The historicity of the Church

[josie_L]

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

It is from Christ through Peter (as per Scripture) that the keys of the kingdom were given to the Church, i.e., those in communion with Peter will hold and share the power of the keys.

 

[Nicea325]

Quote:
Originally Posted by Nicea325
.
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.

And how does listing both men as founders remove or deny Peters’ primacy? It does not! Would you deny George Washington his presidency because other key men helped found this country?

Quote:
Did Paul also receive those keys Peter got from Christ?

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

And yet not one Apostle or post-Apostolic father questioned Peter’s primacy and the See of Rome until centuries later. Again, if it was so false and unheard of…where are those protests from the get-go?

Quote:
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 “door open” when it conflicts with newer traditions. Care to provide a post-Apostolic father who held to your open door premise?

Quote:
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).

But does not change fact not every detail we seek is NOT confined to the Bible. Again,the Bible was not written as a keeper of exact details.

Quote:
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.

Cyprian never attacks or states the primacy of Peter and Rome as false,novel,heretical or a usurpation of Christ. No where.On the contrary, he says otherwise. If it was novel or false, I doubt anyone would have kept their tongues tied.

Quote:
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.

My friend, Christ promised the Holy Spirit and the early church was every conservative. Precisely why councils were called to defend and protect core doctrines. If the primacy of Peter was such a false idea or tradition, the early christians were the first to protest;hence the countless of heresies which popped up. Many church fathers defend doctrine and attack heresies or practices considered unorthodox to the ancient church.

 

[benhur]

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.

So do you really think Peter directed the entire church till his death ? Was he the sole leader ? Can not an organization exist without a president ? Can twelve rule ? Then 20 or 40 in a councilar fashion ? Are the orthodox orphans for 1200 years ? I look at it as a spear penetrating the darkness. The head is the twelve apostles Jesus molded. Peter wash the tip (first sermon,first to the Gentiles,), with the apostles right behind him fanning out as the edge of the head. Then believers forming the stock or rod pushing even further into darkness with the holy Spirit guiding as the feathers. I see the need for having Peter as such a leader as a one time thing. He did the firsts that were appointed unto him that don’t require repeating in quite the same fashion,at least not as firsts. Are there any more firsts to be done ? Is not the path laid wide open for us ? Leaders we need yes, but for different purposes and not necessarily stemming from a “president”.

 

[benhur]

My friend, Christ promised the Holy Spirit and the early church was every conservative. Precisely why councils were called to defend and protect core doctrines. If the primacy of Peter was such a false idea or tradition, the early christians were the first to protest;hence the countless of heresies which popped up. Many church fathers defend doctrine and attack heresies or practices considered unorthodox to the ancient church.

Ok. Sounds like you need to see it in Patristic writings, as some need to see it in scripture. Of course a frog will jump out if put into boiling water. But place him in when it is lukewarm and you can slowly bring him to a seemingly comfortable boiling death.

 

[Nicea325]

So do you really think Peter directed the entire church till his death ?

Depends on what grounds you are discussing? Doctrine? Leadership? Functions and duties within the church? Be more specfic.

Was he the sole leader ?

The CC has never said or taught he was the “sole” leader. All bishops are leaders Others helped and yet he was Prince of the Apostles. My friend he was called prince by numerous church fathers. You seem to believe I make history up as we discuss. Look it up. Why is a hierarchy such a conflict with Protestants?

Let me ask you something:

Whose in charge of everything in this universe,heaven,hell,etc? God-right? Know much about angelic beings? Are they under a hierarchy or care-free order each doing as it pleases?

Can not an organization exist without a president ? Can twelve rule ? Then 20 or 40 in a councilar fashion ? Are the orthodox orphans for 1200 years ? I look at it as a spear penetrating the darkness.

Yes. But this is not just another secular entity or organism. It is the mystical Body of Christ and if he assigned it full authority to a few select…then so be it. I simply find those opposing its structure as rebellious…no offense. Tell me which non-Catholic church has the correct structure if the CC/Orthodox have it wrong?

The head is the twelve apostles Jesus molded. Peter wash the tip (first sermon,first to the Gentiles,), with the apostles right behind him fanning out as the edge of the head. Then believers forming the stock or rod pushing even further into darkness with the holy Spirit guiding as the feathers.

