Were the NT churches independent or One?

[wisdomseeker]

In Christian theology the word “catholic” describes the entire church of Jesus Christ. All God’s people from every nation and in every era, all who are redeemed by the blood of Jesus, together form the catholic church.

The Lord Jesus has one universal - or catholic - church. He is the head, and all the redeemed are members of His body.

"...the church is subject to Christ...Christ also loved the church and gave Himself for her, that He might sanctify and cleanse her with the washing of water by the word, that He might present her to Himself a glorious church, not having spot or wrinkle or any such thing, but that she should be holy and without blemish...For we are members of His body, of His flesh and of His bones." (See Ephesians 5:24-30).

Aren’t Evangelical/Biblical Christians subject to Christ since they follow the teaching of His Word? Doesn’t Christ love them too? Didn’t He give Himself on the cross for them also? Yes of course, and therefore Evangelicals are members of His body, the catholic church! But when Rome boasts that it is the one and only true church of Christ, what shall we conclude? Shall we say that Christ loved and died for Roman Catholics only?

In the New Testament, every local congregation is called a church, and in this sense, there are many churches. The distinguishing feature of a true church of Christ is not the submission to the church of Rome, but faithfulness to the teaching of Christ and love for the brethren (John 8:31; John 13:35). The various churches we read about in the New Testament, though undoubtedly different in character and emphasis, recognized each other as members of the same one true church of Jesus Christ. They were genuinely catholic and universal in their outlook.

But claiming only the Roman church as the one true church of Christ, would immediately exclude the millions of faithful Christian churches. That is certainly against the spirit of catholicism we read in the Bible. John Gerstner argues:

Strictly speaking "Roman Catholic" is a contradiction of terms. Catholic means universal; Roman denotes a particular place. It is the Protestant and not the Romanist who believes in the catholic church. Protestants believe the church is universal or catholic; Rome cannot discover it beyond her own communion (Gerstner J., The Gospel According to Rome).

Protestants do not regard their denomination as the exclusive church of Jesus Christ, They regard other churches as valid manifestations of His Church, despite the differences in some doctrines and practices. They embrace all Christians as dear brothers and sisters in Christ despite the different denominational labels. No denomination or local assembly is perfect in doctrine or practice. The reality is that the church, God’s family, is found in all the local assemblies of Christians that believe in Him, obey His Word and love the brethren (imperfectly and yet truly).

there were many Churches then. they were all under the Apostles Authority. none of them were indepedent from the Apostles. none of the leaders were self made pastores. St Paul warns the leaders to pass on the Word to faithfull man. the leadership had to continue until the end of times.

prove to me that at that time they believe that the Body and Blood of Christ was just a representation, just like you say that the churches were independent. prove to me. give some history of the Christians who believed that and i will be satisfied with your assumption. you cannot know how was back then, just by reading the Bible alone. can you?

 

[CWBetts]

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.** 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)

A monarchy headed by Christ with the Pope as the Chief Steward is what Jesus intended…if you read the Old Testament you would realize this.

 

[yankee_drifter]

The apostolic church had no priests. This Old Testament function - offering the sacrifices - was eliminated forever by Calvary. Any efforts aimed at re-establishing a Levitical-type priesthood (with priest, victim and sacrifice) runs counter to Christ’s once for all sacrifice. The Roman Catholic priesthood, then is a much later development.

The Bible says we are to confess sin directly to God. That was apostolic church practice according to the episode in Acts where Peter rebuked Simon for trying to buy power to confer the Holy Spirit. Peter said, “Repent therefore of this thy wickedness, and pray God, if perhaps the thought of thine heart may be forgiven thee.” (Act 8:22) If Peter was bishop of Rome and the first pope, and if Catholic Confession was a doctrine known to the Apostles, why didn’t Peter “hear” Simon’s confession, give him absolution, and send him on his way a forgiven sinner?

 

[crazzeto]

The apostolic church had no priests. This Old Testament function - offering the sacrifices - was eliminated forever by Calvary. Any efforts aimed at re-establishing a Levitical-type priesthood (with priest, victim and sacrifice) runs counter to Christ’s once for all sacrifice. The Roman Catholic priesthood, then is a much later development.

The Bible says we are to confess sin directly to God. That was apostolic church practice according to the episode in Acts where Peter rebuked Simon for trying to buy power to confer the Holy Spirit. Peter said, “Repent therefore of this thy wickedness, and pray God, if perhaps the thought of thine heart may be forgiven thee.” (Act 8:22) If Peter was bishop of Rome and the first pope, and if Catholic Confession was a doctrine known to the Apostles, why didn’t Peter “hear” Simon’s confession, give him absolution, and send him on his way a forgiven sinner?

