the first Church.

[guanophore]

Constantine moved the capital of the empire to Constantinople but always supported the Bishop of Rome.

Your history is a little off,ND. The seat of the Empire did not move until around 680, long after Constantine. However, I agree, the Emperors did support the bishop of Rome, in whom the temporal governance of the region was invested.

 

[guanophore]

The Apostles all taught the same things and we find those teachings in scripture. ,

I agree that the Apostles all taught the same things. Clearly, though, we don’t all find them in the Scripture. Plenty of well meaning folks find significant degrees of things in Scripture not taught by the Apostles, and some fail to see things there that were.

Scripture by the way does not require one to have a laying on of hands to be considered a valid Elder, Deacon, or Overseer.

That is because this requirement is Apostolic, and such authority can only be carried by persons, not books, however Holy. Scripture cannot really “require” anything. This is why Jesus left people in charge of the Church.

Well, we read it differently, don’t we? One has to wonder if you have really read the Fathers.

The churches that initially formed after Pentecost including the church in Rome had no s uch laying on of hands to mark any type of succession or authoritative transfer.

I could understand why you would have to deny what is written in scripture and in the ECF’s. If you were to accept it, you might have to become Catholic. The same thing happened to me. It is just that it gets harder and harder to be intellectually honest, and deny the facts.

I am curious, ND, what is this reference regarding?

1 Tim 5:22
22 Do not be hasty in the laying on of hands, nor participate in another man’s sins; keep yourself pure.

Also, what “gift” is referred to by the Apostle here?

2 Tim 1:5-7
6 Hence I remind you to rekindle the gift of God that is within you through the laying on of my hands; 7 for God did not give us a spirit of timidity but a spirit of power and love and self-control.

By what authority did Timothy teach? How is it that those who disagree with the Teachings committed to Timothy were out of order?

1 Tim 6:2-4
Teach and urge these duties. 3 If any one teaches otherwise and does not agree with the sound words of our Lord Jesus Christ and the teaching which accords with godliness, 4 he is puffed up with conceit, he knows nothing;

By what authority did Titus teach and reprove?

Titus 2:15
15 Declare these things; exhort and reprove with all authority. Let no one disregard you.

How is it he should not permit himself to be disregarded?

None of these passages make any sense to me without the authority of apostolic succession. I am curious to see how you make sense of them.

Do you think that the Early Fathers fell from the faith before the Canon of Scripture was formed?

“See that you all follow the bishop, even as Jesus Christ does the Father, and the presbytery as you would the apostles; and reverence the deacons, as being the institution of God. Let no man do anything connected with the Church without the bishop. Let that be deemed a proper Eucharist, which is [administered] either by the bishop, or by one to whom he has entrusted it. Wherever the bishop shall appear, there let the multitude [of the people] also be; even as, wherever Jesus Christ is, there is the Catholic Church. It is not lawful without the bishop either to baptize or to celebrate a love-feast; but whatsoever he shall approve of, that is also pleasing to God, so that everything that is done may be secure and valid.” Ignatius to Smyrna ch 8 110 AD

[/QUOTE]

 

[happilycatholic]

I agree that the Apostles all taught the same things. Clearly, though, we don’t all find them in the Scripture. Plenty of well meaning folks find significant degrees of things in Scripture not taught by the Apostles, and some fail to see things there that were.
NDfan;5197678:

Scripture by the way does not require one to have a laying on of hands to be considered a valid Elder, Deacon, or Overseer.

I could understand why you would have to deny what is written in scripture and in the ECF’s. If you were to accept it, you might have to become Catholic. The same thing happened to me. It is just that it gets harder and harder to be intellectually honest, and deny the facts.

I am curious, ND, what is this reference regarding?

1 Tim 5:22
22 Do not be hasty in the laying on of hands, nor participate in another man’s sins; keep yourself pure.

Also, what “gift” is referred to by the Apostle here?

2 Tim 1:5-7
6 Hence I remind you to rekindle the gift of God that is within you through the laying on of my hands; 7 for God did not give us a spirit of timidity but a spirit of power and love and self-control.

By what authority did Timothy teach? How is it that those who disagree with the Teachings committed to Timothy were out of order?

