The Visible, Hierarchial, Apostolic Church

[OneTrueCathApos]

In the Nicene Creed, which is accepted by most Christians, the Christian church is described as being “one, holy, Catholic, and apostolic.” These are known as the four marks of the true church. The notions of holiness and Catholicity are not much in dispute. All parties----while disagreeing on many particulars—concur that holiness is a central function of the church. Catholicity simply means “Universal”. Here Protestants and Catholics disagree only on the nature of that Church which is to be considered universal and all-encompessing.
This brings us to the oneness and apostolicity of the Church, where the disagreements are great. Most Protestants (especially evangelicals) see unity and oneness primarily or solely in the inner, visible, spiritual unity of those who are in fact in Christ by virtue of being justified, or “born again”, or regenerated. For them, the church consists of the Spirit-filled, predestined elect, who will perservere and are saved, now and in eternity.
The Catholic church has always proclaimed this also, under the broad and rich concept of the Mystical Church (under which it acknowledges Protestanism), yet it does not pit the Mystical church against the visible church as most evangelicals do.
Catholics also believe that bishops are by the intention of Jesus Christ, the successors of the Apostles. The CC traces itself back historically in an unbroken succession to the Apostles and the early church.
Catholics contend that the elders/presbyters in Scripture carry out all the functions of the Catholic priest:
Mark 6:7
John 15:5
Romans 10:15
2 Corinthians 5:20
Scripture above refers to sent and commissioned by Jesus.

Luke 10:16
John 13:20
Scripture above refers to Representatives of Jesus

Matthew 18:18
Scripture above refers to Authority to “bind and loose” (Pennance and Absolution)

Luke 24:47
John 20:21-23
2 Corinthians 2:5-11
James 5:15
Scripture above refers to Power to forgive sins in Jesus name, etc…

St. Paul also teaches us (Eph 2:20) that the church is built on the foundation of the apostles, whom Christ himself chose.
Even St. Clement who was Bishop of Rome teaches apostolic succession around 80 A.D.

Why is there such a fuss from Protestants which is the true church? So much Scripture and Sacred Tradition as evidence and accuracy confirms this.

 

[Eucharisted]

Examples of hierarchy are as back as the Apostolic times. If you read Acts, you find lots of instances of hierarchy.

For example, these verses show us there was a community of Christians and the Apostles were acknowledged as leaders of the community:

Acts 4
32 The community of believers was of one heart and mind, and no one claimed that any of his possessions was his own, but they had everything in common.
33 With great power the apostles bore witness to the resurrection of the Lord Jesus, and great favor was accorded them all.
34 There was no needy person among them, for those who owned property or houses would sell them, bring the proceeds of the sale,
35 and put them at the feet of the apostles, and they were distributed to each according to need.

In the next verses, we see the Apostles appointed deacons from among the disciples:

Acts 6
1 At that time, as the number of disciples continued to grow, the Hellenists complained against the Hebrews because their widows were being neglected in the daily distribution.
2 So the Twelve called together the community of the disciples and said, “It is not right for us to neglect the word of God to serve at table.
3 Brothers, select from among you seven reputable men, filled with the Spirit and wisdom, whom we shall appoint to this task,
4 whereas we shall devote ourselves to prayer and to the ministry of the word.”

In this verse, we see that presbyters (priests) were already common in the Church:

Acts 11
30 This they did, sending it to the presbyters in care of Barnabas and Saul.

In this next verse, we see the Christians had already considered themselves a church:

Acts 12
1 About that time King Herod laid hands upon some members of the church to harm them.

Furthermore, there were, in the Church, particular churches:

Acts 13
1 Now there were in the church at Antioch prophets and teachers: Barnabas, Symeon who was called Niger, Lucius of Cyrene, Manaen who was a close friend of Herod the tetrarch, and Saul.

 

[OneTrueCathApos]

Also, keep in mind that if the Apostles are bishops, and one of them was replaced by another, after the death, Resurrection, and Ascension of Christ, then we have an explicit example of apostolic succession in the Bible, taking place before 35 A.D.
St. Paul appears to pass on his office to Timothy (2 Tim 4:1-6), shortly before his death, around 65 A.D. This succession shows an authoritative equivalency between apostles and bishops, who are the successors of the apostles.
We are also informed in Scripture, that the church herself is perpetual, infallible, and indefectible (Matt. 16:18, John 14:26, 16:18).
why should the early church be set up in one form and the later church in another?

