History of the Roman Catholic Church

[brkn1]

Actually, it would be more correct to say that Christ never “pointed” to the “written Word of God” at all!

Rather, he always, always and everywhere “pointed,” ultimately, to one thing and one thing only, viz, the very PERSON OF HIMSELF! The Bible you see, was always *subordinate *to HIM, and to HIS teaching and authority!

He, and he* alone, *was the ultimate and final teaching authority for his hearers, *never *the Scriptures!

“never”?

I recall more than a few times that Jesus pointed to the “written Word of God”.

For starters, you might want to look up (Matthew 4:4,7,10).
Jesus used “it is written” each time in His argument to defeat Satan’s temptings.

 

[bobregan]

There sure is a lot of authoritative posting going on; but now we must wonder why a simple answer about when the Catholic Church was born is being evaded.

Catholics, by their silence on this point are admitting that they are not “the first church.” How can anyone believe what you say without evidence? If I have been told “a zillion times;” it doesn’t matter because you cannot even say where I have been given this specific answer to this one question.

Read “Upon This Rock” by Steven Ray, has many Protestant foot notes and references also.

 

[raumzeitmc2]

“never”?
I recall more than a few times that Jesus pointed to the “written Word of God”.

Christ quoted Scripture, but he did not “point” to it! He “pointed,” as it were, to HIMSELF!

Christ was the ultimate authority, not the Bible. Surely you don’t deny this, do you?

For starters, you might want to look up (Matthew 4:4,7,10).
Jesus used “it is written” each time in His argument to defeat Satan’s temptings.

And what, prey tell, does that have to do with you? Are comparing yourself, a individual with absolutely no authority, to Christ?? Or do you see no difference whatsoever between * CHRIST’S* quoting of Scripture and yours??!!

 

[brkn1]

Sorry, not playing your game. You first and I’ll be happy to accomodate you. I asked you to document your accusations against the Catholic Church and you have not done it. You have simply made more accusations. I’d also like you to document those as well.

Firing off one unsupported accusation after another is not debate, my friend. Back up your statements or retract them.

You seem to have a double standard with your “Back up your statements or retract them.”
It did not bother me when you claimed in your post #235 that the traditions of protestants “are just about all false.”

My point against the result of your RCC Traditions was that, what you call the entire Gospel is no longer a simple Gospel, but now is a false gospel.
The most important part of the simple Gospel is that Jesus Christ came down from heaven to take upon Himself our sins and to suffer as our Substitute to pay the entire penalty for our sin.
This Gospel can be found described in (Hebrews 1:3) “…, when He had BY HIMSELF purged our sins, sat down on the right hand of the Magesty on high.”.
The RCC does not hold to this; especially the “by Himself” part.

 

[brkn1]

Christ quoted Scripture, but he did not “point” to it! He “pointed,” as it were, to HIMSELF!

Christ was the ultimate authority, not the Bible. Surely you don’t deny this, do you?

And what, prey tell, does that have to do with you? Are comparing yourself, a individual with absolutely no authority, to Christ?? Or do you see no difference whatsoever between CHRIST’S quoting of Scripture and yours??!!

You are confusing the “written Word” (Holy Scripture) with the “Living Word” (Jesus).

 

[bobregan]

“never”?

I recall more than a few times that Jesus pointed to the “written Word of God”.

For starters, you might want to look up (Matthew 4:4,7,10).
Jesus used “it is written” each time in His argument to defeat Satan’s temptings.

Jesus was quoting what we call the Old Testament which came from Jewish oral Tradition.

 

[raumzeitmc2]

You are confusing the “written Word” (Holy Scripture) with the “Living Word” (Jesus).

I not confusing anything; you’re simply avoiding the question.

So may we please try this again?

Again, here’s my very straightforward question:

Do see any difference, any difference whatsoever, between the “Living Word” quoting the “written Word,” and someone, such as yourself, let us say, quoting the “written Word?”