1 Tim 6:2-4
Teach and urge these duties. 3 If any one teaches otherwise and does not agree with the sound words of our Lord Jesus Christ and the teaching which accords with godliness, 4 he is puffed up with conceit, he knows nothing;

By what authority did Titus teach and reprove?

Titus 2:15
15 Declare these things; exhort and reprove with all authority. Let no one disregard you.

How is it he should not permit himself to be disregarded?

None of these passages make any sense to me without the authority of apostolic succession. I am curious to see how you make sense of them.

Do you think that the Early Fathers fell from the faith before the Canon of Scripture was formed?

“See that you all follow the bishop, even as Jesus Christ does the Father, and the presbytery as you would the apostles; and reverence the deacons, as being the institution of God. Let no man do anything connected with the Church without the bishop. Let that be deemed a proper Eucharist, which is [administered] either by the bishop, or by one to whom he has entrusted it. Wherever the bishop shall appear, there let the multitude [of the people] also be; even as, wherever Jesus Christ is, there is the Catholic Church. It is not lawful without the bishop either to baptize or to celebrate a love-feast; but whatsoever he shall approve of, that is also pleasing to God, so that everything that is done may be secure and valid.” Ignatius to Smyrna ch 8 110 AD

Guanophore:

I light of your response here, could you give me your opinion of my post (#21). IMHO it explains why the Church is and has always been visible. Hence the first and one true Church. With this explanation, there can be no denial. Right or no?

~HC

 

[Publisher]

is it what the apostles tought to everyone? is it what Jesus said?

Apostles like Paul taught that he was not sent to baptize, but to preach the gospel. The ritual ordinances we’re not meant to be perpetual as all ritual requirements were fulfilled in Christ. Through him we have access to God…no need of a “ritual” or “ordinance” needs to be performed on our behalf by another…we have only one intermediary, that is Christ…if another man is required to perform a ritual for me on my behalf…or to me on my behalf, the work of Christ means nothing. We have access directly to God through Christ, no one else is necessary…He is All and in all.

 

[Publisher]

I am not reallly sure if it matters, but I think it might be more accurate to say that the Scriptures reflect the beliefs of what was already the “dominant” Church. I think dominant is a bad word, though. The only reason there are scriptures, and they are preserved, it because the Spirit of God inspired them, and led the Church founded by Christ to canonize them. This was part of Christ’s promise to lead them into all Truth.

I agree. Jesus gave the Apostles the responsibility to Teach, and placed them on the Seat of Moses. (authoritative instruction). He then revealed to them all that they needed to perform this function. The church was built up (gained dominance) because of the HS.

What do you mean by “monolithic”? It was spread all over the known world…

NO, Publisher, the orthodox/catholic was, indeed, the group that descended from the Apostles directly. This is what made them orthodox/catholic!

We can see very early how the structure put in place by the Apostles held the true Church together during the heresies.

“Since, however, it would be very tedious, in such a volume as this, to reckon up the successions of all the Churches, we do put to confusion all those who, in whatever manner, whether by an evil self-pleasing, by vainglory, or by blindness and perverse opinion, assemble in unauthorized meetings; [we do this, I say,] by indicating that tradition derived from the apostles, of the very great, the very ancient, and universally known Church founded and organized at Rome by the two most glorious apostles, Peter and Paul; as also [by pointing out] the faith preached to men, which comes down to our time by means of the successions of the bishops. For it is a matter of necessity that every Church should agree with this Church, on account of its pre- eminent authority, that is, the faithful everywhere, inasmuch as the apostolical tradition has been preserved continuously by those [faithful men] who exist everywhere.” Irenaeus, Against Heresies, 3:3:2 (A.D. 180).

“And he says to him again after the resurrection, ‘Feed my sheep.’ It is on him that he builds the Church, and to him that he entrusts the sheep to feed. And although he assigns a like power to all the apostles, yet he founded a single Chair, thus establishing by his own authority the source and hallmark of the (Church’s) oneness. No doubt the others were all that Peter was, but a primacy is given to Peter, and it is (thus) made clear that there is but one flock which is to be fed by all the apostles in common accord. If a man does not hold fast to this oneness of Peter, does he imagine that he still holds the faith? If he deserts the Chair of Peter upon whom the Church was built, has he still confidence that he is in the Church? This unity firmly should we hold and maintain, especially we bishops, presiding in the Church, in order that we may approve the episcopate itself to be the one and undivided.” Cyprian, The Unity of the Church, 4-5 (A.D. 251-256).

