The Catholic Church started in the 4th Century

  • Thread starter Thread starter Eden
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
40.png
DavidB:
Paul ordained more bishops than Peter and there were no such thing as Cardinals in the early church.
Click to expand...
And being ordained by a bishop does not make one that bishop’s successor. The Apostles ordained successors of local churches as they moved on or were martyred. The “first” among the Apostles, Peter, certainly did. Since Peter was given unique authority by Our Lord, why would that unique authority be given to just anyone he ordained as a bishop. If Our Lord thought it necessary to leave a “visible” head of the Church, why would Peter, or any of the other Apostles water that down or disregard it?

If there is no visible head on earth, where do you go to find the Truth? Resolve things in committee? Pray about it and go your own way? Accept the teachings of anyone claiming “apostolic succession?”

Our Lord left us better off than that, despite the disputes and squabbles that are rampant throughout the emerging NT churches. Peter left the successor of his “primacy” in Rome, and the direct succession has been protected by the Holy Spirit in a way that is nothing short of miraculous. Is there any human institution that has survived as the institution of the Bishop of Rome has?

Despite being underground in persecution, why does the fourth Bishop of Rome, Clement, writing (ca. 96 A.D.) to the Church in Corinth apologize (“owing to sudden and repeated calamities and misfortunes”) for being “tardy in turning our attention to the matters in dispute among you…”?

If you think you have apostolic succession in your church, take another hard look. I’d bet it’s a pretty cloudy and convoluted affair. There might be succession of bishops, but I think it would be pretty hard to call the succession “apostolic.” Just think how many oddfellows out there today call themselves bishops…how many had “valid” consecrations, and who are you and I to judge whether the consecrations were valid? Being consecrated by someone calling themself a bishop hardly gives the consecratee apostolic authority, much less primacy.

But apostolic succession is important, just as primacy is important. God bless you on your journey.

jb
 
Just so we can all remember what we’re arguing about here. I think its pretty clear that David believes in an Episcopal Succession beginning with Jesus, through the apostles, etc… Whether he agrees with the Primacy of Rome is irrelevant to refuting the infamous Ric’s argument. Clearly we agree that the Catholic Church existed from the time of Christ, correct me if I’m wrong here Dave, but you’d just say that other bishops, say, English bishops, had just as much authority say as the Pope (Bishop of Rome). It doesn’t seem like he’s saying the Catholic Church isn’t in valid succession, just that the Anglican Church is in an equally valid state of succession. While I can’t say I agree with you, at least we can agree to disagree with Ric.

God Bless!
 
40.png
MonicaC:
I would like you to explain this further.

Monica
Click to expand...
OK. Here are a few thoughts and quotes that I think capture a few of my key beliefs on this subject:

Cyprian clearly captures the authority structure that Jesus set-up and that I believe in when he said, "Certainly the other Apostles also were what Peter was, endued with an equal fellowship both of honour and power . . . (A Library of the Fathers of the Holy Catholic Church (Oxford: Parker, 1844), Cyprian, On The Unity of the Church 3, p. 133).

In other words, that ALL of the Apostles held equal power and equal authority. I recognize that Peter held special honor in being the first among the Apostles, but that is an honorary, not administrative title.

In understanding Matt 16:18, I prefer Augistine’s statement that says, ". . . I so explained what the Lord said: ‘Thou art Peter, and upon this rock I will build my Church,’ that it be understood as built upon Him whom Peter confessed saying: ‘Thou art the Christ, the Son of the living God,’ and so Peter, called after this rock, represented the person of the Church which is built upon this rock, and has received ‘the keys of the kingdom of heaven.’ For, ‘Thou art Peter’ and not ‘Thou art the rock’ was said to him. But ‘the rock was Christ,’ in confessing whom, as also the whole Church confesses, Simon was called Peter. But let the reader decide which of these two opinions is the more probable (The Fathers of the Church (Washington D.C., Catholic University, 1968), Saint Augustine, The Retractations Chapter 20.1)

Augustine explains that it wasn’t that the Church was going to be built on Peter, but rather that Peter and the entire Church was going to be built on Jesus, the Rock.

When Jesus gave the keys to Peter in Matthew 16:19, he says "
“I will give you the keys of the kingdom of heaven; and whatever you bind on earth shall have been bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth shall have been loosed in heaven.” Jesus then extends those same keys to ALL of the apostles when in chapter 18 he says, “Truly I say to you, whatever you bind on earth shall have been bound in heaven; and whatever you loose on earth shall have been loosed in heaven.”

