Were the NT churches independent or One?

[JRKH]

A monarchy headed by one individual called the pope was not what Christ bequeathed to His Apostles. In the Book of Acts, nine epistles of Paul and 1st Peter, it is evident that there were many churches, each independent of the others,** all comprising the one Church whose unifying element was common faith in Jesus, His atoning sacrifice, and His bodily resurrection.**

(Blue Highlight mine)
I believe I have read the same Bible books as you have and find just the opposite. That the churches in the various cities were NOT doctrinally independent. You say it is evident, and I say it is not. Furthermore, if the many pages of this thread show ANYTHING, they show that it is NOT evident. If it were evident, we would not be having this discussion.

That the existence of numerous independent churches met with Christ’s approval is supported by our Lord’s letters to seven of them in the book of Revelation. He did not address one letter to one church ruled by one bishop occupying a position of supremacy over all the churches. He addressed seven letters to seven “Messengers” who were the leaders of seven separate independent churches; and He revealed His very presence among them. “These things saith he that holdeth the seven stars in his right hand, who walketh in the midst of the seven golden candlesticks,” (Rev 2:1) In his Galatians epistle, Paul acknowledges a multiplicity of churches in that area alone by addressing his letter “unto the churches of Galatia.” (Gal 1:2)

Truthfully I am not well versed in the book of revelation, but a couple of questions came to mind as I read the above.
First:
One letter is written to The Church in each city. So who is the letter to be delivered to? the Catholics? the Baptists? the Methodists? the Lutherans? the Pentacostals? the Presbyterians? the Episcopalians? the Seventh Day Adventists? the Mormons? etc.
Two:
There are Seven Letters written which, if we follow the idea of each city representing a different and independent “Church” are we to assume that there are only seven legitimate churches in existance today? If so which are they?

Peace
James

 

[JRKH]

Over the many pages of discussion here, there has been the consistant theme by some that the churches in the various cities were totally independent of any outside authority. In light of such a proposal, I should like to ask a couple of things.

1. It has been mentioned that “Church” does not refer to a building or institution and that the early Churches were “House churches” as shown in some Bible verses. Of course each city had many more converts than would fit into a single house, so there would have needed to be many “house churches” in each city.
   This begs the question, were each of these “house churches” independent of the others?
2. Each city had a Bishop who was appointed by one of the Apostles. Did this Bishop have authority over the various “house Churches”. In other words were all of the “churches” in one city under the authority of one bishop?
3. If the Bishop had authority over the house churches in his city, what should happen if one rejected the authority of the Bishop? Should it be allowed to continue to function outside of that authority?

Peace
James

 

[JacobG]

(Originally by JacobG)—
Since the days of the Apostles, eastern churches have maintained absolute independence from Rome, and do not embrace Catholicism’s “Patchwork Gospel.” (adding on traditions thru the centuries)

Randy Carson said:

If you feel this is the case, be sure to start a thread on each tradition that is illegitimate in your opinion, and we’ll be happy to review the facts with you.

No, thanks, I don’t need the roman catholic position on this. I let the church fathers and Christian history speak for itself.

 

[Randy_Carson]

Randy Carson said:

No, thanks, I don’t need the roman catholic position on this. I let the church fathers and Christian history speak for itself.

Your assertion was that the Catholic Church preaches a “patchwork gospel” of traditions that have been added on.

Prove it.

 

[wisdomseeker]

Randy Carson said:

No, thanks, I don’t need the roman catholic position on this. I let the church fathers and Christian history speak for itself.

i would love to have you name the Fathers of the Church that support your assumption of indepedent churches. which one would support protestant churches? St Augustine?
St Ambrosio? St Athanasius? St Clement? who?

read this if you are not afraid of the Truth.

zuserver2.star.ucl.ac.uk/~vgg/rc/aplgtc/hahn/m3/4mrka.html

 

[steve_b]

No, thanks, I don’t need the roman catholic position on this. I let the church fathers and Christian history speak for itself.

news flash. They were Catholic. That’s why the creed says “we believe in One Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church”. It’s an article of faith.