“Philip, presbyter and legate of the Apostolic See, said: There is no doubt, and in fact it has been known in all ages, that the holy and most blessed Peter, prince and head of the apostles, pillar of the faith, and foundation of the Catholic Church, received the keys of the kingdom from our Lord Jesus Christ, the Saviour and Redeemer of the human race, and that to him was given the power of loosing and binding sins: Our holy and most blessed Pope Celestine the bishop is according to due order his successor and holds his place…Accordingly the decision of all churches is firm, for the priests of the eastern and western churches are present…Wherefore Nestorius knows that he is alienated from the communion of the priests of the Catholic Church.” Council of Ephesus, Session III (A.D. 431).

I can see why it would be important for you to disregard the evidence of history when it comes to the apostolic succession, relegating it to a “myth” in your onw mind. I do not find my experience uncommon, that when one who was taugth it was a “myth” begins to study history and discovers that history reflects that the Apostolic Succession actually existed then, and now. Such a one then would be obligated to come back into unity with the Church founded by Christ. If you keep all the evidence at arms length, perhaps you can avoid the inevitable?

I am sure one could, but since you forwarded the postulation, it is incumbent upon you to back yourself up. Let us see what you have.

I have no quarrel with your beliefs. If they bring you close to God and give you peace, if they call you to a life of service and compassion, if they bring you into “incarnation” with him in our world…wonderful.

I was answering a question, I do not feel compelled to “convince” you of this history…it makes sense to me…I do not believe in the mythological nebulous “first church”. While I have read many conservative histories of the establishment of Christianity, something always seemed…not right…I now weigh the historical evidence of more…“liberal” historians against the more “conservative” historians and find the “magic world view” not as compelling in the establishement of Christianity as a world religion. This is not belittliing YOUR beliefs…it is explaining mine and how I came to them.

cont below

 

[Publisher]

cont from above

I do not find the “conservative” telling of Christian history nearly as compelling as the “liberal” telling of Christian history. Hyam Maccoby, Bart Erhman, Robert Eiseman, Elaine Pagels, Joan O’Grady’s histories on the early Christian church are much more convincing and compelling in their accuracy than the more “conservative” religious authors who embrace the “miraculous” and “myth” of the solidarity of early Christianity.

Their “story” on the Ebionites seem much more in line with the development of Christianity than some of the more “religiously critical” “histories” on them I’ve read.

I simply have a different view…and one I must incorporate into my own spiritual life. If you should find me in spiritual peril for doing so…I’m ok with that…the next life will take care of itself…we each can place me in the Hands of God…no matter what the outcome…that is the best place to be.

 

[wisdomseeker]

Apostol Peter in Antioch, then with Paul in Rome. St. Mark is in Aleksandria. St. Toma to India. St. Simon Kananite to bishop of Nikopia.St. Bartolomei bishop in Al’ban near now Baku. St. Tadius was in Armenia.

All had their place - Christian church was Apostolic - even Catolics say this, it was never called such things Petrine.

there was Jesus and twelve Apostles. then there was Peter and twelve Apostles. how about that?

 

[Bill_Pick]

NDfan, the Universal church IS the Catholic church. The Catholic church is for everyone. That is what it was meant to be. My priest starts out every Mass saying “Let’s pray in God’s Universal church”. The Nicene Creed is Catholic, Catholics are derived from St. Peter who we all know was the first pope, hence Catholicism. All religions are man-made except for the Catholic church.
What religion are you and how was your religion started? Is your church Apostolic? Have you been to the Catacombs in Rome acknowledging the writings on the wall, hence all Catholic? Orthodox WERE Catholic until they broke off in the year 1054 and became Orthodox in unity with the pope.