 

[Guyonthestreet]

In the Nicene Creed, which is accepted by most Christians, the Christian church is described as being “one, holy, Catholic, and apostolic.” These are known as the four marks of the true church. The notions of holiness and Catholicity are not much in dispute. All parties----while disagreeing on many particulars—concur that holiness is a central function of the church. Catholicity simply means “Universal”. Here Protestants and Catholics disagree only on the nature of that Church which is to be considered universal and all-encompessing.
This brings us to the oneness and apostolicity of the Church, where the disagreements … continued…

You cut and pasted the above from Dave Armstrong’s article.

The Visible, Hierarchical, Apostolic Church
By Dave Armstrong

In the Nicene Creed, which is accepted by most Christians, the Christian Church is described as being “one, holy, catholic, and apostolic.” These are known as the four marks of the Church. The notions of holiness and catholicity are not much in dispute. The mark of holiness may be defined as the possession, and dissemination of the sublime, holy, Christ-centered moral code of Christianity (as best exemplified by saints or otherwise great, godly figures). All parties - while disagreeing on many particulars - concur that this is a central function of the Church. Catholicity simply means universal. Here Protestants and Catholics disagree only on the nature of that Church which is to be considered universal and all-encompassing.
… cotinued…

The full article can be found here for anyone who wants to read the original, credited to the author, not plagerised by someone trying to sound like an apologist for the catholic church

quovadisyouth.org/newsletter%202.1.html

It’s very bad form to copy the work of another person and pass it off as your own, without giving them the credit.

 

[Harpazo]

In the Nicene Creed, which is accepted by most Christians, the Christian church is described as being “one, holy, Catholic, and apostolic.” These are known as the four marks of the true church. The notions of holiness and Catholicity are not much in dispute. All parties----while disagreeing on many particulars—concur that holiness is a central function of the church. Catholicity simply means “Universal”. Here Protestants and Catholics disagree only on the nature of that Church which is to be considered universal and all-encompessing.
This brings us to the oneness and apostolicity of the Church, where the disagreements are great. Most Protestants (especially evangelicals) see unity and oneness primarily or solely in the inner, visible, spiritual unity of those who are in fact in Christ by virtue of being justified, or “born again”, or regenerated. For them, the church consists of the Spirit-filled, predestined elect, who will perservere and are saved, now and in eternity.
The Catholic church has always proclaimed this also, under the broad and rich concept of the Mystical Church (under which it acknowledges Protestanism), yet it does not pit the Mystical church against the visible church as most evangelicals do.
Catholics also believe that bishops are by the intention of Jesus Christ, the successors of the Apostles. The CC traces itself back historically in an unbroken succession to the Apostles and the early church.
Catholics contend that the elders/presbyters in Scripture carry out all the functions of the Catholic priest:
Mark 6:7
John 15:5
Romans 10:15
2 Corinthians 5:20
Scripture above refers to sent and commissioned by Jesus.

Luke 10:16
John 13:20
Scripture above refers to Representatives of Jesus

Matthew 18:18
Scripture above refers to Authority to “bind and loose” (Pennance and Absolution)

Luke 24:47
John 20:21-23
2 Corinthians 2:5-11
James 5:15
Scripture above refers to Power to forgive sins in Jesus name, etc…

St. Paul also teaches us (Eph 2:20) that the church is built on the foundation of the apostles, whom Christ himself chose.
Even St. Clement who was Bishop of Rome teaches apostolic succession around 80 A.D.

Why is there such a fuss from Protestants which is the true church? So much Scripture and Sacred Tradition as evidence and accuracy confirms this.

Glory to Jesus Christ!

I wonder why there is such fuss myself. But generally, Protestants are content with where they are and the idea of the “true church” is not on their radar. It wasn’t on mine.

Just curious, why post it in this forum? Isn’t this forum for comparing and contrasting Non-Catholic Religions, as per the title of the forum?

In Christ,
Andrew

 

[Guyonthestreet]

Also, keep in mind that if the Apostles are bishops, and one of them was replaced by another, after the death, Resurrection, and Ascension of Christ, then we have an explicit example of apostolic succession in the Bible, taking place before 35 A.D.
St. Paul appears to pass on his office to Timothy (2 Tim 4:1-6), shortly before his death, around 65 A.D. This succession shows an authoritative equivalency between apostles and bishops, who are the successors of the apostles.
We are also informed in Scripture, that the church herself is perpetual, infallible, and indefectible (Matt. 16:18, John 14:26, 16:18).
why should the early church be set up in one form and the later church in another?

