History of the Roman Catholic Church

[Sabbath_Keeper]

Part 1 of 2

The Apostles would not contradict themselves, but that doesn’t mean there aren’t contradictions in Scripture.

This is, in itself, a contradicition, for if there are contraditions in Scripture and the Apostles wrote part of that Scripture and there is contradition in Scripture than obviously the Aposltes would have contradicted themselves. Sorry but this doesn’t work. Either they did or they didn’t contradict themselves. You can’t have it both ways.

Paul says have faith in the Lord and you’ll be saved. His letters have been **made to say **works do not contribute to salvation, thereby contradicting the Lord Himself (see Mt. 25:31-46).

The highlighted portion is very important. Many of Paul’s writing were MADE to say things that Paul did not intend for them to say, yet, even today, these writings are misappropriated to say just what some want them to say to fit in with their doctrines. The only way to be sure of what he truly said is to compare his writings to those of his fellow Apostles.

James says man is justified by his works and not by faith alone. (James 2:24.) Contradictions abound. How do we reconcile them?

There is not contradition between Paul and James. Paul says that Works Without Faith are empty, James says Faith without Works is dead. Neither contradict the other for both are true, you cannot have one with out the other. Our works are an out pouring of our Faith and or Faith is magnified by our works.

The implication there seems to be we don’t know which is the true Church of Jesus Christ. We believe Christ did, indeed, decide who and what His Church is. “Blest are you.Simon son of John. No mere man has told you this, but my heavenly Father.” Mt. 16:17 tells us Peter has been singled out from among the Apostles for devine revelation.

Shall we look at the whole of the undertaking and get the entire picture before deciding what this is?

Matt. 16:13-17 "When Jesus came into the coasts of Caesarea Philippi, he asked his disciples (Notice who is with him please)saying “Whime do men say that I the Son of Man am?” And they said, “Some say that thou art John the Baptist: soem, Elias; and others, Jeremias, or one of the prophets.” He saith unto them, “But whom say ye that I am?” And Simon Peter answered and said, “Thou art the Christ, the Son of the living God.” And Jesus answered and said unto him, "Blessed art thou, Simon Barjona: for flesh and blood hath not revealed it unto thee, but my Father which is in heaven."

Who wouldn’t have been blessed to have such a revelation revealed to him. All of us who have accepted the truth concerning Christ and made this same confession are blessed. It isn’t exclusive to Peter alone, nor was it entended to be.

“I for my part declare to you, you are Rock and upon this rock I will build my Church…” Mt. 13:18. That passage does two things – it establishes Peter as the earthly foundation of the Church and that the Lord will build it on that foundation.

Again.

Matt. 13:18 And I say also unto thee, That thou art Peter, and upon this rock I will build my church; and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it.

So let’s apply some common sense to this.

“As you have said I am the Christ, so you are Peter and upon the statement you have made all men shall be saved and my Church shall be established and death shall not outlast it.”

 

[Sabbath_Keeper]

Part 2 of 2

Since Peter died in the 1st Century, we must conclude the Lord had already begun building His Church. In the 1st Century.

Christ did not need Peter to build his church, he had eleven other disciples to do the job. And this statement is really insulting. Of course Christ started his Church in the 1st century, no body said he didn’t. If you really want to be technical in the whole matter of the first Church then admit that the First Church was a bunch of converted Jews who viewed faith in Christ as an extension of the Hewbrew religion, only now, with out the ceremonial laws for they realized that Christ had fulfilled all that these laws represented.

“…and the jaws of death shall not prevail against it.” id. The implication there is the Church Jesus built in the 1st Century will last to the end of the world. (See Mt. 28:20.) “When he comes, therefore, being the Spirit of Truth, he will guide you to all truth.”
John 16:13. That is a promise the Lord made to the early Church, which became the Catholic Church; that she would be guided in the future and for all time, to the truth.

You have no argument with me here. All throughout history God has guided and protected Christ’s bride. There has always been some remnant of the true Church, slowly building upon itself, keeping the truth, preserving, as the Hebrew nation did, God’s word.

There is plenty of proof, in Scripture, in Sacred Tradition and in the writings of the Early Church Fathers and in the history of the Church itself that the Catholic Church is the one Church the Lord came to build.

Self-exalting truth is no truth at all. Until comparisons are made to what is being taught by the supposedly True Church and what is written in Sacred Scripture the light will be hidden. Take the blinders of and search for yourself.