Another major confirmation that the church isn’t built just on Peter, but on ALL of the apostles, comes from Ephesians 2:20 when Paul says, “So then you are no longer strangers and aliens, but you are fellow citizens with the saints, and are of God’s household, having been built on the foundation of the apostles and prophets, Christ Jesus Himself being the corner stone, in whom the whole building, being fitted together, is growing into a holy temple in the Lord, in whom you also are being built together into a dwelling of God in the Spirit.” Note that the foundation is ALL of the apostles and prophets, not just Peter. The only individual singled out for special recognition is the chief cornerstone, which is Jesus, as he should be.

Also, in Galatians 2:9, Paul says, “James and Cephas and John, who were reputed to be pillars, gave to me and Barnabas the right hand of fellowship . . .” It’s apparent that Peter (Cephas) is just one of the 3 pillars of the Church Paul refers to. If Peter was the single head of the Church Universal, surely Paul would have addressed that much differently.

There are lots of ECF quotes that are clearly refuting the idea of Peter being the universal head of the Church and the one to whom the keys were given alone, as if only he held them. Here are 2 statements fro Origen which are along those lines: (1) In addressing those who said that the Church is built upon Peter alone (which is what you think), he says "But if you suppose that upon the one Peter only the whole church is built by God, what would you say about John the son of thunder or each one of the Apostles? and (2) And of the keys to the Kingdom being given only to Peter, Origen says, “Are the keys of the kingdom of heaven given by the Lord to Peter only, **and will no other of the blessed receive them?”. **

I normally would have dropped this subject by now, but since you asked, I thought it only polite to respond.

David
 
40.png
Roche42:
Just so we can all remember what we’re arguing about here. I think its pretty clear that David believes in an Episcopal Succession beginning with Jesus, through the apostles, etc… Whether he agrees with the Primacy of Rome is irrelevant to refuting the infamous Ric’s argument. Clearly we agree that the Catholic Church existed from the time of Christ, correct me if I’m wrong here Dave, but you’d just say that other bishops, say, English bishops, had just as much authority say as the Pope (Bishop of Rome). It doesn’t seem like he’s saying the Catholic Church isn’t in valid succession, just that the Anglican Church is in an equally valid state of succession. While I can’t say I agree with you, at least we can agree to disagree with Ric.

God Bless!
Click to expand...
Yes, that’s exactly it!!

David
 
40.png
Fiat:
DavidB: Can you explain this a little further? Specifically, to whom are you referring when you say “local church body”?

Blessings
Fiat
Click to expand...
The saints/believers in a town such as Ephesus. I refer to them as a local church or local expression of the Body of Christ. Local as a way to differentiate them from universal meaning the entire Church or Body of Christ. Did I answer what you were looking for?

David
 
Augustine explains that it wasn’t that the Church was going to be built on Peter, but rather that Peter and the entire Church was going to be built on Jesus, the Rock.
Click to expand...
St. Augustine also said :

“[In my first book against Donatus] I mentioned somewhere with reference to the apostle Peter that ‘the Church is founded upon him as upon a rock.’ This meaning is also sung by many lips in the lines of blessed Ambrose, where, speaking of the domestic cock, he says: ‘When it crows, he, the rock of the Church, absolves from sin.’ But I realize that I have since frequently explained the words of our Lord: ‘Thou art Peter and upon this rock I will build my church’, to the effect that they should be understood as referring to him Peter confessed when he said: ‘Thou art the Christ, the Son of the living God’, and as meaning that Peter having been named after this rock, figured the person of the Church, which is built upon this rock and has received the keys of the kingdom of heaven. For what was said to him was not ‘Thou art rock’, but ‘Thou art Peter’. But the rock was Christ, having confessed whom (even as the whole Church confesses) Simon was named Peter. Which of these interpretations is more likely to be correct, let the reader choose.” (Retractations, 1:21)
 
40.png
DavidB:
Augustine explains that it wasn’t that the Church was going to be built on Peter, but rather that Peter and the entire Church was going to be built on Jesus, the Rock. David
Click to expand...
Maybe I misunderstood St. Augustine then…

Among these [apostles] Peter alone almost everywhere deserved to represent the whole Church. Because of that representation of the Church, which only he bore, he deserved to hear “I will give to you the keys of the kingdom of heaven” (Sermons 295:2 A.D. 411]).

