The Big Discovery [by David, former Presbyterian]

Journeyof ImperfectSaint.blogspot.com ^ | October 4, 2009 | David

[Salvation]

Sunday, October 4, 2009

The Big Discovery

        I made some good friends outside my church and found out that they were all Catholics.  Now, I did not know much about Catholicism at the time.  By the way, the Mass did seem somewhat mysterious to me externally.  In fact, what little I had heard from other church members was all negative.  There was a Mrs. J at my church, who had just retired from her missionary post in China.  She was such a kind and endearing soul to all.  One day she got back from visiting someone at a hospital and looked extremely sad and disturbed.  It turned out that when she got to the hospital room, she saw that a Catholic priest was already there with the patient.  Now the question was if the patient would ever get to heaven. 

 

        Nevertheless, my Catholic friends all looked quite normal and happy.  Then could the Catholic Church, the largest church in the the world, be in error?  It so happened that at that time I was also beginning to question my Protestant faith.  The fact that there were numerous different denominations around the world bothered me.  Also, as a Protestant, whether you're a minister or lay person, you are free to marry and divorce any number of times.  It's hard to see that Jesus would be happy with these two facts.  Since I am the kind of person who always likes to find the answer to any question that's important, I decided to look into Catholicism.

 

        I made up my mind not to talk to anyone about my investigation.  I was single then and had a lot of free time to myself.  The local public library housed an excellent collection of books on Catholicism, so I started borrowing books on the subject.  I read every weekend, even taking notes as I read.  The went on for over a year.  I read all those books that viciously attack the Catholic Church too, but somehow they did not affect me much because I sensed that these attacks could not have been prompted by the Holy Spirit.  The books that really helped me were the ones on early Church history.  I could see that the continuity was there and the beliefs and practices of the early Church had been preserved to this day in the Catholic Church.  The only conclusion I could come to was that the Catholic Church was indeed the church Jesus had come and established.  Like Christ himself, the Church, being his body, must be accepted (or rejected) totally, with no middle ground. 

 

        Here's some advice for those who seek the truth.  Your chances of success will greatly improve if, first, you start out with a completely open mind and secondly, go to the source(s) directly to get the facts.  Many who misunderstand the Catholic Church today have already made up their mind that the Church is wrong, thus never bothering to pick up a copy of the Catechism of the Catholic Church to find out what the Church really teaches.  This is being close-minded. 

[count-your-change]

While I respect your right to rant and agree the Bible is a profound document, my question was more narrowly restricted to the topic under discussion.

[Iscool]

There you have it, the Church has AUTHORITY from Jesus to teach and baptize. We have an obligation to learn from those who have AUTHORITY TO TEACH.

Nice try but your 'Church' isn't mentioned in those scriptures...YOUR Church wasn't yet in ehxistance...

now, you say God’s elect read prayerfully and allow the Holy Spirit to show them what the Scriptures say. that sounds good, but ir’s not Scriptural. no one in the NT read the Scriptures and allowed the Holy Spirit to lead them to truth. the NT pattern is for the Holy Spirit to TEACH using the CHURCH. just one example is Philip TEACHING the eunuch in Acts 8.

You can only teach this to other 'Catholics'...Bible believing Christians know better...

Did Philip teach the entire bible to the Eunuch??? Of course not...Who continued to teach the Eunuch after he returned to Ethiopia???

You guys don't know, do you...

And that's because you have no one to teach you other than someone in Rome who had no one to teach him...

[Iscool]

Acts 2:38 and peter said to them, repent, and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ FOR THE FORGIVENESS OF SINS; AND YOU SHALL RECEIVE THE GIFT OF THE HOLY SPIRIT.

I don't see any water there in the verse... Where did you find the water??? Didn't just make it up, did you???

[metmom]

You must be new here, oLofob; the point of the religion forum for some is never to ask another about their beliefs, but rather to instead tell others what is is they believe.

Howe ironic considering that Catholicism makes claim to to being the only body capable of correctly interpreting Scripture by virtue of the fact that it claims to have written it therefore it is the only body capable of correctly interpreting it for us.

The common criticism of non-Catholics is YOPIOS and yet here we see a criticism of others telling them how they should believe, the VERY thing the Catholic church does not only for its adherents but they claim, for everyone.

Can you say *hypocrisy*?

[Cronos]

According to some folks, God is what they made up five minutes ago — have you ever met such a con artist that changes their statements every few months and things no one would notice? Sometimes this and sometimes that....

[Iscool]

According to some folks, God is what they made up five minutes ago — have you ever met such a con artist that changes their statements every few months and things no one would notice? Sometimes this and sometimes that....

Making up stories again, eh???

Guess if it wasn't for that, some of you guys wouldn't have anything at all to contribute to this forum...

[Jvette]

For HIMSELF, FOR HIS HOUSEHOLD, and for ALL THE ASSEMBLY OF ISRAEL.

The man of the household speaks for the household and the household follows his beliefs. Yes, I bring in the Old Testament, it is relevant to the discussion that in the OT, the man and his household are always one. What happens to the man, happens to his household. What the man does, ALL in his household follow.

Each household had a lamb for passover to be sacrificed in the temple and chosen by the man of the household for all the household to partake.

I realize that Jesus’ sacrifice as the Lamb of God is the perfect sacrifice once for all. HE IS THE LAMB, spotless and chosen by the man of the household for ALL the household.

*****You take a verse in the OT that clearly speaks of the one who is responsible for the atonement of Israel and try to move it into 2012 and apply it to the head of YOUR household to justify baptism of babies while ignoring all the references in the NT that reject the notion..*****

Scripture does not reject it in any way, no where can you cite a verse which says that whole households were baptized excluding infants. But, I can show you where the man leads the household in all things and those within the household follow the man in all things.

******I (we) have shown tons of verses that you reject...*****

You have made this accusation twice now, back it up or take it back. I have not rejected or disputed a single verse given to me.

