Positive proof the Invisible, non-Catholic Christian Church is right?

[jim1130]

I I have cited the Didache, the earliest recorded work, that clearly shows that the earliest Christian order of worship contained nothing to indicate that the bread and wine are changed into the literal flesh and blood.
I have absolutely no interest in talking about the site other than to give a general idea of what I believe about the matter.

You need not consult the Didache to show the bread and wine are changed into the literal flesh and blood of Jesus. the following all do that: Matt. 26:26-28; Mark. 14:22,24; Luke 22;19-20; John 6: 32-72; & 1 Cor. 11:24-25. Jesus says, this IS my body and blood. Jesus does not say that this is a symbol of my body and blood.

St. Ignatius of Antioch, Disciple of St. John the Apostle and Bishop of the Church in Antioch wrote in his letter to the Church in Smyrna of those who abstain from the Eucharist:

CHAP. VII.–LET US STAND ALOOF FROM SUCH HERETICS.

They abstain from the Eucharist and from prayer,(7) because they confess not the Eucharist to be the flesh of our Saviour Jesus Christ, which suffered for our sins, and which the Father, of His goodness, raised up again. Those, therefore, who speak against this gift of God, incur death(11) in the midst of their disputes. But it were better for them to treat it with respect,(13) that they also might rise again. It is fitting, therefore, that ye should keep aloof from such persons, and not to speak of(15) them either in private or in public, but to give heed to the prophets, and above all, to the Gospel, in which the passion[of Christ] has been revealed to us, and the resurrection has been fully proved.(16) But avoid all divisions, as the beginning of evils.

 

[Rightlydivide]

How did they become bishops?

Congregational polity…easy way to explain. With what might appear to be a presbyterian polity…on the outside.

 

[jmcrae]

Congregational polity…easy way to explain. With what might appear to be a presbyterian polity…on the outside.

So, not appointed by an Apostle or the lawful successor of an Apostle.

 

[Rightlydivide]

So, not appointed by an Apostle or the lawful successor of an Apostle.

Apostles cannot have “successors” except another Apostle in the case of Judas on account of heresy. The Bible does not record any Apostle having a successor based upon death. Apostles roles were completely different. They also had to see the Lord.
I understand that Catholics believe the Apostles had actual successors. No, what Christ set up was a system of church government of bishops, elders, and others.

Bishops and elders were interchangeable. The Bible does not record that a bishop or elder was appointed in every case by an Apostle anyway.

The New Testament appears to use the terms bishop (episkopos) and priest (presbuteros) interchangeably (Acts 20:17 with 20:28, Tit. 1:5-7). It also speaks of there being more than one bishop in a given church (Phil. 1:1)

 

[Prodigal_Son1]

I have absolutely no interest in talking about the site other than to give a general idea of what I believe about the matter.

I apologize, but I did not see any idea of your position on the website other than you agreed with 75% of it.

The thread is all over the place. I was trying to give a response and it blew up with lots of questions and so forth. To whatever extent I did that, I apologize. I try to keep up and I do not have a lot of time. I thought my answers were good but to have them phrased as snap shows me that were not received as such.
Thanks for your (name removed by moderator)ut.

I can understand being strapped for time. I have to leave in a bit for my last final exam. We can only contribute according to the time we have.

The topic of the thread was asking for proof that the non-Catholic Christian Church is right, and to be honest, I haven’t seen you offer anything other than your opinions and beliefs, with the exception of the one website link you provided.

I will explain my views on St. Paul’s intructions to the Church of Corinth and the Last Supper as viewed by St. Paul himself, when I return from my exam. I’m not sure how one arrives at the opinion that those early Church fathers, such as St. Ignatius who was taught by the Apostles themselves, received an incorrect belief, as you say, that the Lord’s Supper was not symbolic?

God Bless,

 

[Prodigal_Son1]

Apostles cannot have “successors” except another Apostle in the case of Judas on account of heresy. The Bible does not record any Apostle having a successor based upon death. Apostles roles were completely different. They also had to see the Lord.

How many authors of the New Testament were eyewitnesses to the Lord? Was Mark, Luke or St. Paul? Do you consider them Apostles? Do you accept that James was the Bishop of Jerusalem?

I understand that Catholics believe the Apostles had actual successors. No, what Christ set up was a system of church government of bishops, elders, and others.