Wow… Not only did the Apostolic church have priests, it had Bishops (who are priests).

1 1 Timothy 3

1 A faithful saying: if a man desire the office of a bishop, he desireth a good work.

2 1 Timothy 3

2 It behoveth therefore a bishop to be blameless, the husband of one wife, sober, prudent, of good behaviour, chaste, given to hospitality, a teacher,

3 Titus 1

7 For a bishop must be without crime, as the steward of God: not proud, not subject to anger, not given to wine, no striker, not greedy of filthy lucre:

4 1 Peter 2

25 For you were as sheep going astray; but you are now converted to the shepherd and bishop of your souls.

 

[wisdomseeker]

The apostolic church had no priests. This Old Testament function - offering the sacrifices - was eliminated forever by Calvary. Any efforts aimed at re-establishing a Levitical-type priesthood (with priest, victim and sacrifice) runs counter to Christ’s once for all sacrifice. The Roman Catholic priesthood, then is a much later development.

The Bible says we are to confess sin directly to God. That was apostolic church practice according to the episode in Acts where Peter rebuked Simon for trying to buy power to confer the Holy Spirit. Peter said, “Repent therefore of this thy wickedness, and pray God, if perhaps the thought of thine heart may be forgiven thee.” (Act 8:22) If Peter was bishop of Rome and the first pope, and if Catholic Confession was a doctrine known to the Apostles, why didn’t Peter “hear” Simon’s confession, give him absolution, and send him on his way a forgiven sinner?

did you forget to mention what simon said to St Peter?

**
O truth, you are present to those who seek your help, and at one and the same time you answer all, though they seek your counsel on different matters. You respond clearly, but not everyone hears clearly. All ask what they wish, but do not always hear the answer they wish. Your best servant is he who is intent not so much on hearing his petition answered, as rather on willing whatever he hears from you.
St Augustine**

 

[Randy_Carson]

The apostolic church had no priests. This Old Testament function - offering the sacrifices - was eliminated forever by Calvary. Any efforts aimed at re-establishing a Levitical-type priesthood (with priest, victim and sacrifice) runs counter to Christ’s once for all sacrifice. The Roman Catholic priesthood, then is a much later development.

Yankee_drifter has apparently not considered the fact that since the mass is a sacrifice, and Jesus told the Apostles to “do this” (ie, offer the sacrifice), we can know with certainty that Christ ordained the Apostles as priests because He would not command them to do something they could not do.

The Bible says we are to confess sin directly to God. That was apostolic church practice according to the episode in Acts where Peter rebuked Simon for trying to buy power to confer the Holy Spirit. Peter said, “Repent therefore of this thy wickedness, and pray God, if perhaps the thought of thine heart may be forgiven thee.” (Act 8:22) If Peter was bishop of Rome and the first pope, and if Catholic Confession was a doctrine known to the Apostles, why didn’t Peter “hear” Simon’s confession, give him absolution, and send him on his way a forgiven sinner?

Since Peter has just rebuked Simon, he is obviously already aware of the sin.

The verse not quoted by Yankee_drifter says

Acts 8:23
**23"**For I see that you are full of bitterness and captive to sin."

Further, he does hear Simon repent, but notice carefully Simon’s words:

Acts 8:24
24Then Simon answered, “Pray to the Lord for me so that nothing you have said may happen to me.”

Sounds like an Act of Contrition to me. :yup:

And oh, by the way…notice what else scripture says about Simon:

Acts 8:13
13Simon himself believed and was baptized.

Simon was a baptized BELIEVER when he fell into this sin. Hmmm…

 

[JRKH]

Randy,
You asked earlier “When will it all end”. The fact is it won’t until Christ returns.

To ALL,
In trying to get at the truth of whether the early Church was many independent churches or one, one thing I notice is how logic and common snese can disappear so quickly.
The NT, in Acts, shows us the church in one city having a disagreement with the church in another city. Did they “Agree to disagree”? No - they met in council to resolve the issue. Later on many councils of regional as well as ecumenical nature were held to resolve doctrinal issues, and even to determine the correct canon of Scripture. Such councils clearly show a connection, a unity, among the Church in various localities AND a submission to the authority of the Church in council as opposed to the authority of individual interpretation.

But this is where common sense flies out the window.