Once again, cut and pasted from another with some judicious editing on your part to make it sound like your own thoughts and work.

If the Apostles are bishops, and one of them was replaced by another, after the death, Resurrection, and Ascension of Christ, then we have an explicit example of apostolic succession in the Bible, taking place before 35 A.D. In like fashion, St. Paul appears to be passing on his office to Timothy (2 Timothy 4:1-6), shortly before his death, around 65 A.D. This succession shows an authoritative equivalency between Apostles and bishops, who are the successors of the Apostles. As a corollary, we are also informed in Scripture that the Church itself is perpetual, infallible, and indefectible (Matthew 16:18, John 14:26, 16:18). Why should the early Church be set up in one form and the later Church in another?

Taken from the Quo Vadis website:

quovadisyouth.org/newsletter%202.1.html

I’ve highlighted in red the words you edited out and added to the original article.

Bad bad form OneTrueAposCath -

For those intersted in the real author of the above, and his catholic apologetics see

biblicalcatholic.com

This guy is the real deal

 

[VARC]

LOL why did you plagerize someone else’s apologetic work? It reveals a sort of laziness and lack of sincerity on your part. You got busted. Next time, if you come across a point you like, either paraphrase and expound upon it or, if you insist on cutting and pasting, give the author the credit.

 

[gurneyhalleck1]

naughty naughty! In college that would be explusion time! LOL In my sixth grade classroom heads are gonna roll for doing that! lol

 

[Hesychios]

You cut and pasted the above …

Again?

Maybe she IS Dave Armstrong…ever think of that?

 

[Guyonthestreet]

Again?

Maybe she IS Dave Armstrong…ever think of that?

hmmmm… could be …

Oh no, wait …

…Dave Armstrong has integrity and credibility

 

[Hesychios]

Dave Armstrong has integrity and credibility

I used to read him a lot, and I printed a lot of his essays out for personal reference. He would send out appeals for support of his work, I was usually too broke to help.

I was a big fan of his. That is, until…

O nevermind.

 

[imjustme]

You cut and pasted the above from Dave Armstrong’s article.

The full article can be found here for anyone who wants to read the original, credited to the author, not plagerised by someone trying to sound like an apologist for the catholic church

quovadisyouth.org/newsletter%202.1.html

It’s very bad form to copy the work of another person and pass it off as your own, without giving them the credit.

Thanks for bringing that to our attention. Please note one difference between the original author and OneTrueCathApos’ version…the word “catholic” in the original is lower case and the OneTrueCathApos’ typed it “Catholic” with a capital letter. There is a HUGE difference…the word “catholic” was not meant to mean “Roman Catholic” or “Catholic” but “universal”.

As explained in wikipedia:

The Four Marks of the Church are a group of four adjectives—one, holy, catholic and apostolic—characteristics describing the marks or “notes” of the Christian church. The source is the Nicene Creed of A.D. 325 which contains the statement: "We believe in one holy, catholic and apostolic church. "

The word “catholic” means “universal”. It claims the universality of Christ’s church makes it open to all: all classes, both genders, all nationalities. It implies that the Body of Christ is not limited to a time, place, race or culture.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Four_Marks_of_the_Church#Catholic

 

[SSTeacher]

naughty naughty! In college that would be explusion time! LOL In my sixth grade classroom heads are gonna roll for doing that! lol

I was unable to find any reference to plagiarism in the Catechism of the Catholic Church. Does the Catholic Church teach that plagiarism is a sin (even if others don’t discover it) and therefore necessarily has to be confessed in auricular confession?

Curiously,
Mick

 

[JonNC]

Again?

Again is right. This is an ongoing practice, and she doesn’t seem to understand, no matter how often chastised, that it is just wrong. She has been told before that all she has to do is give credit: “I read this artcile from Dave Armstrong the other day, and he said…” Then post a link. I just don’t understand why she won’t do that.

Originally posted by imjustme:
Thanks for bringing that to our attention. Please note one difference between the original author and OneTrueCathApos’ version…the word “catholic” in the original is lower case and the OneTrueCathApos’ typed it “Catholic” with a capital letter. There is a HUGE difference…the word “catholic” was not meant to mean “Roman Catholic” or “Catholic” but “universal”.

The reason: there is a constant in her writing, and that is triumphalism.

