P
Prodigal_Son1
Guest
Indian Christian tradition is that Thomas travelled to India with a Jewish merchant. Do you think merchants only made one way visits, never to return?
- Status
A
AmericanJosiah
Guest
The point for the claim of self alone that self alone is “Infallible” is entirely related to the claim of self alone that self alone is unaccountable. The application of this (CCC 87 is but one example) is that THEREFORE, self may exclude self from accountability, the issue of whether self is correct may be laid aside, and there is a basis for self alone declaring that what self alone says just be accepted “with docility.” The “logic” runs as follows: "I alone am infallible, incapable of error. Thus, it is moot to subject me alone to accountability, examination, norming since I alone cannot be wrong. The appropriate response is not to examine or norm, but rather to simply accept what I alone say “with docility.”
It’s interesting to note that the word never appears in the Bible (OT or NT). The Scriptures make this claim for no one. The closest we come is a verse about Scripture (“Scripture cannot be broken”) and the Scriptures that indicate that God knows all put together with the ones that indicate God cannot sin - taken together probably implies infallibility. But no human being or institution or organization or body or denomination or church is so described in any sense. The Early Church Fathers did not use this thought, either. It becomes “useful” in power struggles, why ONE (always self) is just to be accepted rather than held accountable.
I think you are confusing Protestantism with Restitutionalism. You might want to take that question to the LDS, the largest of the Restitutional denominations today.
Lutherans have no dogma from this, but we tend to affirm that the promise is given to Peter based on his confession, not based on his DNA or that he is one of the 13 or 14 Apostles. “Rock” here applies to the Confession. In this, we agree with The Oriental Orthodox and the Eastern Orthodox churches and disagree with the new, unique view of The Catholic Church on this. We’d also note that there is nothing here remotely related to any denomination or to any such being infallible/unaccountable, and there’s nothing here about any successors or about Rome or about bishops. Lutherans are apt to believe that the “keys” are given to those with the faith of Peter rather than the DNA tracible to Peter, and while that brings some responsibilities, it does not bring infallibility/unaccountability for no person, denomination, etc.
As for the “gates of hell,” we believe that promise just as Jesus gave it, but not as The Catholic Church modifies it. Jesus gave that promise to the church, not to The Catholic Church or The Church of Jesus Chrsit of Latter-Day Saints or The Wisconsin Evangelical Lutheran Synod. And recall that gates are defensive, not offensive. Hell has not stopped Christianity. The promise has proven true to date, and of course, we believe it always will be - as Revelation also affirms.
Thank you.
Pax
- Josiah
A
AmericanJosiah
Guest
.
IMHO, there was/is/ever will be ONE church. And it is holy and catholic. And it is the communion of saints. Which is why Lutherans confess that faith in the Creed - and we actually mean EXACTLY what we say. The church IS one (not that it WAS one until 451). But we don’t understand Chrsitians to be an institutional, geopolitical/legal organizational, denominational entity. We understand that all Christian believers are PEOPLE, thus the mystical union of believers is PEOPLE, and the “gathering/assembly” of believers is PEOPLE, thus the church is PEOPLE. The church is not a denominational IT, the church is US. All of us. TOGETHER. Past and present. All one body. His body. You and I are EQUALLY parts of the same church, the one and holy and catholic church. We are not officially registered in the same congregation, and our two congregations are not legally affiliated with the same denomination, but that’s entirely moot to the issue that we are all parts of the same church, the same body.
Now, in the First Century, there were perhaps dozens (maybe even hundreds by the end of that century) of congregations. It is not forbidden for Christians to gather together in a given place and time, which in theology we call “congregations.” We have several of these mentioned in the NT itself. The Bible uses the term “church” for these, too (a secondary meaning, often found in the plural). These can (and often do) in time take on institutional aspects (buildings, budgets, officers, constitutions, bylaws, articles of incorporation, etc.) but the “church” is not the institution, but church is US. The believers in that congregation are a tiny subset of the church, the institution is a legal entity that has no heart or soul and cannot believe, thus cannot be a believer, thus cannot be the church (or even a part of it). Again, there were many congregations in the First Century.
