Peter and the Keys, Catholicism and the Pope

[Standing Up]

[/b]
Right where it always was--in the first several generations after Christ. It was not any of the various denominations that formed later. Not the RC, EO, Reformed, Anglican, Baptists, etc. But all of these and more are descended as branches from that early church that was not any of them.


If we could be transported back in time, maybe most of us WOULD care to be part of it.

Now you're beginning to sound like me

 

[JoabAnias]

[/b]
Right where it always was--in the first several generations after Christ. It was not any of the various denominations that formed later. Not the RC, EO, Reformed, Anglican, Baptists, etc. But all of these and more are descended as branches from that early church that was not any of them.

All of those and more? How many more? 30,000 in the last century?

My Bible doesn't lie and the visible Church can never end. Jesus said so and to claim otherwise is as unbiblical as not holding to doctrine handed down.

Men who create their own Church or who are their own Church unto themselves do end all the time.

 

[MamaZ]

well one can only be the Church if Christ is indeed the head and His Spirit is what unites His body to Him and not any local assembly be it any given name.

 

[CaliforniaJosiah]

My Bible doesn't lie and the visible Church can never end. Jesus said so and to claim otherwise is as unbiblical as not holding to doctrine handed down.

Men who create their own Church or who are their own Church unto themselves do end all the time.

Friend,


1. I'm lost how any of that supplies substantiation for the CC's unique Dogma of the Papacy...

2. I don't think the Bible lies either, but as we all know, the Papacy is never mentioned and nor is the RCC. Nor is the diocese in Rome. So, what some are TRYING to do is to look at some Scriptures vis-a-vis the papacy of the singular CC and whether such is dogmatic confirmation, substantiation for exactly what the Papacy is. Did you have any intention of participating in that discussion, or merely thowing your claim and/or believe out there (we ALL already know what the RCC claims, and we all already know that Catholics are required by the RCC to accept it all with docility; we're discussing the verification of such not the claim of or belief in such).

3. We all know that the RCC is an old denomination; some Orthodox may be even older. That's wonderful, but it hardly means that the dogma of the Catholic Papacy is verified. Surely you are not suggesting that Hinduism is verified and dogmatically correct (infallible) because it's older than Christianity so age has nothing to do with anything. And we know that the RCC still exists (as do some Orthodox groups), but existing hardly verifies correctness, as I'm sure you agree.

Do you have any verification/evidence/substantiation to share that hasn't been presented already (or even if it has and you wish to present it to)? Again, our discussion is about the documentation for this unique Catholic dogma.




Thank you.


Pax


- Josiah





.

 

[WarriorAngel]

[/b]
Right where it always was--in the first several generations after Christ. It was not any of the various denominations that formed later. Not the RC, EO, Reformed, Anglican, Baptists, etc. But all of these and more are descended as branches from that early church that was not any of them.


If we could be transported back in time, maybe most of us WOULD care to be part of it.

So then His Church died off and now we no longer have the Church He said He would remain with til the end of time?
I guess He got it wrong then. SO much for perseverence.

Oh, I think there is something you could do, but simply stating your version of history and scripture as if it were necessarily true won't do it. You'd have to become serious about investigating the facts in order to see where the truth lies. You might be able to convince some of us that Peter was considered infallible or the singular head of worldwide Christianity, and that he passed this on to Linus, and that this was both Jesus' will and was the common knowledge Christians at that time.

But simply stating a theory as if it were truth won't do it. It wouldn't do it if we were talking with Mormons who said that Joseph Smith dug up plates, so why are you a doubter? After all, you were told he did, right?


If he had established the Papacy that could be true.

-
There you go making up scripture again. The Bible does not say that. It says that Peter was to build the church JESUS founded.


Again, not correct according to scripture. The verse does not say "because of." It simply says that the gates of hell will not prevail against the church...which is obviously true since it's still here.

ALready quoted many times Matthew 16.
AND the gates of hell shall not prevail.
What does that mean?
That His Church will not ever preach error.
Revelation tells us the one with the keys will remain faithful, and even thru the trials and tests of the end times.

I will be with you til the consumation of time?
What does that mean?
His Church will have an unending line and continue until time is no more.

He said He will shortened the Last Days for the sake of His elect.
What elect?
His choosen men in one line.

One line will continue onwards til the end, because He already said it would in scriptures.

IF the generations afterwards would have no longer ordained men to succeed, then it would have eneded, but it didnt.

Disagreeing with a Church doesn't mean it is wrong. It means you disagree, without evidence of your opinion.

well one can only be the Church if Christ is indeed the head and His Spirit is what unites His body to Him and not any local assembly be it any given name.

I agreed with most of what you said, but St Ignatius said...[115 AD thereabouts]
'Where the Bishop [singular as in Pope or where any are in the line of succession] is, THERE is the Catholic Church...'