 

[swords99]

Even the roman catholic church has proven there cannot be one church, one faith. It can’t happen because humans are fallible. Just look at the great schism between the east and west which has not reunited to this day.

One of the biggest differences between the Catholics and Orthodox is the doctrine that the popes of Rome have absolute authority over all other bishops throughout Christianity and that they are infallible in matters of doctrine. Both dogmas had never existed until the 9th century, when more and more Roman popes were seeking to assert their spiritual authority. Eastern Orthodoxy cannot accept such beliefs because these ideals were never part of the early Church! Early Christian bishops, including Eastern Orthodox ones, have always utilized a consensus of opinions and spiritual authority, usually by council or synod.

In the 5th century came a new doctrine called the Filioque, which is the name of an additional phrase of the Nicene Creed that says, “and the Son”. The Nicene Creed originally said, “I believe in the Holy Spirit, who proceeds from the Father.” The Filioque makes the Creed say, “I believe in the Holy Spirit, who proceeds from the Father and the Son.” This new phrase became more and more accepted in the west over the centuries until the 9th-10th centuries when more and more popes began to declare it divinely inspired. This phrase created a false perception of the Trinity, as though there is a hierarchical structure to the Trinity, rather than a perfect Triad. This is why Eastern Orthodoxy cannot accept this new doctrine.

The catholic church began to believe in another new doctrine, which states that the Virgin Mary was conceived and born without sin. The early Church, including Eastern Orthodoxy, believes that the Virgin Mary was capable of sinning,

The Catholic church about 1000 years ago decided to force all priests to be celibate. But the Orthodox church continues to practice the apostolic tradition of married priests.

The list of differences continues. But the point is there cannot be one church, infallible or otherwise. There is, however, a unity of believers in Jesus Christ everywhere, but no church is perfect. Its not a specific church, but true believers that Christ is coming back for. This includes many Christians who are Baptist, Methodist, Presbyterian, Mennonite, Amish, etc. etc.

Read Acts 16:30, 31. It tells you why many of those of different faiths have eternal salvation. It has nothing to do with what church they go to, but their faith in Jesus Christ.

Jesus is LORD

 

[wisdomseeker]

Even the roman catholic church has proven there cannot be one church, one faith. It can’t happen because humans are fallible. Just look at the great schism between the east and west which has not reunited to this day.

One of the biggest differences between the Catholics and Orthodox is the doctrine that the popes of Rome have absolute authority over all other bishops throughout Christianity and that they are infallible in matters of doctrine. Both dogmas had never existed until the 9th century, when more and more Roman popes were seeking to assert their spiritual authority. Eastern Orthodoxy cannot accept such beliefs because these ideals were never part of the early Church! Early Christian bishops, including Eastern Orthodox ones, have always utilized a consensus of opinions and spiritual authority, usually by council or synod.

In the 5th century came a new doctrine called the Filioque, which is the name of an additional phrase of the Nicene Creed that says, “and the Son”. The Nicene Creed originally said, “I believe in the Holy Spirit, who proceeds from the Father.” The Filioque makes the Creed say, “I believe in the Holy Spirit, who proceeds from the Father and the Son.” This new phrase became more and more accepted in the west over the centuries until the 9th-10th centuries when more and more popes began to declare it divinely inspired. This phrase created a false perception of the Trinity, as though there is a hierarchical structure to the Trinity, rather than a perfect Triad. This is why Eastern Orthodoxy cannot accept this new doctrine.

The catholic church began to believe in another new doctrine, which states that the Virgin Mary was conceived and born without sin. The early Church, including Eastern Orthodoxy, believes that the Virgin Mary was capable of sinning,

The Catholic church about 1000 years ago decided to force all priests to be celibate. But the Orthodox church continues to practice the apostolic tradition of married priests.

The list of differences continues. But the point is there cannot be one church, infallible or otherwise. There is, however, a unity of believers in Jesus Christ everywhere, but no church is perfect. Its not a specific church, but true believers that Christ is coming back for. This includes many Christians who are Baptist, Methodist, Presbyterian, Mennonite, Amish, etc. etc.

Read Acts 16:30, 31. It tells you why many of those of different faiths have eternal salvation. It has nothing to do with what church they go to, but their faith in Jesus Christ.

