I’m not sure, but I suspect that is probably incorrect. The Apostles’ Creed was written, in Greek, at a date when (AFAIK) the distinction between capital and lower-case letters had not yet been introduced. Greek script at that time looked something like this:The elephant in the room, remains the term “catholic” was written in the Apostles Creed with a “small” c… and why they wrote it that way…?
No. He specifically cautioned against other Christians who schismed from successors of Apostles- Bishops. He required absolute obedience to Bishops and viewed body of Bishops as united as proved by his trip to Rome (now this is not about Roman supremacy, but about fact he would write to all Bishops and even to Rome showing certain unity).For Ignatius the word became synonymous with any church adhering to the teachings of Jesus Christ.
Yes, but Augustine was one who first made distinction between Schism and Heresy. He clearly believed neither Schismatics nor Heretics to be in Catholic Church. It is clear he did not subscribe to your theory. Augustine had profound sense of visible unity in the Church.By the fourth century, Augustine of Hippo in North Africa was using the term to distinguish between churches considered orthodox and others considered heretical.
Yes.We also know the universal Church described, transcends all boundaries of time and space
No. How can different denominations be orthodox if they teach differently? Then both Augustine and Ignatius teach they are indeed not catholic. How can different denominations obey same Bishops? Then Ignatius teaches they can not be catholic. How can they be in visible unity if they are different? Then Augustine teaches they are not catholic. How can they be in schism or heresy and be catholic, if Augustine teaches precisely opposite of that?and all denominational boundaries.
That is the same thing Gnostics said about Apostles.The reformation began because the Catholic church separated from what was originally taught.
Really? Nowhere?No where in Luther’s 95 Thesis will you find Apostolic teachings…
Of course… but he wasn’t saying “only what you heard from me”. He never ruled out possibility other Apostles will come to teach them or that he didn’t teach them absolutely everything yet. Anyway, Catholic Church basically protects what has been handed down. Others just guess what might have been there and end up being wrong.What you heard (past tense)
And so the Church does, as Ignatius of Antioch says She does. He says Bishops guard those. I don’t think prominent reformers were Bishops- certainly not majority of Bishops.– guard it with the help of the Holy Spirit who lives in us.
Scripture tells us not to succumb to private interpretation, but to hold fast to pillar of Truth = Church. Church was declared to be pillar of Truth. If you believe Church has erred, you believe Scripture to be false.From the prospective of Biblical based Christians, scriptural direction tells us not to accepts false teachings. And
It never left. Protestants were the ones who invented new religion, contrary to Apostolic faith. Authority has and will always lay on Bishops… and as such those who schism from the Bishops are indeed wrong, breaking off the Church.Until the Catholic church align’s it’s doctrines with Apostolic teaching… the great divide will remain.
Exactly… 95 theses were written by Luther though, right? Why would you attack Protestant belief when you are making case for Protestants? Or do you by that notion admit that Protestantism preaches false doctrines?Which of the 95 thesis were taught by the apostles…?
That is taken out of context. We for sure know first Priests were sacrificial people and hence they did indeed practice continence (not celibacy, but continence). Protestants did away with that. Church in Scriptures also makes notable references to “laying hands on” people to confer them with authority- that is Apostolic Succession. Protestants lack that. My Bishop has been consecrated by his Bishop, that Bishop by his Bishop and all the way until one of those Bishops was consecrated by Apostles.one of His directions was in 1 Timothy 3:1–13
There are no reformers who remained in Apostolic teachings. They all schismed from True Church established by Jesus Christ, from her leadership conferred upon Holy Apostles, and upon their leader Saint Peter upon whom Church was built.The reformers, or any group that remained in the Apostles teachings
That’s interesting. What’s the reason for using the different creed when you have Communion?I’m a LCMS Lutheran. We say the Apostles Creed on Sunday’s when we don’t celebrate Holy Communion. We recite the Nicene Creed on Sunday’s when we do. We do Holy Communion every other week at my parish.
1 Timothy 3:1–13Which biblical passage…?
What of them?Indulgences
Purgatory
Lord committed keys of Heavenly Kingdom to Peter, see read Isaiah for comparison. Lord Jesus is new David and Peter became one who he passed keys on- much like David passed keys and conferred authority upon someone, so did our Lord. Also, Lord asked Peter “do you love me more than these?” and then told him “tend (govern in original Greek) my lambs”. That passage is where our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ, while He lived and was physically present on Earth, conferred not only authority but also ministry upon St. Peter.Petrine office
I don’t follow. Are you saying Liturgy is not found in the life of first Christians? Justin Martyr explicitly states how it looked like.the mass
Symbol in greek means different thing than symbol nowadays. It used to mean something alike to how we describe “sacrament” (something that signifies and also is something else). Our Lord said “do this in memory of me” but in Jewish culture, doing something “in memory of” something else would mean to do something exactly like He had done- so He basically said “do this, and do it in memory of me”. St. Paul warns against blaspheming the Holy Eucharist- if it is just symbolic, why?transubstantiation
Peter lived while Scripture was being written. However, tradition shows that indeed Peter was Bishop of Rome as Early Christians believed in that, and that Apostles left successors (check Ireneus or Ignatius on that topic).
- Where does scripture show Peter’s replacement…?
Apostles did not become Popes. Bishops, successors of Apostles, became “Popes”. Office was “Bishop of Rome”, later started being called “Pope”. It was focal point of unity for entire Church. Clement’s letters show his authority. You can not prove this from the Bible, because Bible was not really written yet- actually no one even know what “Bible” was! What Paul refers to as Scripture he means Old Testament, not New Testament. New Testament was not really organized for way too long for First Christians to use it.Peter died roughly around 66-67 AD. How may eye witness Apostles were alive then, that would have become the next Pope…?
We are, and those deceivers were Reformers. They were not first ones who developed their own doctrines, they were not the last.Regarding attacking Protestants… We’re command to watch for all deceivers of God’s Word…