Yes my friend,but Jesus never gave any lay folk or folks the same authority. To be guided by the Spirit is one thing which also includes obeying those in charge-isn’t that in Scripture?

I see the need for having Peter as such a leader as a one time thing.

A one time thing? Then what? Roll dice and see what happens after? Peter’s successors doing one thing,John’s doing another, etc,etc.

He did the firsts that were appointed unto him that don’t require repeating in quite the same fashion,at least not as firsts.

Really? So if the President is killed,then a successor shouldn’t repeat quite the “same fashion” because I personally do not like it? Really?

 

[Nicea325]

Ok. Sounds like you need to see it in Patristic writings, as some need to see it in scripture. Of course a frog will jump out if put into boiling water. But place him in when it is lukewarm and you can slowly bring him to a seemingly comfortable boiling death.

I beg your pardon? You act as though I have never read their works. The issue with so many non-Catholics is that they want the Patristic fathers to appear Protestant. You cannot put words in the mouth of others and expect others to believe it. If the fathers were so “protestant” in nature, strange they never name their denomination? And yet they defend other Catholic traditions.

Again…if the primacy of Peter is so false as Protestants protest, where are the countless writings by the fathers attacking this novel and false premise? Show me these writings of theirs so I too can become a Protestant.

 

[seanman611]

Anglicans tend to consider themselves to be a part of the historic Catholic Church as well. However, being isolated to the British isles, the Church in England was not under the direct thumb of the Papacy and the Church in England developed a bit apart from the Church in Europe. The power of the Papacy never fully reached the British isles and there is a history of contention between the Church in England and the Papacy that goes back 100s of years before the split. All of this came to a head with the request of annulment by King Henry VIII. King Henry had a good case for annulment, however, Spain was a lot closer to Rome than England and Spain had already proved itself a threat to Rome. Not to mention, Catharine of Aragon was Spanish. Thus, for political reasons, the King was denied his annulment. Not suprisingly, this greatly upset King Henry (who needed a male heir for political stability) and he started the process of making himself the head of the Church in England. This is a short and imperfect history, but the Church of England was NOT founded by a man who wanted a divorce, it’s just not that simple.

At the end of the day, Anglicans believe in the holy Catholic and Apostolic Church. Anglicans also tend to believe that the Papacy developed as a political office and went from being “first among equals” to basically a European Monarchy with absolute power. If one examines history, all we can really say is that it is possible that the Bishop of Rome was the first among equals, however, there is scant evidence and mostly forgeries that suggest anything else.

Therefore, Anglicans tend to see themselves as being the Church before the Church went astray. Remember, there was a Church in England before the Pope became a powerful political force.

*I should note that it is impossible to speak as authoritative when it comes to what Anglicans believe. However, I believe that this post would be agreeable to most Anglicans.

 

[FathersKnowBest]

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

I read it. Interesting, but includes a few important errors.
Such as when he says that “The Didache makes no mention of a sacrifice or a memorial associated with these prayers;”

14:1 And on the Lord’s own day gather yourselves together and break bread and give thanks, first confessing your transgressions, that your sacrifice may be pure.
14:2 And let no man, having his dispute with his fellow, join your assembly until they have been reconciled, that your sacrifice may not be defiled;
14:3 for this sacrifice it is that was spoken of by the Lord;
14:4 {In every place and at every time offer Me a pure sacrifice;

 

[FathersKnowBest]

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

That’s a great question, and important.

The answer is quite definitely “NO”.

Does that change your understanding? (It should!)

 

[FathersKnowBest]

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

Seriously?

Mt 23:2 "The scribes and the Pharisees sit on Moses’ seat;
3 so practice and observe whatever they tell you, but not what they do; for they preach, but do not practice.

No, we don’t have to obey whatever they DID, but we are commanded by Jesus to “practice and observe whatever they tell you.” Did you throw in the “or did” as a lawyer-like red herring trick?

The central issue is obeying the truth. The authority is not above the truth, and is supposed to be conveyor of truth.

Absolutely. That’s why Jesus sent the Holy Spirit to guide the Church. Church, singular.

Did the scribes and Pharisees have authority from God or did they have authority because they were speaking from and for the law ?

They had authority from God.

Caiaphas even was “forced” to prophesy because he was high priest:
Joh 11:51 He did not say this of his own accord, but being high priest that year he prophesied that Jesus should die for the nation,

Is there any scripture that says God formed,authorized both groups ?