*****You have access to a bible...When your religion told you to use Lev. 16:17 as your proof text, all you had to do was to read the verse to see that your religion was lying to you...And they convinced you that you can’t believe your own eyes...*****

My religion did not lead me to this verse, the Holy Spirit did through my searching out the households of Scripture and what is written of them and how they are understood in Scripture.

****Like your religion, they have chosen to ignore scripture in many places and insert their own versions...****

That is a convenient cop out response that tries to sidestep the fact that so many who claim the Bible as their sole authority have come to such varying conclusions about what is taught there.

Whatever, I did not expect anything more than I have gotten.

[Titanites]

the other proof against “sola scriptura” is that without the Apostolic Tradition, we would have no clue over which books are canonical and which are not.

That's a great point. Even the Bible is a Tradition of the Church.

[Jvette]

I did not miss the end of that verse. It is that verse which supports the claim of the Church and the tradition of the Apostles. ALL HID HOUSE. Period. Nothing else, no exclusions for age.

All of the responses here just ignore the substance of the practice, the customs of the Jewish people and the continuity between the Old Testament and the New.

Everyone certainly has a right to disagree but just as certainly no authority to tell me that I do not understand Scripture or that I ignore or reject it because I reject as shallow and unsubstantial their opinion on the subject.

[daniel1212]

tell me this, are you fallible or infallible when YOU DECIDE WHAT THE SCRIPTURES SAY?"

LOL, i asked a simple question and of course, NO ANSWER IS GIVEN. old habits never die.

LOL?You are the one who is a laughing stock, as apparently, like certain other Roman Catholics have admitted, and like car thieves who have a hard time finding a police station, you apparently cannot/will not actual read any or much of an answer that refutes your assertions and the premise behind your polemical queries, or actual interact with such, but again and again just make the same arguments which likewise have been refuted before. Indeed “old habits never die.”

the Catholic Church is what it is since Jesus can’t lie. as St Augustine observed, he would not believe the Gospel were it not for the authority of the Catholic Church.

Do you realize how absurd that is? You again are engaging in “argument by assertion,” which premise (that Rome is the fulfillment of the promise of Jesus) is based upon Rome's self-proclaimed assured infallibility, by which she infallibly conforms whatever she want to support her.

It was the charge of the Reformers that the Catholic doctrines were not primitive, and their pretension was to revert to antiquity. But the appeal to antiquity is both a treason and a heresy. It is a treason because it rejects the Divine voice of the Church at this hour, and a heresy because it denies that voice to be Divine...

I may say in strict truth that the Church has no antiquity. It rests upon its own supernatural and perpetual consciousness. Its past is present with it, for both are one to a mind which is immutable. Primitive and modern are predicates, not of truth, but of ourselves. — Most Rev. Dr. Henry Edward Cardinal Manning, Lord Archbishop of Westminster, The Temporal Mission of the Holy Ghost: Or Reason and Revelation (New York: J.P. Kenedy & Sons, originally written 1865, reprinted with no date), pp. 227-228. http://www.archive.org/stream/a592004400mannuoft/a592004400mannuoft_djvu.txt)

And contrary to you, for what its worth, Augustine also remarked, "How many sheep there are without, how many wolves within!" (Homilies on John, 45, 12)

now i answered all your questins, let’s see if you can return the courtesy:

NO, as unlike me who has answered multitudes of yours, you did not actually answer all 4 questions asked of you after ignoring them first, as you escaped answering “What is the basis for your assurance that Rome is what she claims?” by responding, “i have no idea what “ROME” is,”' which insolence simply testifies to your aversion to actually engage in meaningful exchange. But to be consistent, make sure you never refer to American policy by saying “Washington says,” and perhaps forbid the self referencing use of “the church of Rome” by your own CCC (834)

So what is the basis for your assurance that the church of Rome is what she claims?

Do you even believe Protestants can be saved if they do not convert to Rome?

i am sure Protestants will be saved, if they hold to the Catholic Faith.

the Catholic Church is the Body of Christ on earth.

So now you understand what “Rome” represents. And your answer means they cannot be Protestant, and thus (as suspected) you deny Lumen Gentium of Vatican Two which provides for Protestants being saved without converting, and in so doing you provide another example of the disagreement in Catholicism even over the teaching of an ecumenical council, even while you trumpet Catholic doctrinal unity.

Are you part of the SSPX schism, or just another Roman Catholic exercising private interpretation of the Vatican?

the Orthodox have Apostolic Succession, they believe the Catholic Faith.

Yet as said, their Apostolic Succession results in substantial and other differences from yours, papal infallibility no less, and even a different canon, while as said, under the Catholic model of sola ecclesia, which Rome shares with cults, are the worst aberrations.

i am not infallible about anything and i have no idea how many infallible pronouncements there have been.

Thus you made a fallible decision to submit to an assuredly infallible magisterium (which has infallibly declared herself to be so), and while you must give full assent of faith to all the decrees of such, you cannot even tell what they all are, and use fallible human reasoning to interpret such and other teachings, and disagree with other Catholics about them.

are you infallible when YOU decide what the Scriptures teach?

Again, do you have reading or comprehension difficulty in seeing my answer, that “the answer to your question is no, not as being assuredly infallible as in the impossibility of erring (though even a pagan can speak Truth: Acts 17:28), as we cannot presume more than what Scripture affirms,...

Instead, what Scripture teaches it veracity based upon conformity with Scripture in text and in power, and thus the church is built ...

or are simply unwilling to actually see and deal with the problems with your polemic?

since the Scriptures do not contain a table of contents, on what basis do you decide which books are canonical and which are not?