Would that it were so.

“Unless you eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink his blood, you have no life in you.” John 6:53.

“…Jesus took bread, blessed it, broke it and gave it to his Desciples. ‘Take this and eat it,’ he said, 'This is my body.” Mt. 26:26.

Now, suddenly, what is plainly written is not so easly understood, is it? And if you have no authority to rely on to decide the meaning for you, you just might end up with 33,000 opinions. Or more.

It’s easier than what the RCC tries to make it out to be. There are no mysteries of what Christ or the Apostles taught. They were straight forward in their teachings as should be all who profess Christianity as their faith. I understand completely because I give myself over to the Holy Spirit entirely and I make determination to the truth by what is written in the Word.

That is the doctrine of sola scriptura, which cannot be found in Scripture.

This is based on what Paul wrote, therefore Sola Scriptura can be found in Scripture, if you try hard enough.

And, as has been shown, there is much in Scripture that contradicts Scripture. If Scripture contradicts Scripture, what then?

Again, if Scripture contradicts Scripture then the Apostles are contrary to one another and truth cannot be found in scripture. You, therefore, contradict yourself.

What do you mean by ‘all the church?’ Everyone in the ‘church?’ Every denomination and sect has authority to teach? Teach what? Certainly not the Truth.

Are you a member of Christ’s body, or his Church? If you are then you are a preist and as such have authority to teach and preach his word. As I have stated before, there are members of Christ’s Church in all denominations, these are true believers who hold fast to the truth, of what truth they are knowledgeable. They continue to grow in truth and continue to seek what knowledge of God that is available. They ask questions and pray for the discernment to understand when truth is presented and discard that which is not truth. This is the Church.

If you choose to follow with out questioning then you can expect to be lead down a path of distruction, blindly following only leads one into a pit of death.

             _____________________________

Originally Posted by wisdomseeker

Mt 18:17, “But if he refuses to hear even the Church let him be as a heathen and the publican (a tax collector for the Roman Empire).”

With all due respect, it is a matter of record which is the true Church of Jesus Christ and I have shown you just how logic proves it.

I’m not relying on LOGIC, I’m relying on the truth of God’s Word. What he has revealed in scripture, both Old and New Testaments. Learn from history, see how God dealt with the Hebrew nation. Where they went wrong, what caused their captivities and where they gained forgiveness. It’s a lesson for us as Christians, because it also pertains to us and how we are to relate to God.

 

[Ferde_Rombola]

The data quite literally gets lost in the translation.

So what the point of your being here?

 

[Benjamin8o8]

Not only was Rome not the only power back then, but there were Christians living in places where Roman influence was non-existent. Those Christians were not part of what became Catholic Christianity.

The history of 景教 demonstrates the falseness of that claim.

jonathon

Alright man, we are getting here somewhere! Tell me more about those churches that didnt become Catholic Christianity. Please translate everything in english:p and then we will see if we can trace their history back to the Apostles. If we cant, then that can mean only one thing

afterall this is what this thread is all about, to compare other non-Catholic churches to the Roman Catholic Church.

 

[jblake]

You may also need the term for God.

[/quote]

Is the God of the Bible 天主, 神, or 上帝?

Currently, Bibles in China are printed using either 天主 or 神. (The publisher of a new Chinese translation of the GBible has to print four different editions:

• Simplified Chinese using 神;
• Traditional Chinese using 神;
• Simplified Chinese using 天主;
• Traditional Chinese using 天主;

However, virtually all of the early Christian texts in Chinese use 上帝. Is 上帝 really congruent with either 天主 or 神?
This is a relatively simple case, when it comes to translation difficulties.

If your nephew’s girlfriend is Japanese, also ask her to read the very early 神道 works. I don’t remember the title, but there is an interesting book (in Japanese) paralleling the decline of 景教 with the rise of 神道.

jonathon

 

[jblake]

Benjamin8o8;:

we will see if we can trace their history back to the Apostles.

It traces back to Thomas. That much, everybody agrees on.

jonathon

 

[guanophore]

I insist a challenge now to any protestant. Name your denomination, and we will see if your “church” predates the Universal Church. Now, this is what I have to offer for my denomination:

"As the apostles of Jesus Christ spread the Gospel, they provided the beginning structure for the early Christian Church. It is impossible to separate the initial stages of the Roman Catholic church from that of the early Christian church.