Jesus is LORD

their faith in Jesus the Christ and also we must believe all that He tought and believe all He said. something one cannot know or understand by just reading the Bible.

**
“I should not believe the Gospel except as moved by the authority of the Catholic Church.”
Saint Augustine (354-430), Against the Letter of Mani, 5,6, 397 A.D…**

 

[Philthy]

Even the roman catholic church has proven there cannot be one church, one faith. It can’t happen because humans are fallible. Just look at the great schism between the east and west which has not reunited to this day.

So could you sum up why the fact that several churches have split off the Catholic Church leads you to the conclusion that there cannot be One, Holy, Apostolic Church?
How does the fact that people will disagree negate the validity of One, Holy, Apostolic Church? It seems to me that your conclusion and your premise are one in the same.

Peace be with you

 

[Randy_Carson]

The catholic church began to believe in another new doctrine, which states that the Virgin Mary was conceived and born without sin.

When did this happen?

Consider the following quotes and note well the dates:

Hippolytus

He [Jesus] was the ark formed of incorruptible wood. For by this is signified that His tabernacle [Mary] was exempt from defilement and corruption (*Orat. In Illud, Dominus pascit me, in Gallandi, Bibl. Patrum, II, 496 *ante [A.D. 235]).

---

Origen

This Virgin Mother of the Only-begotten of God is called Mary, worthy of God, immaculate of the immaculate, one of the one (Homily 1 [A.D. 244]).

---

St. Ambrose of Milan (340-397)

Come, then, and search out Your sheep, not through Your servants or hired men, but do it Yourself. Lift me up bodily and in the flesh, which is fallen in Adam. Lift me up not from Sara but from Mary, a Virgin not only undefiled but a Virgin whom grace has made inviolate, free from every stain of sin (ut incorrupta sit virgo, sed virgo per gratium ab omni integra labe peccati)." (Commentary on Psalm 118, 22-30, 387 A.D.)

Now, should we suppose that Hippolytus just made the whole thing up at the beginning of the second century?

If so, Sword, where are the writings in opposition to this new heresy? Produce them for us if you can.

Or should we have confidence that the Church understood that Mary was sinless from the days of the Apostles (which turns out to have been only 100 years or so before the time that Hippolytus wrote)?

If it helps to put this time lapse in perspective, do you think that we have reasonably accurate information today about events occuring during the Civil War?

 

[yankee_drifter]

Before 590 AD, and Gregory the 1st, there was no centralized Roman authority. It was not until the 10th century, when the eastern and western churches split, that there was anything known as the Roman Catholic Church. Tenth century of the Christian Era. Even roman catholic apologists admit the difficulty in being able to prove that the RCC existed in the 1st century or even the 2nd. All they have is a list of bishops. But prior to 590, there wasn’t any primacy of the Roman Bishop. He was treated the same as any of the other prominent Bishops within the various early Councils of the ancient universal Church.

If Roman Catholic teaching is correct and has been accepted throughout the history of the Church as orthodox, then the popes should have always exercised supreme authority over the Church and all Church Councils. We should find this historically acknowledged by the Councils both in teaching and proceedings. But what was the attitude of the Ecumenical Councils towards the bishops of Rome? The councils never viewed the position of the bishop of Rome as one of supreme authority over the Church.

The Councils, in fact, always operated independently of Rome and with authority derived, in their view, directly from the Holy Spirit, and not in any sense dependent on Roman approval. Contrary to seeing themselves under the authority of the Roman see, the Councils viewed the roman bishops (or popes) as subject to the authority of the Council itself.

At the Council of Nicea, Canon 6 of this Council demonstrates that the church of Rome had a very limited jurisdiction which was not universal.

If these councils were roman catholic councils, then the pope would have rule and final say. Instead these were Christian councils which got together to defend against heresies.

This shows there was not one church, but groups of Christians that went by different names.

 

[crazzeto]

Yankee, I’d like to see you tell that to the Bishops at the Counsole of Chalcedon who shouted “This is the faith of the Apostles, this is the faith we believe, Peter has truely spoken through Pope Leo I”.