Who is ignorant that the first of the apostles is the most blessed Peter? (Commentary on John 56:1 A.D. 416]).
 
40.png
DavidB:
In understanding Matt 16:18, I prefer Augistine’s statement that says, ". . . I so explained what the Lord said: ‘Thou art Peter, and upon this rock I will build my Church,’ that it be understood as built upon Him whom Peter confessed saying: ‘Thou art the Christ, the Son of the living God,’ and so Peter, called after this rock, represented the person of the Church which is built upon this rock, and has received ‘the keys of the kingdom of heaven.’ For, ‘Thou art Peter’ and not ‘Thou art the rock’ was said to him. But ‘the rock was Christ,’ in confessing whom, as also the whole Church confesses, Simon was called Peter. But let the reader decide which of these two opinions is the more probable (The Fathers of the Church (Washington D.C., Catholic University, 1968), Saint Augustine, The Retractations Chapter 20.1)
Click to expand...
All the quote by St. Augustine :

“[In my first book against Donatus] I mentioned somewhere with reference to the apostle Peter that ‘the Church is founded upon him as upon a rock.’ This meaning is also sung by many lips in the lines of blessed Ambrose, where, speaking of the domestic cock, he says: ‘When it crows, he, the rock of the Church, absolves from sin.’ But I realize that I have since frequently explained the words of our Lord: ‘Thou art Peter and upon this rock I will build my church’, to the effect that they should be understood as referring to him Peter confessed when he said: ‘Thou art the Christ, the Son of the living God’, and as meaning that Peter having been named after this rock, figured the person of the Church, which is built upon this rock and has received the keys of the kingdom of heaven. For what was said to him was not ‘Thou art rock’, but ‘Thou art Peter’. But the rock was Christ, having confessed whom(even as the whole Church confesses) Simon was named Peter. Which of these interpretations is more likely to be correct, let the reader choose.” (Retractations, 1:21)
 
40.png
DavidB:
The saints/believers in a town such as Ephesus. I refer to them as a local church or local expression of the Body of Christ. Local as a way to differentiate them from universal meaning the entire Church or Body of Christ. Did I answer what you were looking for?

David
Click to expand...
David:
Can you give me some scripture reference? I’m not finding evidence that a local church body as a whole elected a bishop.

Peace
Fiat
 
40.png
Fiat:
David:
Can you give me some scripture reference? I’m not finding evidence that a local church body as a whole elected a bishop.

Peace
Fiat
Click to expand...
St. Ambrose, I think.
 
It’s funny how Protestants look at all early church writings with scepticism-How they believe in the Bible alone.What all people are corrupt and their writings are not worth giving any credibility? If thats the case why study ancient history…alot of it was written by pagans and Protestants give them more respect than Early Christian writers!! Kind of hard to figure it out,weird!!
 
40.png
alekzander:
It’s funny how Protestants look at all early church writings with scepticism-How they believe in the Bible alone.What all people are corrupt and their writings are not worth giving any credibility? If thats the case why study ancient history…alot of it was written by pagans and Protestants give them more respect than Early Christian writers!! Kind of hard to figure it out,weird!!
Click to expand...
Are you even surprised by this? Anything Catholic is viewed with skepticism by Protestants.
 
Ric has not accepted the invitation to defend his statement here but he has made more comments on the original thread if anyone would like to respond:

**Ummmmmmm…

Not true!

God (through the Holy Spirit) wrote the Bible, not the Roman Catholic church!

Plus all of the all of the Old Testament and all of the New Testament were written long before the birth of the Roman Catholic church! :amen:**
 
40.png
Eden:
Ric has not accepted the invitation to defend his statement here but he has made more comments on the original thread if anyone would like to respond:

Ummmmmmm…

Not true!

God (through the Holy Spirit) wrote the Bible, not the Roman Catholic church!

Plus all of the all of the Old Testament and all of the New Testament were written long before the birth of the Roman Catholic church! :amen:
Click to expand...
He needs to explain then how the Church compiled the Bible, and which books goes in it. There were many writings early Christians considered as Scripture before the final canon.
 
40.png
Eden:
How in the world did you find that site?! :whacky:
Click to expand...
I work for the Feds, we know EVERYTHING.(Except where Osama is that is:whistle: ) The Holy Spirit directs our interpretation thats why we are allways right as government employees. God founded our nation!

Gods peace,
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top