There’s no evidence of any denominations until the 4th century. It is a misunderstanding (however understandable) to confuse statements first made in the second century about the church being “catholic” with any identification whatsoever with The Catholic Church. “Catholic” was a very popular adjective that means “general” “of the whole” “universal” “all embracing.” It was not a noun and certainly not the proper name of an institutional denomination, it was an adjective. In affirming that the church is one and holy and catholic, it is simply affirming what Protestants affirm and what we proclaim in the Creed. It has nothing whatsoever to do with a denomination that centuries later would take up that adjective, create a new meaning and word form, to make proper name, the legal moniker, of a specific, singular denomination (Much the same thing happened with the adjective “orthodox”).
So, in the First Century, we had one church (as is still the case, as we affirm in the Creed). There were dozens - maybe even hundreds - of congregations. There were no denominations.
.
IMHO, there was/is/ever will be ONE church. And it is holy and catholic. And it is the communion of saints. Which is why Lutherans confess that faith in the Creed - and we actually mean EXACTLY what we say. The church IS one (not that it WAS one until 451). But we don’t understand Chrsitians to be an institutional, geopolitical/legal organizational, denominational entity. We understand that all Christian believers are PEOPLE, thus the mystical union of believers is PEOPLE, and the “gathering/assembly” of believers is PEOPLE, thus the church is PEOPLE. The church is not a denominational IT, the church is US. All of us. TOGETHER. Past and present. All one body. His body. You and I are EQUALLY parts of the same church, the one and holy and catholic church. We are not officially registered in the same congregation, and our two congregations are not legally affiliated with the same denomination, but that’s entirely moot to the issue that we are all parts of the same church, the same body.
Now, in the First Century, there were perhaps dozens (maybe even hundreds by the end of that century) of congregations. It is not forbidden for Christians to gather together in a given place and time, which in theology we call “congregations.” We have several of these mentioned in the NT itself. The Bible uses the term “church” for these, too (a secondary meaning, often found in the plural). These can (and often do) in time take on institutional aspects (buildings, budgets, officers, constitutions, bylaws, articles of incorporation, etc.) but the “church” is not the institution, but church is US. The believers in that congregation are a tiny subset of the church, the institution is a legal entity that has no heart or soul and cannot believe, thus cannot be a believer, thus cannot be the church (or even a part of it). Again, there were many congregations in the First Century.
There’s no evidence of any denominations until the 4th century. It is a misunderstanding (however understandable) to confuse statements first made in the second century about the church being “catholic” with any identification whatsoever with The Catholic Church. “Catholic” was a very popular adjective that means “general” “of the whole” “universal” “all embracing.” It was not a noun and certainly not the proper name of an institutional denomination, it was an adjective. In affirming that the church is one and holy and catholic, it is simply affirming what Protestants affirm and what we proclaim in the Creed. It has nothing whatsoever to do with a denomination that centuries later would take up that adjective, create a new meaning and word form, to make proper name, the legal moniker, of a specific, singular denomination (Much the same thing happened with the adjective “orthodox”).
So, in the First Century, we had one church (as is still the case, as we affirm in the Creed). There were dozens - maybe even hundreds - of congregations. There were no denominations.
.
A
Ad_Gentes
Guest
Tradition holds that Thomas the Apostle founded the Church in India around 52 A.D. At this time, Peter was probably in Antioch, as tradition has it that he established and was bishop of Antioch before going to Rome. Obviously, being in communion with Rome wasn’t the actual prerequisite for being part of the one true Church. Being in communion with the Apostles, which included St. Peter, was. The Church in Rome, nevertheless, was in communion with the rest of the Church (Rom. 1:7) even before St. Peter and St. Paul traveled and were martyred there.
The burden of proof should be on your side. Since Thomas was one of the twelve Apostles and was present during Pentecost (Acts 2:1), it is fair to assume that wherever he went to “make disciples of all nations” (Matt. 28:19), he continued to be in communion with his brothers Apostles and the local churches they founded, which would include the Church in India.
B
BrianH
Guest
No it should not. You cannot prove a negative. On the other hand, I do not truly have a dog in this fight because I while I find it interesting, it is rather inconsequential.
C
chessmane4e5
Guest
No one is asking you prove a negative, we are asking you to prove what you say. If your statement is that the Catholic Church was not one Church but many, then you should be able to prove that. That is not a negative.