Bishops and elders were interchangeable. The Bible does not record that a bishop or elder was appointed in every case by an Apostle anyway.

Other than the authority given them by Christ Himself.

**Mat 16:18 And I say to thee: That thou art Peter; and upon this rock I will build my church, and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it.
Mat 16:19 And I will give to thee the keys of the kingdom of heaven. And whatsoever thou shalt bind upon earth, it shall be bound also in heaven: and whatsoever thou shalt loose on earth, it shall be loosed also in heaven.

Mat 18:17 And if he will not hear them: tell the church. And if he will not hear the church, let him be to thee as the heathen and publican.
Mat 18:18 Amen I say to you, whatsoever you shall bind upon earth, shall be bound also in heaven: and whatsoever you shall loose upon earth, shall be loosed also in heaven.**

God Bless,

 

[Prodigal_Son1]

The Bible does not record that a bishop or elder was appointed in every case by an Apostle anyway.

The Bible does not list a canon of letters and epistles to be included in the Bible, but you believe them to be correct don’t you?

 

[MarcoPolo]

Congregational polity…easy way to explain…The Bible does not record that a bishop or elder was appointed in every case by an Apostle anyway.

As jmcrae mentioned an Apostle OR successor. In Scripture the appointment was made by an Apostle or a successor who could trace the laying of hands back to Jesus’ chosen originals.

“Congregational polity” is a term found nowhere in Scripture.

Was your username ever justasking4?

 

[Rightlydivide]

As jmcrae mentioned an Apostle OR successor. In Scripture the appointment was made by an Apostle or a successor who could trace the laying of hands back to Jesus’ chosen originals.

“Congregational polity” is a term found nowhere in Scripture.

Was your username ever justasking4?

No. It does not say that bishops, elders, or deacons have to have someone who had hands laid on them by an apostle. Paul did not have hands laid on him by an Apostle. He had hands laid on him by a simple disciple. There is nothing to indicate this had to occur through some kind of lineage infact he clearly states that was not the case. These are extrabiblical concepts. Yes, I was summarizing it by calling it congregational polity. It is a term I thought would be helpful in summarizing.
The concept comes from 1st Timothy chapter 3. Paul is writing them a letter giving the characteristics of a bishops and deacons. It is based primarily on what we interpret the underlying premise that the congregation find someone who meets the characteristics stated:

But if I tarry long, that thou mayest know how thou oughtest to behave thyself in the house of God

It is a passage some disagree with our interpretation to be sure.

I will look up the person you ask me about after I post this. I do not have multiple user names. I am curious why you would ask that.

 

[Rightlydivide]

I do not see that name under members.

 

[MarcoPolo]

There is nothing to indicate this had to occur through some kind of lineage infact he clearly states that was not the case.

Absolutely not. Consistently there was an incident of laying on of hands when a Church leader was appointed. Specifically in Scripture a particular gift of the Holy Spirit was transmitted in this way. To assume Ananias was either a) not appointed by an apostle just because that account is not given; or b) he was not one of the 70 Jesus appointed Himself is specious, and disrespectful of the Holy Spirit being transmitted via the laying of hands to appoint leaders.

In fact Scripture gives no examples of an unordained Christian appointing bishops or elders. So clearly, rejecting the example of lineage set forth by Scripture is something you have chosen to discard as unnecessary, since you have no examples from Scripture to support your tradition.

With all due respect.

 

[MarcoPolo]

I do not see that name under members.

Go to post #7 on this thread. Click the username if you want to read that person’s other posts.

 

[NDfan]

As jmcrae mentioned an Apostle OR successor. In Scripture the appointment was made by an Apostle or a successor who could trace the laying of hands back to Jesus’ chosen originals.

“Congregational polity” is a term found nowhere in Scripture.

Was your username ever justasking4?

Marco sorry to barge in but I would like to ask one simple question. Please show me in scripture where the church is instructed to appoint successors. If we read the qualifications for overseer or deacon, Paul lays out specific criteria for someone seeking these offices. Nowhere in the list does the word succession or laying on of hands appear. The main thing Paul warns against is having a recent convert to Christianity becoming an overseer which essentially is a Bishop. Actually Paul associates the laying of hands with the responsibility of the church as we read in chapter 5.