As said, “the N.T. church was established upon Scriptures that were already authoritative, due to its Divine qualities and attestation, which in principle enabled the establishment of a canon,” meaning that writing wer established as Scripture without an assuredly infallible magisterium, and that the canon we hold to was established the same way the books of the O.T. were established by the time of Christ, as being the transcendent standard for obedience and testing and establishing truth claims, as is abundantly evidenced, as the assured Word of God, with their establishment being upon the basis of their Divine qualities (including internal conflation and complementarity) and supernatural attestation, (Ps. 19:7-11; 119; Heb. 2:3,4) which basis (as said) is how the Lord Jesus established His claims, as did the apostles and early church. (Mt. 22:23-45; Lk. 24:27,44; Jn. 5:36,39; Acts 2:14-35; 4:33; 5:12; 15:6-21;17:2,11; 18:28; 28:23; Rm. 15:19; 2Cor. 12:12)

And which, as with true food, was recognized as being Divine by those who were born of them, which ecclesiastical consensus is how your brethren the Orthodox hold truths as being established. Conciliar decrees, as right and helpful as they can be, are not the reason for the enduring popularity of the 66 book canon, but this is due to its Divine qualifies and attestation (including through manifest men of God who believe it), that progressively distinguished these Heavenly “classics” from uninspired works. More here on this.

what year did first 66 book Bible first appear on earth and who compiled the 66 books together?

The 39 book O.T. is the Jewish canon of antiquity, as the Catholic Encyclopedia affirms, while evidence of a settled 27 book canon dates to at least the 4^th century, and which became the canon of consensus early on in the Reformation, while it took Rome over 1400 years (1546) after the last book was penned to finally provide an infallible, indisputable canon, with doubts about some books existing right into Trent, and whose canon may not be exactly the same as early ones such as Hippo.

Of course, establishing writings as being Scripture does not render one the assured infallible interpreter of it, or do you think otherwise?

can you name one Christian that believes what you do about baptism and the Lord’s Supper from the 2nd or 3rd century?

Who cares? Scripture is what matters. Did the so-called church “Fathers” all agree with Rome on infant baptism or that of heretics, or with Rome and each other on multitude other things? Does Rome or you actually interpret Scripture according to the “stipulated “unanimous consent” of the fathers?, or must try to reconcile differences through the theory of Development of Doctrine? Do your brethren the EO's agree with Rome in what the CFs taught. Do you even have an infallible list of all the CFs? Do you even have most of what they wrote?

From your own brethren:

Roman Catholicism, unable to show a continuity of faith and in order to justify new doctrine, erected in the last century, a theory of "doctrinal development."

Following the philosophical spirit of the time (and the lead of Cardinal Henry Newman), Roman Catholic theologians began to define and teach the idea that Christ only gave us an "original deposit" of faith, a "seed," which grew and matured through the centuries. The Holy Spirit, they said, amplified the Christian Faith as the Church moved into new circumstances and acquired other needs...

On this basis, theories such as the dogmas of "papal infallibility" and "the immaculate conception" of the Virgin Mary (about which we will say more) are justifiably presented to the Faithful as necessary to their salvation.(http://www.ocf.org/OrthodoxPage/reading/ortho_cath.html)

Rather than Rome being the supreme rule of faith, the supernaturally established Scriptures are, being the part of Tradition that has been established as the assured word of God, and which warns about “traditions of men” and unwarranted teachings being made into doctrines, when Scripture is the supreme authority then it allows correction of errant traditions, and thus the Lord corrected the law of Corban, etc. by Scripture, but instead, Rome has made herself the supreme authority and thought of men above what is written, (contra 1Cor. 4:6) and thus she has perpetuated their errors.

"And when they saw some of his disciples eat bread with defiled, that is to say, with unwashen, hands, they found fault. For the Pharisees, and all the Jews, except they wash their hands oft, eat not, holding the tradition of the elders. " (Mark 7:2-3)

"For laying aside the commandment of God, ye hold the tradition of men, as the washing of pots and cups: and many other such like things ye do. " (Mark 7:8)

"Beware lest any man spoil you through philosophy and vain deceit, after the tradition of men, after the rudiments of the world, and not after Christ. " (Colossians 2:8)

Thus the real questions are, where in Scripture do we actually see infants being baptized, versus repentant faith being actually requisite, and those who were baptized being actually being called believers wherever much detail is provided?

And do we see souls being forgiven and regeneration before baptism? (Acts 10:43-47; 11:18; 15:7-9)

And where in Scripture do we see the Lord's words at the last supper theologically explained as being transubstantiation, in contrast to eating and drinking being metaphorical, and the Lord's supper commemorating His death by an act of unselfish communal sharing, in recognition of each other as being His body, as 1Cor. 11:17-33 contextually teaches.

And where do we see believers manifestly having life in them by physically eating Christ, rather than by believing the words of the crucified Lord, (Acts 10:43-46; 15:7-9; Eph. 1:13) or of Jesus living by the Father — which is how He said believers would live by Him, (Jn. 5:57) — by physically consuming His corporeal flesh and blood, versus living by His word, (Mt. 4:4) which was the Lord's “meat.” (Jn. 4:34)

You can argue the contrary, but which only further shows how Catholics must force texts to conform to there carnal theology.

And also refuted is the RC premise that being the steward of Scripture and recipient of promises of guidance and perpetuation and having historical decent requires or equates to having assured infallibility.

Those who desire to can see answers and refutations to many more of your questions and assertions which you asked me here and below, which further testifies to a cultic devotion to Rome and inability or unwillingness to engage in objectively examination and exchange.

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/religion/2811552/posts?page=2297#2297

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/religion/2811552/posts?page=2373#2373

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/religion/2811552/posts?page=2866#2866

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/religion/2811552/posts?page=2935#2935

[daniel1212]

The man is engaging is soliloquy.

< When you are writing your own history, you can make it up as you go along..

When you infallibly define that your are infallible when speaking in accordance with your infallibly defined (scope and subject-based) formula (thus rendering the assertion of infallibility to be infallible) then any such interpretation of Tradition, Scripture and history cannot be challenged, but it it what it is (said to be).

