Why is Peter considered the first "Pope", if it was James who Peter and Paul answered to?

[mardukm]

Dear brother Danial,

why do you think they wrote to Clement?

Because he was the bishop of Rome, the head bishop.

his name is not mentioned in the letter

The ancient and contemporary patristic witness is unanimous that the letter is from Clement. It was read and cherished in MANY churches, not just in Corinth. A few ancient NT collections even contain this letter as part of its canon.

also a singular bishop is not referred to either in Rome or in Corinth but rather a plurality of bishops/presbyters

Granted, but the bishop of Rome was still the head bishop.

Have a wonderful Lent.

Blessings,
Marduk

 

[anthony022071]

So it’s clear to see that they gave a decree from what James said, not from what Peter said. James agreed with Peter no doubt, but the EXACT decree given was what James JUDGED as rigtheous. Thereby proving that James indeed had more power than Peter and that the Church in Rome didn’t even exist yet.

It was people from James’ jurisdiction that were causing the controversy in Antioch,so it was his problem to deal with,after hearing Peter’s judgement. That is not evidence of James having more power than Peter,it shows that it was James’ particular responsibility to tell the members of his regional church what to do. It is the principle of subsidiary. Peter was made by Christ the Rock of the Church and the Head of the priesthood. Peter had authority over the whole Church,not just Rome.
The Church of Rome did exist at that time. Peter had just gotten back to Jerusalem from Rome,where he had been for 7 years.

davidmacd.com/catholic/orthodox/pope_acts_15_james_and_peter.htm

catholic-legate.com/dialogues/peterinrome.html

 

[Spirithound]

I’ve never come across any historical of scholarly evidence of this before…can you expand or clarify this claim of yours? Thanks.

What part do you want evidence of? The Corinthians wrote to Clement, Clement wrote back. We still have his letter.

 

[Daniel_Keeran]

And where does it say Scripture alone?

How did the early Church get along with no apostles and no Bible?

And what about the other verses I gave?

How was it not possible for Apostlic succession? Explain that further.

By the Spirit of truth alone, and every Christian is to determine the spirit of truth and error.

They HAD apostles and their writings and those of the prophets of the church.

The only qualifications we have for the replacement of an apostle is in the case of Judas for which it was required that he be a witness from the John the Baptist until now and also a witness of the resurrection. No one could fulfill these requirements after the deaths of the apostles; hence no further succession or replacements.

Read carefully:
Acts 1
15In those days Peter stood up among the believers[c] (a group numbering about a hundred and twenty) 16and said, “Brothers, the **Scripture had to be fulfilled **which the Holy Spirit spoke long ago through the mouth of David concerning Judas, who served as guide for those who arrested Jesus— 17he was one of our number and shared in this ministry.” …
20"For," said Peter, “it is written in the book of Psalms,
" ‘May his place be deserted;
let there be no one to dwell in it,’[d] and,
" 'May another take his place of leadership.’[e] 21Therefore it is necessary to choose one of the men who have been with us the whole time the Lord Jesus went in and out among us, 22beginning from John’s baptism to the time when Jesus was taken up from us. For one of these must become a witness with us of his resurrection.”
… and the lot fell to Matthias; so he was added to the eleven apostles."

 

[anthony022071]

By the Spirit of truth alone, and every Christian is to determine the spirit of truth and error.

The heirarchal Church has the Spirit of truth. Paul said that the Church is the pillar and ground of truth. Jesus founded the Church upon Peter and said that the gates of hell would never prevail over it. The Spirit of truth is communicated to believers by way of the Church that Christ founded as well as directly to individuals. Anyone who thinks that they can possess the Spirit of truth self-sufficiently will have a wayward,misguided faith. It is a rejection of true communion of faith.

They HAD apostles and their writings and those of the prophets of the church.

And we have the successors of the apostles,to teach and guide and administer the sacraments that Christ instituted. What sense would it have made for the priesthood that Christ instituted to have ceased to exist after a single generation when there were many generations yet to come? There needed to be a continual presence of the Church that Christ founded upon the apostles,so that what the apostles were commissioned to do would continue to be done throught the ages.