 

[luckyfredsdad]

QUOTE=Hisalone;4983606]The poverty of those that refuse to accept the word of God as it is written and to neglect such a precious gift as the Spirit of truth.

Friend,

Which or what is the Word of God that we ,'refuse", to accept? All we say is that we accept the Scripture and that we accept fully, or at least I do. They need some explanation however. In fact,“what does it all mean.” I.E The Incarnation, The Holy Trinity and the Holy Sacraments, to mention the obvious basics! The Church through the Emperors called many Bishops together to discuss the sacred matters within Councils. The results have been accepted in some degree by most MAINLINE CHURCHES and the first four are generally received. Catholic or Protestant. What are you? As far as I know those that do not accept the first four Councils are not Christian or are on the very edge of the faith.

So tell us who interprets your scripture and explains it to your congregations, or is it everyman for himself.

 

[Ferde_Rombola]

There sure is a lot of authoritative posting going on; but now we must wonder why a simple answer about when the Catholic Church was born is being evaded.

No fewer than three people have provided you with the answer you say we are evading. Are you blind or playing games? Which is it?

Catholics, by their silence on this point are admitting that they are not “the first church.” How can anyone believe what you say without evidence? If I have been told “a zillion times;” it doesn’t matter because you cannot even say where I have been given this specific answer to this one question.

I posted the message number for you yesterday. If I recall, it’s #268 or thereabouts. In any event, for the third time, you will find your answer in the CCC at paragraph 1076.

Catholics are not silent on any point of apologetics. Ever. In my experience it’s protestants who go silent when they’re confronted with an argument they can’t answer.

 

[Ferde_Rombola]

You seem to have a double standard with your “Back up your statements or retract them.” It did not bother me when you claimed in your post #235 that the traditions of protestants “are just about all false.”

I wasn’t asked to back up my statement, but I’ll be happy to if you let me know which protestant false tradition you want backed up. There are so many of them I hardly know where to start.

My point against the result of your RCC Traditions was that, what you call the entire Gospel is no longer a simple Gospel, but now is a false gospel.

Back that up, if you would please. Prove with reliable documentation that what you say is true. If you can’t, and you can’t, then this is just another unsupported opinion and easily as worthless as the other one.

The most important part of the simple Gospel is that Jesus Christ came down from heaven to take upon Himself our sins and to suffer as our Substitute to pay the entire penalty for our sin. This Gospel can be found described in (Hebrews 1:3) “…, when He had BY HIMSELF purged our sins, sat down on the right hand of the Magesty on high.” The RCC does not hold to this; especially the “by Himself” part.

Well, you’re wrong about that, but, again, I’d like you to prove it. You keep making these unsupported accusations and never offer any proof what you say is true. You just quote Scripture and say Catholics don’t believe it. You really haven’t got a clue to what you’re talking about.

And by the way, did the Lord send the Apostles out to write or to preach??

 

[The_GreyPilgrim]

You seem to have a double standard with your “Back up your statements or retract them.”
It did not bother me when you claimed in your post #235 that the traditions of protestants “are just about all false.”

My point against the result of your RCC Traditions was that, what you call the entire Gospel is no longer a simple Gospel, but now is a false gospel.
The most important part of the simple Gospel is that Jesus Christ came down from heaven to take upon Himself our sins and to suffer as our Substitute to pay the entire penalty for our sin.
This Gospel can be found described in (Hebrews 1:3) “…, when He had BY HIMSELF purged our sins, sat down on the right hand of the Magesty on high.”.
The RCC does not hold to this; especially the “by Himself” part.

Heb 1:[3] He reflects the glory of God and bears the very stamp of his nature, upholding the universe by his word of power. When he had made purification for sins, he sat down at the right hand of the Majesty on high,

I’m not arguing against what Jesus did for our salvation, but where does it say “by Himself” in Heb 1:3?