It was the charge of the Reformers that the Catholic doctrines were not primitive, and their pretension was to revert to antiquity. But the appeal to antiquity is both a treason and a heresy. It is a treason because it rejects the Divine voice of the Church at this hour, and a heresy because it denies that voice to be Divine...

I may say in strict truth that the Church has no antiquity. It rests upon its own supernatural and perpetual consciousness. Its past is present with it, for both are one to a mind which is immutable. Primitive and modern are predicates, not of truth, but of ourselves. — Most Rev. Dr. Henry Edward Cardinal Manning, Lord Archbishop of Westminster, The Temporal Mission of the Holy Ghost: Or Reason and Revelation (New York: J.P. Kenedy & Sons, originally written 1865, reprinted with no date), pp. 227-228; http://www.archive.org/stream/a592004400mannuoft/a592004400mannuoft_djvu.txt.

The other Catholics are going to spank you for saying that...

► Archbishop Roland Minnerath, who was a contributor to the Vatican’s 1989 Historical and Theological Symposium, which was directed by the Vatican’s Pontifical Committee for Historical Sciences, at the request of the then Cardinal Ratzinger’s Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, on the theme: “The Primacy of the Bishop of Rome in the First Millennium: Research and Evidence,” has made the admission that the Eastern Orthodox churches “never shared the Petrine theology as elaborated in the West.”

In the first millennium there was no question of the Roman bishops governing the church in distant solitude. They used to take their decisions together with their synod, held once or twice a year. When matters of universal concern arose, they resorted to the ecumenical council. Even [Pope] Leo [I], who struggled for the apostolic principle over the political one, acknowledged that only the emperor would have the power to convoke an ecumenical council and protect the church.

At the heart of the estrangement that progressively arose between East and West, there may be a historical misunderstanding. The East never shared the Petrine theology as elaborated in the West. It never accepted that the protos in the universal church could claim to be the unique successor or vicar of Peter. So the East assumed that the synodal constitution of the church would be jeopardized by the very existence of a Petrine office with potentially universal competencies in the government of the church (How Can the Petrine Ministry Be a Service to the Unity of the Universal Church? James F. Puglisi, Editor, Grand Rapids, MI and Cambridge, U.K.: William B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, ©2010, pgs. 34-48). http://triablogue.blogspot.com/2011/06/archbishop-says-eastern-orthodox-never.html

Orthodox research institute:...throughout the first ten centuries Rome never claimed to have been granted its preferred position of jurisdiction as an explicit privilege” (Orthodoxy, Roman Catholicism and Anglicanism by Methodios Fouyas, p. 70). Avery Dulles considers the development of the Papacy to be an historical accident. “The strong centralization in modern Catholicism is due to historical accident. It has been shaped in part by the homogeneous culture of medieval Europe and by the dominance of Rome, with its rich heritage of classical culture and legal organization” (Models of the Church by Avery Dulles, p. 200) http://www.orthodoxresearchinstitute.org/articles/ecumenical/maxwell_peter.htm

► [Pro-Orthodox author] While the early Church Councils conceded to the Papacy the position of primus inter pares, "first among equals," this did not give to the Popes any special authority. Second place in precedence was acknowledged for the Patriarch of Constantinople by the Ecumenical Council II of 381, though this was somewhat resented by the older Patriarchates at Alexandria and Antioch. The elevated status for Constantinople was because, of course, this had become the seat of the Emperor, beginning with Constantine, and the principal capital of the Roman Empire. Even when there was a Western Emperor, his seat was no longer at Rome, but in Milan and Ravenna. Indeed, more of the Ecumenical Councils were held in Constantinople (II, V, VI, VIII) than elsewhere -- and Council IV was held just across the Bosporus in Chalcedon.

In Constantinople it was unmistakable that the Emperor imposed a unity on the Church that it would not otherwise have, and that would not otherwise be claimed until the Papacy began arrogating powers to itself that otherwise had belonged only to the Emperor or to Church Councils. — http://www.friesian.com/popes.htm

► The Roman Catholic writer Francis Sullivan, in his work From Apostles to Bishops (New York: The Newman Press), painstakingly works through all possible mentions of “succession” from the first three centuries, and concludes from that study not only that “the episcopate [development of bishops] is a the fruit of a post New Testament development], but he interacts with the notion that there is a single bishop in Rome through the middle of the second century, and he flatly dismisses it. [Sullivan, 221-222].

Klaus Schatz, in his Papal Primacy: From its Origins to the Present, not only acknowledges that in the case of the process of the development of “the historically developed papacy” the initial phases of this long process “extended well into the fifth century” (Schatz pg 36) http://beggarsallreformation.blogspot.com/search/label/Klaus%20Schatz

► Klaus Schatz called “Papal Primacy: from its origin to the present:”

Jesuit Father Klaus Schatz on Priesthood, Canon, and the Development of Doctrine in his work, “Papal Primacy”:

..if we ask whether the historical Jesus, in commissioning Peter, expected him to have successors, or whether the authority of the Gospel of Matthew, writing after Peter’s death, was aware that Peter and his commission survived in the leaders of the Roman community who succeeded him, the answer in both cases is probably “no” (page 1)

.. if we ask in addition whether the primitive church was aware, after Peter’s death, that his authority had passed to the next bishop of Rome, or in other words that the head of the community at Rome was now the successor of Peter, the Church’s rock and hence the subject of the promise in Matthew 16:18-19, the question, put in those terms, must certainly be given a negative answer. (page 2)

"If one had asked a Christian in the year 100, 200, or even 300 whether the bishop of Rome was the head of all Christians, or whether there was a supreme bishop over all the other bishops and having the last word in questions affecting the whole Church, he or she would certainly have said no." (page 3, top)

We probably cannot say for certain that there was a bishop of Rome [in 95 AD]. It is likely that the Roman church was governed by a group of presbyters from whom there very quickly emerged a presider or ‘first among equals’ whose name was remembered and who was subsequently described as ‘bishop’ after the mid-second century. (Schatz 4). http://thulcandra.wordpress.com/2007/11/30/klaus-schatz-on-priesthood-canon-and-the-development-of-doctrine/

► Peter Lampe is a German theologian and Professor of New Testament Studies at the University of Heidelberg, whose work, “From Paul to Valentinus: Christians at Rome in the First Two Centuries,” was written in 1987 and translated to English in 2003. The Catholic historian Eamon Duffy (Irish Professor of the History of Christianity at the University of Cambridge, and former President of Magdalene College), said “all modern discussion of the issues must now start from the exhaustive and persuasive analysis by Peter Lampe.” (“Saints and Sinners,” “A History of the Popes,” Yale, 1997, 2001, pg. 421).