Yankee Drifter and others are willing to use the pronouncements of these councils to deny the primacy or the Bishop of Rome, yet fail to see that the very fact of these councils demonstrates a unity not found in the Non-Catholic World of today where pride of individual interpretation trumps submission to Christ’s commands to “Tell it to the Church…”.

I will be the first to concede that the early churches excersized a great deal of latitude and that any number of different beliefs (some heretical) and practices, sprang up during the first couple of centuries. This is a logical and simple assumption based on the state of communications AND the fact of persecusions from both the Jewish and Roman Authorities.
It was ONLY after the legalization of Christianity that the Church (irrespective of the Roman emporer) COULD meet openly and reslove the various issues that had crept into the Church.
Again - This is simple, uncluttered logic.

I would like to ask a question of both the Catholic and non-catholic apologists here.

Much is made of the term “Roman Catholic” with Yankee drifter firmly declaring there is no evidence of the “RCC” before Constantine, and that somehow Constantine is the “Founder” of the “Roman Catholic” Church. This is a fairly common view held by non-catholic fundementalists.
Catholics hold that the Term “Roman Catholic” was coined much later.

So here my Question. What is the earliest reference explicitly using the term “Roman Catholic Church”. I’m not refering to similar terms such as “The Church in Rome” and such. Rather I am looking for the use of the term “Roman” Catholic as distinct from “catholic” meaning universal.

Peace
James

 

[steve_b]

I would like to ask a question of both the Catholic and non-catholic apologists here.

Much is made of the term “Roman Catholic” with Yankee drifter firmly declaring there is no evidence of the “RCC” before Constantine, and that somehow Constantine is the “Founder” of the “Roman Catholic” Church. This is a fairly common view held by non-catholic fundementalists.
Catholics hold that the Term “Roman Catholic” was coined much later.

So here my Question. What is the earliest reference explicitly using the term “Roman Catholic Church”. I’m not refering to similar terms such as “The Church in Rome” and such. Rather I am looking for the use of the term “Roman” Catholic as distinct from “catholic” meaning universal.

Peace
James

newadvent.org/cathen/13121a.htm

 

[JRKH]

newadvent.org/cathen/13121a.htm

Thanks for the link.

So it appears that the Term “Roman” Catholic was not used at the time of the East-West Split (to denote the western Church from the other, orthodox xhurches) or before.

Peace
James

 

[jmcrae]

When Ignatius spoke about the catholic church, he meant “universal”. All true Christians everywhere.

Right. And he was telling them to follow the Bishop of Rome. “Where the Bishop is, there is the Catholic Church.”

 

[crazzeto]

Right. And he was telling them to follow the Bishop of Rome. “Where the Bishop is, there is the Catholic Church.”

I loled a bit reading what you were responding too. We’re called “Catholic” today, because we’re still universal.

 

[wisdomseeker]

newadvent.org/cathen/13121a.htm

very good explanation. unfortunately now and days became common to many Catholics to refer to the Church as roman Catholics. on EWTN, i dont think i ever heard anyone in this chanel not to say Roman Catholic Church. so, we come to call ourselves whatever others call us. sad indeed.

 

[jmcrae]

The apostolic church had no priests. This Old Testament function - offering the sacrifices - was eliminated forever by Calvary. Any efforts aimed at re-establishing a Levitical-type priesthood (with priest, victim and sacrifice) runs counter to Christ’s once for all sacrifice. The Roman Catholic priesthood, then is a much later development.

Really? I read in the two letters to Timothy about the ordination of Bishops, and I also read in the Book of Acts about the ordination of Deacons, which are two levels of the priesthood. St. James in his letter also writes about the Presbyters - another level of the priesthood, thus giving us all three levels of the Catholic priesthood, well within New Testament times.

The Bible says we are to confess sin directly to God. That was apostolic church practice according to the episode in Acts where Peter rebuked Simon for trying to buy power to confer the Holy Spirit. Peter said, “Repent therefore of this thy wickedness, and pray God, if perhaps the thought of thine heart may be forgiven thee.” (Act 8:22) If Peter was bishop of Rome and the first pope, and if Catholic Confession was a doctrine known to the Apostles, why didn’t Peter “hear” Simon’s confession, give him absolution, and send him on his way a forgiven sinner?

Because Simon was not yet sorry for his sin. He has to make a good Examination of Conscience before he approaches the Confessional. It is not recorded whether he did this or not, and for good reason - it is none of our business, whether he went to Confession or not.

