Early Church not Catholic

[rinnie]

This is about the ultimate authority, Jesus Christ, the chief cornerstone. What it’s not about is one verse out of Matthew’s Gospel which is being made to supercede everything else that the Scriptures are saying to us, such as the whole story of the Apostles (not just Peter) throughout the book of Acts. Acts 2:42 gives a bird’s eye view of what the Early Church looked like and it tells of all the miraculous wonders of the Apostles (not just Peter) and the increasing number of those being saved. I perfer to see Scripture as it truly is and not in part and parcel.

Then you must truly read all of them to understand why we believe that Peter is the leader. Just because he is our leader does not mean we do not follow ALL of the teaching’s of the bible.

What do you do with this scripture Acts 15:7 after much debate PETER fot up and SAID to THEM My BROTHERS you are WELL AWARE that from the EARLY DAYS GOD made his CHOICE AMONG YOU that through MY MOUTH the Gentiles would HEAR the word of the gospel and believe.

Peter took control. not one Apostle or presbyter stood up and disagreed with him.

Now your question in your mind must be this, Do you believe that the scripture I quoted is the true word of God. If you agree how can you disagree that our truth will come from Peter and his successor the Pope?

Peter has the ultimate power on this earth given to him by Jesus himself, the KEYS TO THE KINGDOM. Rather you like it or not GOD did it. The keys have been passed down just like Christ passed them down. It was Christ who made the decision not the leaders of the Catholic CHurch, not even the early Fathers of the Church. It was Jesus Christ himself who gave Peter the keys to the kingdom. The kingdom here on earth.

What part do you disagree with?

 

[crazzeto]

History of the Church by Eucebeous is useful, though it should be noted that he him self is an Arian. None-the-less, the historical writings are helpful.

 

[CopticChristian]

This is about the ultimate authority, Jesus Christ, the chief cornerstone. What it’s not about is one verse out of Matthew’s Gospel which is being made to supercede everything else that the Scriptures are saying to us, such as the whole story of the Apostles (not just Peter) throughout the book of** Acts. Acts 2:42 gives a bird’s eye view of what the Early Church **looked like and it tells of all the miraculous wonders of the Apostles (not just Peter) and the increasing number of those being saved. I perfer to see Scripture as it truly is and not in part and parcel.

So, is it your contention that the purpose of the book of Acts or any other part of the Bible you read is to give an account of the Church historically?

 

[Omar_Gatskill]

Then you must truly read all of them to understand why we believe that Peter is the leader. Just because he is our leader does not mean we do not follow ALL of the teaching’s of the bible.

What do you do with this scripture Acts 15:7 after much debate PETER fot up and SAID to THEM My BROTHERS you are WELL AWARE that from the EARLY DAYS GOD made his CHOICE AMONG YOU that through MY MOUTH the Gentiles would HEAR the word of the gospel and believe.

Peter took control. not one Apostle or presbyter stood up and disagreed with him.

Now your question in your mind must be this, Do you believe that the scripture I quoted is the true word of God. If you agree how can you disagree that our truth will come from Peter and his successor the Pope?

Peter has the ultimate power on this earth given to him by Jesus himself, the KEYS TO THE KINGDOM. Rather you like it or not GOD did it. The keys have been passed down just like Christ passed them down. It was Christ who made the decision not the leaders of the Catholic CHurch, not even the early Fathers of the Church. It was Jesus Christ himself who gave Peter the keys to the kingdom. The kingdom here on earth.

What part do you disagree with?

I disagree because we just simply do not get the papacy from Scripture. Take the whole of Scripture. We must do that and when we do that, we don’t see papal supremacy. That’s really the meat and potates as to why why I left the RCC. AND, I wasn’t a Christmas Catholic either, (I observed the vast majority of the holy days of obligation and went to several adorations a year). When Peter was in Rome being killed, Paul never once mentioned a single word about it in Romans. That’s very problematic in the case for papal supremacy. Paul even opposed Peter to his face at one point. Again, this doesn’t square with the RCC’s teaching of papal supremacy. Too many inconsistencies. The whole book of Acts speaks of the power given to ALL the Apostles. All the Apostles had the power to bind and loose. These were not declarations unto Peter alone. St. Peter being the leader of the Apostles? Absolutely, but surely not supreme or primal.

 

[Omar_Gatskill]

So, is it your contention that the purpose of the book of Acts or any other part of the Bible you read is to give an account of the Church historically?/QUOTE
I never said the sole purpose, but it surely highlights it.

 

[David]

Evidence for Peter’s Authority.

Peter is given the Keys to the Kingdom.
see Isaiah 22:20 In that day I will call my servant Eliakim the son of Hilkiah, 21 and I will clothe him with your robe, and will bind your girdle on him, and will commit your authority to his hand; and he shall be a father to the inhabitants of Jerusalem and to the house of Judah. 22* And I will place on his shoulder the key of the house of David; he shall open, and none shall shut; and he shall shut, and none shall open.