Thank you ONE True at lest we now got it right the first Church was the Cathloic Church. ND You need to read this and understand what he/she is saying

 

[wisdomseeker]

Apostles like Paul taught that he was not sent to baptize, but to preach the gospel. The ritual ordinances we’re not meant to be perpetual as all ritual requirements were fulfilled in Christ. Through him we have access to God…no need of a “ritual” or “ordinance” needs to be performed on our behalf by another…we have only one intermediary, that is Christ…if another man is required to perform a ritual for me on my behalf…or to me on my behalf, the work of Christ means nothing. We have access directly to God through Christ, no one else is necessary…He is All and in all.

my friend you are very confused here. do you know what you are reading? since St Paul is talking to the Jews and about the Jews. are you a Jew? do you practice all the judaic laws and rituals? do you know what is really going on in here for St Paul to be saying this? if not, stop reading the Bible.

 

[Publisher]

my friend you are very confused here. since St Paul is talking to the Jews and about the Jews. are you a Jew? do you practice all the judaic laws and rituals? do you know what is really going on in here for St Paul to be saying this? if not, stop reading the Bible.

gentiles didnt practice those laws and rituals. obviously he is not talking to gentiles.

I am content in my “confusion”…I appreciate your concern. I need no one to perform a ritual or rite for me on my behalf. Christ has completed all necessary “rituals” and “rites” and He Himself is the only Priest I need. I have been baptized by Christ Himself into His Body and I received the Living Bread directly from His Hands. That is sufficient…I realize it is not what you believe…and I’m ok with that.

 

[wisdomseeker]

I am content in my “confusion”…I appreciate your concern. I need no one to perform a ritual or rite for me on my behalf. Christ has completed all necessary “rituals” and “rites” and He Himself is the only Priest I need. I have been baptized by Christ Himself into His Body and I received the Living Bread directly from His Hands. That is sufficient…I realize it is not what you believe…and I’m ok with that.

you are happy to be confused? very odd. for who wants to be confused. and no, it is not me and Jesus, it is Us and Jesus. remember the prayer? Our Father who art…
only Jesus can call God my Father, we cant. it is our Father, therefore is not me and Jesus it is Us and Jesus. and yes Jesus stablished a new type of Sacrifice for His Church which is the Eucharist. do you have a problem with that?

you have been baptized by Christ Himself? how did this happened? how do you receive the Bread directly from His hands? Jesus Himself said. “do this in remembrance of me.” is Jesus talking to Himself?

 

[Publisher]

you are happy to be confused? very odd. for who wants to be confused. and no, it is not me and Jesus, it is Us and Jesus. remember the prayer? Our Father who art…
only Jesus can call God my Father, we cant. it is our Father, therefore is not me and Jesus it is Us and Jesus. and yes Jesus stablished a new type of Sacrifice for His Church which is the Eucharist. do you have a problem with that?

you have been baptized by Christ Himself? how did this happened? how do you receive the Bread directly from His hands? Jesus Himself said. “do this in remembrance of me.” is Jesus talking to Himself?

We obviously are “speaking past one another”…My “confusion” is based on your evaluation of my beliefs through the eyes of your theology. I have no problem with you believing me confused…it is part of your faith tradition.

I have “no problem” with your religious beliefs…I simply do not embrace them nor find them compelling. As I said, it is Christ who baptized me into his Body by his Spirit, there is only One Baptism that truly can transform a person…we live in community…I do believe it is “US” and God, “no man is an island”…I simply do not share the tenets of your faith community as you do not share mine.

Each First Day we remember his death and resurrection as we share in the Living Bread in our midst…as community…as a Society of believers…where two or three are gathered in His Name, He is there in our midst, ministering to each of us as He binds us to the Living Presence.

I am not seeking to “convince” you that your faith tradition cannot answer your spiritual needs…if they do, wonderful…as my faith tradition answers the deepest needs of my own quest for the Eternal.

I am content that you to consider me “confused”, I wish it were otherwise, but that is not how things are…my assesment of my “confusion” is another matter.

For Friends Truth is not something one “believes”…Truth is how one lives…Truth is how we treat one another…how we minister to one another’s needs…it is ministering to each other that we find Christ in one another…“that of God” in each of us. “I was hungry…thirsty…naked…alone…if you have done it to the least of these…you have done it to me.” We find Him in the most unlikely places…we find Him in one another.