You’re projecting your belief in sola scriptura on the Jews, who had nothing of the sort.
Catholicism, and not protestantism, is fulfilled Judaism.

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.

They had authority before then? Like what?

Peter was given keys, as were the rest of the apostles.

This is a fairly common belief among protestents; a belief that is scripturally unfounded. Amazing for people who claim that scripture is their “norm.”

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.

You can disagree all you wish. The reformers were not bishops who were given the authority to ordain others.

 

[FathersKnowBest]

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.

Have you had your will read yet?
Why not? Oh, because you are still alive!

Scripture (besides the fact that not every truth must appear in scripture) doesn’t record St. Peter’s death, so why would it record the passing of the batton, to use your words?

However, the ECF record just such a thing.

Clement of Rome
Our Apostles knew through our Lord Jesus Christ that there would be strife for the office of bishop. For this reason, therefore, having received perfect foreknowledge, they appointed those who have already been mentioned, and afterwards added the further provision that, if they should die, other approved men should succeed to their ministry (Letter to the Corinthians 44:1 [A.D. 95]).

Ignatius of Antioch
You must all follow the bishop as Jesus Christ follows the Father, and the presbytery as you would the Apostles. Reverence the deacons as you would the command of God. Let no one do anything of concern to the Church without the bishop. Let that be considered a valid Eucharist which is celebrated by the bishop, or by one whom he appoints. Wherever the bishop appears, let the people be there; just as wherever Jesus Christ is, there is the Catholic Church (Letter to the Smyrnaeans 8:1 [A.D. 110]).

Irenaeus
It is possible, then, for everyone in every Church, who may wish to know the truth, to contemplate the tradition of the Apostles which has been made known throughout the whole world. And we are in a position to enumerate those who were instituted bishops by the Apostles, and their successors to our own times: men who neither knew nor taught anything like these heretics rave about. For if the Apostles had known hidden mysteries which they taught to the elite secretly and apart from the rest, they would have handed them down especially to those very ones to whom they were committing the self-same Churches. For surely they wished all those and their successors to be perfect and without reproach, to whom they handed on their authority (Against Heresies 3:3:1 [A.D. 180-199]).

It is necessary to obey those who are the presbyters in the Church, those who, as we have shown, have succession from the Apostles; those who have received, with the succession of the episcopate, the sure charism of truth according to the good pleasure of the Father. But the rest, who have no part in the primitive succession and assemble wheresoever they will, must be held in suspicion (ibid 4:26:2).

 

[joe371]

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.

I cannot get a definitive answer about the Eucharist (real presence vs symbolic) by deferring to the CC councils, scripture via my interpretation, parents and pastors of each respective PC and CC as well as history.

How did the Catholic Church settle the matter on the Trinity definitively, when people were challenging the teaching i.e. who dogmatized the Trinity?

 

[joe371]

Ok. Sounds like you need to see it in Patristic writings, as some need to see it in scripture. Of course a frog will jump out if put into boiling water. But place him in when it is lukewarm and you can slowly bring him to a seemingly comfortable boiling death.

Patristic writings led me to the CC. I would highly recommend those writings to every protestant; good stuff. BTW, all of those writers belonged to the CC. If the CC is good enough for them…

 

[Isaiah45_9]

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.

Ben,

First of all, thank you for participating. It is not easy to challenge your knowledge at somebody else’s court . I do appreciate the dialogue. God Bless you.

I am about to start Cardinal Newman’s - An Essay on the Development of Christian Doctrine.

I have, for the most part, understood that doctrine develops. I see it as something that happens naturally.

The Church is mostly re-active in matters of doctrine. Meaning that She has to react and set the record straight when there are attacks on our beliefs or new beliefs arise that try to present consistency with Church doctrine when it doesn’t.

So naturally, there is development. I am not going to even try to pretend that things in the 1st century Church were the same as in the 21st century Church. But in fact, it can be demonstrated with Scripture, History and Reason that we are the same Church. In an imperfect way, since we are divided and wounded by losing too many brothers and sisters. And we are still pilgrims on earth.

One thing we have to keep in mind is that quotes from an ECF here and an ECF there that might present a support to a particular point of view - might not agree with the Church as a Whole. So when reading the ECF’s (Or anyone in the Church really), one must look at what the Church as a Whole has said, if anything, to that regard.

