The historicity of the Church

[benhur]

Read what it was. It was Korah telling Moses that he, and the others, being members of the priesthood of the nation, had just as much authority as Moses. Sound familiar?

Were they a nation of priests ? Was that the original promise, vision of Israel, before they sinned ? The only ones who were then to be priests were those after Aaron and the Levites, not the rest. God set up a middle wall of partition, and only one could go into the Holy of Holies. Right ? Are we still in Old Testament. That is the debate , what is the authority structure today ?

Regardless of any proportinate blame, it is clear from scripture that causing a schism, i.e. LEAVING the authoritative body, is sinful.

Yes.The question is what is the historical authritative body ?

we saw Christ’s command to obey even the evil scribes & Pharisees – because they had the seat of authority.

Yes, they had the chair of Moses, the Law. Jesus also demanded discernment to do what is right, by the Law, as scribes dictated. The insinuation is that not everything they taught or did had to be obeyed. The central issue is obeying the truth. The authority is not above the truth, and is supposed to be conveyor of truth. Again the truth then was the Law and Moses, not all the stuff that was added on, beyond scripture. Did the scribes and Pharisees have authority from God or did they have authority because they were speaking from and for the law ? Is there any scripture that says God formed,authorized both groups ? Don’t know. Did they “develop, evolve” ?

Sure, but the divine visit caused a shift in authority to the Magisterium in union with St. Peter. Period. None else.

Not sure it had anything to do with the divine visit/revelation that Jesus is messiah. The apostles had authority before then and Peter was a leader type before then. Peter was given keys, as were the rest of the apostles. No one denies our foundation in the twelve, Peter (and Paul) being the most pronounced.

And certainly not a group (or an individual!) that had no spiritual connection with them who came along a millenium and a half later.

No spiritual connection ? You mean we have no physical connection, succession, laying of hands. Even there I disagree for we have seen several reformers were ordained by God’s authoritative representatives.

Right. And those OFFICES subsist in the Catholic Church. And nowhere else. By divine ordinance.

Correct. Only the CC has the head bishop, supreme pontiff, if that is the proper terminology.

 

[benhur]

And still, Cornelius didn’t go off on his own and planted his own bible church, .

But what happened?

He was brought to the Church, to Peter!!! Just like Paul was brought to the Church. Paul was sent by the Church - he didn’t go and do things on his own, but with the Church.

That is the consistent message: we are brought to the Church! Not to divide the Church.

Kind of agree. The church you are born in spiritually is the church you should probably stay in. A bit like remaining with the same priest that matured you or confirmed you .

 

[joe371]

Kind of agree. The church you are born in spiritually is the church you should probably stay in. A bit like remaining with the same priest that matured you or confirmed you .

I always used to say: the church to which you feel closest to God - is the church for you. However, as a former non-Catholic, I began to see the importance of belonging to the church established by Jesus in the first century, on Pentecost, as opposed to someone else; that’s just me though…

 

[benhur]

In your opinion, is there any chance that Jesus established His church, sent the Holy Spirit to His fledgling church on Pentecost to guide her, as the bride of Christ, into all truth until His eventual return, so that all generations of Christians could avail themselves of said truth, as opposed to just the generation belonging to the apostolic age?

Yes, quite a universal statement, and too much has been read in between the lines since that first generation.

 

[joe371]

Yes, quite a universal statement, and too much has been read in between the lines since that first generation.

Jesus did in fact establish just one church, (as opposed to many autonomous churches( sent the Holy Spirit to His fledgling church on Pentecost to guide her, as the bride of Christ, into all truth until His eventual return, so that all generations of Christians could avail themselves of said truth, as opposed to just the generation belonging to the apostolic age?

 

[benhur]

The error is not due to God - agreed! Has God ensured that the truth can be definitively known about the Eucharist i.e. is there a way for a fallible person like me who sees “as thru a glass darkly”, to know with certainty the truth about the Eucharist, in view of the fact that there are opposing beliefs?

Of course there is way and as you have stated God has ensured a way. In a multitude of council is much wisdom, and yet He must illumine all such things. Lord help us, as it should be (that we lean on Him).

 

[benhur]

For some odd reason my original reply did not post? As for Peter? The See of Rome developed in terms of functions and duties as any living organism would. However, it is Christ Himself who gave Peter and the other Apostles the full authority. Their authority did not “develop” over time as many Protestants like to believe. This much I do know from my extensive research into church history:

*No where in the Scriptures or the early Christian writings did Christ found His Church resembling the Protestant/fundamentalist model. A loose-knit-care-free church all doing and teaching as they please.
*

Sorry. The NT and early church writings say something much more different.

Quickly ,no one denies the twelve, just the permanence of head bishop.That is what evolved, not the twelve nor the 144 and so on and so forth as they ordained and grew

 

[joe371]

Of course there is way and as you have stated God has ensured a way. In a multitude of council is much wisdom, and yet He must illumine all such things. Lord help us, as it should be (that we lean on Him).