Col 1:[24]" Now I rejoice in my sufferings for your sake, and in my flesh I complete what is lacking in Christ’s afflictions for the sake of his body, that is, the church,…"

What does Paul mean by him “completing what is lacking in Christ’s afflictions” if according to Protestant theology there was nothing lacking in Christ’s afflictions?

 

[The_GreyPilgrim]

Some things evident to me in all this back and forth.

One: we all seem to be ignoring 1 Peter 3:15:

“…Always be prepared to make a defense to any one who calls you to account for the hope that is in you, yet do it with gentleness and reverence;…”

Second, there seems to be a fundamental assumption on the part of Protestants that the Church and the Bible say different things. This begs the question.

The idea of the Catholic(Universal) Church is directly Biblical. Namely in Matthew 28 when Jesus tells His Apostles to “teach all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and the Son, and the Holy Spirit.”

Early gatherings were held in peoples homes(Greeks and Jews alike). Agape’ meals were celebrated the night of the Sabbath. after sun-down. The following morning(the first day of the week), at dawn, the assembly would rise and assemble together, read out loud the Law and the Prophets(most if not all of the NT letters were not in existence yet), the presbyteroi or episkipoi would recite a story about Jesus, prayers would be said over the bread and wine, and they would all receive communion(see Acts 20:7; Acts 2:42-46; 1 Cor 10 &11).

Eventually the amount of Christians swelled. Small home church gatherings gave way to the necessity of larger ones. By this time Roman noblewomen all over the Empire began providing their larger homes for worship. When persecutions came Christians found other places to worship(underground catacombs among many spots). By the mid-second century the agape meal had been phased out due to these very large assemblies (as well as to the persecutions) and the worship concentrated mainly on the readings, the teachings, prayer, and the eucharist.

The reason that the Roman Church received such recognition and honor from the rest of the churches was the fact of the ministries of Peter and Paul in Rome and their subsequent matyrdoms. The site of Peter’s tomb on vatican hill, marked by the Trophy of Caius, is the site that St. Peter’s basillica sit on today. This is not something made up by a Pope in the 18th century but is part of the historical record. Eusebius writes in his Ecclesiastical History that “the ground of Rome was consecrated for God’s noble purpose by the shed blood of Peter and Paul.” And he provides a list of the Bishops of Rome from Peter to his own day. Many times over when there was a dispute in the Church, the appeal for resolution always went to the Bishop of Rome.

Peter was named by God as first among equals-the apostles(Matt 16; Acts 15:7; cf. every list of Apostles has Peter as first one named; that in itself is significant). We see in Acts how the apostles-lead by Peter-reserve the right to replace an apostle, make new apostles, and create other orders in the Church(Acts 1:20; Acts 6).

The thing that is not evident in the historical record at any time during the early church is the doctrines of faith alone, scripture alone, OSAS, the Eucharist as anything but the Real Presence of Christ, etc… etc. The churches were divided by geographical boundries, but never by doctrinal differences. There was only One, Holy, Catholic(universal), & Apostolic Church.

This is the history of the Church as it is. Take it or leave it.

There is nothing in the Bible that contradicts anything that the Church teaches. Many of the Church’s teachings are syllogistic in nature; i.e. that for something to be true doctrine all underlying premises must also be true doctrine. To many average Protestants they see something like the Immaculate Conception or the Assumption and immediately reject it without caring to look at the first premises to see if they are or could be true. Yet they also fail to see how many of their own beliefs and practices follow this same syllogistic logic.

Many of their “traditions” are no more or less extrabiblical than ours. They condemn us for our “rituals” yet fail to see how they themselves have deveolped their own forms of ritual in their own assemblies and how all worship tends to settle into ritual. I pray that we can get past these petty disputes.

To brkn1:

I hold the Bible as a treasure of great worth. But the Bible as **the Word of God **is a secondary definition. The primary definition of that phrase is Jesus, Himself. Jesus said to the Jews: “[39] You search the scriptures, because you think that in them you have eternal life; and it is they that bear witness to me; [40] yet you refuse to come to me that you may have life.(John 5:39-40).”