 

[steve_b]

The apostolic church had no priests. This Old Testament function - offering the sacrifices - was eliminated forever by Calvary. Any efforts aimed at re-establishing a Levitical-type priesthood (with priest, victim and sacrifice) runs counter to Christ’s once for all sacrifice. The Roman Catholic priesthood, then is a much later development.

Our ministerial priesthood is derived from Jesus who was in the order of Melchizedek.

CCC

**1544 **Everything that the priesthood of the Old Covenant prefigured finds its fulfillment in Christ Jesus, the “one mediator between God and men.” The Christian tradition considers Melchizedek, “priest of God Most High,” as a prefiguration of the priesthood of Christ, the unique “high priest after the order of Melchizedek”; “holy, blameless, unstained,” “by a single offering he has perfected for all time those who are sanctified,” that is, by the unique sacrifice of the cross.

• In Gen14:18, Melchizedek offers a sacrifice of bread and wine. Christ fulfilled the prophecy of Ps 110:4, that he would be a priest “after the order of Melchizedek,”.
• At the Last Supper, he blessed the bread and wine and said this is my body, this is my blood of the new covenant, it will be shed for you and many so sins may be forgiven, then He says to His apostles, “do this in memory of Me.” Do / poieō forums.catholic-questions.org/showpost.php?p=4470936&postcount=74 , NT priesthood forums.catholic-questions.org/showpost.php?p=5673025&postcount=22

yd:

The Bible says we are to confess sin directly to God.

Just so that I know where you’re quoting, please show me the passage you have in mind.
yd:

That was apostolic church practice according to the episode in Acts where Peter rebuked Simon for trying to buy power to confer the Holy Spirit. Peter said, “Repent therefore of this thy wickedness, and pray God, if perhaps the thought of thine heart may be forgiven thee.” (Act 8:22) If Peter was bishop of Rome and the first pope, and if Catholic Confession was a doctrine known to the Apostles, why didn’t Peter “hear” Simon’s confession, give him absolution, and send him on his way a forgiven sinner?

Following those points

Peter already knew what his sin was so Simon in this case didn’t need to confess… however, Peter rebuked him for his sin. And for Simon’s penance, Peter said he had to repent of this sin. Correct so far? In sacramental confession, at the end of confession, one prays the act of contrition which goes as follows

:
Act of contrition
“Oh my God I’m heartily sorry for having offended you, and I detest all my sins because I dread the loss of heaven and the pains of hell. But most of all because they offend you my God who are all good and deserving of all my love. And I firmly resolve with the help of your grace to confess my sins, do penance, and amend my life AMEN”

What did Simon say after he was rebuked by Peter?

24 And Simon answered, “Pray for me to the Lord, that nothing of what you have said may come upon me.”

sounds like an act of contrition to me. **AND **Peter is asked to perform his priestly function interceeding with God on Simon’s behalf.

At this point the priest in confession absolves you. Can Peter absolve Simon’s sins? Absolutely. Jesus gave him the power to forgive or retain any sin. [Jn 20:23]

 

[wisdomseeker]

Our ministerial priesthood is derived from Jesus who was in the order of Melchizedek.

CCC

**1544 **Everything that the priesthood of the Old Covenant prefigured finds its fulfillment in Christ Jesus, the “one mediator between God and men.” The Christian tradition considers Melchizedek, “priest of God Most High,” as a prefiguration of the priesthood of Christ, the unique “high priest after the order of Melchizedek”; “holy, blameless, unstained,” “by a single offering he has perfected for all time those who are sanctified,” that is, by the unique sacrifice of the cross.

• In Gen14:18, Melchizedek offers a sacrifice of bread and wine. Christ fulfilled the prophecy of Ps 110:4, that he would be a priest “after the order of Melchizedek,”.
• At the Last Supper, he blessed the bread and wine and said this is my body, this is my blood of the new covenant, it will be shed for you and many so sins may be forgiven, then He says to His apostles, “do this in memory of Me.” Do / poieō forums.catholic-questions.org/showpost.php?p=4470936&postcount=74 , NT priesthood forums.catholic-questions.org/showpost.php?p=5673025&postcount=22

Just so that I know where you’re quoting, please show me the passage you have in mind.

Following those points

Peter already knew what his sin was so Simon in this case didn’t need to confess… however, Peter rebuked him for his sin. And for Simon’s penance, Peter said he had to repent of this sin. Correct so far? In sacramental confession, at the end of confession, one prays the act of contrition which goes as follows

What did Simon say after he was rebuked by Peter?