 

[JRKH]

Before 590 AD, and Gregory the 1st, there was no centralized Roman authority. It was not until the 10th century, when the eastern and western churches split, that there was anything known as the Roman Catholic Church. Tenth century of the Christian Era. Even roman catholic apologists admit the difficulty in being able to prove that the RCC existed in the 1st century or even the 2nd. All they have is a list of bishops. But prior to 590, there wasn’t any primacy of the Roman Bishop. He was treated the same as any of the other prominent Bishops within the various early Councils of the ancient universal Church.

If Roman Catholic teaching is correct and has been accepted throughout the history of the Church as orthodox, then the popes should have always exercised supreme authority over the Church and all Church Councils. We should find this historically acknowledged by the Councils both in teaching and proceedings. But what was the attitude of the Ecumenical Councils towards the bishops of Rome? The councils never viewed the position of the bishop of Rome as one of supreme authority over the Church.

The Councils, in fact, always operated independently of Rome and with authority derived, in their view, directly from the Holy Spirit, and not in any sense dependent on Roman approval. Contrary to seeing themselves under the authority of the Roman see, the Councils viewed the roman bishops (or popes) as subject to the authority of the Council itself.

At the Council of Nicea, Canon 6 of this Council demonstrates that the church of Rome had a very limited jurisdiction which was not universal.

If these councils were roman catholic councils, then the pope would have rule and final say. Instead these were Christian councils which got together to defend against heresies.

This shows there was not one church, but groups of Christians that went by different names.

I find nothing in what you wrote above that proves that the early Churches were independent.

The very forst thing I note is how you seem to feel that the Pope, if there was one, should have been excerizing, “supreme authority over the Church and all Church Councils.” Which of course id contrary to the teachings of Christ which the Apostles followed, “The Greatest among you shall be the servant of the others.”
So when we look at the council of Jerusalem and don’t see Peter “Laying down the Law” as it were, I see humility from the leader of the Church and you see evidence that he was NOT the leader of the Church.
It’s Kind of a double standard don’t you think that you believe the Church leaders should be servants but then require evidence of their “Lording it over others” to prove their leadership.

The second thing I see is that you refer to Church councils and their views of the authority of the Roman pontiff as evidence that the Early Church(es) were independant. Yet the very fact of the councils proves otherwise. Regardless of how one feels about the authority of the Church in Rome, the fact that in the first thousand years of the Christian era, there were numerous councils, beinning with the council of Jerusalem, that dealt with doctrinal issues, heresies, the defining of the biblical canon, and structural issues proves, not that the churches were seperate and independent but that they were a single and interdepentant Church.

The very sources you wish to use to defend the independence of the Early Church(es) disproves your point.

Peace
James

 

[Randy_Carson]

Before 590 AD, and Gregory the 1st, there was no centralized Roman authority. It was not until the 10th century, when the eastern and western churches split, that there was anything known as the Roman Catholic Church. Tenth century of the Christian Era. Even roman catholic apologists admit the difficulty in being able to prove that the RCC existed in the 1st century or even the 2nd. All they have is a list of bishops. But prior to 590, there wasn’t any primacy of the Roman Bishop. He was treated the same as any of the other prominent Bishops within the various early Councils of the ancient universal Church.

If Roman Catholic teaching is correct and has been accepted throughout the history of the Church as orthodox, then the popes should have always exercised supreme authority over the Church and all Church Councils. We should find this historically acknowledged by the Councils both in teaching and proceedings. But what was the attitude of the Ecumenical Councils towards the bishops of Rome? The councils never viewed the position of the bishop of Rome as one of supreme authority over the Church.

The Councils, in fact, always operated independently of Rome and with authority derived, in their view, directly from the Holy Spirit, and not in any sense dependent on Roman approval. Contrary to seeing themselves under the authority of the Roman see, the Councils viewed the roman bishops (or popes) as subject to the authority of the Council itself.

At the Council of Nicea, Canon 6 of this Council demonstrates that the church of Rome had a very limited jurisdiction which was not universal.

If these councils were roman catholic councils, then the pope would have rule and final say. Instead these were Christian councils which got together to defend against heresies.