It is my interpretation that Jesus is telling us here that while the scriptures tell us about Him that the only way to life is to come to Him and abide in Him.

How do we abide in Him?

Jesus said to abide in Him that we were to eat His flesh and drink His blood or we do not have life in us. (John 6).

I know I have gone over this same issue with you ad nauseum. I will continue to pray for you that God may give you understanding.

God Bless!

 

[Ferde_Rombola]

I’m not arguing against what Jesus did for our salvation, but where does it say “by Himself” in Heb 1:3?

Thanks for pointing that out. I didn’t even think to verify it. I just took brkn1’s word for it. I guess this is one of those protestant false traditions he wants me to back up.

What does Paul mean by him “completing what is lacking in Christ’s afflictions” if according to Protestant theology there was nothing lacking in Christ’s afflictions?

That has bothered me for years. Haven’t gotten a good answer yet. Not the prot theology part – the ‘lacking’ part.

 

[brkn1]

I not confusing anything; you’re simply avoiding the question.

So may we please try this again?

Again, here’s my very straightforward question:

Do see any difference, any difference whatsoever, between the “Living Word” quoting the “written Word,” and someone, such as yourself, let us say, quoting the “written Word?”

The Living Word is the Person of the Lord Jesus Christ.

The written Word is the revelation of the Living Word, but it is not, itself, the actual Living Word.

 

[brkn1]

Heb 1:[3] He reflects the glory of God and bears the very stamp of his nature, upholding the universe by his word of power. When he had made purification for sins, he sat down at the right hand of the Majesty on high,

I’m not arguing against what Jesus did for our salvation, but where does it say “by Himself” in Heb 1:3?

Col 1:[24]" Now I rejoice in my sufferings for your sake, and in my flesh I complete what is lacking in Christ’s afflictions for the sake of his body, that is, the church,…"

What does Paul mean by him “completing what is lacking in Christ’s afflictions” if according to Protestant theology there was nothing lacking in Christ’s afflictions?

My King James Version has “by Himself” in (Hebrews 1:3).
You might be reading the Douay-Rheims 1899 Version.

The Greek uses the words “dia heautou”, which could be translated as “through or by occasion of Himself”.

I am very interested in exactly what you and the RCC believes happened on the Cross. Everyone seems to say they agree with Jesus purifying our sins as our Substitute, but then they say it was “incomplete”.
The essence of the Gospel hinges on the proper belief in what Jesus did for us on the Cross as our Substitute.

 

[SyCarl]

My King James Version has “by Himself” in (Hebrews 1:3).
You might be reading the Douay-Rheims 1899 Version.

The Greek uses the words “dia heautou”, which could be translated as “through or by occasion of Himself”.

I am very interested in exactly what you and the RCC believes happened on the Cross. Everyone seems to say they agree with Jesus purifying our sins as our Substitute, but then they say it was “incomplete”.
The essence of the Gospel hinges on the proper belief in what Jesus did for us on the Cross as our Substitute.

It seems “by Himself” is limited to the Byzantine Text.

 

[Always_For_Him]

The Living Word is the Person of the Lord Jesus Christ.

The written Word is the revelation of the Living Word, but it is not, itself, the actual Living Word.

NT Scripture IS the recording of the Living Word, just not all of it. Jesus said and did many things with His Apostles that are not recorded, but, are known and practiced by His Church because HE gave these teachings and traditions to Her. It is the best you are gonna get, unless you think your pastor or you are the actual Living Word.

 

[Protestant101]

Christ quoted Scripture, but he did not “point” to it! He “pointed,” as it were, to HIMSELF!