The only qualifications we have for the replacement of an apostle is in the case of Judas for which it was required that he be a witness from the John the Baptist until now and also a witness of the resurrection. No one could fulfill these requirements after the deaths of the apostles; hence no further succession or replacements.

Scripture does not say that there was no further need for succession or replacements.
Saint Paul ordained men who were not witnesses of John the Baptist or of the Resurrection.

 

[Daniel_Keeran]

Saint Paul ordained men who were not witnesses of John the Baptist or of the Resurrection.

Paul gave qualifications for bishops (plural) and deacons. There were no singular bishops in the early church until Ignatius. In scripture there is only the succession of truth, not of apostles, and this truth must be passed on by reliable men who are qualified to teach others also.

2 Timothy 2:2
And the **things you have heard me say **in the presence of many witnesses entrust to reliable men who will also be qualified to teach others.

 

[Randy_Carson]

This passage is simply confirming Peters faith after denying Christ three times. It has nothing to do with Peter as head of the church.

The Word of God says otherwise.

“Feed my lambs…Take care of my sheep…Feed my sheep.”

Who takes care of and feeds sheep?

A shepherd.

Who did Jesus leave in charge of His flock?

Peter.

Peter is the shepherd that Jesus left in charge of the one flock after His ascension.

Cyprian of Carthage commented on this in the third century when he wrote:

“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. … ’ [Matt. 16:18]. On him [Peter] he builds the Church, and to him he gives the command to feed the sheep [John 21:17], and although he assigns a like power to all the apostles, yet he founded a single chair cathedra], and he established by his own authority a source and an intrinsic reason for that unity. . . . If someone [today] does not hold fast to this unity of Peter, can he imagine that he still holds the faith? If he [should] 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; first edition [A.D. 251]).

 

[Randy_Carson]

Paul gave qualifications for bishops (plural) and deacons. There were no singular bishops in the early church until Ignatius.

Hmmm…how early was that? Ignatius was a disciple of the Apostle Peter and the second bishop of Antioch after Peter departed for Rome. Sounds Like Bishops were on the scene pretty early…and within the lifetimes of several of the Apostles. Doesn’t this make the idea of Bishops “Apostolic”?

Additionally, Linus, Anacletus and Clement were all Bishops of Rome after Peter during the lifetime of the Apostle John.

You know Clement, don’t you? He’s mentioned in scripture (Philippians 4:3). Writing of Bishops and Apostolic Succession, Clement wrote:

Clement

“Through countryside and city [the apostles] preached, and they appointed their earliest converts, testing them by the Spirit, to be the bishops and deacons of future believers. Nor was this a novelty, for bishops and deacons had been written about a long time earlier. . . . 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 *42:4–5, 44:1–3 [A.D. 80]).

Our apostles also knew, through our Lord Jesus Christ, that there would be strife on account of the office of the episcopate. For this reason, therefore, inasmuch as they had obtained a perfect fore-knowledge of this, they appointed those [ministers] already mentioned, and afterwards gave instructions, that when these should fall asleep, other approved men should succeed them in their ministry. We are of opinion, therefore, that those appointed by them, or afterwards by other eminent men, with the consent of the whole church, and who have blamelessly served the flock of Christ, in a humble, peaceable, and disinterested spirit, and have for a long time possessed the good opinion of all, cannot be justly dismissed from the ministry. (ibid.)

Later, Irenaeus, Bishop of Rome, wrote:

"3The blessed apostles [Peter and Paul], having founded and built up the church [of Rome], they handed over the office of the episcopate to Linus. Paul makes mention of this Linus in the epistle to Timothy [2 Tim. 4:21]. To him succeeded Anencletus, and after him, in the third place from the apostles, Clement was chosen for the episcopate. He had seen the blessed apostles and was acquainted with them. It might be said that he still heard the echoes of the preaching of the apostles and had their traditions before his eyes. And not only he, for there were many still remaining who had been instructed by the apostles. In the time of Clement, no small dissension having arisen among the brethren in Corinth, the Church in Rome sent a very strong letter to the Corinthians, exhorting them to peace and renewing their faith. . . To this Clement, Evaristus succeeded. . . and now, in the twelfth place after the apostles, the lot of the episcopate [of Rome] has fallen to Eleutherus. In this order, and by the teaching of the apostles handed down in the Church, the preaching of the truth has come down to us.