The picture that finally emerges from Lampe’s analysis of surviving evidence is one he names ‘the fractionation of Roman Christianity’ (pp. 357–408). Not until the second half of the second century, under Anicetus, do we find compelling evidence for a monarchical episcopacy, and when it emerges, it is to manage relief shipments to dispersed Christians as well as social aid for the Roman poor (pp. 403–4). Before this period Roman Christians were ‘fractionated’ amongst dispersed house/tenement churches, each presided over by its own presbyter–bishop. This accounts for the evidence of social and theological diversity in second-century Roman Christianity, evidence of a degree of tolerance of theologically disparate groups without a single authority to regulate belief and practice, and the relatively late appearance of unambiguous representation of a single bishop over Rome. Review of this work, from Oxford’s Journal of Theological Studies. — http://reformation500.blogspot.com/2008/08/review-of-from-paul-to-valentinus.html)

► Roger Collins (http://www.shc.ed.ac.uk/staff/hon_fellows/rcollins) has written a very thorough history of the papacy: http://www.amazon.com/Keepers-Keys-Heaven-History-Papacy/dp/0465011950/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1236398577&sr=8-1

“There was … no individual, committee or council of leaders within the Christian movement that could pronounce on which beliefs and practices were acceptable and which were not. This was particularly true of Rome with its numerous small groups of believers. Different Christian teachers and organizers of house-churches offered a variety of interpretations of the faith and attracted particular followings, rather in the way that modern denominations provide choice for worshipers looking for practices that particularly appeal to them on emotional, intellectual, aesthetic or other grounds (15-16).

This is not an esoteric or a “liberal” interpretation of history. This is a mainstream historical position. — http://reformation500.wordpress.com/2010/01/14/historical-literature-on-the-earliest-papacy/

► Major Catholic Biblical scholar Raymond Brown (twice appointed to Pontifical Biblical Commission) states,, “The claims of various sees to descend from particular members of the Twelve are highly dubious. It is interesting that the most serious of these is the claim of the bishops of Rome to descend from Peter, the one member of the Twelve who was almost a missionary apostle in the Pauline sense – a confirmation of our contention that whatever succession there was from apostleship to episcopate, it was primarily in reference to the Puauline tyupe of apostleship, not that of the Twelve.” (“Priest and Bishop, Biblical Reflections,” Nihil Obstat, Imprimatur, 1970, pg 72.)

The Catholic historian Paul Johnson goes a bit further than Brown, in his 1976 work “History of Christianity”:

By the third century, lists of bishops, each of whom had consecrated his successor, and which went back to the original founding of the see by one or the other of the apostles, had been collected or manufactured by most of the great cities of the empire and were reproduced by Eusebius…– “A History of Christianity,” pgs 53 ff.)

Eusebius presents the lists as evidence that orthodoxy had a continuous tradition from the earliest times in all the great Episcopal sees and that all the heretical movements were subsequent aberrations from the mainline of Christianity.

Looking behind the lists, however, a different picture emerges. In Edessa, on the edge of the Syrian desert, the proofs of the early establishment of Christianity were forgeries, almost certainly manufactured under Bishop Kune, the first orthodox Bishop.

In Egypt, Orthodoxy was not established until the time of Bishop Demetrius, 189-231, who set up a number of other sees and manufactured a genealogical tree for his own bishopric of Alexandria, which traces the foundation through ten mythical predecessors back to Mark, and so to Peter and Jesus.

Even in Antioch, where both Peter and Paul had been active, there seems to have been confusion until the end of the second century. Antioch completely lost their list; “When Eusebius’s chief source for his Episcopal lists, Julius Africanus, tried to compile one for Antioch, he found only six names to cover the same period of time as twelve in Rome and ten in Alexandria. http://reformation500.wordpress.com/2010/01/14/historical-literature-on-the-earliest-papacy/

Before the second half of the second century there was in Rome no monarchical episcopacy for the circles mutually bound in fellowship. Peter Lampe's extensive work, "From Paul to Valentinus," chapter 41, pages 397 http://beggarsallreformation.blogspot.com/2010/08/this-bridge-should-be-illuminated.html

► we are fairly certain today that, while the Fathers were not Roman Catholics as the thirteenth or nineteenth century world would have understood the term, they were, nonetheless, ‘Catholic,’ and their Catholicism extended to the very canon of the New Testament itself.” (Joseph Cardinal Ratzinger, Principles of Catholic Theology: Building Stones for a Fundamental Theology, trans. Sister Mary Frances McCarthy, Theolgische Prinzipienlehre ]San Francisco: Ignatius Press, 1987], p. 141.)

