If the 12 apostles did not belong to the Catholic church...

  • Thread starter Thread starter joe370
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
beth40n2 said:
The 12 apostles were Jews, but the followers of Jesus Christ were simply known as “people of the Way” (Acts 9:2, 24:14) in reference to their lifestyle, i.e., the way of life they lived. In other words, it was their lifestyle that identified them as being followers of Jesus Christ, not their words. They were not actually called Christian until Acts 11:26 in Antioch, then later in the 2nd century, St. Irenaeus, Bishops referred to Christians as Catholic, also in Antioch.
Click to expand...
Hi Beth. So what’s your answer to my original question???
 
joe370 said:
If the 12 apostles did not belong to the Catholic church, as many protestants claim, and the apostles did not belong to any one Protestant church, as catholics claim, then, to what church, in the world today, did the apostles belong?
Click to expand...
They belonged to the Church of Jesus Christ.

The question isn’t whether the apostles belonged to any of the churches that exist today. The question is; do any of the churches today belong to the church THEY belonged to?
 
joe370 said:
My niece always calls me Joe Joe. LOL…Perhaps you could PM me and let me know.
Click to expand...
I think that the answer to that is implicit in the religion I claim to belong to, Joe. 😉 After all, if I didn’t think that it was the ‘true church of Jesus Christ,’ obviously I would belong to a different one–and then I would think THAT one was the right one.

However, the whole idea behind the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints is this: we believe that the original church of Jesus Christ fell away–and had to be restored by revelation in these, the latter days.

That is our belief. As you can see, then, we don’t actually think that either the Catholic, Orthodox (or orthodox) or any Protestant faith is it. We do indeed believe, however, that we are.

Diana
 
joe370 said:
Hi Beth. So what’s your answer to my original question???
Click to expand...
I did answer your question. They were Jew, they became part of “The Way”. The Way soon was called Christian and then Catholic. The answer is Catholic. No other denomination.
 
=joe370;7168527]Hey Jon…
It seems to me that Jesus established one visible church (albeit a very small church) - with visible leaders endowed with the infallible holy spirit to guide these very fallible leaders into all truth and promised to be with His visible church until the end of time, and for me apostolic succession is the key to the preservation of truth, but I could be wrong, but it just feels really right. .The idea of AS is undeniably evident, not only from the fact that Jesus established a Church, but from the fact that he intended his Church to endure until the end of time as expressly stated: “I shall be with you all days even to the consummation of the world.”
Hi Joe,
The question is, if there is one visible Church, which one is it? I would agree that it was the early undivided Church. But today the Church is divided, and in schism.
I would even agree about the importance of AS, as it speaks to unity. Of course, we can see that even AS hasn’t always preserved unity.
Click to expand...
Jesus promised to remain not only with his apostles but also with all their successors until the end of time yes, no, maybe?
Click to expand...
Who are their successors? Is it only those in AS? That to me is a human development, not that there’s anything wrong with human Traditions. I disagree with the CC and OC that my clergy are not valid. Heck, I disagree with those in the OC who say *Catholic *clergy are not valid.
If Christ imparted his divine authority to His apostles to continue His mission of salvation and promised to remain with His apostles until the end of time, it only stands to reason that his apostles would require successors to transfer those doctrinal truths from generation to generation, since they were inevitably going to pass away. Paul seems just as adamant about AS as he affirms to Titus when he says: *For this cause I left thee in Crete, that thou shouldest set in order the things that are wanting, and shouldest ordain elders in every city, as I also appointed thee. *
Click to expand...
(Titus 1:5 cf. also I Tim. 4:14) – Isn’t that apostolic succession? In other words, Titus, you are charged with the task of looking after Jesus’ Church and ensuring it’s preservation and edification by ordaining other ministers who can govern and teach in Jesus’ Church, those doctrines which you have received from me, and I from Christ.

Maybe I am missing something though; your thoughts friend?