“4Polycarp also was not only instructed by apostles, and conversed with many who had seen Christ, but was also, by apostles in Asia, appointed bishop of the church in Smyrna, whom I also saw in my early youth, for he tarried [on earth] a very long time, and, when a very old man, gloriously and most nobly suffering martyrdom, departed this life, having always taught the things which he had learned from the apostles, and which the Church has handed down, and which alone are true. To these things all the Asiatic churches testify, as do also those men who have succeeded Polycarp down to the present time” (*Against Heresies *3:3:1-4 [A.D. 189])…

In scripture there is only the succession of truth, not of apostles, and this truth must be passed on by reliable men who are qualified to teach others also.

2 Timothy 2:2
And the **things you have heard me say **in the presence of many witnesses entrust to reliable men who will also be qualified to teach others.

Actually, there are quite a few people referred to as Apostles:

The Twelve + Matthias
Paul
Barnabas
Andronicus and Junias (Romans 16:7)
Epaphroditus (Phile 2:25)
Apollos
Silvanus and Timothy (1 Thess. 1:1 with 2:6)

However, in time, the Apostles passed from the scene and the leadership of the Church fell to their successors, the Bishops (episkopoi). This article should help:

**Successors of the Apostles **
By Jimmy Akin
catholic.com/thisrock/2001/0107bt.asp

 

[paul_c]

Paul gave qualifications for bishops (plural) and deacons. There were no singular bishops in the early church until Ignatius. In scripture there is only the succession of truth, not of apostles, and this truth must be passed on by reliable men who are qualified to teach others also.

2 Timothy 2:2
And the **things you have heard me say **in the presence of many witnesses entrust to reliable men who will also be qualified to teach others.

Where do you get your information that there were no singular bishops in the early church until Ignatius? In his “history of the Church, Eusebius provides a list of bishops in Rome, Alexandria, Jerusalem and Antioch from the time of the Apostles until his own time (325AD). Its listed in the appendix in my copy. ( Pages 428-430) In fact, in Book 33, chapter 22, Eusebius notes” At Antioch, were Evodius had been the first bishop, Ignatius was becoming famous at this time. His contemporary Symeon was similiarly the next after our Saviours brother to be in charge of the church at Jerusualem. So it is clear that Ignatius was not the first bishop,even in his own diocese.

 

[Daniel_Keeran]

Where do you get your information that there were no singular bishops in the early church until Ignatius? In his “history of the Church, Eusebius provides a list of bishops in Rome, Alexandria, Jerusalem and Antioch from the time of the Apostles until his own time (325AD). Its listed in the appendix in my copy. ( Pages 428-430) In fact, in Book 33, chapter 22, Eusebius notes” At Antioch, were Evodius had been the first bishop, Ignatius was becoming famous at this time. His contemporary Symeon was similiarly the next after our Saviours brother to be in charge of the church at Jerusualem. So it is clear that Ignatius was not the first bishop,even in his own diocese.

Certainly by the time of Eusebius, the singular bishop was firmly established and written back into the histories of churches. However, I agree with Jerome translator of the Latin Vulgate, that in the early church the terms presbyter and bishop were used interchangeably, although in other letters Jerome conforms to the custom of his time.