Catholic means that Church will be universal.
Meaning the Church will be in every nation.

 

[MamaZ]

Christs church is alive and thriving. He is the head and He is the builder of His church. His Spirit is alive and active in the believers life and our relationship with Him and the Father cannot be broken.. For nothing can seperate us from the Love of Christ. We are his bought with His blood and sealed with His Spirit and it is He that is at work in us both to will and work for HIS good pleasure.

 

[CaliforniaJosiah]

So then His Church died off and now we no longer have the Church He said He would remain with til the end of time?

Friend,

Jesus NEVER said ANYTHING about The Catholic Church, or any other denomination.
He never promised it anything or authorized it for anything.
He never said anything at all about it.
He never so much as mentioned it.
Not once.
Ever.

Yes, Jesus said He would be with "YOU" until the end of time, not "The Roman Catholic Denomination." Isn't that obvious?
Frankly, this RCC epistemology of just deleting what the Bible says - just deleting the words there - and then inserting totally foreign words into the text, and then shouting: "THERE! The Bible teaches it!" has been regarded by me as a tad disconcerting for a long time. But let's not digress into Catholic hermeneutics. The reality is simple and obvious: Jesus said YOU, not The Roman Catholic Denomination.

But the discussion here is not about whether Jesus is still with us, the discussion is about the documentation for the unique Catholic Dogma of the Papacy.

ALready quoted many times Matthew 16.

We know.

And it says nothing about infallible or unaccountable.
Nothing about superior or powerful lord over all.
Nothing about the diocese of Rome.
Nothing about any "successors."
Nothing about the papacy at all.


And we've been all over this; IF the RCC's totally unique "interpretation" of this is correct - and only ONE agrees that it is: the RCC itself, then it means that those keys are in the cold, dead hands of Peter since the keys were given to HIM and no other, so he still has 'em. But, as NewMan99 noted much earlier in this thread, using that singular verse to document the Dogma of the Papacy gets us nowhere.

AND the gates of hell shall not prevail.
What does that mean?
That His Church will not ever preach error.

Friend, IMHO, that's an ENTIRELY, COMPLETELY unsupported olympian leap. You could equally say that the verse means that Jupiter is made of cheddar cheese. The verse says nothing about any denomination - including yours. The verse says nothing about preaching - by you, your priest, your bishop or your pope. It says nothing about error or infalliblity, noithing about anyone or anything being unaccountable. It says nothing a about any man being the supreme, powerful, unaccountable, lord over all. Nothing. And, my friend, if you read the words that will be obvious. As obvious to you as it is to all others.



Friend, we all KNOW what the RCC requires you to accept with docility and it's fine that you do. The discussion here is not about what ANYONE beleives about ANYTHING - whether Catholic or Muslim or Mormon or Lutheran or whatever. NOR is it about the sincerity or passion of such. NOR is it even about whether such faith is true or false. It's about the documentation in confirmation of a Dogma - a dogma of one, one that is very foundational to that specific denomination, one that is perhaps the single most divisive view in all of Christianity and has been for a very, very long time - long before Luther was born (and thus, Protestants can't be blamed for this one). We're discussing the dogmatic documentation for this.

I agreed with most of what you said, but St Ignatius said...[115 AD thereabouts]'Where the Bishop [singular as in Pope or where any are in the line of succession] is, THERE is the Catholic Church...'

... actually, he wrote catholic church. Apples and oranges. And he never so much as even mentioned the papacy. Our discussion here is not about Christians or bishops, it's about the unique Dogma of the Papacy and the documentation for it.

Catholic means that Church will be universal.
Meaning the Church will be in every nation.

... then your denomination was not the Catholic Church until the 20th century and was invalid before that (a view I find absurd). As you know, "catholic" was and still primarily is an ADJECTIVE that means whole, universal, general, all-embracing. Now, the bishop of the specific diocese in Rome has NEVER been the supreme lord over ALL congregations in the world; it's not even yet been documented that in the 4th century (where we have the first evidence of the first step toward the understanding of Papacy) that he was seen as supreme infallible lord over all congregations of ONE nation: the Roman Empire; so if I take your comment to mean that a Pope is one who is the supreme, powerful, lord over all congregations in every nation - then that was NEVER the case and today AT MOST he is over less than one-fourth of those congregations: suggesting a contradiction to the dogma, not a support of it (although I don't agree with your apologetic here).


WarriorAngel, I have several requests here for you to quote me for saying what you state I said. All those requests are to date ignored. I again request that you honor these requests.