After Jesus died, Simon Peter, one of Jesus’ disciples, became a strong leader in the Jewish Christian movement. Later James, most likely Jesus’ brethren, took over leadership. These followers of Christ viewed themselves as a reform movement within Judaism yet they continued to follow many of the Jewish laws.

The apostles let the Church in unity. None of them “took over” the leadership.

At this time Saul, originally one of the strongest persecutors of the early Jewish Christians, had a blinding vision of Jesus Christ on the road to Damascus, and became a Christian. Adopting the name Paul, he became the greatest evangelist of the early Christian church. Paul’s ministry, also called Pauline Christianity, was directed mainly to Gentiles rather than Jews. In subtle ways, the early church was already becoming divided.

Who calls it “Pauline Christianity”? Paul was Catholic, and believed what the rest of the Apostles believed.

Another belief system at this time was Gnostic Christianity, which taught that Jesus was a spirit being, sent by God to impart knowledge to humans so that they could escape the miseries of life on earth.

Determined by the Church to be heretical.

In addition to Gnostic, Jewish, and and Pauline Christianity, there were already many other versions of Christianity being taught

The fact that all the first Christians were Jews does not mean that they believed and practiced a different faith than what was commited to the Gentiles.

After the fall of Jerusalem in 70 AD, the Jewish Christian movement was scattered. Pauline and Gnostic Christianity were left as the dominant groups.

Horse hockey. You are making this up as you go along!

The Roman Empire legally recognized Pauline Christianity as a valid religion in 313 AD. Later in that century, in 380 AD, Roman Catholicism became the official religion of the Roman Empire.

More poppycock. Legalizing Christianity is a far cry from making it “the official religion”. Such a thing did not happen.

During the following 1000 years, Catholics were the only people recognized as Christians.

I am beginning to wonder where you are getting your history. Do you know anything about the early heresies?

In 1054 AD, a formal split occurred between the Roman Catholic and Eastern Orthodox churches. This division remains in effect today.

Actually, not so much.

The next major division occurred in the 16th century with the Protestant Reformation.

Those who remained faithful to Roman Catholicism believed that the central regulation of doctrine by church leaders was necessary to prevent confusion and division within the church and corruption of its beliefs."

This has a little quote mark left on it. It looks like you are cutting and pasting “catholic history” from a non-catholic source. The need to have a central regulation of doctrine was addressed by Christ, when He built His Church. It is not something that “appeared” on the scene centuries later!

Your truncated history leaves out the 22 Eastern Rites of Catholicism that are not Roman.

source: christianity.about.com/od/denominations/a/catholichistory.htm

Okay now, it is your turn either to provide facts for your church, or disprove what I just claimed. So let us make this very simple and clear, if you fail to do anything I asked for, The Roman Catholic Church is the church Jesus Christ established.

and remember one thing:

people lie, history dosen`t:thumbsup:

I think a little study of history will make it clear that most of what you have claimed is spurious.

The Roman Rite did not develop for centuries, even after Christianity was legalized by Constantine.

 

[Benjamin8o8]

Benjamin8o8;4786135:

I insist a challenge now to any protestant. Name your denomination, and we will see if your “church” predates the Universal Church. Now, this is what I have to offer for my denomination:

"As the apostles of Jesus Christ spread the Gospel, they provided the beginning structure for the early Christian Church. It is impossible

to separate the initial stages of the Roman Catholic church from that of the early Christian church.

I really dont know where youre going with this. What are you trying to say, the RCC isn`t the same Catholic Church Paul and others wrote about?

 

[guanophore]

Historical records show that there were no Icons in the early church, these began to appear sometime around the 4th century during the rein of Constatine (sic).

So, technically we protestants can claim that our beginnings were the same as the RCC, just that we took a different route due to HERESIES of the Roman Bishop.

I mean no disrespect, but you did ask.

What he asked for was historical evidence. You have presented none.

 

[guanophore]

Did God give you a brain? Did he give you understanding? Can you read and figure things out for yourself, or do you have to rely on others to think for you. What is plainly written is easily understood.

Jesus did not want to leave us on our own. That is why He appointed pastors and teachers. If what was written was so easily understood, there would not be so many divergent beliefs among devout persons all seeking the truth.

It says we should evaluate what we have been and are being taught.

Yes, also it is to be evaluated in the light of the faith committed to the Apostles. If it diverges from that, it is to be rejected.