John 21:17 He said to him the third time, “Simon, son of John, do you love me?” Peter was grieved because he said to him the third time, “Do you love me?” And he said to him, “Lord, you know everything; you know that I love you.” Jesus said to him, "Feed my sheep.

Jesus prays for Peters faith not to fail, because the devil wants to sift him like wheat

Whenever the Apostles are mentioned in Scripture, Peters name is first.

Why did Jesus changes his name from Simon to Peter which means rock?

Peace
David

 

[CopticChristian]

I disagree because we just simply do not get the papacy from Scripture. Take the whole of Scripture. We must do that and when we do that, we don’t see papal supremacy. That’s really the meat and potates as to why why I left the RCC. AND, I wasn’t a Christmas Catholic either, (I observed the vast majority of the holy days of obligation and went to several adorations a year). When Peter was in Rome being killed, Paul never once mentioned a single word about it in Romans. That’s very problematic in the case for papal supremacy. Paul even opposed Peter to his face at one point. Again, this doesn’t square with the RCC’s teaching of papal supremacy. Too many inconsistencies. The whole book of Acts speaks of the power given to ALL the Apostles. All the Apostles had the power to bind and loose. These were not declarations unto Peter alone. St. Peter being the leader of the Apostles? Absolutely, but surely not supreme or primal.

Omar,

Please consider that I know of one source that outlines your concern for the Papacy. I was there when it was being written. You may be interested to know that the authors were just a bunch of Catholics sitting around a coffee shop meeting regularly to write this book…Jesus, Peter & the Keys: A Scriptural Handbook on the Papacy…Scott Butler, Norm Dahlgren & David Hess…Scott was a Protestant pastor prior to becoming Catholic and I learned so much from him about what he learned as he became Catholic… He is my daughters GodFather…

I ask that you consider reading this and then conclude whatever you like…He and the other two authors have taken the time to review Scripture and Patristics conderning the keys…check it out…

 

[CopticChristian]

CopticChristian;8805195:

So, is it your contention that the purpose of the book of Acts or any other part of the Bible you read is to give an account of the Church historically?

So you get a birds eye view and you get highlights as you see it but certainly not the entirety of what the Church is as it is not a handbook.

 

[vsedriver]

.

This really all comes boiling down to authority and we differ in what we believe that ultimate authority is and where it comes from. I can agree to disagree.

well, for me the ultimate authority is Jesus. He is the King. He has temporarily left his earthly Kingdom but he will return. Until then, like all good Kings, he left his chief steward in charge. Gave him and only him the keys, and instructions to look after his flocks. So I belong to the Church under the authority of the King’s Chief Stewart… St. Peter and his successors… The Catholic Church…

 

[rinnie]

I disagree because we just simply do not get the papacy from Scripture. Take the whole of Scripture. We must do that and when we do that, we don’t see papal supremacy. That’s really the meat and potates as to why why I left the RCC. AND, I wasn’t a Christmas Catholic either, (I observed the vast majority of the holy days of obligation and went to several adorations a year). When Peter was in Rome being killed, Paul never once mentioned a single word about it in Romans. That’s very problematic in the case for papal supremacy. Paul even opposed Peter to his face at one point. Again, this doesn’t square with the RCC’s teaching of papal supremacy. Too many inconsistencies. The whole book of Acts speaks of the power given to ALL the Apostles. All the Apostles had the power to bind and loose. These were not declarations unto Peter alone. St. Peter being the leader of the Apostles? Absolutely, but surely not supreme or primal.

Well where do I begin. Where did St Paul ever disaprove St Peter in any of his teaching’s? I never saw it. Please show me.

Who ever denied that all of the Apostles had the Power of the Holy Spirit? Why would the Church ever deny this, and how could we go to Communion if all of the Priest, Pope, Bishops did not have the power of the Holy Spirit to forgive sins for goodness sakes.
And also among other things, the Sacrament of the sick, Confirmation, Commumion etc.

There are declarations unto Peter his has the keys to the kingdom. Where does Christ NOT say You are Peter and TO YOU I give the keys to the kingdom. Please show me scripture when Christ says TO ALL THE APOSTLES I give you the KEYS to the kingdom.

You need to prove you point. You cannot just say the RCC is wrong and then not defend your case. So show me.

 

[rinnie]

I disagree because we just simply do not get the papacy from Scripture. Take the whole of Scripture. We must do that and when we do that, we don’t see papal supremacy. That’s really the meat and potates as to why why I left the RCC. AND, I wasn’t a Christmas Catholic either, (I observed the vast majority of the holy days of obligation and went to several adorations a year). When Peter was in Rome being killed, Paul never once mentioned a single word about it in Romans. That’s very problematic in the case for papal supremacy. Paul even opposed Peter to his face at one point. Again, this doesn’t square with the RCC’s teaching of papal supremacy. Too many inconsistencies. The whole book of Acts speaks of the power given to ALL the Apostles. All the Apostles had the power to bind and loose. These were not declarations unto Peter alone. St. Peter being the leader of the Apostles? Absolutely, but surely not supreme or primal.