This shows there was not one church, but groups of Christians that went by different names.

Notice how Yankee_drifter provides no links to the sites where he got his information, no references to books that can be used to fact-check, no names, dates, nothing. He simply makes his assertions and expects the reader to accept them as fact.

This is typical: “Even roman catholic apologists admit the difficulty in being able to prove that the RCC existed in the 1st century or even the 2nd.” Really? Has anyone ever read a book by Armstrong, Keating, Madrid, Ray, Shea, or any other Catholic Apologist who “admitted” anything like this?

Let’s see what the earliest Christians had to say about the Primacy of Rome, okay?

Clement of Rome
Accept our counsel and you will have nothing to regret. . . . If anyone disobeys the things which have been said by him [Jesus] through us, let them know that they will involve themselves in no small danger. We, however, shall be innocent of this sin and will pray with entreaty and supplication that the Creator of all may keep unharmed the number of his elect (Letter to the Corinthians 58:2, 59:1[A.D. 95]).

Ignatius of Antioch
You [the See of Rome] have envied no one, but others have you taught. I desire only that what you have enjoined in your instructions may remain in force (Epistle to the Romans 3:1 [A.D. 110]).

Irenaeus
But since it would be too long to enumerate in such a volume as this the succession of all the churches, we shall confound all those who, in whatever manner, whether through self-satisfaction or vainglory, or through blindness and wicked opinion, assemble other than where it is proper, by pointing out here the successions of the bishops of the greatest and most ancient church known to all, founded and organized at Rome by the two most glorious apostles. Peter and Paul, that church which has the tradition and the faith which comes down to us after having been announced to men by the apostles. With that church, because of its superior origin, all the churches must agree, that is, all the faithful in the whole world, and it is in her that the faithful everywhere have maintained the apostolic tradition (Against Heresies 3:3:2 [inter A.D. 180-190]).

Regarding that quote, I believe the appropriate word here is “Booyah!” :extrahappy:

Clement of Alexandria
[T]he blessed Peter, the chosen, the preeminent, the first among the disciples, for whom alone with himself the Savior paid the tribute [Matt. 17:27], quickly grasped and understood their meaning. And what does he say? “Behold, we have left all and have followed you” [Matt. 19:2 7, Mark 10:28] (Who is the Rich Man That is Saved? 21:3-5 [A.D. 200]).

Tertullian
[T]he Lord said to Peter, “On this rock I will build my Church, I have given you the keys of the kingdom of heaven [and] whatever you shall have bound or loosed on earth will be bound or loosed in heaven” [Matt. 16:18-19]. … Upon you, he says, I will build my Church; and I will give to you the keys, not to the Church; and whatever you shall have bound or you shall have loosed, not what they shall have bound or they shall have loosed (*Modesty *21:9-10 [A.D. 220]).

Letter of Clement to James
Be it known to you, my lord, that Simon [Peter], who, for the sake of the true faith, and the most sure foundation of his doctrine, was set apart to be the foundation of the Church, and for this end was by Jesus himself, with his truthful mouth, named Peter, the first-fruits of our Lord, the first of the apostles; to whom first the Father revealed the Son; whom the Christ, with good reason, blessed; the called, and elect (Letter of Clement to James 2 [A.D, 221]).

Now, that only takes us up to the early 2nd century…there’s lots more, of course.

 

[Holly3278]

They were one united under St. Peter, the first Pope and their bishops.

 

[Philthy]

Even roman catholic apologists admit the difficulty in being able to prove that the RCC existed in the 1st century or even the 2nd. All they have is a list of bishops. But prior to 590, there wasn’t any primacy of the Roman Bishop. He was treated the same as any of the other prominent Bishops within the various early Councils of the ancient universal Church…This shows there was not one church, but groups of Christians that went by different names.

I have to agree with Randy: Your comments lack a verifiable basis in fact. You throw this inaccurate, unsubstantiated, inflammatory material out as if you have earned some level of intellectual respect and that we should accept it as true. I don’t think I am going too far out on a limb to suggest that you havent even remotely earned that respect. To the contrary you have once again, with these very claims, proven yourself ignorant of the facts. Exposing your historical and illogical innaccuracies is rather like swatting and crushing a fly only to have it return with its annoying buzz.