WarriorAngel, I realize you believe what your denomination requires you to believe - and that's wonderful. And I realize that if one says something long enough and often enough, some will regard it as true - perhaps even as dogmatic, objective fact. I know that. And you seem to be embracing that approach. But, friend, WE ALL KNOW the claim. The issue before us is the documentation, the verification for the unique CC dogma of the Papacy. Because it alone claims it as dogma, objective fact, a matter of highest certainty and importance. Because it is absolutely foundational and key to the entire RCC and its remarkable claims of self alone for self alone. Because it is probably the single most divise issue in Christianity and has been for a very, very long time (long before Luther was born). For all these reasons and more - we are seeking verification, to the level claimed by the RCC itself. In ways, means and apologetics that Catholics accept as valid from others.


Thank you.


Pax


- Josiah





.

 

[Rick Otto]

quote=JoabAnias;All of those and more?

Yes.

How many more? 30,000 in the last century?

All of them.

My Bible doesn't lie...

(As if anyone believes it does)

and the visible Church can never end.

We haven't & we won't - rest assured. When Ezekiel thought he was the only faithful guy in Isreal, the "one true" believer,... God showed him a remnant of 7,000 He had kept to Himself.

Jesus said so and to claim otherwise is as unbiblical as not holding to doctrine handed down.

We don't claim otherwise. We claim your monopolization of it is not "unbiblical" as the bible prophesies it, it is "unscriptural" because it defies scriptural truth. Besides, Pope Anicetus already demopnstrated that the Roman rite considers apostolic tradition to be optional on matters of faith.

Men who create their own Church or who are their own Church unto themselves do end all the time.

And some of them go to questionable means to attain those ends.

 

[LittleLambofJesus]

Originally Posted by WarriorAngel So then His Church died off and now we no longer have the Church He said He would remain with til the end of time?

My Church is still around

Matthew 28:20 Teaching them to be keeping all as much as I command to ye. And behold! I with ye am all the days till the together-finish/sun-teleiaV <4930> of the Age/aiwnoV <165>. Amen [Matt 24:3]

Matthew 24:3 He is yet sitting on the mount of the Olives, the disciples came toward to Him according to own saying "tell us when? shall these be and what? the Sign of the Thy ParousiaV and of the together-finish/sun-teleiaV <4930> of the Age"?

Christs church is alive and thriving. He is the head and He is the builder of His church. His Spirit is alive and active in the believers life and our relationship with Him and the Father cannot be broken.. For nothing can seperate us from the Love of Christ. We are his bought with His blood and sealed with His Spirit and it is He that is at work in us both to will and work for HIS good pleasure.

AMEN!

 

[Albion]

So then His Church died off and now we no longer have the Church

If that's what you think, I know I won't be able to dissuade you. However, I've answered the question many times....He founded a church, not a club.That's one reason why the early church took pains NOT to be seen as a mystery cult, but something transcending such exclusivistic members-only sects.

All of us who are true believers, no matter which denomination or communion we belong to formally, are members of it.

He said He would remain with til the end of time?

And so he has.

ALready quoted many times Matthew 16.
AND the gates of hell shall not prevail.
What does that mean?

It means that his church will prevail. It has.

That His Church will not ever preach error.

The Bible does not say that, and the verse in Matt 16 does not say it. You invented that.

Then I will be with you til the consumation of time?
What does that mean?

He will be with us until the end of the age.

His Church will have an unending line and continue until time is no more.

There will be a continued existence for his church.

He said He will shortened the Last Days for the sake of His elect.
What elect?

Those chosen from all eternity to come to faith and be saved by the blood of Christ. Usually, Catholics like yourself believe we can turn ourselves to God and so find salvation.

One line will continue onwards til the end, because He already said it would in scriptures.

That's not in scripture.

Disagreeing with a Church doesn't mean it is wrong. It means you disagree, without evidence of your opinion.

On the contrary, agreeing with any church, without any evidence, doesn't make it right.

I agreed with most of what you said, but St Ignatius said...[115 AD thereabouts]
'Where the Bishop [singular as in Pope or where any are in the line of succession] is, THERE is the Catholic Church...'

Sure. You're Catholic, I'm Catholic, they're Catholic. All of us are Catholic -- but not necessarily Roman Catholic. All that Ignatius meant was that we aren't part of some Gnostic cult which had different scriptures, didn't believe that Jesus was a true man, or the like. To him, "Catholic" meant NOT being that, but believing in the faith of the Apostles instead.

Catholic means that Church will be universal.

First, he used the word in reference to his own time, not as a prediction of things to come. That was your addition.

Then as to meaning...it's "Universal" in the sense of authentic or all-embracing. It did not mean "worldwide," which no communion or denomination is and which Christianity itself certainly was not when Ignatius used the word. NO variety of Christianity was to be found in any but a small portion of the world in his time.