And by the way how in the world can you have the WHOLE scripture when the bible is SS and not ST. Where do you get Sacred Tradition, you know the Sacred Tradition we are told to follow in the bible? Where do you get it?

 

[JohnVIII]

The Early Church was a Jewish sect. Gentiles wanted to get into the act without first converting to Judaism, but they were rejected by Jewish Christians, so they made there own “Church”, which mainly was Gnostic. An offshoot of Gnosticism, that eventually came to be know as Marcionism, rejected anything Jewish. At this point there came into the picture a small minority of Christians that was an offshoot of the Jewish Christians that wanted both Gentile and Jewish Christians to be one in Christ, these were the first Catholics. Marcionism was the largest and most dominate Christians group and Catholics had to win over them to have any chance. Promoting a Catholic canon of Scripture (and revising them) was the main tool that gathered diverse Christians with there diverse teachings from the four winds to the four Gospels and reconciling both Jew and Gentile into Catholic unity by the end of the 2nd century.

So I do not think the first church was Catholic. But, if you qualify it and say the first church that purely Christian (and not just a sect of another faith) and succeeded in uniting all Christians (at least to some degree) to Rome and St Peter, then that would, of course, be the Catholic Church.

Most of the New Testament cannot stand on it’s own historical authority. Without the authority of the Catholic Church backing what the scripture teaches on matters of faith it really has no leg to stand on.

 

[CopticChristian]

Well where do I begin. Where did St Paul ever disaprove St Peter in any of his teaching’s? I never saw it. Please show me.

Who ever denied that all of the Apostles had the Power of the Holy Spirit? Why would the Church ever deny this, and how could we go to Communion if all of the Priest, Pope, Bishops did not have the power of the Holy Spirit to forgive sins for goodness sakes.
And also among other things, the Sacrament of the sick, Confirmation, Commumion etc.

There are declarations unto Peter his has the keys to the kingdom. Where does Christ NOT say You are Peter and TO YOU I give the keys to the kingdom. Please show me scripture when Christ says TO ALL THE APOSTLES I give you the KEYS to the kingdom.

You need to prove you point. You cannot just say the RCC is wrong and then not defend your case. So show me.

The notion of lack of understanding of the keys comes from a lack of understanding of the Kingdom. The King has a Queen Mother as posted in another thread. The King appoints a chief steward…to act on behalf of the King…Isaiah 22…

0And it shall come to pass in that day, that I will call my servant Eliakim the son of Hilkiah:

21And I will clothe him with thy robe, and strengthen him with thy girdle, and I will commit thy government into his hand: and he shall be a father to the inhabitants of Jerusalem, and to the house of Judah.

22And the key of the house of David will I lay upon his shoulder; so he shall open, and none shall shut; and he shall shut, and none shall open.

23And I will fasten him as a nail in a sure place; and he shall be for a glorious throne to his father’s house.

Look at the way Matthew 16:15-19 is structured. After Peter gives a confession about the identity of Jesus, the Lord does the same in return for Peter. Jesus does not say, “Blessed are you, Simon Bar-Jona! For flesh and blood has not revealed this to you, but my Father who is in heaven. And I tell you, you are an insignificant pebble and on this rock I will build my Church. . . . I will give you the keys of the kingdom of heaven.”

Jesus is giving Peter a three-fold blessing, including the gift of the keys to the kingdom, not undermining his authority. To say that Jesus is downplaying Peter flies in the face of the context. Jesus is installing Peter as a form of chief steward or prime minister under the King of Kings by giving him the keys to the kingdom. As can be seen in Isaiah 22:22, kings in the Old Testament appointed a chief steward to serve under them in a position of great authority to rule over the inhabitants of the kingdom.

The steward is called on behalf of the King father, Pappa, from which we get Pope…The Pope has no power that the King does not give him…

 

[Omar_Gatskill]

Well where do I begin. Where did St Paul ever disaprove St Peter in any of his teaching’s? I never saw it. Please show me.

Paul denied Peter to his face and it was regarding the way he was treating the Gentiles. Enough said.

Who ever denied that all of the Apostles had the Power of the Holy Spirit? Why would the Church ever deny this, and how could we go to Communion if all of the Priest, Pope, Bishops did not have the power of the Holy Spirit to forgive sins for goodness sakes.
And also among other things, the Sacrament of the sick, Confirmation, Commumion etc.

No, I think you need to prove that the Catholic faith is correct over Scripture. I can back up what I say by Scripture.