Here’s the point, Joe; Does the PNCC have AS? Do the Orthodox have AS? Some Lutherans can prove AS, as can Anglicans. It hasn’t guaranteed agreement in doctrine for 1,000 years.
If Jesus meant that his church was built on the confession of Kepha then it would be a tad more difficult for me to pick one over the other. However, grammatically speaking that makes no sense to me. For example, below we can see that the adjective “this” grammatically speaking, must refer to the nearest preceding noun, which was Peter, not his declaration which occurs two verses earlier, wouldn’t you agree? When Jesus says “whatever you bind” to Peter in Mat 16:18, the Greek text used for “you” is singular. In Mat 18:18 the Greek text, the word for “you” in “whatever you bind” is plural. A few of the ECF’s did speak of Christ or of Peter’s confession as “the Rock” of Matt 16:18, and of course Jesus is the Divine rock/cornerstone. However, all of these same Church fathers also speak of Peter himself as the Rock.
Click to expand...
This was not an either or proposition for these folks.Not to mention the fact that it would conflict with all of those ECF’s that said Jesus was the rock. I’ll copy and paste some in my next post. Jon, click on the image below and tell me if you agree with the grammatical nature of the statement?
In all honesty, I believe “on this rock” referrs to more than just the confession of Peter, but I don’t believe that this extends to what the CC currently claims it to be. The primacy of Peter’s chair as Bishop of Rome is not, in my view, the sumpremacy Rome claims today.
OTOH, I reject the idea that today, the papacy is anti-Christ.

Jon
Click to expand...
 
JonNC said:
Here’s the point, Joe; Does the PNCC have AS? Do the Orthodox have AS? Some Lutherans can prove AS, as can Anglicans. It hasn’t guaranteed agreement in doctrine for 1,000 years.
Click to expand...
Apostolic Succession does not guarantee orthodoxy in doctrine; it is only the first step towards that goal - Apostolic Succession guarantees a certain level of authority - but if the Bishop who has Apostolic Succession is disobedient to the Pope (that is, the authority who is above himself) then faulty doctrine will follow.

But at the same time, if the Bishop doesn’t even have Apostolic Succession to begin with, then it doesn’t matter what he does, because he has no authority to do it, in the first place.
 
jmcrae said:
Apostolic Succession does not guarantee orthodoxy in doctrine; it is only the first step towards that goal - Apostolic Succession guarantees a certain level of authority -** but if the Bishop who has Apostolic Succession is disobedient to the Pope (that is, the authority who is above himself) then faulty doctrine will follow. **
But at the same time, if the Bishop doesn’t even have Apostolic Succession to begin with, then it doesn’t matter what he does, because he has no authority to do it, in the first place.
Click to expand...
Where in the early councils does the undivided Church place the Bishop of Rome above the other patriarchates? the Council of Nicea designates the jurisdiction of the Bishop of Rome as the West, not the whole of the Church.

Jon
 
JonNC said:
Where in the early councils does the undivided Church place the Bishop of Rome above the other patriarchates? the Council of Nicea designates the jurisdiction of the Bishop of Rome as the West, not the whole of the Church.

Jon
Click to expand...
What version of the text are you reading, or where in the text are you finding that? I am not seeing anything that pertains to the assignment of Bishops or Patriarchs, other than the re-admittance of some who had been heretics.
 
Jesus clearly founded one Church.The Apostles were part of that Church. However, this does not mean that it remained one Church. Whenever man is involved things can go astray. God did not want man to fall but we did. God did not want Israel to falter but it did. Jesus did not want the Church to divide but it did.

It should be noted that when the word church is used in Scripture it can refer to different things. For example, when Paul wrote to the churches in Galatia, he was obviously using it to refer to the individual congregations. Elsewhere it is used to refer to the whole body of Christ. However, the visible institutional church and the true body of Christ did not coincide exactly since the church could contain those who didn’t believe. Augustine recognized this when he wrote of the difference between the true body of the Lord, those who would be with Him in eternity, and the mixed body which included those who would not. This visible mixed church was not the true body of Christ.
The second rule is about the twofold division of the body of the Lord; but this indeed is not a suitable name, for that is really no part of the body of Christ which will not be with Him in eternity. We ought, therefore, to say that the rule is about the true and the mixed body of the Lord, or the true and the counterfeit, or some such name; because, not to speak of eternity, hypocrites cannot even now be said to be in Him, although they seem to be in His Church. And hence this rule might be designated thus: Concerning the mixed Church. Now this rule requires the reader to be on his guard when Scripture, although it has now come to address or speak of a different set of persons, seems to be addressing or speaking of the same persons as before, just as if both sets constituted one body in consequence of their being for the time united in a common participation of the sacraments.
Click to expand...
Augustine (On Christian Doctrine, 3:32)
newadvent.org/fathers/12023.htm

