Scripture VERSUS Tradition. It is Scripture PLUS Tradition. Scripture AS Tradition. Scripture IN Tradition and Tradition IN Scripture. You can’t separate them and still have the whole truth.

 

[Berean]

And as F. E. Warren notes:

Regarding the Council of Jerusalem . . . even if we concede that it was James who presided, Saint John Cheysostom explains why this would be:

For futher documentation, go here.

And there you have it, the old sols scriptura VS. Roman Catholic tradition. This is not in the Word of God, my guess is somewhere there must be a canon with Mr. Warren’ name attached? Hmmm!

 

[RBushlow]

Descipleof1:

Not to dipute you but could you provide me some proof to broaden my views?

The re-discovery of Peters sepulcher in the early 1900s is a good place to start. Renovations were being done when it was unearthed. A number of independent secular researchers of the period were involved in the analysis and verification as well as those of the Church. Also the fact that several prominent Protestant Churchmen reviewed the facts lends credibility. They are all in the public records of the period. Not to mention thousands of students reviewing and rereviewing the information over the last 100 years. It is overwhelmingly documented in every conceivable way. A good place to start might be with the newspapers of the day or the Archeological archives of the major Universities of Europe.

May God bless and be a light unto your path in your search for the truth.

 

[Kurt_G]

Thanks, RBushlow, St. Peter’s burial place is fresh on my mind. My wife and I just returned from my first trip to the Vatican, even to the excavations under St. Peter’s. As I remember our guide, Pope Pius XI, while living, had indicated his desire to be buried with many fellow popes in the “tomb room”, as some of us called it, directly under St. Peter’s.
Excavations were begun in 1939 to expand that lower floor room, when an ancient brick wall was encountered in the digging. It was actually an old foundation wall for the “original” St. Peter’s, built in the 300’s by Constantine… and the history just gets more interesting as you go…

For folks interested, you must arrange this trip weeks in advance, as only 10-12 people at a time are taken down into the digs. My wife knows who to call. I’ll try to find out.
GOD BLESS US ALL!

 

[mercygate]

Kurt G.:

Thanks, RBushlow, St. Peter’s burial place is fresh on my mind. . . .Excavations were begun in 1939 to expand that lower floor room, when an ancient brick wall was encountered in the digging. It was actually an old foundation wall for the “original” St. Peter’s, built in the 300’s by Constantine… and the history just gets more interesting as you go…
GOD BLESS US ALL!

You MUST read John Evangelist Walsh’s fascinating book, The Bones of St. Peter about how the excavation was conducted and the remains identified. Fascinating!

 

[Berean]

mercygate:

All I meant by “false gospel” was that the virulently anti-Catholic strain of some traditions is utterly false to Christ himself. I was fed a LOT of misinformation as “gospel truth.”

Others debate Sola Scriptura far better than I can. Besides, the Protestant position on Scripture results entirely from the rejection of the Church. Protestants MUST view Scripture as the sole rule of faith because they reject the living Apostolic Church. What else can they do? There is no median position.

On the Protestant side of the debate, R. C. Sproul – a card-carrying Sola Scriptura/Sola Fide Protestant – makes the *Sola Scriptura *position almost cogent. But as an honest scholar, he cites the early history of the Church as the formative period of the canon, and allows that the Church was the authority in that time. Sproul says that once the canon of Scripture was settled in the late 4th Century, *then *the Bible could stand on its own as the sole rule of faith. Sproul’s final position is that for Catholics, the Bible is an infallible collection of infallible books, while for Protestants, the Bible is a fallible collection of infallible books.

Pick one. Guess which position makes most sense to me?

Scripture alone is, to my mind, a framed-out house without plumbing, heating, or electricity. The basic pattern and purpose of the structure can be found, but a lot of important parts are missing.

Have you read the entire canon of the Roman CatholicChurch? Do you know how much of the canon was writen after the late 4th century?