Peace,

 

[benhur]

Anglicans tend to consider themselves to be a part of the historic Catholic Church as well. However, being isolated to the British isles, the Church in England was not under the direct thumb of the Papacy and the Church in England developed a bit apart from the Church in Europe. The power of the Papacy never fully reached the British isles and there is a history of contention between the Church in England and the Papacy that goes back 100s of years before the split. All of this came to a head with the request of annulment by King Henry VIII. King Henry had a good case for annulment, however, Spain was a lot closer to Rome than England and Spain had already proved itself a threat to Rome. Not to mention, Catharine of Aragon was Spanish. Thus, for political reasons, the King was denied his annulment. Not suprisingly, this greatly upset King Henry (who needed a male heir for political stability) and he started the process of making himself the head of the Church in England. This is a short and imperfect history, but the Church of England was NOT founded by a man who wanted a divorce, it’s just not that simple.

At the end of the day, Anglicans believe in the holy Catholic and Apostolic Church. Anglicans also tend to believe that the Papacy developed as a political office and went from being “first among equals” to basically a European Monarchy with absolute power. If one examines history, all we can really say is that it is possible that the Bishop of Rome was the first among equals, however, there is scant evidence and mostly forgeries that suggest anything else.

Therefore, Anglicans tend to see themselves as being the Church before the Church went astray. Remember, there was a Church in England before the Pope became a powerful political force.

*I should note that it is impossible to speak as authoritative when it comes to what Anglicans believe. However, I believe that this post would be agreeable to most Anglicans.

Very nice (name removed by moderator)ut, thank you (and I needed some company). I like the “first amongst equals” for Peter as you put it.

 

[benhur]

Ben,

First of all, thank you for participating. It is not easy to challenge your knowledge at somebody else’s court . I do appreciate the dialogue. God Bless you.

I am about to start Cardinal Newman’s - An Essay on the Development of Christian Doctrine.

I have, for the most part, understood that doctrine develops. I see it as something that happens naturally.

The Church is mostly re-active in matters of doctrine. Meaning that She has to react and set the record straight when there are attacks on our beliefs or new beliefs arise that try to present consistency with Church doctrine when it doesn’t.

So naturally, there is development. I am not going to even try to pretend that things in the 1st century Church were the same as in the 21st century Church. But in fact, it can be demonstrated with Scripture, History and Reason that we are the same Church. In an imperfect way, since we are divided and wounded by losing too many brothers and sisters. And we are still pilgrims on earth.

One thing we have to keep in mind is that quotes from an ECF here and an ECF there that might present a support to a particular point of view - might not agree with the Church as a Whole. So when reading the ECF’s (Or anyone in the Church really), one must look at what the Church as a Whole has said, if anything, to that regard.

Peace,

Thank you for your encouraging tone, and agreement on “developing”. I do understand that for most everything the CC has put forth biblical support as well as patristic writings and of course reason. Happy readings (Newman’s book). I like Francis Schaeffer.

 

[benhur]

Patristic writings led me to the CC. I would highly recommend those writings to every protestant; good stuff. BTW, all of those writers belonged to the CC. If the CC is good enough for them…

Yes, I have heard of their influence (like on Newman)…Yet for every reader who goes this way, another goes that way with overall interpretation and impression (CS Lewis or Spurgeon).

 

[benhur]

I cannot get a definitive answer about the Eucharist (real presence vs symbolic) by deferring to the CC councils, scripture via my interpretation, parents and pastors of each respective PC and CC as well as history.

How did the Catholic Church settle the matter on the Trinity definitively, when people were challenging the teaching i.e. who dogmatized the Trinity?

Again a multitude of counselors. And where you sit is where you stand. That is, people had an opinion already . I have heard that you train FBI counterfeit agents by showing them real money all day long. After awhile you stick in a counterfeit and it jumps out at them.(They had a strong opinion of what was real)… I think they relied pretty much on scriptural reasoning (both sides)…Again all divine illumination as He so graces. ( I can not get a definitive answer from any sourceby myself either.)