24 And Simon answered, “Pray for me to the Lord, that nothing of what you have said may come upon me.”

sounds like an act of contrition to me. AND Peter is performing his priestly function interceeding with God on Simon’s behalf.

At this point the priest in confession absolves you. Can Peter absolve Simon’s sins? Absolutely. Jesus gave him the power to forgive or retain any sin. [Jn 20:23]

To Yankee

what an umbelieving heart. how can one expect to find recorded in the Bible confessions from the people? Simon was just saying something very inapropriate to St Peter it had nothing to do with a case of someone knowing that he is sinning and must go to the Priest for confession. simon probably didnt even know what he was saying, since all was to new to all. St Peter rebuked him and rightly so. i have said not as in confession but certain things and the Priest loveling rebuked me. that is ok with me because he was just correcting my error. and that is what happened between simon and St Peter.

**
Come to my aid, O God. **

 

[Randy_Carson]

The apostolic church had no priests.

This assertion is refuted powerfully here:

Articles on the Priesthood

**THE THREE-FOLD MINISTRY **
By James Akin
catholic.com/thisrock/1998/9806chap.asp

Bishop, Priest and Deacon
catholic.com/library/Bishop_Priest_and_Deacon.asp

Did Jesus Give Priests to the Church?
By Kenneth J. Howell
catholic.com/thisrock/2004/0404sbs.asp

 

[JacobG]

Wow… Not only did the Apostolic church have priests, it had Bishops (who are priests).

Where are these priests in the new testament? Who said bishops are priests? When did Christ establish a priesthood in the new covenant with a victim and sacrifices? Evidence please!!!

Your teachings are old testament crazetto.

 

[Randy_Carson]

Where are these priests in the new testament? Who said bishops are priests? When did Christ establish a priesthood in the new covenant with a victim and sacrifices? Evidence please!!!

Your teachings are old testament crazetto.

Gee…why not find the answers in the articles provided in the post immediately above yours?

The evidence is there is you really want it…

 

[Randy_Carson]

Where are these priests in the new testament? Who said bishops are priests? When did Christ establish a priesthood in the new covenant with a victim and sacrifices? Evidence please!!!

Your teachings are old testament crazetto.

Please note the New Testament references in the following:

As the Church grew in size, it became too large for the handful of apostles to govern by themselves, and it became necessary for them to delegate some authority and responsibilities. Over the course of the New Testament, we can track the way they did this.

The first office to be established is what we now call the diaconate, which was created due to a dispute over the proper apportionment of the Church’s charitable resources. Rather than oversee this area directly, the apostles appointed a group of seven men to oversee it, explaining “It is not right that we should give up preaching the word of God to serve tables” (Acts 6:2).

The next office was the priesthood or presbyterate. The Church began to grow geographically, with congregations in widely separated places. These congregations, many of which had been created by Paul on his missionary journeys, needed men to oversee them in the apostles’ absence, to perform the sacraments, and to preach in them. Paul appointed presbyters in the congregations he created (Acts 14:23), though the office had existed earlier (cf. 11:30).

The presbyters had oversight of individual congregations, but what about when the number of presbyters itself grew large? Who would have charge of appointing them and disciplining them when they got out of line? Originally, the apostles themselves retained this function, but, as the number of local congregations grew large and as the apostles aged, they appointed men to fulfill this task as well. Timothy and Titus were among them. They had the function of appointing and disciplining presbyters (1** Tim. 5:19-22, Titus 1:5**) and thus of ruling indirectly over multiple congregations, including evangelizing new areas and planting new churches. Today we call those who have these tasks the bishops or the episcopacy.

The apostles thus set up first the office of deacon, then priest, then bishop. Every organization that grows tends to reallocate its functions in this “bottom up” manner, reallocating of its most important functions last of all. There was an additional reason why the early Church did so: In the first generation of Christians, it took time for everyone to mature in the faith to the point that some could serve in office (1 Tim. 3:6). By late in the first century, it became clear that Christ did not plan to appoint new apostles to fill the roles of the originals. They had served a special purpose as the first link between Christ and all later Christians, but their office was temporary. They passed from the scene, leaving the three-fold structure of bishops, priests, and deacons in place.

 

[wisdomseeker]

Where are these priests in the new testament? Who said bishops are priests? When did Christ establish a priesthood in the new covenant with a victim and sacrifices? Evidence please!!!

Your teachings are old testament crazetto.

here it is.

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

Peace.