Also if you read in Acts Chapter 11 Luke tells us that everyone was scattered as far as Phoenicia and Cyprus. This was after the stoning of Stephen. Men from Cyprus and Cyrene went to Antioch and spoke to Helenist Jews. Verse 21 tells us that the hand of the Lord was with them and many who believed turned to the Lord. Once word of this reached the church in Jerusalem they sent Barnabas who simply exhorted them to remain faithful.

The point of this is we have evidence right from scripture that not all churches were formed by Apostles or their “successors” as you say. It would be impossible to think that every Christian church in the first century was formed by an Apostle or a successor to them. Most churches were tiny and met in someone’s house observing communion at a dining table. If having a true Christian church requires this succession you talk about or laying on of hands, then please tell me why Christ is so present in our church or any other non-Roman Catholic church? If we truly are not a valid Christian church then Christ would not be present at all correct?

PEACE

 

[Rightlydivide]

Go to post #7 on this thread. Click the username if you want to read that person’s other posts.

I joined this forum almost two years ago. You are asking me if I post under another user name with substantially more posts than I. You are asking me if I am the kind of person who would get banned under one name and continuing posting under another.
Let me answer your question. I am a follower of the rules. I have done everything I have been asked to do and when warned I have changed my behavior. I do not care to have my integrity challenged. To answer your question, and rest assured I will not respond to you ever again. No. Absolutely no.

 

[MarcoPolo]

Marco sorry to barge in but I would like to ask one simple question. Please show me in scripture where the church is instructed to appoint successors. If we read the qualifications for overseer or deacon, Paul lays out specific criteria for someone seeking these offices. Nowhere in the list does the word succession or laying on of hands appear. The main thing Paul warns against is having a recent convert to Christianity becoming an overseer which essentially is a Bishop. Actually Paul associates the laying of hands with the responsibility of the church as we read in chapter 5.

Also if you read in Acts Chapter 11 Luke tells us that everyone was scattered as far as Phoenicia and Cyprus. This was after the stoning of Stephen. Men from Cyprus and Cyrene went to Antioch and spoke to Helenist Jews. Verse 21 tells us that the hand of the Lord was with them and many who believed turned to the Lord. Once word of this reached the church in Jerusalem they sent Barnabas who simply exhorted them to remain faithful.

Hi there ND, long time no chat. I’ll take a look at Luke 11, but I don’t see by your description that if there are believers in a region, there was de facto no Church hierarchy there. Nor does it exclude it.

Succession is seen in a variety of places, like Matthias when Peter cites the OT and says in the face of an empty office “Let another take his place”. See the structure is that of an office. You can see other examples. Another example is Paul, having passed his authority to Timothy, exhorted him to do the same, and then in turn have them do the same (2 Tim 2:2). More here if you really want to read your eyes off. It is significant that we see the gift of the Spirit passed on by the laying of hands to these Church leaders. The ordained are part of the ministerial priesthood. In the Old Testament, the ministerial priesthood also had a line of succession, such as with the Levites. And lay persons were not to partake in the special gifts of this priesthood, as the rebellion of Korah that Jude also mentions. RightlyDivide was arguing this charism is not limited to the ordained.

 

[MarcoPolo]

rest assured I will not respond to you ever again. No. Absolutely no.

You are free to do that. And I’m sorry, but when I first saw similarities in your arguments and his, I neither knew how long you were a member or that he had been suspended.

 

[CHESTERTONRULES]

Marco sorry to barge in but I would like to ask one simple question. Please show me in scripture where the church is instructed to appoint successors. If we read the qualifications for overseer or deacon, Paul lays out specific criteria for someone seeking these offices. Nowhere in the list does the word succession or laying on of hands appear.

PEACE

Regarding Judas: Acts 1
20For it is written in the book of Psalms, Let his habitation be desolate, and let no man dwell therein: and his bishoprick let another take.

2 Tim 2

What you have heard from me through many witnesses entrust to faithful people who will be able to teach others as well.

1 Tim 4
14be not careless of the gift in thee, that was given thee through prophecy, with laying on of the hands of the eldership;

Here’s an important excerpt from the epistle of St. Clement to the Corinthians written in 80-105 AD:

Chapter 42. The Order of Ministers in the Church.
The apostles have preached the gospel to us from the Lord Jesus Christ; Jesus Christ [has done so] from God. Christ therefore was sent forth by God, and the apostles by Christ. Both these appointments, then, were made in an orderly way, according to the will of God. Having therefore received their orders, and being fully assured by the resurrection of our Lord Jesus Christ, and established in the word of God, with full assurance of the Holy Ghost, they went forth proclaiming that the kingdom of God was at hand. And thus preaching through countries and cities, they appointed the first fruits [of their labours], having first proved them by the Spirit, to be bishops and deacons of those who should afterwards believe.