God God ensured that the truth could be definitively known about the Eucharist via the Catholic Church councils which is why there a way for a fallible person like me who sees “as thru a glass darkly”, to know with certainty the truth about the Eucharist, in view of the fact that there are opposing beliefs?

 

[benhur]

God God ensured that the truth could be definitively known about the Eucharist via the Catholic Church councils which is why there a way for a fallible person like me who sees “as thru a glass darkly”, to know with certainty the truth about the Eucharist, in view of the fact that there are opposing beliefs?

cheshire-church.com/papers/communion.pdf interesting article. Pretty much reflects what I think on the historicity and development of the Eucharistic practices.

 

[Nicea325]

Quickly ,no one denies the twelve, just the permanence of head bishop.That is what evolved, not the twelve nor the 144 and so on and so forth as they ordained and grew

Again…no. If the head bishporic developed, it would easily be noted in the NT. It is very clear, who was the head (Prince Apostle) in the NT. Simply compare the number of times Peter is mentioned compared to the otthers. Moreover, Peter is also first many things in the NT.

The whole argument as to the head bishopric is of late, because as I have said,if the church Christ left was set up in a fashion with no head, then all the ECF’s would have made lots of noise against the See of Rome and the bishop of Rome. On the contrary,history says otherwise.

It seems that today so many want to present an image that the church was “Protestant” in nature. A far cry from the truth.

 

[benhur]

Again…no. If the head bishporic developed, it would easily be noted in the NT. It is very clear, who was the head (Prince Apostle) in the NT. Simply compare the number of times Peter is mentioned compared to the otthers. Moreover, Peter is also first many things in the NT.

I stated the “permanence” of head bishop. Not denying leadership role of Peter . What you don’t have in scriptures is his passing the batton to sole successor, and such designation for he did ordain presbyters. By the way Paul is mentioned more in NT

The whole argument as to the head bishopric is of late, because as I have said,if the church Christ left was set up in a fashion with no head, then all the ECF’s would have made lots of noise against the See of Rome and the bishop of Rome. On the contrary,history says otherwise.

Lots of noise ? How about some noise ?
History shows pure development.

It seems that today so many want to present an image that the church was “Protestant” in nature. A far cry from the truth

. Well it was more universal back then.

 

[Nicea325]

Quote:
Originally Posted by Nicea325
Again…no. If the head bishporic developed, it would easily be noted in the NT. It is very clear, who was the head (Prince Apostle) in the NT. Simply compare the number of times Peter is mentioned compared to the otthers. Moreover, Peter is also first many things in the NT

.

I stated the “permanence” of head bishop. Not denying leadership role of Peter . What you don’t have in scriptures is his passing the batton to sole successor, and such designation for he did ordain presbyters. By the way Paul is mentioned more in NT

And Paul was not the original twelve or was he? Did Paul also receive the same “permanence” as Peter? Did not Paul go to Peter for a specific reason? Did Paul also receive those keys Peter got from Christ? And the scriptures also do not gives us the exact whereabouts of the Apostles. The fact it does not mention Peter passing on the baton in no shape or form does it negate his successors. The NT was not written for that specific purpose. What you are implying is Sola Scriptura and the Bible was not written as a book for every exact detail. Where does the Bible state also all that information needs to be revealed? Tell me where the Bible mentions a NT canon? Do you have an issue with that “development” of the Bible?

Quote:
The whole argument as to the head bishopric is of late, because as I have said,if the church Christ left was set up in a fashion with no head, then all the ECF’s would have made lots of noise against the See of Rome and the bishop of Rome. On the contrary,history says otherwise.

Lots of noise ? How about some noise ?
History shows pure development.

Plenty of noise. If it is development as you so express, present to me one church father or fathers who clearly attack this “permanence” that goes against the early church? History shows development of duties and functions,not the office. The office was established by God Himself. Why so much fuss over a clear office? Timothy and Titus,were they not bishops or simply lay folks?

Quote:
It seems that today so many want to present an image that the church was “Protestant” in nature. A far cry from the truth

.

Well it was more universal back then.

Universal in what aspect? Universal in doctrine? I do not think so. Universal in the sense each individual church was “Protestant” and deciding what was doctrine for them,while another distant church can differ vastly? Is that the church the NT is defending?

 

[joe371]

cheshire-church.com/papers/communion.pdf interesting article. Pretty much reflects what I think on the historicity and development of the Eucharistic practices.

I’ll give it a read. Did God ensure that the truth could be definitively known about the Eucharist via the Catholic Church councils which is why there a way for a fallible person like me who sees “as thru a glass darkly”, to know with certainty the truth about the Eucharist, in view of the fact that there are opposing beliefs?