Jon

 

[JonNC]

I was unable to find any reference to plagiarism in the Catechism of the Catholic Church. Does the Catholic Church teach that plagiarism is a sin (even if others don’t discover it) and therefore necessarily has to be confessed in auricular confession?

Curiously,
Mick

“Thou shalt not steal”

Jon

 

[Guyonthestreet]

“Thou shalt not steal”

Jon

Interstingly enough, the author of this piece would agree with you:

We should see plagiarism for what it truely is - thievery in the sight of God

from here:

triviumpursuit.com/articles/plagiarism.php

 

[gepnav]

OK, so this discussion has been derailed by the borrowing of text… but to return to the point, if I may…

Catholics point to the historicity of their hierarchical, formal church organization, showing that it goes back to Christ. As if Protestants were lurking over the hill in those days, refusing to recognize the church of Christ.

There weren’t any Protestants back then; we were one Christian faith and church, the one that assembled the Bible.

The question is: Who left the One True Way of Christ? Protestants are not impressed by claims that seem to center on the continuity of a human organization (the Roman Catholic Church), especially when that organization did some bad things that are at odds with the faith taught by Jesus. Obviously, for Protestants, the succession of Peter doesn’t trump each person’s and each congregation’s faith in the saving grace of Jesus Christ.

So Protestants basically see the Roman Catholic Church as the party that jumped off the ship. Ongoing accusations of idolatry and paganism (as unfair as they are) fuel this belief.

FWIW, this Protestant thinks that we have to overcome these silly divisions and come together as Christians.

 

[SSTeacher]

SSTeacher;5454103:

I was unable to find any reference to plagiarism

in the Catechism of the Catholic Church. Does the Catholic Church teach that plagiarism is a sin (even if others don’t discover it) and therefore necessarily has to be confessed in auricular confession?

Curiously,
Mick
“Thou shalt not steal”

Jon

Jon,

There’s more to it than that, though, surely? I’m wondering if for Catholics it might be a mortal sin.

Uncertainly,
Mick

 

[Hesychios]

Glory to Jesus Christ!

Hello gepnav,

Catholics point to the historicity of their hierarchical, formal church organization, showing that it goes back to Christ.

Actually, when they do this, it is often the case that they try to portray this as if they are the only church with a hierarchical church structure.

In fact they are merely one of several historic Apostolic churches, and the Roman Catholic version of organization is the most evolved of any.

The question is: Who left the One True Way of Christ? Protestants are not impressed by claims that seem to center on the continuity of a human organization (the Roman Catholic Church), especially when that organization did some bad things that are at odds with the faith taught by Jesus. Obviously, for Protestants, the succession of Peter doesn’t trump each person’s and each congregation’s faith in the saving grace of Jesus Christ.

So Protestants basically see the Roman Catholic Church as the party that jumped off the ship. Ongoing accusations of idolatry and paganism (as unfair as they are) fuel this belief.

FWIW, this Protestant thinks that we have to overcome these silly divisions and come together as Christians.

The hierarchical church structure, the sacraments and the received instruction of the Faith are common to all of the oldest churches. It predates the tolerance of Christianity under Constantine, it appeared in the infancy of the church before the faith spread across borders to non-Roman lands like ancient India and Persia.

The Holy Eucharist, and belief in the Real Presence of Christ in the Eucharist, is a universal in all of the ancient churches. The presence of men ‘set apart’ to confect the Eucharist is also universal. In fact all of the ancient churches have bishops, priests, deacons.

One common characteristic of these churches is the dogged determination to resist innovation in teachings, to conserve the beliefs left to us by the Apostles. Of all of these the Roman Catholic church has actually been the most liberal and tolerant of new interpretations, which when studied can give the impression (whether justified or not) of a church full of accretions and changes over time.

If there is ever to be unity in Christ, Christians of all types will have to take into account the constancy of the hierarchical form of church, and the innate conservativism of the early church. Dropping individual interpretation of scripture, and the idea that one man can proclaim dogma binding upon all we need to study what the early church actually taught.

So if a theological notion can be traced no further than the nineteenth century, it should be rejected, if no further back than the fifteenth century it should be abandoned, if no further back than the twelfth century it should be seriously challenged, if no further back than the eighth century it should be suspect. We need to go back as far as we can to replicate the church of the Fathers. Some time in the first one thousand years we will find the True Faith, in this case less is more. This is why so many people have been making a serious study of the early texts.

It is the model of return.

 

[O.S.Luke]

All I know is, I can’t get blamed for this one.