► American Roman Catholic priest and Biblical scholar Raymond Brown, in “Priest and Bishop: Biblical Reflections,” could not prove on historical grounds, he said, that Christ instituted the priesthood or episcopacy as such; that those who presided at the Eucharist were really priests; that a separate priesthood began with Christ; that the early Christians looked upon the Eucharist as a sacrifice; that presbyter-bishops are traceable in any way to the Apostles; that Peter in his lifetime would be looked upon as the Bishop of Rome; that bishops were successors of the Apostles, even though Vatican II made the same claim.. (from, "A Wayward Turn in Biblical Theory" by Msr. George A. Kelly at http://www.catholic.net/rcc/Periodicals/Dossier/Jan-Feb00/Article5.html)

More:

The Nonexistent Early Papacy

House Churches in Rome

The Roman Catholic Hermeneutic 1

The Roman Catholic Hermeneutic 2

[daniel1212]

Actually, the reason evangelicals have historically contended for these and other doctrines, while opposing other teachings of Rome, is because the former are Scripturally substantiated, enduring challenges under SS while the latter do not depend upon the weight of Scriptural warrant, but rest upon the premise of the assured infallibility of Rome.

In addition, as said before, the premise that those who formulate doctrines are the assuredly infallible interpreters of Scripture effectively nukes the church, as it was the Jews who both the stewards of Scripture and the promises, etc. (Rm. 3:2; 94), and sat in the seat of Moses, and had the rightful claim to historical decent, while Christianity was founded by an itinerant Preacher in their darkened eyes, but who established His claims by Scriptural substantiation.

Furthermore, the faith that Evangelicals have historically contended for commonly held core truths, is contrary to the polemic of SS preventing such, and while individualism is apparent therein, so it is within Catholicism, in which there is commonly consent to core truths, while disagreement can and does abound about many things*, even as to which teachings particular are infallible and thus require full assent of faith, besides the meaning of such and others, and of Scripture texts. And your yourself disagree here with other RCS about Lumen Gentium.

*http://peacebyjesus.witnesstoday.org/DisagrementsSSandSE.html

[count-your-change]

There has been no greater violence done to understanding of the history of Christianity then the trying to trace the “developed” practice and doctrine backwards into the historical-apostolic Christianity.

To cite an example: The office of priest with all it’s graduations and titles.
No such office can be found in Scripture yet terms like elder, older man, overseer, etc. are mistranslated as “priest” and “priestly” functions discovered in the actions of the older men and overseers.

[metmom]

I’ll thank God for telling us in Scripture.

I don’t need the Catholic church to tell me or interpret for me what is plainly and clearly written in Scripture.

I don’t believe what I believe because the Catholic church tells me so but because Scripture tells me so.

The Catholic church getting some things right doesn’t mean they’re the source of it or that we need to thank them for it. It merely means they read the same Scripture and arrived at the same conclusion as everyone else.

[daniel1212]

Well the problem is that Rome effectively claims that it is the Word of God, as she alone autocratically authoritatively declares what it is and what it means, and like the elders of Israel, reject the authority of any who hold the Scriptures as the supreme authority, versus her self-exaltation, and substantiate truth claims by it if they conflict with her.

[editor-surveyor]

>> “LOL, these “Christians” you speak of for 400 years, all worshipped on the first day of the week and did not keep the 7th day sabbath” <<

.
In your imagination!

The four gospels say that they kept the sabbath and the appointed times of YHWH.

The epistles of Paul all say that they kept the sabbath and the appointed times of YHWH.

On what do you base your imaginings?
.

[Iscool]

I did not miss the end of that verse. It is that verse which supports the claim of the Church and the tradition of the Apostles. ALL HID HOUSE. Period. Nothing else, no exclusions for age.

There's the exclusion again, right here...

(Acts 16:32-34)“And they spake unto him the word of the Lord, and to all that were in his house. And he took them the same hour of the night, and washed their stripes; and was baptized, he and all his, straightway. And when he had brought them into his house, he set meat before them, and rejoiced, believing in God with all his house. “

And here the exclusion again...

Act 8:36 And as they went on their way, they came unto a certain water: and the eunuch said, See, here is water; what doth hinder me to be baptized? Act 8:37 And Philip said, If thou believest with all thine heart, thou mayest. And he answered and said, I believe that Jesus Christ is the Son of God.

If you believe with all your heart, you may be baptized...Babies can not believe with all their heart...It's cut and dried...No babies...

[editor-surveyor]

>> “I know that infant baptism is a practice that has its origins in the earliest times of the Christian community and I know that that is true because the Sacred Tradition of Jesus’ Church tells me that.” <<

.
Then you ‘know’ things that are not true!

To call the pagan traditions of Rpme’s false church “the Sacred Tradition of Jesus’ Church” is pure blasphemy.
.

[one Lord one faith one baptism]

what can i say but, REALLY?

try as i might, and believe me i have tried, this post in a bunch of incoherent thoughts all thrown together.

just one sentence is 108 words long and contains 10 commas!!

Hemingway could not write a coherent 108 word sentence, and you my friend are not Hemingway. no wonder you have problems with Catholics ( and i am sure non-Catholics as well ), who can understand the run on sentences that veer left, right and upside down, with an untold number of unrelated thoughts thrown together. this post is proof quantity is no substitute for quality.

now that i have that off my chest, i will try and respond to whatever i think you weretrying to say ( i will be ignoring the cheap insults, they really don’t reflect well on someone who claims to follow Christ )