A negative would us claiming a document existed which proved beyond doubt that Peter was Pope, but we say it was destroyed, then us telling you to prove it didn’t exist. Well obviously if it never existed, how can you prove that.
Sadly for you, their is evidence that One Church truly did exist since the Apostles founded them, and that One Church is the Catholic Church.
C
chessmane4e5
Guest
c. 30 The death, Resurrection, and Ascension of Jesus; Petecost
30-37 Peter head of the Church in Jerusalem
38-39 Peter’s missionary journey’s in Samaria and on the cost of Palenstine
40-41 Peter in Antioch
42-49 First sojourn in Rome
49 Expulsion from Rome by the edict of Claudius against its Jews
49-50 In Jerusalem for the Apostolic Counsel
50-54 In Antioch, Bithynia, Pontus, Asia, and Cappadocia (or some of them)
54-57 Second sojourn in Rome; Gospel of Mark written under Peter’s direction
57-62 In Bithynia, Pontus, and Cappadocia (or some of them); Mark in Alexandria, Egypt
62-67 Third sojourn in Rome; canonical Epistles of Peter; Mark with Peter in Rome
67 Martyrdom in Rome and burial near the Necropolis at the Vatican
From “Upon This Rock” by Stephen Ray page 67
A
Ad_Gentes
Guest
I beg to differ. You claim that “Thomas had no way to communicate with any of the other apostles.” You cannot prove that anymore than I can prove that he did. However, it is not unreasonable to believe that if the Apostle Thomas transmitted the same teachings as the other Apostles and was in communion, which is not the same as “communication”, with them, then the Church in India would also be in communion with the rest of the Church. You’re assuming that a prerequisite of communion is communication, but is not. Communion, from the Latin communio, means “sharing in common”. This refers not only to Christian fellowship, but the sharing of essential doctrines and faith. While schism occurred later on, it is reasonable to believe that the essential elements of communion were present in the early Indian Church.
There is no fight, just a friendly discussion. We can agree to disagree. But if we’re going to disagree in a public forum, it is better to provide proof or, as a minimum, a reasonable argument. There are documents from as early as the 2nd century that address the mission of Thomas in India. But other than that, I don’t have any factual evidence one way or the other.
Peace!
B
BrianH
Guest
It is more a matter of clarification because for example we know that some groups in India maintained Jewish practices. I am sure some people who know more about the groups in that area could elaborate.
As far as “sadly for me”, are you ten?
B
BrianH
Guest
Well lets start with this assertion that Peter was the head of the Jersualem church, the only document I know about that is Hegesippus around 150 AD I believe.
How do they know he was in Rome in 42-49 AD? Need a source for that as well.
B
BrianH
Guest
Yes, I did think in terms of communication. If communion means sharing in common, how does one establish the essential criteria in say 100 AD? Practices and so forth could be different but what would be the necessary components to qualify as being in communion. I am not sure that enough written documention exists to say either way.I beg to differ. You claim that “Thomas had no way to communicate with any of the other apostles.” You cannot prove that anymore than I can prove that he did. However, it is not unreasonable to believe that if the Apostle Thomas transmitted the same teachings as the other Apostles and was in communion, which is not the same as “communication”, with them, then the Church in India would also be in communion with the rest of the Church. You’re assuming that a prerequisite of communion is communication, but is not. Communion, from the Latin communio, means “sharing in common”. This refers not only to Christian fellowship, but the sharing of essential doctrines and faith. While schism occurred later on, it is reasonable to believe that the essential elements of communion were present in the early Indian Church.
There is no fight, just a friendly discussion. We can agree to disagree. But if we’re going to disagree in a public forum, it is better to provide proof or, as a minimum, a reasonable argument. There are documents from as early as the 2nd century that address the mission of Thomas in India. But other than that, I don’t have any factual evidence one way or the other.
Peace!
A
Ad_Gentes
Guest
While I’m not familiar enough with the history and tradition of the Church in India, I can make some general assumptions based on the other Churches of that era. “Practices” as it relate to specific Rites and the Liturgy indeed evolved over time and can vary from place to place. Doctrines, on the other hand, do not. In the early Church, the Apostles and their disciples (later bishops – overseers, presbyters – elders, and deacons – ministers) transmitted the teachings passed down from Jesus Christ with the guidance of the Holy Spirit. When disputes or differences occurred, they sought clarification from the Apostles (Acts 15:2). Other times it was the Apostles who wrote letters to address certain issues about doctrine, faith, and morals (see Paul’s, Peter’s, and John’s Epistles). Centuries later, the Early Church Fathers did the same through sermons and writings.
