Remnant worshipping?

[E.E.N.S]

I am starting a new thread for this because it was off topic in another thread…

Matt14:

I believe that the early church went astray and turned into the Roman church, then split into the Roman and Greek churches. All the while, there was a remnant worshipping

.
-*
Where do you see this? Certainly not in the lives of the great saints (who were 100% Catholic.) How do you come to this conclusion?

Scriptures show the importance of Christ’s Church, and Christ promised that it would be led by the Spirit of Truth;

Reading the writings of the early Church Fathers;

Reading the lives of the saints (as well as their own writings);

And history showing the lineage of successors to St. Peter;

…all these things give a great crediblity to the Catholic Church, I am wondering what leads you to think differently(?)

 

[E.E.N.S]

scylla:

Why don’t you start a thread on this, this seems like an interesting topic to discuss.

I have heard of some people who hold to a belief in a remnant of true believers who have existed, which is the true Church.

So when did the Church majority apostacize and could you please point me to some early Christian writings illustrating this?

Maybe we should copy these posts into another thread since we are off topic, so feel free to copy and I will find the thread if you would like to discuss this.

God Bless
Scylla

 

[E.E.N.S]

Matt14:

I believe that the early church went astray and turned into the Roman church, then split into the Roman and Greek churches. All the while, there was a remnant worshipping.

fidelis:

Would you mind providing a historical timeline or other documetary evidence that this is true? There is voluminous textual evidence both orthodox and heretical from that period–where are the writings from the so-called “remnant”? It should be easy enough to provide, unless you suscribe to a convinient “conspiracy” theory in which all traces of this “remnant” were wiped out. This smacks of the “Landmarkism” which some Baptists hold and which most serious Christians find laughable.

Matt14:

The church is a spiritual body. His kingdom is not of this earth. I believe all those who are scripturally baptized are members of His church.

fidelis:

Jesus said that a city built on a hill cannot be hid. He also said his kingdom is IN this world without being of it. There is NO provision in the Scriptures for an “invisible” Church of “true believers.”

BTW, since my previous questions went unanswered: "So, the next logical question is: upon what authority do you base those determinations on?

If it is on your private interpretation, what if it conflicts with someone elses private interpretation? Are you right and he’s wrong? Who’s to say?

Is your interpretation true for you, and his true for him? Is not truth objective?

I ask these questions in all sincerity; I’d really like to know how you would answer.

Once you take the road of private interpretation, numerous unresolvable rabbit-trails are bound to pop up."

…I’m taking that to mean they are unanswerable and my conclusion therefore validated.

 

[catsrus]

Which begs the question of which remnant?
The lds, the jws, the sdas…???

 

[scylla]

Thank you for starting a new thread. This is something that interests me.

There were Christians who died for their beliefs in the early centuries, if there was a widespread apostacy then when did this happen and why was it allowed? I would expect to see a widespread outcry over this, I have been reading early Christian writings and see no evidence for this.

Unless I have been reading the wrong early Christian writings.

Can you please provide some documentation to illustrate this from early Christian writings.

God Bless
Scylla

 

[Mickey]

Matt14:

I’m not so much interested in the “remnant” fact as I am the fact that the early church changed in the fourth century. Do you deny that there was a change at this time?

Before or after the Catholic Church decided the canon?

 

[Church_Militant]

Matt14 is way wrong, and you can see why here at The Great Apostasy: History or Fiction? where the topic is beat slap to death without a shred of real evidence coming to the fore.
Pax vobiscum,

 

[E.E.N.S]

Matt14:

I’m not so much interested in the “remnant” fact as I am the fact that the early church changed in the fourth century. Do you deny that there was a change at this time?

There is a difference between change and developement.

Remember the parable of the kingdom of heaven being like that of a mustard seed.

The Church has not changed since Christ established her; she has developed and will continue to do so until Christ’s return.

 

[gracelife]

Questions I would ask:

Who are the remnant that they are speaking of?
Where are they today?
What did they practice?
Do they practice that today in it’s entirety (why or why not)?
Where can we read about this people historically?

Jesus promised to be with his people for all time. (Matt 28:20)
Where are these people?

 

[Matt14]

E.E.N.S.:

And history showing the lineage of successors to St. Peter;

Can you tell me when Peter was no longer just the bishop of Rome, and became the pope?

 

[Brendan]

Matt14:

Can you tell me when Peter was no longer just the bishop of Rome, and became the pope?

The two are one and the same. Where Peter was, there was the Papacy. Where Peter passed on his Authority, there the Papacy remained.

 

[Matt14]

Brendan:

The two are one and the same. Where Peter was, there was the Papacy. Where Peter passed on his Authority, there the Papacy remained.

Was Peter the pope during the Jerusalem council in Acts 15?