1. i am glad you admit to being fallible, so your OPINION on Scripture and $1.75 will buy me a cup of coffee.
2. the basis for my belief in Jesus Christ and His Church is FAITH. i realize it is a gift from the Holy Spirit and the natural man therefore can not understand Spiritual truths.
3 i am astonished about your statement that the Church was built on the Scriptures.....you have it all backwards. The Church for most of the Apostolic Age had the OT and some books of the NT at certain times. probably for the first 10 to 15 years of the Church, there wasn’t any NT and the Church spread all over the known Roman world by PREACHING. The Church PRECEDED the NT, not vice versa.
4. “ the Scriptures were already authoritative, due to its Divine qualities and attestation......” LOL, they were authoritative because the Church testified of them. millions of people read them and don’t see any Divine qualities or attestation, it is the Holy Sirit who gives the Spiritual eyes to the Church.
5. the same Church that picked the 27 book NT canon, also chose the 46 book OT canon. why look to the spiritually blind Jews who rejected Christ to determine the OT canon? the Septuigant, which was the Bible of the Apostles, contained all the books in the Catholic Bible.
6. the first 66 book Bible appeared in the 16th century, so i guess 500 years counts as “enduring popularity”? the Reformers removed books from the Bible they inherited from the Church, the Church never “added” books to the Bible.
7. don’t worry about not being able to name any Christians in the 2nd or 3rd centuries, the Mormons and Jehovah Witnesses i ask can’t either. the point of the question was Jesus said the gates of hell would not prevail against the Church and He would be with us until the end of the age. Jesus and His Church must be able to be found continuously since 33ad to the present, if someone can’t, they are following a false gospel. so for the Baptist, it is embarrassing not to be able to find someone who believes in “believers” baptism until the 16th century, so they say “who cares”. who cares? true Christians!

i won’t rehash at this point the consistent teaching of the Catholic Church Fathers on baptismal regeneration and the Real Presence in the Eucharist but may if needed to combat more false assertions.

finally, just let me say one of the few things the Church and the “reformers” had in common was opposition to the anabaptists and their unique doctrines about baptism, unheard of in 1,500 years of Church history.

[one Lord one faith one baptism]

SUNDAY WORSHIP
Back · Home · Next

Scripture
Isaiah 1:13 - God begins to reveal His displeasure with the Sabbath.

Matt. 28:1; Mark 16:2,9; John 20:1,19- the Gospel writers purposely reveal Jesus’ resurrection and appearances were on Sunday. This is because Sunday had now become the most important day in the life of the Church.

Acts 20:7 - this text shows the apostolic tradition of gathering together to celebrate the Eucharist on Sunday, the “first day of the week.” Luke documents the principle worship was on Sunday because this was one of the departures from the Jewish form of worship.

1 Cor. 16:2 - Paul instructs the Corinthians to make contributions to the churches “on the first day of the week,” which is Sunday. This is because the primary day of Christian worship is Sunday.

Col. 2:16-17 - Paul teaches that the Sabbath was only a shadow of what was fulfilled in Christ, and says “let no one pass judgment any more over a Sabbath.”

2 Thess. 2:15 - we are to hold fast to apostolic tradition, whether it is oral or written. The 2,000 year-old tradition of the Church is that the apostles changed the Sabbath day of worship from Saturday to Sunday.

Heb. 4:8-9 - regarding the day of rest, if Joshua had given rest, God would not later speak of “another day,” which is Sunday, the new Sabbath. Sunday is the first day of the week and the first day of the new creation brought about by our Lord’s resurrection, which was on Sunday.

Heb. 7:12 - when there is a change in the priesthood, there is a change in the law as well. Because we have a new Priest and a new sacrifice, we also have a new day of worship, which is Sunday.

Rev 1:10 - John specifically points out that he witnesses the heavenly Eucharistic liturgy on Sunday, the Lord’s day, the new day of rest in Christ.

Matt. 16:19; 18:18 - whatever the Church binds on earth is bound in heaven. Since the resurrection, Mass has been principally celebrated on Sunday.

Top

Tradition / Church Fathers
On the Lord’s own day, assemble in common to break bread and offer thanks, but first confess your sins so that your sacrifice may be pure.” Didache, 14 (A.D. 90).

“If, therefore, those who were brought up in the ancient order of things have come to the possession of a new hope, no longer observing the Sabbath, but living in the observance of the Lord’s Day, on which also our life has sprung up again by Him and by His death—whom some deny, by which mystery we have obtained faith, and therefore endure, that we may be found the disciples of Jesus Christ, our only Master.” Ignatius, To the Magnesians, 9:1 (A.D. 110).

“The seventh day, therefore, is proclaimed a rest—abstraction from ills—preparing for the Primal Day,[The Lord’s Day] our true rest; which, in truth, is the first creation of light, in which all things are viewed and possessed. From this day the first wisdom and knowledge illuminate us. For the light of truth—a light true, casting no shadow, is the Spirit of God indivisibly divided to all, who are sanctified by faith, holding the place of a luminary, in order to the knowledge of real existences. By following Him, therefore, through our whole life, we become impossible; and this is to rest.” Clement of Alexandria, Stromata, 6:16 (A.D. 202).

“In fine, let him who contends that the Sabbath is still to be observed as a balm of salvation, and circumcision on the eighth day because of the threat of death, teach us that, for the time past, righteous men kept the Sabbath, or practiced circumcision, and were thus rendered “friends of God.” For if circumcision purges a man since God made Adam uncircumcised, why did He not circumcise him, even after his sinning, if circumcision purges? At all events, in settling him in paradise, He appointed one uncircumcised as colonist of paradise. Therefore, since God originated Adam uncircumcised, and inobservant of the Sabbath, consequently his offspring also, Abel, offering Him sacrifices, uncircumcised and inobservant of the Sabbath, was by Him commended; while He accepted what he was offering in simplicity of heart, and reprobated the sacrifice of his brother Cain, who was not rightly dividing what he was offering. Noah also, uncircumcised—yes, and inobservant of the Sabbath—God freed from the deluge. For Enoch, too, most righteous man, uncircumcised and in-observant of the Sabbath, He translated from this world; who did not first taste death, in order that, being a candidate for eternal life, he might by this time show us that we also may, without the burden of the law of Moses, please God.” Tertullian, An answer to the Jews, 2 (A.D. 203).

“The apostles further appointed: On the first day of the week let there be service, and the reading of the Holy Scriptures, and the oblation: because on the first day of the week our Lord rose from the lace of the dead and on the first day of the week He arose upon the world, and on the first day of the week He ascended up to heaven, and on the first day of the week He will appear at last with the angels of heaven.” Teaching of the Apostles, 2 (A.D. 225).