 

[racing59]

you are happy to be confused? very odd. for who wants to be confused. and no, it is not me and Jesus, it is Us and Jesus. remember the prayer? Our Father who art…
only Jesus can call God my Father, we cant. it is our Father, therefore is not me and Jesus it is Us and Jesus. and yes Jesus stablished a new type of Sacrifice for His Church which is the Eucharist. do you have a problem with that?

you have been baptized by Christ Himself? how did this happened? how do you receive the Bread directly from His hands? Jesus Himself said. “do this in remembrance of me.” is Jesus talking to Himself?

I think the problem here is a difference of view.RCC view is the Primacy of Peter, many on this thread have given good reason for this belief.Others take what was said in the book of Hebrews, that we are all in the Priesthood of Melchezidek, therefore we all have the right to offer a bread and wine sacrifice to Jesus Christ High Priest in this order. I Peter2:9-10 we have the same birth rite that acient Israel had before the fall at the golden calf. We are all now both King and Priest in the Royal Order of Melchezidek as believers of Jesus Christ. We are Living Stones(Rock). The stone the builders rejected has become the corner stone. This is straight from St. Peter and St. Paul’s teachings . So what you see as confusion is not neccessarly acurate.I believe most people on this thread do want to be in the Fullness of Truth, in which I have a question, but I"ll save for another thread.

 

[wisdomseeker]

We obviously are “speaking past one another”…My “confusion” is based on your evaluation of my beliefs through the eyes of your theology. I have no problem with you believing me confused…it is part of your faith tradition.

I have “no problem” with your religious beliefs…I simply do not embrace them nor find them compelling. As I said, it is Christ who baptized me into his Body by his Spirit, there is only One Baptism that truly can transform a person…we live in community…I do believe it is “US” and God, “no man is an island”…I simply do not share the tenets of your faith community as you do not share mine.

Each First Day we remember his death and resurrection as we share in the Living Bread in our midst…as community…as a Society of believers…where two or three are gathered in His Name, He is there in our midst, ministering to each of us as He binds us to the Living Presence.

I am not seeking to “convince” you that your faith tradition cannot answer your spiritual needs…if they do, wonderful…as my faith tradition answers the deepest needs of my own quest for the Eternal.

I am content that you to consider me “confused”, I wish it were otherwise, but that is not how things are…my assesment of my “confusion” is another matter.

For Friends Truth is not something one “believes”…Truth is how one lives…Truth is how we treat one another…how we minister to one another’s needs…it is ministering to each other that we find Christ in one another…“that of God” in each of us. “I was hungry…thirsty…naked…alone…if you have done it to the least of these…you have done it to me.” We find Him in the most unlikely places…we find Him in one another.

no, it is my theology. it is what it is. it is all about obedience for without there is no salvation. Jesus said this Himself.
and yes Jesus stablished a body a Church to gather His people on earth. there is no individualism with our Lord. the apostles were not disconnected from each other.
and none of them tought anything different from each other. the question is who do you obey? yourself? your 400 years old theology? do you disregard all teachings from begining to this day?

 

[wisdomseeker]

I think the problem here is a difference of view.RCC view is the Primacy of Peter, many on this thread have given good reason for this belief.Others take what was said in the book of Hebrews, that we are all in the Priesthood of Melchezidek, therefore we all have the right to offer a bread and wine sacrifice to Jesus Christ High Priest in this order. I Peter2:9-10 we have the same birth rite that acient Israel had before the fall at the golden calf. We are all now both King and Priest in the Royal Order of Melchezidek as believers of Jesus Christ. We are Living Stones(Rock). The stone the builders rejected has become the corner stone. This is straight from St. Peter and St. Paul’s teachings . So what you see as confusion is not neccessarly acurate.I believe most people on this thread do want to be in the Fullness of Truth, in which I have a question, but I"ll save for another thread.

if we all have the right to offer the Sacrifice, do you offer it alone? or should we all take turns in doing this?

 

[guanophore]

Apostles like Paul taught that he was not sent to baptize, but to preach the gospel. The ritual ordinances we’re not meant to be perpetual as all ritual requirements were fulfilled in Christ.