 

[Steven_Merten]

The Mass was with the Church from day one. If the “Catholic Church strayed” and a “remnant” church preserved the truth of the true early Church, where is the “remnant church”'s Mass?

 

[Matt14]

Steven Merten:

The Mass was with the Church from day one. If the “Catholic Church strayed” and a “remnant” church preserved the truth of the true early Church, where is the “remnant church”'s Mass?

Well, that question sort of takes for granted that preservation of the truth was needed after John wrote the final portion of the New Testament. The written truth was then complete, no more need for oral tradition.

 

[scylla]

The word Pope pretty much just means Papa, and is just the way we address the spiritual father in our family the Church. In this way, though the word “Pope” wasn’t used to address Peter, he was thought of as a spiritual father to the early Church.

Similarily like Paul was to Timothy a spiritual father. For I became your father in Christ Jesus through the gospel 1 Cor 4:15
We as the family of God, take the Bishop of Rome as one of our family and call him Father, or Papa.

I really don’t see how that is an apostacy from the faith of the early Church. I have several books on early Christian writings, yet have not found any description of this either.

I don’t have many writings from the period around the fourth and fifth century, I will head to the bookstore in a couple hours and see what I can find. My books are from writings in the 1st, 2nd, 3rd century primarily and look decidingly Catholic in belief and description, unless I am reading the wrong books.

God Bless
Scylla

 

[E.E.N.S]

Matt14:

Well, that question sort of takes for granted that preservation of the truth was needed after John wrote the final portion of the New Testament. The written truth was then complete, no more need for oral tradition.

Again, where do you come to this conclusion? All the original questions would still pose against this theory.

Also look at the results of the two types of thought:

Scripture alone = many, MANY denominations; mass disagreement.

Scripture plus Tradition = 2000 year old Church, the Catholic Church.

 

[E.E.N.S]

scylla:

The word Pope pretty much just means Papa, and is just the way we address the spiritual father in our family the Church. In this way, though the word “Pope” wasn’t used to address Peter, he was thought of as a spiritual father to the early Church.

Similarily like Paul was to Timothy a spiritual father. For I became your father in Christ Jesus through the gospel 1 Cor 4:15
We as the family of God, take the Bishop of Rome as one of our family and call him Father, or Papa.

I really don’t see how that is an apostacy from the faith of the early Church. I have several books on early Christian writings, yet have not found any description of this either.

I don’t have many writings from the period around the fourth and fifth century, I will head to the bookstore in a couple hours and see what I can find. My books are from writings in the 1st, 2nd, 3rd century primarily and look decidingly Catholic in belief and description, unless I am reading the wrong books.

God Bless
Scylla

Two sources that I highly recommend would be the three volume set by Jergens entitled The Faith of the Early Church Fathers, and another entitled The Cristian Faith (it’s about the size of the CCC with a white hard cover and red dust cover, but I forget who it is by…)

 

[Matt14]

E.E.N.S.:

Again, where do you come to this conclusion? All the original questions would still pose against this theory.

Also look at the results of the two types of thought:

Scripture alone = many, MANY denominations; mass disagreement.

Scripture plus Tradition = 2000 year old Church, the Catholic Church.

But is the Roman Catholic church really 2000 years old, or is that simply what is taught?

When Constantine took over and institutionalized the church, was that really the apostolic church, or a sublte divergence from it?

When the Great Church split into the Roman Church and the Greek Church, was the church really the same one?

And why does the Greek church make the same claims to trueness as the RCC does? Can both be correct?

I mean, anyone who wants to honestly follow God has to consider these things. It’s too important.

 

[Steven_Merten]

Matt14:

Well, that question sort of takes for granted that preservation of the truth was needed after John wrote the final portion of the New Testament. The written truth was then complete, no more need for oral tradition.

Hello Matt,

Do you agree that is was the Catholic Church who decided which books, like the Gospel of John, would be put into the bible four hundred years after the death of Christ? Do you agree that the bible you read in any Christian church, though it may have been distorted by Luther later, was initially put together by the Catholic Church four hundred years after Jesus death? Would you not say that the Holy Spirit preserved the truth through the Catholic Church four hundred years after Jesus death.

Do you agree that if there is any truth to a “remnant church” and the “Roman Catholic Church straying away”, it would have to have happened after the Catholic Church put together the bible and preserved the books of the bible that all Christian bibles are based off?

 

[MariaG]

posted by Matt 14

Well, that question sort of takes for granted that preservation of the truth was needed after John wrote the final portion of the New Testament. The written truth was then complete, no more need for oral tradition.

And where in the Bible does it say that we no longer need to listen to Oral Tradition?

In fact the last verse of John tells us that not every book in the world could hold all the things Jesus did.

So how do we go from that statement to no more need for oral tradition?

Maria