Christ was the ultimate authority, not the Bible. Surely you don’t deny this, do you?
Yes, of course. Any Christian who knows truth would deny this falsehood. Christ’s full authority is in His Word; His presence is in His Word

And what, prey tell, does that have to do with you? Are comparing yourself, a individual with absolutely no authority, to Christ?? Or do you see no difference whatsoever between * CHRIST’S* quoting of Scripture and yours??!!

There is no difference because whenever Christ did this; it was His purpose to set an example for Christians to also do, even today. A Christian does not claim authority; only the God who has authority. Jesus pointed to Scripture to show truth, and so do His followers today.

“Thy Word is a Lamp unto my feet, and a Light unto my path…”

Are you denying this fundamental Truth?

 

[elvisman]

There is no difference because whenever Christ did this; it was His purpose to set an example for Christians to also do, even today. A Christian does not claim authority; only the God who has authority. Jesus pointed to Scripture to show truth, and so do His followers today.

Are you denying this fundamental Truth?

Right - the CHURCH has authority given it by Jesus himself (Matt. 16:15-19, 18:15-18, John 16:13-15, 20:22-23).

Your problem is that you think the written word is the only word of God.
As Catholics, we believe in Sola Dei Verbum - the Word of God alone - not Sola Scriptura - the written sctipture alone.

You nullify the word of God with your Sola Scriptura because it is taught nowhere in scripture.
You also nullify the word of Jesus in John 16:13:
"But when he comes, the Spirit of truth, he will guide you to all truth. He will not speak on his own, but he will speak what he hears, and will declare to you the things that are coming."

 

[raumzeitmc2]

That has bothered me for years. Haven’t gotten a good answer yet. Not the prot theology part – the ‘lacking’ part.

Bishop Sheen wrote:

Our Lord says, “It is finished.” Paul says, “It is not finished.”

Read the rest of what he says in Through the Year with Fulton Sheen, pp. 65-66.

You’ll note in these couple of pages that Sheen touches briefly on the enormously important subject of the Mystical Body of Christ.

Tragically, it is this same Mystical Body which our Protestant brethren, due to their exclusive focus on a book (and attendant exaltation of self) essentially reject.

Not surprisingly therefore, do we find the notion of the Person of Christ in his sacred body - the Church - from the time of the apostles and without interruption or error, having spread to all nations, converted the lowest heathen, defeated the worst heresies, produced the most exalted saints, and the greatest martyrs - and continuing to do so throughout “all ages, world without end” (Eph.3:21) - to be extremely repugnant to their theology.

---

“For my part, I should not believe the gospel except as moved by the authority of the Catholic Church.”

St. Augustine, Against the Fundamental Epistle of Manichaeus, ch. 5.
newadvent.org/fathers/1405.htm

Again, in another occasion, after citing the decision of Pope Zosimus to put under the ban of his condemnation all Pelagians, in all parts of the world, the saint wrote:

“In these words of the Apostolic See the Catholic faith stands out as so ancient and so firmly established, so certain and so clear, that it would be wrong for a Christian to doubt it.”
Augustine to Optatus, Epistle 190, chapter (section) 6, n. 23.

(1955)The Fathers of the Church: A New Translation, Ludwig Schopp and Roy Joseph Deferrari, eds., Catholic University of America, (Letters, 165-203), Vol. 30, Epistle 190 to Bishop Optatus, p. 286.

“These words of the Apostolic See contain the Catholic faith that is so ancient and well-founded, so certain and so clear, that it is impious for a Christian to doubt it.”

Works of Saint Augustine: A Translation for the 21st Century, Letters (Epistulae - 156-210), trans. and notes by Roland Teske, S. J., ed. Boniface Ramsey, New City Press, Hyde Park, New York, 2004, vol.3, part 2, p. 274, ISBN 156548200X.
amazon.com/Letters-156-210-Works-Saint-Augustine/dp/156548200X/ref=sr_11_1/176-2696131-8174538?ie=UTF8&qid=1237936220&sr=11-1
books.google.com/books?id=jAgIAAAACAAJ&dq=156548200X