If it contradicts scripture then it is error.

The problem with this is that we must all interpret what we read. WHat we end up using is our own understanidng of what is written.

It isn't the Church that teaches error, it is the individual within the Church that teaches error and that can and sometimes does include those who claim to know the most.

This is very true.

Did not Paul teach that the Church is a nation of Priests?  If the Church is a nation of Priest then all the Church has authority to teach.]

Yes, but this is the role that all of us have to reconcile the world to Christ through evangelism. Not all are called to teach. Those who teach are to be ordained and trained, so as to teach accurately. None who are authorized to teach go forth “sending themselves”.

Until it can be decided through proper evaluation, both scriptural and historical, what constitutes the true church this verse can refer to any of the myriad of churches within the world today.

I note you have yet to provide anything historical.

So, shall we get on with disecting the scriptures,

God forbid! He never intended for such a thing to happen. No, the OP has asked for historical evidence. I will grant you that the Scriptures do give testimony to some history, but most of what you have claimed here cannot be supported by scripture. I am sure you have some other 'history" you can bring forth? Perhaps a few quites from Ellen?

 

[guanophore]

Now the question is not “Did the Apostles pass down verbal Tradition.” but is “Has that verbal Tradition been corrupted?” Remember that man’s nature is to sin, for whatever reason, if man becomes greedy for power (power corrupts, absolute power corrupts absolutely) then he will devise ways to twist things to his benefit. If there is a chance that Tradition has be corrupted then to what source do we turn? And even if Tradition has not been corrupted to was source do we compare that Tradition. Tradition and Scripture should be like identical twins, we should not be able to tell them apart.

It is true that man’s nature tends toward corruption. That is why it was necessary for Jesus to divinely protect the Church from error.

God preserves His word, alive in the Church, so that it can go forth, and do that for which He has purposed it. Since Jesus is the Head of the Church, and the HS is the Soul of the Church, we can turn to these divine elements of the Church, incapable of error, to know that His Truth has not been corrupted.

I agree that the Scripture and the Tradition are two strands of the one divine deposit of faith. I am not so sure about “telling them apart”, as there are truths committed through the Sacred Tradition that are not described in detail in scripture.

 

[guanophore]

Shall we look at the whole of the undertaking and get the entire picture before deciding what this is?

Matt. 16:13-17 "When Jesus came into the coasts of Caesarea Philippi, he asked his disciples (Notice who is with him please)saying “Whime do men say that I the Son of Man am?” And they said, “Some say that thou art John the Baptist: soem, Elias; and others, Jeremias, or one of the prophets.” He saith unto them, “But whom say ye that I am?” And Simon Peter answered and said, “Thou art the Christ, the Son of the living God.” And Jesus answered and said unto him, “Blessed art thou, Simon Barjona: for flesh and blood hath not revealed it unto thee, but my Father which is in heaven.”

Who wouldn’t have been blessed to have such a revelation revealed to him. All of us who have accepted the truth concerning Christ and made this same confession are blessed. It isn’t exclusive to Peter alone, nor was it entended to be.

Matt. 13:18 And I say also unto thee, That thou art Peter, and upon this rock I will build my church; and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it.

So let’s apply some common sense to this.

“As you have said I am the Christ, so you are Peter and upon the statement you have made all men shall be saved and my Church shall be established and death shall not outlast it.”

Your common sense seems to be a bit lacking. While I will agree that the statement Peter made is also a sure rock, there has never been a case in scripture where God changed a person’s name without great import. After this day, Simon bar Jonah was called “Peter”(the Rock). Had the other Apostles and disciples understood Jesus to be referring only to the statement, this would not have become their custom. Even Paul, who had no small conflicts with Simon bar Jonah, recognized him as a pillar, and referred to him as Cephas (the Rock).

 

[Ne_OrangeKnight]

That is the doctrine of sola scriptura, which cannot be found in Scripture.

Really? Where in Scripture does Paul write that Scripture ought to be the sole rule of the Christian faith? And why do we have to “try hard enough” to find it? If that’s really what the Apostles taught, shouldn’t it be plainly obvious?

Sam, the Neon Orange Knight

 

[guanophore]

Really? Where in Scripture does Paul write that Scripture ought to be the sole rule of the Christian faith? And why do we have to “try hard enough” to find it? If that’s really what the Apostles taught, shouldn’t it be plainly obvious?