The fact that Paul’s primary charism was preaching did not mean he never baptized, or taught baptism. His primary calling was preaching, and he had to spend significant time and attention to preparing for it in prayer and study. He would not have had time for all this if he baptized everyone that was converted through his preaching. There were thousands! Instead, he travelled with a group, and they performed the baptisms while he retired after preaching.

I agree that sacraments are not meant to be perpetual. They are only for the Church militant. When we are with Christ after leaving this world, there will be no more need of them for us.

Through him we have access to God…no need of a “ritual” or “ordinance” needs to be performed on our behalf by another…we have only one intermediary, that is Christ…if another man is required to perform a ritual for me on my behalf…or to me on my behalf, the work of Christ means nothing.

One of the ways we access God’s grace is through the sarcraments. They are not “intermediaries” but channels of HIs grace. Furthermore, the fact that God involves the use of people to minister to people does not, in any way, “nullify” His grace. His grace works through people.

We can see this in the book of Acts, where the angel tells Cornelius to send for Peter. the Angel could have proclaimed the gospel himself, but God preferred to work through the person of Peter.

When the Spirit came upon Cornelius and his household, it did not make “the work of Christ nothing” because it came through Peter’s preaching.

We have access directly to God through Christ, no one else is necessary…He is All and in all.

If no one else were necessary,then He would not have left people! He chooses to work thorugh people.

Eph 4:10-14
11 And his gifts were that some should be apostles, some prophets, some evangelists, some pastors and teachers, 12 to equip the saints for the work of ministry, for building up the body of Christ, 13 until we all attain to the unity of the faith and of the knowledge of the Son of God, to mature manhood, to the measure of the stature of the fulness of Christ;

To say that His gifts are not “necessary” seems quite insulting to the way He chose to build HIs Church. Who are you to say something Jesus put into place is not necessary?

 

[Hesychios]

No, I don’t believe the CC was the “first” chruch. From what I read in Acts it was a very Jewish group of people with very Jewish beliefs in Jerusalem headed by James. Since Acts was written 30-40 years after the establishment of this local group of believers, of who later came to be called “Christians”, there was a definite “proto-orthodox” slant to the story, but those who came to be called “Ebionites” were the “first” Christians.

This is very insightful. Do you read Ehrman?

I would call them “proto-Ebionites”.

 

[Publisher]

no, it is my theology. it is what it is. it is all about obedience for without there is no salvation. Jesus said this Himself.
and yes Jesus stablished a body a Church to gather His people on earth. there is no individualism with our Lord. the apostles were not disconnected from each other.
and none of them tought anything different from each other. the question is who do you obey? yourself? your 400 years old theology? do you disregard all teachings from begining to this day?

No, I disregard nothing in history nor what the apostles or what the scriptures teach. I seek to obey the Light…but I will trust my own counsel and experience before I’d trust someone else telliing me what I had to believe. It is I who will stand in the Presence and give an account for myself…no one else will stand with me but Christ. While the Quaker saying is only 400 years old, it says…“Thee tells me what the apostles say…thee tells me what the prophets say…but what can thee say?”

Our faith is experiential and immediate. We discern His will and seek to listen to His voice…“We live in that same virtue and power of life in which the apostles lived.” (Another 400 year old saying) It’s not what you believe…but that’s ok…I’m content with my “indifference” “presumption” “ignorance” .

 

[racing59]

if we all have the right to offer the Sacrifice, do you offer it alone? or should we all take turns in doing this?

I know of no Scripture were we take turns.If you do please enlighten me. I offer a bread and wine sacrifice in the Agapy meal in my home the same way the earlest church did. The very term “Priest” is to offer sacrifice. The Todah is what Jesus offered at the Last Supper. It is ancient Hebrew all the way back to Lev. Chapter 7. The “Todah” is the only sacrifice that survived the destruction of the temple in 70 a.d. Jesus said"Do this in remeberance of me".

 

[racing59]

I agree that sacraments are not meant to be perpetual. They are only for the Church militant. When we are with Christ after leaving this world, there will be no more need of them for .

Then why in Rev.5:6 Is the Lamb as though he is slain in Heaven. Jesus is the Lamb of God, yet here we see he still has his wouns in Heaven. Is that not a perpetual sacrifice once for all?