 

[Omar_Gatskill]

And by the way how in the world can you have the WHOLE scripture when the bible is SS and not ST. Where do you get Sacred Tradition, you know the Sacred Tradition we are told to follow in the bible? Where do you get it?

First of all, what are you talking about when you say Sacred Tradition? Give some examples.

 

[Omar_Gatskill]

Omar Gatskill;8806251:

So you get a birds eye view and you get highlights as you see it but certainly not the entirety of what the Church is as it is not a handbook.

So, what’s your point?? The NT gives us a very good picture of what the Early Church looked like. Is Scripture not good enough for you??

 

[Omar_Gatskill]

The notion of lack of understanding of the keys comes from a lack of understanding of the Kingdom. The King has a Queen Mother as posted in another thread. The King appoints a chief steward…to act on behalf of the King…Isaiah 22…

Come on, do you really have to play the ignorance card everytime someone disagrees with you?? Make your case… Show us where Catholic doctrine squares with the Scripture.

 

[CopticChristian]

CopticChristian;8813024:

The notion of lack of understanding of the keys comes from a lack of understanding of the Kingdom. The King has a Queen Mother as posted in another thread. The King appoints a chief steward…to act on behalf of the King…Isaiah 22…

Come on, do you really have to play the** ignorance**

card everytime someone disagrees with you?? Make your case… Show us where Catholic doctrine squares with the Scripture.

Ignorance is rampant. Sometimes it is evident by the failure to understand. Sometimes it is evident by failure to respond. Sometimes it is evident to the ignorant and sometimes the ignorance is evidence to oneself. You don’t like the answer. I understand.

 

[Omar_Gatskill]

There are many things that I think Catholics and Anglicans do agree on that the vast majority of other Protestants do not. We both worship in traditions that are very rich with Early Christian history. We both recogize that Jesus DID comission us with his Apostles (The Communion of Saints) and we both recognize that the bread and wine at communion IS really his body and blood. So many of these things have been lost in Evangelical circles today. I agree with that totally. We differ of course on the subject of authority. This to this day is the main reason why we are not in communion with one another. It’s surely a dliemma. I just wanted to be clear on those things so that I am not misunderstood as a Catholic basher. I’m not that at all.

 

[CopticChristian]

CopticChristian;8806536:

So, what’s your point?? The NT gives us a very good picture of what the Early Church looked like. Is Scripture not good enough for you??

Now you say a “very good picture”…before you said “highlights” birds eye view. A very good picture and highlights are not the same…You somehow believe that the Church as you see it in the NT is something to be grasped and understood as if there were no other sources to desribe the Church…

I am reminded of my early reading experience…I recall reading about these two kids that were walking and looking through peepholes at a contruction site…they really could not see everything but they were able to see some things…You can find these books here…

tagnwag.com/forsale/dick_jane_vintage/index.html

Next I am reminded of a story of blind men trying to describe an elephant…you want to construct something you have not seen by limiting your view…

noogenesis.com/pineapple/blind_men_elephant.html

Look Omar, see the Church…funny, funny Church…it was small and now it is big…for what God does in the world produces good and things that can be seen.

Augustine says in “things of Faith not seen” and “On the Creed” the following…

Nor let them deceive you, either the vain heathen, or the false Jews, or the deceitful heretics, or also within the Catholic (Church) itself evil Chris¬tians, enemies by so much the more hurtful, as they are the more within us. For, lest on this subject also the weak should be troubled, divine prophecy hath not been silent, where in the Song of Songs the Bridegroom speaking unto the Bride, that is, Christ the Lord unto the Church, saith, "As a lily in the midst of thorns, so is my best Beloved 2 in the midst of the daughters."3 He said not, in the midst of them that are without; but, " in the midst of daughters. Whoso hath ears to hear, let him hear: "4

CHAP. 10.—OF THE CATHOLIC CHURCH, THE RE¬MISSION OF SINS, AND THE RESURRECTION OF THE FLESH.
—Inasmuch, I repeat, as this is the case, we believe also in THE HOLY CHURCH, [intend¬ing thereby] assuredly the CATHOLIC. For both heretics and schismatics style their con¬gregations churches. But heretics, in hold¬ing false opinions regarding God, do injury to the faith itself; while schismatics, on the other hand, in wicked separations break off from brotherly charity, although they may believe just what we believe. Wherefore neither do the heretics belong.to the Church catholic, which loves God; nor do the schis¬matics form a part of the same, inasmuch as it loves the neighbor, and consequently readily forgives the neighbor’s sins, because it prays that forgiveness may be extended to itself by Him who has reconciled us to Himself, doing away with all past things, and calling us to a new life. And until we reach the perfection of this new life, we cannot be without sins. Nevertheless it is a matter of consequence of what sort those sins may be.

Look Omar, see the Church…