Letter 146: To Evangelus

"Do you ask for proof of what I say? Listen to this passage: “Paul and Timotheus, the servants of Jesus Christ, to all the saints in Christ Jesus which are at Philippi with the bishops and deacons.” Phillipians 1:1 Do you wish for another instance? In the Acts of the Apostles Paul thus speaks to the priests Sacerdotes. of a single church: “Take heed unto yourselves and to all the flock, in the which the Holy Ghost hath made you bishops, to feed the church of God which He purchased with His own blood.” Acts 20:28

And lest any should in a spirit of contention argue that there must then have been more bishops than one in a single church, there is the following passage which clearly proves a bishop and a presbyter to be the same. Writing to Titus the apostle says: “For this cause left I thee in Crete, that thou shouldest set in order the things that are wanting, and ordain presbyters ‘elders.’ in every city, as I had appointed thee: if any be blameless, the husband of one wife, having faithful children not accused of riot or unruly. **For a bishop **must be blameless as the steward of God.” Tit. 1:5–7.

And to Timothy he says: “Neglect not the gift that is in thee, which was given thee by prophecy, with the laying on of the hands of the presbytery.” 1 Tim. 4:14. Peter also says in his first epistle: “The presbyters which are among you I exhort, who am your fellow-presbyter and a witness of the sufferings of Christ and also a partaker of the glory that shall be revealed: feed the flock of Christ ‘of God.’…**taking the oversight **thereof not by constraint but willingly, according unto God.” 1 Pet. 5:1, 2.

In the Greek the meaning is still plainer, for the word used is επισκοποῦντες , that is to say, overseeing, and this is the origin of the name overseer or bishop. ἐπίσκοπος. But perhaps the testimony of these great men seems to you insufficient. If so, then listen to the blast of the gospel trumpet, that son of thunder,Mark 3:17. the disciple whom Jesus loved John 13:23. and who reclining on the Saviour’s breast drank in the waters of sound doctrine. One of his letters begins thus: “The presbyter unto the elect lady and her children whom I love in the truth;” 2 John 1. and another thus: “The presbyter unto the well-beloved Gaius whom I love in the truth.” 3 John1.

**When subsequently one presbyter was chosen to preside over the rest, this was done to remedy schism **and to prevent each individual from rending the church of Christ by drawing it to himself. For even **at Alexandria **from the time of Mark the Evangelist until the episcopates of Heraclas and Dionysius the presbyters always named as bishop one of their own number chosen by themselves and set in a more exalted position, just as an army elects a general, or as deacons appoint one of themselves whom they know to be diligent and call him archdeacon. For what function, excepting ordination, belongs to a bishop that does not also belong to a presbyter?

Of the names presbyter and bishop the first denotes age, the second rank. In writing both to Titus and to Timothy the apostle speaks of the ordination of bishops and of deacons, but says not a word of the ordination of presbyters; for the fact is that the word bishops includes presbyters also."

 

[prodigal-sun]

**Irenaeus did not claim to be inspired or without error. **QUOTE]

Neither does the Bible, in fact the only source of the bible being inerrant comes from the Catholic Church who put it together.

First came the Church, built upon the “ROCK” and then came a few hundred years of writing, and then came the Canon of the Bible which included 7 books that I’m presuming you don not include in the sacred texts.

Peace to you!

 

[Daniel_Keeran]

**Irenaeus did not claim to be inspired or without error. **

QUOTE]

Neither does the Bible, in fact the only source of the bible being inerrant comes from the Catholic Church who put it together.

First came the Church, built upon the “ROCK” and then came a few hundred years of writing, and then came the Canon of the Bible which included 7 books that I’m presuming you don not include in the sacred texts.

Peace to you!

The apostles were guided into all truth (John 16:13). The earliest writings after our New Testament such as Clement, quote from much of it showing the books were well circulated long before Damasus. Even Marcion in 144 AD, who taught false doctrine, included much of our New Testament in his list that has: Luke, Galatians, I & 2 Corinthians, Romans, I & 2 Thessalonians, Ephesians, Colossians, Philemon, Philippians

Justin Marytr (100-165) refers to the “memoirs of the apostles and writings of the prophets” as if they were well known.

Peter refers to Paul’s writings as authoritative. Peter says his writings were not fables but given by the Holy Spirit. Paul says his gospel was by revelation of Jesus Christ. John writes as an eyewitness as do the other gospel writers while Luke claims accuracy in his histories. Paul urged the circulation of his writings.