“Hence it is not possible that the rest after the Sabbath should have come into existence from the seventh of our God; on the contrary, it is our Saviour who, after the pattern of His own rest, caused us to be made in the likeness of His death, and hence also of His resurrection.” Origen, Commentary on John, 2:27 (A.D. 229).

“On the seventh day He rested from all His works, and blessed it, and sanctified it. On the former day we are accustomed to fast rigorously, that on the Lord’s day we may go forth to our bread with giving of thanks. And let the parasceve become a rigorous fast, lest we should appear to observe any Sabbath with the Jews, which Christ Himself, the Lord of the Sabbath, says by His prophets that ‘His soul hateth;’ which Sabbath He in His body abolished.” Victorinus, On the Creation of the World (A.D. 300).

“They did not care about circumcision of the body, neither do we. They did not care about observing Sabbaths, nor do we.” Eusebius, Church History, 1:4,8 (A.D. 312).

“Also that day which is holy and blessed in everything, which possesses the name of Christ, namely the Lord’s day, having risen upon us on the fourth of Pharmuthi (Mar. 30), let us afterwards keep the holy feast of Pentecost.” Athanasius, Epistle 9:11 (A.D. 335).

“Fall not away either into the sect of the Samaritans, or into Judaism: for Jesus Christ henceforth hath ransomed thee. Stand aloof from all observance of Sabbaths, and from calling any indifferent meats common or unclean.” Cyril of Jerusalem, Catechetical Lectures, 4:37 (A.D. 350).

“Christians must not judaize by resting on the Sabbath, but must work on that day, rather honouring the Lord’s Day; and, if they can, resting then as Christians. But if any shall be found to be judaizers, let them be anathema from Christ.” Council of Laodicea, Canon 29 (A.D. 360).

“For many other observances of the Churches, which are due to tradition, have acquired the authority of the written law, as for instance the practice of dipping the head three times in the layer, and then, after leaving the water, of tasting mingled milk and honey in representation of infancy; and, again, the practices of standing up in worship on the Lord’s day, and ceasing from fasting every Pentecost; and there are many other unwritten practices which have won their place through reason and custom. So you see we follow the practice of the Church, although it may be clear that a person was baptized before the Spirit was invoked.” Jerome, Dialogue against the Luciferians, 8 (A.D. 382).

“Then as one whom they must respect, there will be the presbyter among them and this will contribute to the security of the estate. There will be constant prayers there through thee hymns and Communions through thee; the Oblation on each Lord’s Day.” John Chrysostom, Acts of the Apostles, Homily 18 (A.D. 388).

“And on the day of our Lord’s resurrection, which is the Lord’s day, meet more diligently, sending praise to God that made the universe by Jesus, and sent Him to us, and condescended to let Him suffer, and raised Him from the dead. Otherwise what apology will he make to God who does not assemble on that day to hear the saving word concerning the resurrection, on which we pray thrice standing in memory of Him who arose in three days, in which is performed the reading of the prophets, the preaching of the Gospel, the oblation of the sacrifice, the gift of the holy food?” Apostolic Constitutions, 2,7:59 (A.D. 400).

“Well, now, I should like to be told what there is in these ten commandments, except the observance of the Sabbath, which ought not to be kept by a Christian,—whether it prohibit the making and worshipping of idols and of any other gods than the one true God, or the taking of God’s name in vain; or prescribe honour to parents; or give warning against fornication, murder, theft, false witness, adultery, or coveting other men’s property? Which of these commandments would any one say that the Christian ought not to keep? Is it possible to contend that it is not the law which was written on those two tables that the apostle describes as ‘the letter that killeth,’ but the law of circumcision and the other sacred rites which are now abolished? But then how can we think so, when in the law occurs this precept, ‘Thou shall not covet,’ by which very commandment, notwithstanding its being holy, just, and good, ‘sin,’ says the apostle, ‘deceived me, and by it slew me?’ What else can this be than ‘the letter’ that ‘killeth’?” Augustine, Spirit and the Letter, 23:14 (A.D. 412).

“He [Constantine] also enjoined the observance of the day termed the Lord’s day, which the Jews call the first day of the week, and which the pagans dedicate to the sun, as likewise the day before the seventh, and commanded that no judicial or other business should be transacted on those days, but that God should be served with prayers and supplications. He honored the Lord’s day, because on it Christ arose from the dead, and the day above mentioned, because on it he was crucified.” Sozomon, Ecclesiastical History, 1:8 (A.D. 443).

“It has come to my ears that certain men of perverse spirit have sown among you some things that are wrong and opposed to the holy faith, so as to forbid any work being done on the Sabbath day. What else can I call these but preachers of Antichrist, who, when he comes, will cause the Sabbath day as well as the Lord’s day to be kept free from all work. For, because he pretends to die and rise again, he wishes the Lord’s day to be had in reverence; and, because he compels the people to judaize that he may bring back the outward rite of the law, and subject the per-tidy of the Jews to himself, he wishes the Sabbath to be observed. For this which is said by the prophet, ‘Ye shall bring in no burden through your gates on the Sabbath day’, could be held to as long as it was lawful for the law to be observed according to the letter. But after that the grace of Almighty God, our Lord Jesus Christ has appeared, the commandments of the law which were spoken figuratively cannot be kept according to the letter. For, if any one says that this about the Sabbath is to be kept, he must needs say that carnal sacrifices are to be offered: he must say too that the commandment about the circumcision of the body is still to be retained. But let him hear the Apostle Paul saying in opposition to him, ‘If ye be circumcised, Christ profiteth you nothing.’” Pope Gregory the Great [regn. A.D. 590-604], To the Roman Citizens, Epistle 13:1 (A.D. 597).

Top

Copyright 2001 - 2007 © by John Salza. All Rights Reserved.
johnsalza@scripturecatholic.com

care to name any Christians in the first 400 years who kept the 7th day sabbath?