**My prediction - based on your past behavior - is that rather than engage in a meaninful exchange, you will not even begin to address the powerful refutation of your position offered by Randy and others. Let us see if my appraisal is so accurate as to be capable of predicting the futute, shall we?
**
Do you disagree with the quotes of the ECFs Randy provided? Do you question their validity? Do you question their relevance to the discussion? These are the types of issues that one who was seeking to lead others to the truth would address. You never do. As I mentioned before YD, I present my comments for those actually seeking the truth and not to embarrass you.

Peace be with you

 

[steve_b]

Even the roman catholic church has proven there cannot be one church, one faith. It can’t happen because humans are fallible. Just look at the great schism between the east and west which has not reunited to this day.

Re: schism, All you show is that people make screw ball decisions when they divide from the Church. Division from the Church is condemned in scripture you know, as well as the ones who divide. Division has nothing to do with the infallibility of the Church. Individual Heretics are the ones in trouble. Get it?

The Church is ONE who is united to the chair of Peter. That’s what Jesus taught. He wanted His apostles to gather behind Peter. Bottomline, Those who aren’t in ONE with the Church need to be concerned… It’s a test of faith.
s:

One of the biggest differences between the Catholics and Orthodox is the doctrine that the popes of Rome have absolute authority over all other bishops throughout Christianity

you overstate
s:

and that they are infallible in matters of doctrine.
Both dogmas had never existed until the 9th century, when more and more Roman popes were seeking to assert their spiritual authority.

• In the upper room, the night before He was to die, did Jesus say all the apostles were to confirm each other? Or did Jesus select Peter specifically to confirm the rest?
• After His resurrection but before His ascension back to heaven, who did Jesus single out AGAIN in front of all His apostles to give the commisiion to feed and rule His Church? It was Peter

http://forums.catholic-questions.org/showpost.php?p=5744432&postcount=59
http://forums.catholic-questions.org/showpost.php?p=5744436&postcount=60

This was His last will and testement…
s:

Eastern Orthodoxy cannot accept such beliefs because these ideals were never part of the early Church! Early Christian bishops, including Eastern Orthodox ones, have always utilized a consensus of opinions and spiritual authority, usually by council or synod.

There ARE Eastern Orthodox who have reunited with Rome. These are Eastern rite Catholics. The others remain in schism.
s:

In the 5th century came a new doctrine called the Filioque, which is the name of an additional phrase of the Nicene Creed that says, “and the Son”. The Nicene Creed originally said, “I believe in the Holy Spirit, who proceeds from the Father.” The Filioque makes the Creed say, “I believe in the Holy Spirit, who proceeds from the Father and the Son.” This new phrase became more and more accepted in the west over the centuries until the 9th-10th centuries when more and more popes began to declare it divinely inspired. This phrase created a false perception of the Trinity, as though there is a hierarchical structure to the Trinity, rather than a perfect Triad. This is why Eastern Orthodoxy cannot accept this new doctrine.

Explain
s:

The catholic church began to believe in another new doctrine, which states that the Virgin Mary was conceived and born without sin. The early Church, including Eastern Orthodoxy, believes that the Virgin Mary was capable of sinning,

The EO believe the BVM is sinless. No stain of sin is in her. Period dot end of sentence.
s:

The Catholic church about 1000 years ago decided to force all priests to be celibate. But the Orthodox church continues to practice the apostolic tradition of married priests.

In EO. they have THEIR disciplines.

In the Catholic Church, celibacy is the rule. It is a discipline, NOT a dogma or doctrine. And it has scriptural support.
s:

The list of differences continues. But the point is there cannot be one church, infallible or otherwise.

Who are you kidding? There IS one Church now. And it is infallible. The Catholic Church. United by the Chair of Peter. Those united to the Church are ONE.
s:

There is, however, a unity of believers in Jesus Christ everywhere, but no church is perfect. Its not a specific church, but true believers that Christ is coming back for. This includes many Christians who are Baptist, Methodist, Presbyterian, Mennonite, Amish, etc. etc.