 

[prodigal-sun]

prodigal-sun;5073638:

The apostles were guided into all truth (John 16:13). The earliest writings after our New Testament such as Clement, quote from much of it showing the books were well circulated long before Damasus. Even Marcion in 144 AD, who taught false doctrine, included much of our New Testament in his list that has: Luke, Galatians, I & 2 Corinthians, Romans, I & 2 Thessalonians, Ephesians, Colossians, Philemon, Philippians

Justin Marytr (100-165) refers to the “memoirs of the apostles and writings of the prophets” as if they were well known.

Peter refers to Paul’s writings as authoritative. Peter says his writings were not fables but given by the Holy Spirit. Paul says his gospel was by revelation of Jesus Christ. John writes as an eyewitness as do the other gospel writers while Luke claims accuracy in his histories. Paul urged the circulation of his writings.

Well that is just wonderful, but how do you know that all those works that you are referring to are indeed in the bible. What about all the other books in the bible that we have no Idea where they came from or who authored them. There is no eveidence of their trurth and/or origin other than the Church putting them into a compendium and stating that all these books make up our bible and do not contradict anything that we believe. I mean really, how on earth do you know that “The Memoirs of the apostles and writings of the prophets” that Justin Martyr speaks of are indeed within the Bible of the catholic Church.

The fact that you bring up Justin Martyr, believe what he says here, deos that mean you would give credibility to other things he has stated. He was after all Catholic.

Peace!

 

[ziapueblo]

Justin Marytr (100-165) refers to the “memoirs of the apostles and writings of the prophets” as if they were well known.

Interesting how you quote St. Justin Martyr. Here, he is writing about the early Christian worship, the Mass. The Mass, of course is the living Tradition of the Church. The “breaking of the bread and the prayers” which is spoken of in the Acts of the Apostles and the Gospel according to St. Luke. This was handed down from the Apostles to their successors. We have the readings of Scripture and then we recognize Jesus, present in the Eucharist (Luke 24:13-31). Does your church offer the Sacrifice of the Mass which St. Justin is speaking of?

Peter refers to Paul’s writings as authoritative. Peter says his writings were not fables but given by the Holy Spirit. Paul says his gospel was by revelation of Jesus Christ. John writes as an eyewitness as do the other gospel writers while Luke claims accuracy in his histories. Paul urged the circulation of his writings.

St. Peter also refers to St. Paul’s writings as hard to understand, therefore “First of all you must understand this, that no prophecy of Scripture is a matter of one’s own interpretation, because no prophecy ever came by the impulse of man, but men moved by the Holy Spirit spoke from God” (2 Peter 1:20-21).

 

[YADA]

Paul gave qualifications for bishops (plural) and deacons. There were no singular bishops in the early church until Ignatius. In scripture there is only the succession of truth, not of apostles, and this truth must be passed on by reliable men who are qualified to teach others also.

2 Timothy 2:2
And the **things you have heard me say **in the presence of many witnesses entrust to reliable men who will also be qualified to teach others.

And where is this depository of what was said in the presence of many witnesses? … How was this 'entrusted" and passed on to those ‘qualified to teach’? …

You have established yourself as the “Pope” the final arbiter of scripture and what it means …

Your analysis of John and Isaiah is also lacking … we have Keys, Opening and Shuting … Davidic Kingdom and you find no correlation …

The term Pope is just a rendiditon of Father … which is how the Prime Minister is called by the people … Jesus is the fullfillment of the Davidic Kingdom … Jesus is the King of Kings, the Lord of Lords … he appointed Peter [the Rock upon which Jesus build His - Jesus’ ] - to act as the Head of the Church - the New and everlasting Kingdom … Jesus entrusts to Peter the Keys of Heaven and Earth [the Chruch] What Peter opens [looses on earth will be loosed in heaven] no one shall shut [bind] and what Peter closes no one shall open. Note that Peter is not God, nor does JEsus forego his own authority [give up His own Master Key] … Peter’s authority comes from and through Jesus …

Peter has a prominant role in the scriptures - that you fail to ‘interpret them’ in illustrating that leadership places you at odds with the historical christian church and most of Christianity throught he ages …

You [Pope Daniel] have your own ‘authority’ [and/or of those who have inlfluenced your interpretation of scriptures] upon which to base your faith upon.