Sam, the Neon Orange Knight

And what does it have to do with the topic of the thread?

 

[Sabbath_Keeper]

If I may, questions appear and accusations laid concerning evedience in history about the “True Church”. What I have been trying to do is lay a ground work steeped in scripture as relates to the church. Before accurate historical proof can be presented a foundation upon the formation of the Church and its original structure needs to be built. This formational foundation needs to be built upon ALL the scritpture that pertains to the formation of the Church including anything relating to the Church, or body of Christ, before and after the birth, life, death and resurrection of Christ.

Much of this foundational formation is found in the OLD TESTAMENT as it is these scriptures from which Christ himself taught and, before the Apostles wrote their Epistles from which they taught. If the present Church does not conform or mirror the early Church can we actually say that it is the True Chruch? If none of the present churches conform nor mirror the early True Church what must be done to bring it into conformity?

Have errors been introduced into the modern church and if so what are these? The reason there are so many “denominations” is because of the disagreements concerning these “possible” errors. It’s no so much that there may or may not be errors, it’s more that many refuse to even investigate the possibility because much of what is today observed in religious ceremony is to entrenched that pride over all else rules rather than reason.

So my point in all this is to get back to the basics of BIBLICAL teaching and investigative research, laying aside religious bias, and conducting a honest study of what the Word has to say, starting with God’s relationship with the Nation of Isreal.

 

[po18guy]

It is true that man’s nature tends toward corruption. That is why it was necessary for Jesus to divinely protect the Church from error.

God preserves His word, alive in the Church, so that it can go forth, and do that for which He has purposed it. Since Jesus is the Head of the Church, and the HS is the Soul of the Church, we can turn to these divine elements of the Church, incapable of error, to know that His Truth has not been corrupted.

I agree that the Scripture and the Tradition are two strands of the one divine deposit of faith. I am not so sure about “telling them apart”, as there are truths committed through the Sacred Tradition that are not described in detail in scripture.

Good point. If by man the Church was corrupted, how will it also be made uncorrupt by man? The same nature is at work in both cases, right? This is exactly why Jesus, Who knows everything (John 21:17) not only breathed His Holy Spirit upon the Apostles (John 20:21-23, Acts 1:8), He promised that Spirit to guide them always.

 

[po18guy]

So my point in all this is to get back to the basics of BIBLICAL teaching and investigative research, laying aside religious bias, and conducting a honest study of what the Word has to say, starting with God’s relationship with the Nation of Isreal.

The fatal flaw in your argument is that the bible, once torn away from the authority which canonized it, becomes sand. Once its truth is perverted by personal opinion, it is lost. Thus, Luther’s associates split off from him, and others split off from them, ad nauseam. Since every other Protestant denomination disagrees sharply with certain SDA precepts, why should anyone believe anything the SDA alleges as truth? Where did the SDA suddenly get it "truths?

 

[Sabbath_Keeper]

Good point. If by man the Church was corrupted, how will it also be made uncorrupt by man? The same nature is at work in both cases, right?

This would work if it was man alone that corrupted however, we must realize that man as an agent of corruption does not work alone. There are other forces that induce man’s corruption and these forces are subtile (sic) and often couched in what appears to be truth.

This is exactly why Jesus, Who knows everything (John 21:17) not only breathed His Holy Spirit upon the Apostles (John 20:21-23, Acts 1:8), He promised that Spirit to guide them always.

It is also why they were warned to be on the alert for false teachers and false prophets and why Paul instructed those whom he taught to use the scriptures to verify what others might teach them.

 

[po18guy]

Now we get down to the crukst (sic) of the matter. When Christ was reading from the Scirptures, we MUST agree that he was reading from the Books that make up the OLD TESTAMENT.

One question: Is Christ the New Covenant, or not?

 

[Sabbath_Keeper]

One question: Is Christ the New Covenant, or not?

Implying that we should ignore 4000 years of religious history? From where did the New Covenant originate? What is the New Covenant? Can you state what God said the New Covenant would be and to who the New Covenant was meant originally?

If you are trying to say that the Old Testament is no longer relevant for the Christian then why use it in any Litergical Ceremonies? Why refer to anything in the Old Testament at all if this is the case?

It is from the Old Testament that we learn how to relate to God, we learn by others mistakes and we learn how to rely on God in
ALL things. We cannot understand the New Testament (Covenant) without understand in the Old Testament (Covenant)