Our apostles also knew, through our Lord Jesus Christ, that there would be strife on account of the office of the episcopate. For this reason, therefore, inasmuch as they had obtained a perfect fore-knowledge of this, they appointed those [ministers] already mentioned, and afterwards gave instructions, that when these should fall asleep, other approved men should succeed them in their ministry.
newadvent.org/fathers/1010.htm

 

[Rightlydivide]

You referenced Clement:
From a source I cited earlier:

“1 Clem 44:1 And our Apostles knew through our Lord Jesus Christ that there would be strife over the name of the bishop’s office. For this cause therefore, having received complete foreknowledge, they appointed the aforesaid persons, and afterwards they provided a continuance,”

So far, proponents of apostolic succession are feeling pretty good about this.  The passage clearly says that the Apostles knew there would be strife and made a plan but keep reading!

“that if these should fall asleep, other approved menshould succeed to their ministration.”

Catholics are still feeling good about this and that is about to change:

“Those therefore who were appointed by them, or afterward by other men of repute with the consent of the whole Church,”

The plan after they fall “asleep”, or pass away, is that “men of repute” by a church wide vote, or consent, will take over! No one is appointed. The whole church, which is a local body, gets to decide. The need to be “men of repute” and absolutely nothing is said about them having to be direct successors of the Apostles by laying on of hands. It was a local decision.

 

[CHESTERTONRULES]

 The plan after they fall “asleep”, or pass away, is that “men of repute” by a church wide vote, or consent, will take over!  No one is appointed.  The whole church, which is a local body, gets to decide.  The need to be “men of repute” and absolutely nothing is said about them having to be direct successors of the Apostles by laying on of hands.   It was a local decision.

The magesterium is the Church. Each local Church was led by a bishop. Of course there are appointments:

And thus preaching through countries and cities, they appointed the first fruits [of their labours], having first proved them by the Spirit, to be bishops and deacons of those who should afterwards believe.

 

[Rightlydivide]

The magesterium is the Church. Each local Church was led by a bishop. Of course there are appointments:

No. The Bible’s pattern is of a plurality of elders. It says bishops

Phl 1:1 Paul and Timotheus, the servants of Jesus Christ, to all the saints in Christ Jesus which are at Philippi, with the bishops and deacons:

It is a lot more complicated than that. You can read this article to see the complexity of the situation
I do not agree with its conclusions but it starts to address it

Catholic writers agree in recognized the Apostolic origin of the episcopate, but are much divided as to the meaning of the terms which designate the hierarchy in the New Testament writings and the Apostolic Fathers. One may even ask if originally these terms had a clearly defined significance (Bruders, Die Verfassung der Kirche bis zum Jahre 175, Mainz, 1904). Nor is there greater unanimity when an attempt is made to explain why some churches are found without presbyters, others without bishops, others again where the heads of the community are called sometimes bishops, sometimes presbyters. This disagreement increases when the question comes up as to the interpretation of the terms which designate other personages exercising a certain fixed authority in the early Christian communities. The following facts may be regarded as fully established:

To some extent, in this early period, the words bishop and priest episkopos and presbyteros) are synonymous (See the article: APOSTOLIC COLLEGE.)
These terms may designate either simple priests (A. Michiels, Les origines de l’épiscopat. Louvain, 1900, 218 sqq.) or bishops possessing the full powers of their order. (Batiffol. Etudes d’histoire et de théologie positive, Paris, 1902, 266 sqq.: Duchesne, Histoire ancienne de l’église. Paris. 1906, 94.)
In each Community the authority may originally have belonged to college or presbyter-bishops. This does not mean that the episcopate, in the actual sense of the term, may have been plural, because in each church the college or presbyter-bishops did not exercise an independent supreme power; it was subject to the Apostles or to their delegates. The latter were bishops in the actual sense of the term, but they did not possess fixed sees nor had they a special title (Batiffol, 270) Since they were essentially itinerant, they confided to the care of some of the better educated and highly respected neophytes the fixed necessary functions relating to the daily life of the community.
newadvent.org/cathen/02581b.htm