That is why Christianity is as diverse and fractured in its “Truths” today … it is not because Peter and his successors exist with a magesteriam but because there are far too many “Popes” like you …

For me, I will look to those who Jesus left to pass on the apostolic faith … not to the late comers - I can know both by there fruits: unity of faith or division …

Pax Christe

 

[Daniel_Keeran]

The “breaking of the bread and the prayers” which is spoken of in the Acts of the Apostles and the Gospel according to St. Luke. This was handed down from the Apostles to their successors. We have the readings of Scripture and then we recognize Jesus, present in the Eucharist (Luke 24:13-31). Does your church offer the Sacrifice of the Mass which St. Justin is speaking of?

Does Justin speak of the “mass” or of the idea of the bread and cup as a “sacrifice”? Yes, we participate in the bread and cup each Lord’s Day.

 

[Daniel_Keeran]

You [Pope Daniel] have your own ‘authority’ [and/or of those who have inlfluenced your interpretation of scriptures] upon which to base your faith upon.

Notice that Peter did not tell his readers that after his departure they would have the magisterium or his successor to consult. Rather he urged them to remember things he told them and that he would make every effort for them to be able to remember after his departure.

1 Peter 1:12-16
“So I will always remind you of these things, even though you know them and are firmly established in the truth you now have. I think it is **right to refresh your memory **as long as I live in the tent of this body, because I know that I will soon put it aside, as our Lord Jesus Christ has made clear to me. And I will make every effort to see that after my departure you will always be able to remember these things.We did not follow cleverly invented stories when we told you about the power and coming of our Lord Jesus Christ, but we were eyewitnesses of his majesty.”

 

[ziapueblo]

Does Justin speak of the “mass” or of the idea of the bread and cup as a “sacrifice”? Yes, we participate in the bread and cup each Lord’s Day.

This is off topic, but he speaks of both the structure of the Mass and that we are receiving the Real Presence of Christ in the Eucharist. Read chapter 66 and 67 of St. Justin Martyr’s First Apology. The quote you used comes form chapter 67.

 

[YADA]

Notice that Peter did not tell his readers that after his departure they would have the magisterium or his successor to consult. Rather he urged them to remember things he told them and that he would make every effort for them to be able to remember after his departure.

1 Peter 1:12-16
“So I will always remind you of these things, even though you know them and are firmly established in the truth you now have. I think it is **right to refresh your memory **as long as I live in the tent of this body, because I know that I will soon put it aside, as our Lord Jesus Christ has made clear to me. And I will make every effort to see that after my departure you will always be able to remember these things.We did not follow cleverly invented stories when we told you about the power and coming of our Lord Jesus Christ, but we were eyewitnesses of his majesty.”

Yes - well Judas did not tell Peter to replace him and Jesus is not recorded as instructing Judas’ replacement … Its an office, an apostolic “office” … it is filled when it becomes vacant …

Paul - whose only personal experience with Christ was after His resurrection and ascension - not the man Jesus … thought as most [if not all of the earliest Christians] that Jesus would return in their life times … the scriptures record this … they were selling their goods and giving it all to the church - awaiting the “second Coming” … but Paul was mistaken … I would hazard a guess that none of them would have mentioned the need for successors into the 21st century … so what is your point …

Scripture clearly establishes the Church [as the Pillar and Foundation of Truth] with no mention of scriptures beyond the Hebrew texts … that we have a New Testament is due to the Church and an out growth of the Tradition … not the other way around …

Clearly - in the scriptures - we have the “Church” adapting to the needs and demands of the Church and her mission to spread the Gospel of Salvation in Christ Jesus … plus feeding the hungry, clothing the naked etc … the Church created additional offices to care for widows and orphans …