 

[Isaiah45_9]

Anglicans tend to consider themselves to be a part of the historic Catholic Church as well. However, being isolated to the British isles, the Church in England was not under the direct thumb of the Papacy and the Church in England developed a bit apart from the Church in Europe. The power of the Papacy never fully reached the British isles and there is a history of contention between the Church in England and the Papacy that goes back 100s of years before the split. All of this came to a head with the request of annulment by King Henry VIII. King Henry had a good case for annulment, however, Spain was a lot closer to Rome than England and Spain had already proved itself a threat to Rome. Not to mention, Catharine of Aragon was Spanish. Thus, for political reasons, the King was denied his annulment. Not suprisingly, this greatly upset King Henry (who needed a male heir for political stability) and he started the process of making himself the head of the Church in England. This is a short and imperfect history, but the Church of England was NOT founded by a man who wanted a divorce, it’s just not that simple.

Yes, it is not that simple.

Especially when we consider that Pope Gregory the Great sent Augustine of Canterbury (1st Archibishop of Canterbury) to the mission that arrived in England around 597AD in what was known as Regnum Cantuariorum. (Kingdom of Kent?).

It doesn’t get any more Popish than that, so to say that the power of the papacy didn’t fully reach Brittania is a really big fat envelope to push under the door.

As for the whole Henry VIII issue - I take a back seat to GKC.

At the end of the day, Anglicans believe in the holy Catholic and Apostolic Church. Anglicans also tend to believe that the Papacy developed as a political office and went from being “first among equals” to basically a European Monarchy with absolute power. If one examines history, all we can really say is that it is possible that the Bishop of Rome was the first among equals, however, there is scant evidence and mostly forgeries that suggest anything else.

To say that the Papal office developed as a political office is a gross misrepresentation of history and it would have to ignore, not only Scriptures, but the unity of the Church under one visible head on earth and how it has actually been an effective historical advantage to defend matters of the faith. You also need to demonstrate how this developed as a political office.

Also, I am now obliged to call you on your scant evidence and mostly (It has to be over 51% in order to qualify as most) forgeries that you appeal to.

Therefore, Anglicans tend to see themselves as being the Church before the Church went astray. Remember, there was a Church in England before the Pope became a powerful political force.

This is you personal opinion and you are entitled to it.

Can you name when, where and how did the Church go astray? That is after all the OP and what I am demanding proof of.

*I should note that it is impossible to speak as authoritative when it comes to what Anglicans believe. However, I believe that this post would be agreeable to most Anglicans.

That is a great blanket waiver…

So I wait for the evidence.

 

[benhur]

Have you had your will read yet?
Why not? Oh, because you are still alive!

Scripture (besides the fact that not every truth must appear in scripture) doesn’t record St. Peter’s death, so why would it record the passing of the batton, to use your words?

However, the ECF record just such a thing.

Clement of Rome
Our Apostles knew through our Lord Jesus Christ that there would be strife for the office of bishop. For this reason, therefore, having received perfect foreknowledge, they appointed those who have already been mentioned, and afterwards added the further provision that, if they should die, other approved men should succeed to their ministry (Letter to the Corinthians 44:1 [A.D. 95]).

Ignatius of Antioch
You must all follow the bishop as Jesus Christ follows the Father, and the presbytery as you would the Apostles. Reverence the deacons as you would the command of God. Let no one do anything of concern to the Church without the bishop. Let that be considered a valid Eucharist which is celebrated by the bishop, or by one whom he appoints. Wherever the bishop appears, let the people be there; just as wherever Jesus Christ is, there is the Catholic Church (Letter to the Smyrnaeans 8:1 [A.D. 110]).

Irenaeus
It is possible, then, for everyone in every Church, who may wish to know the truth, to contemplate the tradition of the Apostles which has been made known throughout the whole world. And we are in a position to enumerate those who were instituted bishops by the Apostles, and their successors to our own times: men who neither knew nor taught anything like these heretics rave about. For if the Apostles had known hidden mysteries which they taught to the elite secretly and apart from the rest, they would have handed them down especially to those very ones to whom they were committing the self-same Churches. For surely they wished all those and their successors to be perfect and without reproach, to whom they handed on their authority (Against Heresies 3:3:1 [A.D. 180-199]).

It is necessary to obey those who are the presbyters in the Church, those who, as we have shown, have succession from the Apostles; those who have received, with the succession of the episcopate, the sure charism of truth according to the good pleasure of the Father. But the rest, who have no part in the primitive succession and assemble wheresoever they will, must be held in suspicion (ibid 4:26:2).

Your sources deal with succession of the apostles and differing churches/areas/cities and their bishops. Ignatius does not mention a head bishop, not any bishop of Rome . He does mention other “city” bishops by name .