After the 4th century, the Church met in Ecumenical Councils to address heresies and clarify doctrine. By this time, there were many distinct Liturgical Rites, but the faith was one. When differences could not be resolved, unfortunately, schism occurred. The point I’m trying to make is that there is enough evidence to suggest that the local Churches of the 1st century were in fact in communion with each other and mechanism were in placed to ensure that communion remained. Those “mechanism” evolved over time as need dictated. It was not until later that human nature caused enough division on the Church resulting on doctrinal differences and even schism.
C
chessmane4e5
Guest
Acts 18:2; Cambridge Ancient History, X, 500-501; Hubert Jedin and John Dolan, eds., History of the Church, Volume I: “From the Apostolic Community to Constantine” (New York, 1965), pp. 128-129 (this volume was originally published under the title Handbook of Church History for general series); Momigliano, Claudius, pp. 32-33, 36. The pagan authority is Seutonius in his life of the Emperor Claudius. The date is given by Orosius, History Against the Pagans, VII, 6. “Chrestus” was a natural Latin misspelling of the Greek Christos (Edmundson, Church in Rome, pp. 9-10). The plausibility of Orosius’ date is point out by Vincent M. Scramuzza, The Emperor Claudius (Cambridge MA, 1940), p.287: “For it was just in the period 47-52 A.D. that Claudius was engaged in his campaign to restore the old Roman rites and check the growth of foreign cults.” It is also brilliantly defended by Smallwood, Jews under Roman Rule, pp. 210-216. For an excellent argument for the historical authenticity of Simon Magus’ visit to Rome (often denied) see Edmundson Church in Rome pp. 60-65.
Quoted from “The Founding of Christendom: A History of Christendom Vol I” by Warren H. Carroll p 439
I hope that is enough evidence. And I am 10 and a half BTW
B
BrianH
Guest
No. The paragraph or what it is directly citing needs to be given because the underlined topics seems to deal with Christianity in Rome but not Peter specifically. You cannot give citations without the direct statement about what the citations refer toActs 18:2; Cambridge Ancient History, X, 500-501; Hubert Jedin and John Dolan, eds., History of the Church, Volume I: “From the Apostolic Community to Constantine” (New York, 1965), pp. 128-129 (this volume was originally published under the title Handbook of Church History for general series); Momigliano, Claudius, pp. 32-33, 36. The pagan authority is Seutonius in his life of the Emperor Claudius. The date is given by Orosius, History Against the Pagans, VII, 6. “Chrestus” was a natural Latin misspelling of the Greek Christos (Edmundson, Church in Rome, pp. 9-10). The plausibility of Orosius’ date is point out by Vincent M. Scramuzza, The Emperor Claudius (Cambridge MA, 1940), p.287: “For it was just in the period 47-52 A.D. that Claudius was engaged in his campaign to restore the old Roman rites and check the growth of foreign cults.” It is also brilliantly defended by Smallwood, Jews under Roman Rule, pp. 210-216. For an excellent argument for the historical authenticity of Simon Magus’ visit to Rome (often denied) see Edmundson Church in Rome pp. 60-65.
Quoted from “The Founding of Christendom: A History of Christendom Vol I” by Warren H. Carroll p 439
I hope that is enough evidence. And I am 10 and a half BTW
C
chessmane4e5
Guest
HAHA, look go get those books and look on those pages, and if they do not have evidence that Peter was in Rome from 42-49, then you can criticize my source. Otherwise, you asked for a source, and I gave you one (or several
)
Y
YADA
Guest
First of all you stated that we know for a fact that St. Thomas went to India in 52 AD … that is far from a fact. A link to a web site that is full of the folk lore and devoid of facts …
In other areas with Christian Communities we have graveyard epitaphs that indentify infants that were baptized [that is a theological point of faith and one that is contentious between protestants and catholics for instance . The presence of would indicate the denominations you seek to find]. That is just one example. Archeological evidence has shed light on the shape of baptismal fonts, early churches even homes of Christians through symbols and inscriptions embedded in the structures …
Your article mentioned a liturgy but made no attempt to describe it from the earliest times, through those who came later or to this day - what does it look like? How is it composed?. Your article did not list any “scriptures” or “bible” … by your reasoning Thomas would only have had the Hebrew Texts … now tht would be something a Christian Community that only used the Old Testament [and then the question would be - what books did it contain?]. Were there not even one of these Christians who wrote anything that was preserved?
