Early Church not Catholic

[DCNBILL]

To believe that the Christ, the very Incarnation of God, went through the trouble of being born, living a human life, going through a 3 year ministry during which he gathered followers of which he organized a clear hierarchy in a faith community and then after the Paschal mystery sent forth this community to proclaim His word and did not leave someone in charge is absurd. That is telling God that He is foolish and does not understand His creatures.

Of course someone, some person, has to be in charge or there would be anarchy, there would be a multiplication of churches each going their own way with no clear leadership.

Christ knew what He was doing when He chose the twelve, when He favored Peter, James and John by taking them aside at special times and when He clearly designated Peter as the one who should feed His lambs, tend His sheep and feed His sheep.

 

[vsedriver]

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.

So you have to ask yourself…

After centuries of being in Communion with the Bishop of Rome why did the Anglican Church break away? Why did the Anglican Church willingly allow a secular ruler to head the Church? This obviously shows us that the Anglican Church believed it needed a head. But by what justification did they decide that the successor of Peter, appointed by Jesus, was no longer a worthy shepherd/leader for the Anglican Church?

And with this difference on the subject of authority you lose cohesiveness. So that what is sinful in the Catholic Church becomes acceptable in the Anglican. Without authority, how do you determine truth?

 

[Nicea325]

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

Easy. The canon of the NT. That is a Sacred Tradition.

 

[Nicea325]

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??

What about the countless writings of the early church fathers?

 

[Nicea325]

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.

Show us where it does NOT square with scripture?

 

[pablope]

I disagree because we just simply do not get the papacy from Scripture. Take the whole of Scripture.

Paul even opposed Peter to his face at one point. Again, this doesn’t square with the RCC’s teaching of papal supremacy.

 

[pablope]

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…Catholics wrote the Scripture, well you mean here the NT of course, for catholics to use during our Mass.

So can you explain then why the CC would be contrary to Scripture? Or is it your interpretation that is contrary to catholic understanding of Scripture?

 

[pablope]

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

The Bible, the Mass…from which you base the anglican Mass.

mark-shea.com/tradition.html

 

[pablope]

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??

Yeah…and …they did not have the whole Bible as you know it today for the first 400 years or so. They had only the Septuagint, which is the Catholic OT today.

So, may I ask, do you have the catholic OT or protestant OT in your Bible? If you have the protestant OT, then you are following the traditions of men…those who decided for themselves to removed 7 books from the OT…and the reason…to save money on printing costs.

 

[pablope]

There are many things that I think Catholics and Anglicans do agree on that the vast majority of other Protestants do not.

** 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.

Then, which authority should you follow? The authority that flows from the seat of Peter? Or the authority that flows from the seat of Henry VIII?

 

[Barbkw]

Henry VIII needed the ability to license his remarriage after a divorce and still have the “show” of being a religious king, even a priest king, like David. Head of church, head of state.

Wasn’t going to happen through the Catholic Church, so he started his own.

 

[CopticChristian]

Then, which authority should you follow? The authority that flows from the seat of Peter? Or the authority that flows from the seat of Henry VIII?

Was Henry the VIII given the Keys?

 

[rinnie]

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…

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…

Where did I ever say that St Peter did not get his authority from Christ.

 

[rinnie]

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

The easiest way to do that is this, St Peter was the leader or the RCC. Jesus said to the Apostles I will give you the words to speak in my name.

Jesus said I am sending the Advocate the Holy Spirit who will speak in my name.

Now do you agree or disgree that St Peter was the leader of the RCC. Do you agree or disagree with the words of Christ.

 

[rinnie]

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

Its is in the bible. We are told to hold fast to the Traditons that were given to us either WRITTEN or by WORD of MOUTH. Written is SS word of mouth is ST.

 

[Omar_Gatskill]

Then, which authority should you follow? The authority that flows from the seat of Peter? Or the authority that flows from the seat of Henry VIII?

Is that where you think the Anglican church today gets it form; Henry VIII?

 

[Omar_Gatskill]

Its is in the bible. We are told to hold fast to the Traditons that were given to us either WRITTEN or by WORD of MOUTH. Written is SS word of mouth is ST.

I know what it says rinnie, I’m asking you what those traditions specifically are.

 

[Omar_Gatskill]

The easiest way to do that is this, St Peter was the leader or the RCC. Jesus said to the Apostles I will give you the words to speak in my name.

Jesus said I am sending the Advocate the Holy Spirit who will speak in my name.

Now do you agree or disgree that St Peter was the leader of the RCC. Do you agree or disagree with the words of Christ.

It’s not that simple. You’re making it sound like Scripture plainly draws a map from St. Peter to the Roman Catholic church. It does nothing of the sort. Look at the history of your popes. They are carried into St. Peter’s Basillica on chariots by Vatican guards and are surrounded by a world’s fortune in gold, jewels and other precious properties. Peter on the other hand was a poor fisherman. He wasn’t even a bright guy. He stuck his foot in his mouth just as many times as he rightfully spoke. That’s an enormous contrast and honestly it cannot be denied.

 

[Omar_Gatskill]

Henry VIII needed the ability to license his remarriage after a divorce and still have the “show” of being a religious king, even a priest king, like David. Head of church, head of state.

Wasn’t going to happen through the Catholic Church, so he started his own.

King Henry draws no correlation to the practice and doctrine of the Anglican church today.

 

[Omar_Gatskill]

So you have to ask yourself…

After centuries of being in Communion with the Bishop of Rome why did the Anglican Church break away? Why did the Anglican Church willingly allow a secular ruler to head the Church? This obviously shows us that the Anglican Church believed it needed a head. But by what justification did they decide that the successor of Peter, appointed by Jesus, was no longer a worthy shepherd/leader for the Anglican Church?

And with this difference on the subject of authority you lose cohesiveness. So that what is sinful in the Catholic Church becomes acceptable in the Anglican. Without authority, how do you determine truth?

Truth is in the inherant Word of God. I didn’t wish to go here but you seemingly wish to paint a picture of perfect succession which isn’t true at all. The popes of the middle ages were anything but. At one time a pope ordered Joan of Arc to be burned at the stake because he deemed her teachings to be against Scripture, at a later date another pope deemed the decision to be error and she is now a saint of the church. How can this be if popes are infallible?? There was even a pope who tried to sell the papacy. Come on. Your claim of authority just doesn’t add up.