Those you name aren’t a Church or Churches. You might call yourself Church but you’re not. They are communities of christians. And any truth you have you received from the Catholic Church.

vatican.va/roman_curia/congregations/cfaith/documents/rc_con_cfaith_doc_20000806_dominus-iesus_en.html
s:

Read Acts 16:30, 31. It tells you why many of those of different faiths have eternal salvation. It has nothing to do with what church they go to, but their faith in Jesus Christ.

Jesus is LORD

Acts 16:30-31

30 and brought them out and said, “Men, what must I do to be saved?” 31 And they said, “Believe in the Lord Jesus, and you will be saved, you and your household.”

32 And they spoke the word of the Lord to him and to all that were in his house.

That’s a nice summary statement. It assumes however, one is taught and does EVERYTHING Jesus taught. That’s why it just didn’t stop with v31. They taught them what it means to believe in Jesus thus v32. It doesn’t tell us how long it took to catechize them. But it’s safe to say, they taught them everything, and If one thinks that household didn’t need to DO what Jesus taught they can’t say they know Jesus or believe in Jesus NOR can they say Jesus is Lord.

 

[yankee_drifter]

Crazzeto,

Show me with documentation that all the church councils were roman catholic. Show that in every one Rome and the pope had complete rule and final say.

Your denials cannot change the facts of history. Look at the council of Hippo, it definitely was not a Roman Catholic council. It consisted only of North African pastors. Rome had nothing to do with it.

If one went into a church today, and discovered that the people gathered there did not believe in the papacy, did not believe in the Immaculate Conception of Mary, the Bodily Assumption of Mary, purgatory, indulgences, did not believe in the concept of transubstantiation replete with the communion host’s total change in accidence and substance, and had no tabernacles on the altars in their churches, would one think he or she was in a “Roman Catholic” church?

Of course not. Yet, the church before 325 AD had none of these beliefs, either. While they called themselves “catholics” at that time, they would not have had any idea what “Roman Catholic” meant

(Wonders if crazzeto and randy c. are one and the same person).

 

[JRKH]

Crazzeto,

Show me with documentation that all the church councils were roman catholic. Show that in every one Rome and the pope had complete rule and final say.

Your denials cannot change the facts of history. Look at the council of Hippo, it definitely was not a Roman Catholic council. It consisted only of North African pastors. Rome had nothing to do with it.

If one went into a church today, and discovered that the people gathered there did not believe in the papacy, did not believe in the Immaculate Conception of Mary, the Bodily Assumption of Mary, purgatory, indulgences, did not believe in the concept of transubstantiation replete with the communion host’s total change in accidence and substance, and had no tabernacles on the altars in their churches, would one think he or she was in a “Roman Catholic” church?

Of course not. Yet, the church before 325 AD had none of these beliefs, either. While they called themselves “catholics” at that time, they would not have had any idea what “Roman Catholic” meant

(Wonders if crazzeto and randy c. are one and the same person).

You certainly are hung up on this whole “Roman” thing aren’t you?

The initial thrust of this thread was whether the early Church communities were doctrinally independant or not. As I pointed out above, the fact that there have been so many councils, both regional and universal, demonstrates that the early Churches were NOT independent as you wish to assert.

And you are right, no amount of denials will change history. Randy and others have repeatedly shown you where the ECF’s assert beliefs that you claim did not come until later. Deny it all you want, but the facts remain that belief in the perpetual virginity, the immaculate conception, the real presence, and all the others are all ancient beliefs.

Peace
James

 

[Randy_Carson]

Crazzeto,

Show me with documentation that all the church councils were roman catholic. Show that in every one Rome and the pope had complete rule and final say.

Your denials cannot change the facts of history. Look at the council of Hippo, it definitely was not a Roman Catholic council. It consisted only of North African pastors. Rome had nothing to do with it.