 

[joe371]

.

And Paul was not the original twelve or was he? Did Paul also receive the same “permanence” as Peter? Did not Paul go to Peter for a specific reason? Did Paul also receive those keys Peter got from Christ? And the scriptures also do not gives us the exact whereabouts of the Apostles. The fact it does not mention Peter passing on the baton in no shape or form does it negate his successors. The NT was not written for that specific purpose. What you are implying is Sola Scriptura and the Bible was not written as a book for every exact detail. Where does the Bible state also all that information needs to be revealed? Tell me where the Bible mentions a NT canon? Do you have an issue with that “development” of the Bible?

Plenty of noise. If it is development as you so express, present to me one church father or fathers who clearly attack this “permanence” that goes against the early church? History shows development of duties and functions,not the office. The office was established by God Himself. Why so much fuss over a clear office? Timothy and Titus,were they not bishops or simply lay folks?

.

Universal in what aspect? Universal in doctrine? I do not think so. Universal in the sense each individual church was “Protestant” and deciding what was doctrine for them,while another distant church can differ vastly? Is that the church the NT is defending?

Why give Peter (the prime minister) the keys (reference to Isaiah 22) if Jesus did not foresee successors - is a question every protestant should ask themselves.

 

[benhur]

Why give Peter (the prime minister) the keys (reference to Isaiah 22) if Jesus did not foresee successors - is a question every protestant should ask themselves.

Also ask did he give the key to the other twelve also, and or at some point ?

 

[benhur]

I’ll give it a read. Did God ensure that the truth could be definitively known about the Eucharist via the Catholic Church councils which is why there a way for a fallible person like me who sees “as thru a glass darkly”, to know with certainty the truth about the Eucharist, in view of the fact that there are opposing beliefs?

I like that you say councils for most would say just “church” told me so. I am saying listen to all (much counsel, much wisdom)-church, councils, scripture, parents, pastors, history, and then only the Lord can set all those things into proper harmony and truth according to his graces. I would agree that Nicene council (325 ?) hints at a special consecration or in need of priest,and definitely the 4th lateran council (1200) ,where transubstantition was defined and made mandatory for sure. To me it still leaves room for that "evolving’ or developing.

 

[Nicea325]

I like that you say councils for most would say just “church” told me so. I am saying listen to all (much counsel, much wisdom)-church, councils, scripture, parents, pastors, history, and then only the Lord can set all those things into proper harmony and truth according to his graces. I would agree that Nicene council (325 ?) hints at a special consecration or in need of priest,and definitely the 4th lateran council (1200) ,where transubstantition was defined and made mandatory for sure. To me it still leaves room for that "evolving’ or developing.

Then you must feel the same with doctrinal development of all doctrines-right? Do not confuse development with innovation.

 

[benhur]

.
And Paul was not the original twelve or was he? Did Paul also receive the same “permanence” as Peter

No, Peter was the leader of the leaders for sure. Iraneus in his succession lists has Peter and Paul as the founders of the Church at Rome and then lists the other bishops which you call popes.

Did Paul also receive those keys Peter got from Christ?

Never heard anyone say Paul did not also have the keys to the Kingdom…

The fact it does not mention Peter passing on the baton in no shape or form does it negate his successors.

It just leaves the door open to interpreting the exact order and purpose of those “successions” beyond what we are told.

The NT was not written for that specific purpose. What you are implying is Sola Scriptura and the Bible was not written as a book for every exact detail. Where does the Bible state also all that information needs to be revealed? Tell me where the Bible mentions a NT canon? Do you have an issue with that “development” of the Bible?

Agreed. Just means we better have the right viewing, opinion, discernment on the matter, just as is needed for what books are indeed Holy (and many other things).

Plenty of noise. If it is development as you so express, present to me one church father or fathers who clearly attack this “permanence” that goes against the early church?

Some noise was made by Cyprian I think and Tertullian,though maybe as a montanist. Certainly the schism, when councils were ignored or misinterpreted.

Universal in what aspect? Universal in doctrine? I do not think so. Universal in the sense each individual church was “Protestant” and deciding what was doctrine for them,while another distant church can differ vastly? Is that the church the NT is defending?

Nope, but that is one end of spectrum while CC at present is the other.

 

[Nicea325]

Why give Peter (the prime minister) the keys (reference to Isaiah 22) if Jesus did not foresee successors - is a question every protestant should ask themselves.

Right. More important,why would Jesus set up His leadership to cease with the death of the last Apostle? That is totally irrational. Jesus Church and leadership had to continue after His death and His twelve. I find it odd Jesus would leave His church up for grabs or a loose-knit do as you please church.

 

[benhur]

Nicea325:
Then you must feel the same with doctrinal development of all doctrines-right? Do not confuse development with innovation. No, not all doctrine, for you indeed had a thriving church within months of his departure with very little evolving.