You state that Thomas had no communications with the outside communities… on what basis? How do you know that there was no communication.
You say you can’t prove a negative but in reality you can’t provide any proof of any thhing other then “folklore” surrounding St… Thomas …
Thus, like the stories of Paul Bunyon they don’t provide any basis to discuss the existance or non-existance of first century ‘denominations’ … while those who look to authentic sources have provided support for the Church being “One” and being “One” though dispersed throughout the region from Jerusalem, to Africa, to Greece, to Rome, to Spain … why would India be any different?
Since you offer no evidence about practice or beliefs of these St Thomas Christians how can you say that they were in any way different [in faith, beleifs, or practice] then the Christians of Jerusalem or Rome or Athens?
B
BrianH
Guest
Where did you get your source? Sources have to be germane. If you do not actually own the book, then you got it off a link that I am sure you can provide.HAHA, look go get those books and look on those pages, and if they do not have evidence that Peter was in Rome from 42-49, then you can criticize my source. Otherwise, you asked for a source, and I gave you one (or several
B
BrianH
Guest
You got the wrong man. I never said that and I never provided a link.
. That is just one example. Archeological evidence has shed light on the shape of baptismal fonts, early churches even homes of Christians through symbols and inscriptions embedded in the structures …
Infant baptism is a good example. I do not seek to find denominations. Why do you say that? Is there a reason?
I do not have an article. Yes. In fact, I do believe that we do have an Indian community that used primarly Hebrew or Aramaic texts. Or so I have heard anyway but just on Wikipedia. I hope someone who knows more and has credible sources will weigh in. You see the things about threads is sometimes we actually do engage in them to learn more
I do not know that there was no communication. I wondered how there could be. Sending letters the distance from Rome to India would have been something. As such, if it had occured, I was hoping to find such a thing.
See previous comments
I know that the general consensus is that there were competing forms of Christianity. Mack, Brown, Crossan, Funk, and others has written in popular literature about this. Like I said, I am not really sure what "one’ means yet. I think that perhaps it involves beliefs in central doctrines. What those were in the early second century is interesting to me.
A
Ad_Gentes
Guest
The Church does not claim that Peter was in Rome from 42-49 AD. During that time he was probably in Antioch, as he is also considered the first bishop of that city.
I’m not sure about the other sources you provided, but the one from Acts 18:2 is not correct since that verse refers to Paul, not Peter.Acts 18:2; Cambridge Ancient History, X, 500-501; Hubert Jedin and John Dolan, eds…
I hope that is enough evidence. And I am 10 and a half BTW
Interesting enough, in Peter’s First Epistle he says that “[t]he church that is in Babylon [code name for Rome], elected together with you, saluteth you…” (1 Pet 5:13), which implies that he possibly wrote this letter from Rome.
G
Gabriel_of_12
Guest
I must disagree with you, The Church Jesus built (instituted) upon Peter is not a democracy, it is a Kingdom with our King Jesus Christ who is the head and we the Catholic Church is his body both in the Church militant on earth with the Church Triumphant in heaven. We confess our member Saints and Martrys who professed and lived this Eucharistic/Sacramental life in the Catholic Church live in the presence of God.
Jesus gave Peter the keys to the kingdom of God along with power to excercise its legal claims on binding and loosing on earth as Jesus our head binds and loose in heaven. Jesus Christ has divinely ordained his Church and consecrated her in Truth, organizing her in himself.
The Catholic Church can never be denomination because The Catholic Church/body of Jesus Christ lives and breathes, She is not an organized isolated community of believers who agree to a set of belief’s, these are denominations who denominated from another entity. Denomination never defines the body of Jesus Christ/ the Catholic Church, denomination only defines those members who denominated from the Catholic Church of whom Jesus built upon Peter and his apostles.
cont;
- Status