“There was no general council of the entire Church held at any time in North Africa. There were, however, many national or plenary assemblies of bishops representing the North African Church. These are commonly called African or Carthaginian Synods, and are not to be confounded with the district or provincial assemblies, of which there were also very many in the separate provinces of North Africa.”

newadvent.org/cathen/01199a.htm

If one went into a church today, and discovered that the people gathered there did not believe in the papacy, did not believe in the Immaculate Conception of Mary, the Bodily Assumption of Mary, purgatory, indulgences, did not believe in the concept of transubstantiation replete with the communion host’s total change in accidence and substance, and had no tabernacles on the altars in their churches, would one think he or she was in a “Roman Catholic” church?

No. One would properly wonder if one were in a Christian Church at all. At least, that’s what the Fathers would ask. Which, of course, is why they would not be pleased with your church in the least.

Of course not. Yet, the church before 325 AD had none of these beliefs, either. While they called themselves “catholics” at that time, they would not have had any idea what “Roman Catholic” meant

If they called themselves “Catholics”, then the “C” would be capitalized as part of a proper noun.

Let’s see…325 AD is your new arbitrary cut-off date, is it? Okay, what did the ECF’s believe prior to 325 AD? This could take a few posts…

Early Church Fathers on the Primacy of Peter

**Clement of Alexandria **

“[T]he blessed Peter, the chosen, the preeminent, the first among the disciples, for whom alone with himself the Savior paid the tribute [Matt. 17:27], quickly grasped and understood their meaning. And what does he say? ‘Behold, we have left all and have followed you’” [Matt. 19:27, Mark 10:28] (*Who Is the Rich Man That is Saved? *21:3–5 [A.D. 200]).

**Tertullian **

“[T]he Lord said to Peter, ‘On this rock I will build my Church, I have given you the keys of the kingdom of heaven [and] whatever you shall have bound or loosed on earth will be bound or loosed in heaven’ [Matt. 16:18–19]. . . . Upon you, he says, I will build my Church; and I will give to *you *the keys, not to the Church; and whatever *you *shall have bound or *you *shall have loosed, not what they shall have bound or they shall have loosed” (Modesty 21:9–10 [A.D. 220]).

**Letter of Clement to James **

“Be it known to you, my lord, that Simon [Peter], who, for the sake of the true faith, and the most sure foundation of his doctrine, was set apart to be the foundation of the Church, and for this end was, by Jesus himself, with his truthful mouth, named Peter, the first-fruits of our Lord, the first of the apostles; to whom first the Father revealed the Son; whom the Christ, with good reason, blessed; the called, and elect” (Letter of Clement to James 2 [A.D. 221]).

Origen (248 A.D.)

"f we were to attend carefully to the Gospels, we should also find, in relation to those things which seem to be common to Peter . . . a great difference and a preeminence in the things [Jesus] said to Peter, compared with the second class [of apostles]. For it is no small difference that Peter received the keys not of one heaven but of more, and in order that whatsoever things he binds on earth may be bound not in one heaven but in them all, as compared with the many who bind on earth and loose on earth, so that these things are bound and loosed not in [all] the heavens, as in the case of Peter, but in one only; for they do not reach so high a stage with power as Peter to bind and loose in all the heavens" (Commentary on Matthew 13:31 [A.D. 248]).

Cyprian of Carthage (251 A.D.)

*“The Lord says to Peter: ‘I say to you,’ He says, ‘that you are Peter, and upon this rock I will build my Church, and the gates of hell will not overcome it. And to you I will give the keys of the kingdom of heaven: and whatever things you bind on earth shall be bound also in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth, they shall be loosed also in heaven.’ And again He says to him after His resurrection: ‘Feed my sheep.’ On him He builds the Church, and to him He gives the command to feed the sheep; and although He assigns a like power to all the Apostles, yet He founded a single chair, and He established by His own authority a source and an intrinsic reason for that unity. Indeed, the others were that also which Peter was; but a primacy is given to Peter, whereby it is made clear that there is but one Church and one chair. So too, all are shepherds, and the flock is shown to be one, fed by all the Apostles in single-minded accord. If someone does not hold fast to this unity of Peter, can he imagine that he still holds the faith? If he desert the chair of Peter upon whom the Church was built, can he still be confident that he is in the Church?” (*The Unity of the Catholic Church 4 *[A.D. 251]).

(cont.)*