We even move from selling everything and awaiting the Second coming to Paul’s instructions that all must work not only for their personal sustanance but to provide for the needs of the Church, especially the Church under stress [in Paul’s day Jerusalem] …

Jesus said to preach the Gospel [not write] to all Nations and to ll the ends of the earth …

Peter urged them to remember … [that does not mean that he did not expect that a new leader would take his “office”] … I am absolutely sure that part of Peter’s ***effort ***was to leave behind men, fully instructed, and ready to lead from which the Bishops could choose a new leader for the Church …

Effort does not mean a belief that every Tom, **** or Harry would be able to pick up a book and see ‘what they want to see’ revealed there … For example: I clearly see the leadership of Peter, a Petrine Office and a unified Apostolic Church within the Bible …you do not … you think you are correct … I think I am … where do we turn … I can turn to the earliest writings of Christians - writings that date to the same time fram as scripture - like the Didache … and find support for my beliefs … there is nothing in the Early Christian Church writings that support your beliefs …

Just as one example: the Didache, one of the earliest extant Christian writings …

Even looking to the original Protestant Reformers and their beliefs - say on the perpetual virginity of Mary - they accepted it … or all of Christianity’s [Catholic and Protestant] belief and practice that artificial birth control was sinful prior to 1931 [want to make a guess as to which Christian Church changed policy first? And which Christian Church was most vocal in challenging the change [Hint for this one - it was not the Catholic Church - though they opposed it] …

So your beliefs and scriptural interpretations are rooted in the mostly 19th century and later … Earliest is 16th …

Mine have been witnessed to for over 2000 years … the evidence is found in the Church [one holy, catholic and apostolic] comprised of the community of believers - their faith and practice, the Scriptures [Bible], the Writings of the Early Christians, the various Council records, archeology and secular history …

 

[Daniel_Keeran]

This is off topic, but he speaks of both the structure of the Mass and that we are receiving the Real Presence of Christ in the Eucharist. Read chapter 66 and 67 of St. Justin Martyr’s First Apology. The quote you used comes form chapter 67.

There is nothing here that refers to a “mass” or a “sacrifice” being offered by a “priest” or to a changing of the substance into the actual body and blood of Christ. The wording is apparently selected to counter docetic tendencies that deny Christ had real flesh and blood rather than simply the appearance of such. However, the reaction to docetic tendencies may have given rise to the notion of transubstantiation later on. As per our discussion, there is clear reference to the gospels as memoirs of the apostles, being circulated long before Damasus. Also, one might notice in chapter 61 that Justin does not know of infant baptism.

Chapter 66. Of the Eucharist
And this food is called among us Εὐχαριστία [the Eucharist], of which no one is allowed to partake but the man who believes that the things which we teach are true, and who has been washed with the washing that is for the remission of sins, and unto regeneration, and who is so living as Christ has enjoined. For not as common bread and common drink do we receive these; but in like manner as Jesus Christ our Saviour, having been made flesh by the Word of God, had both flesh and blood for our salvation, so likewise have we been taught that the food which is blessed by the prayer of His word, and from which our blood and flesh by transmutation are nourished, is the flesh and blood of that Jesus who was made flesh. For the apostles, in the memoirs composed by them, which are called Gospels, have thus delivered unto us what was enjoined upon them; that Jesus took bread, and when He had given thanks, said, This do in remembrance of Me, Luke 22:19 this is My body; and that, after the same manner, having taken the cup and given thanks, He said, This is My blood; and gave it to them alone.

Ch.61 Christian Baptism
As many as are persuaded and believe that what we teach and say is true, and undertake to be able to live accordingly, are instructed to pray and to entreat God with fasting, for the remission of their sins that are past, we praying and fasting with them. Then they are brought by us where there is water, and are regenerated in the same manner in which we were ourselves regenerated. For, in the name of God, the Father and Lord of the universe, and of our Saviour Jesus Christ, and of the Holy Spirit, they then receive the washing with water.