As long as there was one unified institutional church, it could be said to include the true Church even though the institution itself was not the true Church founded by Jesus…

When I look at the Church Fathers I see quite a diversity of beliefs tolerated without penalty. One obvious example is Cyprian of Carthage and his dispute with Pope Stephen concerning baptism by heretics. Augustine, in his anti-Donatist writings, would later praise Cyprian for maintaining unity with Church despite the disagreement. It might also be noted that Stephen did not excommunicate Cyprian as a result of his views. However, this acceptance of diversity did not last.

Once the institutional Church started to exclude those who disagreed with it, there arose a situation where the true body of Christ was contained in more than one institutional Church, assuming that at least some of those who were excluded would be with Jesus in eternity. Each part of the fractured church can claim descent from the original institution as they both teach things that the original allowed and neither can rightfully claim to be the original institution. That one may have retained the old name does not change this reality.

It can be looked at as the trunk of a tree sprouting branches, each of which is separate but which can both claim the same trunk as its origin.

As such there is no single institutional church that contains the whole body of Christ and the churches from the Reformation have the same right to claim descent from the original church as do the Catholic and Orthodox Churches.

It would greatly disturb me if the institutional Catholic Church was the true Church of Christ because it has done many things over the centuries that seem to make a mockery of the Church’s role in shepherding the Lord’s sheep. I will give just one example. The Catholic Church claims that the sacraments it administers are necessary for salvation. During the Middle Ages hat same Church by interdiction could cut off entire countries from those sacraments because their leader did not obey the Pope. While I recognize that the Pope is supposed to be infallible only in certain circumstances, I cannot fathom that an institution that could allow this to happen, given its teachings on the sacraments, would be considered to be the true Church.

The true Church of Christ is now spread through various visible institutions, none of which is infallible. That does not mean the gates of hades have prevailed as long as there is even one true believer.

I readily admit that this just my opinion.
 
40.png
scottm:
Does “gay old time” mean today what it meant in 1960, when the show first aired? (No, it does not.)

My point is that you cannot impose a circa-2000 definition of “papal primacy” upon ECF quotes. The definition ain’t the same. Back in those initial centuries leading up to the East/West split, the Roman Patriarch could not stick his nose in the other Patriarch’s domains and rule them. In the ecumencial councils the globe was chopped up into distinct regions. Each Patriarch ruled his region only.

The Roman Patriarch’s “primacy” meant that he would mediate disputes between patriarchs if/when they arose, he would be a court of appeal for bishops if/when there was a dispute, he would be a pastor to the bishops (“feed my sheep” idea), he would presided over councils, he would be the spokesman to the world (so that the Church would speak in one voice), and the like.
Click to expand...
This is very much what the Pope does today. It is amazing that this tradition could withstand the passage of time for more than 2000 years of history.

Do the seven Patriarchs speak with one voice today? If not, then they have lost pretty much what Jesus wanted us a Church.
40.png
scottm:
He did not have universal jurisdiction in the sense that he could hire and fire priests and bishops anywhere on the planet,
Click to expand...
This is voluntary act and acceptance on the side of the local Bishops.
40.png
scottm:
or impose his own canon rules every on the planet. That sort of power was confined to his particular geographical lands only.
Click to expand...
What rules could be possibly different within the Church? None. The autonomy perhaps only on the cultural things and that’s allowed in the Catholic Church in various regions of the world.
 
40.png
SyCarl:
It would greatly disturb me if the institutional Catholic Church was the true Church of Christ because it has done many things over the centuries that seem to make a mockery of the Church’s role in shepherding the Lord’s sheep. I will give just one example. The Catholic Church claims that the sacraments it administers are necessary for salvation. During the Middle Ages hat same Church by interdiction could cut off entire countries from those sacraments because their leader did not obey the Pope.
Click to expand...
By disobeying the Pope their leaders led to the fragmenting of the Church which he could not allowed – for the One Church to be divided. People have problem in obeying from time memorial and should not expect to be let go scot free. What’s the purpose of the chief shepherd, if not to defend the oneness of the Church? The reformers should bear this responsibility instead of blaming it on the Pope.
40.png
SyCarl:
While I recognize that the Pope is supposed to be infallible only in certain circumstances, I cannot fathom that an institution that could allow this to happen, given its teachings on the sacraments, would be considered to be the true Church.
Click to expand...
There should be no compromise on the Sacraments. We do so to the peril of the Church. Here the Pope is like the immovable rock as the defender of the faith; and thanks to this institution the Sacraments have never changed to this day while they have been destroyed or nearly destroyed to oblivion among the reformed churches.
 
So you guys basically think that God founded one church and then didn’t leave an supernatural way for it to guarantee that it would never like screw up or whatever?
 
Reuben_J said:
This is very much what the Pope does today.
Click to expand...
Yes it is. The trick is to make it be the new rule.
Do the seven Patriarchs speak with one voice today? If not, then they have lost pretty much what Jesus wanted us a Church.
Click to expand...
I assume you mean the Orthodox Patriarchs. Yes, they do, through the Patriarch of Constantinople, as per the seven binding ecumenical council decisions. Rome was in first place, and Constantinople in second place.
This is voluntary act and acceptance on the side of the local Bishops.
Click to expand...
That’s not a fair characterization. The Roman Catholic Church actually claims to have unlimited universal power and jurisdiction. The mere claim of having that power is the problem. It wipes out the God-given authority of everyone else.
What rules could be possibly different within the Church? None. The autonomy perhaps only on the cultural things and that’s allowed in the Catholic Church in various regions of the world.
Click to expand...
Married clergy is a problem for some. But why even go there? The mere claim that “I have to approve of your rules” is itself the problem because it wipes out everyone else’s God-given authority. And the attitude that “your rules will be the same as my rules because mine are right” is arrogant and also disrespectful of the other guy.
 
scottm said:
Yes it is. The trick is to make it be the new rule.
Click to expand...
The Church has to make a stand in the face of heresy. While the Orthodox preferred to keep mum on issue they were no certain about, the holder to the seat of Peter being the keeper of the keys and the power to bind and to loose, can exercise this power within the limit of the faith of the Church and the apostles.
scottm said:
I assume you mean the Orthodox Patriarchs. Yes, they do, through the Patriarch of Constantinople, as per the seven binding ecumenical council decisions. Rome was in first place, and Constantinople in second place.
Click to expand...
I am glad that they do and hope they truly remain so because this is not what we hear in this thread.

Personally I have tried to purse this in a polite way and inquire how far is the standardization among the Orthodox which they claim they have but unfortunately the query came to an impasse. None willing to go any further other than to say there is one voice and standardization among all the Orthodox of the whole world. You can try here and I ask – how do they speak with one voice? If you look towards Constantinople what make you don’t towards Rome?
scottm said:
That’s not a fair characterization. The Roman Catholic Church actually claims to have unlimited universal power and jurisdiction. The mere claim of having that power is the problem. It wipes out the God-given authority of everyone else.
Click to expand...
You may over characterize this yourself. What is this unlimited universal power (?) and jurisdiction over what?
scottm said:
Married clergy is a problem for some.
Click to expand...
Celibate clergy is a discipline and only applies to Latin Rite. The Eastern Rites have never had problem with this or the Latin Rite with them over this.
scottm said:
But why even go there? The mere claim that “I have to approve of your rules” is itself the problem because it wipes out everyone else’s God-given authority. And the attitude that “your rules will be the same as my rules because mine are right” is arrogant and also disrespectful of the other guy.
Click to expand...
Perhaps you’ve taken it upon yourself that the Catholic Church actually says this, which she does not. However she cannot compromise on the belief and the faith of the Apostles; a stand other Christians should not either.

I would like to ask here, what ‘everyone else’s God-given authority’ that the Pope has usurped and eliminated from them?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top