More importantly, the word does not appear anywhere in Scripture -- as CJ already pointed out to you. Ignatius' use of it came at the end of the Apostolic Age and is just the commentary of an ordinary person, no more infallible or compelling than legions of other theologians.

 

[Albion]

My Church is still around

And it's older than the Roman Church, as are the Anglican churches and possibly a few others.

Which leads to that familiar question: "Warrior Angel, when was YOUR church founded?"

 

[LittleLambofJesus]

And it's older than the Roman Church, as are the Anglican churches and possibly a few others.

Which leads to that familiar question: "Warrior Angel, when was YOUR church founded?"

Greetings Albion. Perhaps there is some confusion on what the CHURCH of today is

http://www.christianforums.com/t7367917/
Give your view of the biblical "The Church" today

 

[Albion]

All of those and more? How many more? 30,000 in the last century?

There is no evidence that 30,000 churches were founded in the "last century." But if you are referring to the number of different denominations existing, that was already answered for you. As you said there are 115 Methodists (or whatever the exact number you used was), over 300 Roman Catholic churches, hundreds of Baptist churches, etc. Yeh, Christ's church has many different congregations, has many different legal names, and is found in many different countries.

My Bible doesn't lie and the visible Church can never end.

No one here has said anything to the contrary.

men who create their own Church or who are their own Church unto themselves do end all the time.

According to what you said in the first paragraph they are, in fact, multiplying fast. Which guess do you want to stick with?

 

[Albion]

Greetings Albion. Perhaps there is some confusion on what the CHURCH of today is

http://www.christianforums.com/t7367917/
Give your view of the biblical "The Church" today

Well, of course, the word is being used in several senses on this thread, which is perfectly fine in itself. Here, Warrior Angel was using it in the sense she always does--to mean denomination, communion, sect, etc., not the whole body of true believers regardless of formal affiliation, if any, which is the higher and Biblical meaning.

 

[LittleLambofJesus]

Well, of course, the word is being used in several senses on this thread, which is perfectly fine in itself. Here, Warrior Angel was using it in the sense she always does--to mean denomination, communion, sect, etc., not the whole body of true believers regardless of formal affiliation, if any, which is the higher and Biblical meaning.

Greetings. That can tend to "confuse" non-Christians a lot

http://www.christianforums.com/t7368777/
To all non-Christians here...define a Christian

 

[NewMan99]

My Church is still around

LLOJ,

Just curious...which of the many Eastern Orthodox Churches have you decided to join (I am assuming you intend formal entry into one of them...maybe I am wrong about that, though)? Some are older and others are younger than the Roman Church, but all trace their heritage to the Catholic Church and the Apostles (at least that is our version of it - others may disagree).

 

[LittleLambofJesus]

LLOJ,

Just curious...which of the many Eastern Orthodox Churches have you decided to join (I am assuming you intend formal entry into one of them...maybe I am wrong about that, though)? Some are older and others are younger than the Roman Church, but all trace their heritage to the Catholic Church and the Apostles (at least that is our version of it - others may disagree).

Would that be the "c"atholic or "C"atholic Church?

http://www.christianforums.com/t7367917/
Give your view of the biblical "The Church" today

 

[Albion]

Greetings. That can tend to "confuse" non-Christians a lot

I think we have received plenty of evidence that it tends to confuse Christians, probably more than non-Christians.

 

[LittleLambofJesus]

I think we have received plenty of evidence that it tends to confuse Christians, probably more than non-Christians.

I would say this thread dost bare that out

 

[NewMan99]

Would that be the &quot;c&quot;atholic or &quot;C&quot;atholic Church?

http://www.christianforums.com/t7367917/
Give your view of the biblical &quot;The Church&quot; today

In this case I mean both. My point being that &quot;The Catholic Church&quot; (the Church I belong to...the worldwide Church in Communion with the Bishop of Rome consisting of 24 individual Churches) does not consider its founding date to be the day that the individual Roman Church was first formed. Rather, we claim &quot;The Catholic Church&quot; was founded by Jesus on the Apostles and was &quot;born&quot; in a manner of speaking at Pentecost. Therefore each of the individual Churches that sprang from that point in time are organically connected, but they each have their own distinct start dates as individual Churches. Thus, a FEW Eastern Churches were &quot;started&quot; as an individual Church before the Roman Church was started (although not very many of them were), but MOST Eastern Churches were started AFTER the Roman Church. But BOTH the Roman Church (and those Eastern Churches in Communion with her), and the Orthodox Churches (read: Eastern and Oriental) trace their shared heritage to the Apostles and Pentecost. And THIS Church we (Catholics) call The Catholic Church even though at that time the very early Christians did not. As you know, the word &quot;catholic&quot; - as a word and not a proper name - was first coined in Antioch circa 100 AD. It described one of the Marks of the Church.

At first, of course, there were no churches that was differed from the teachings of the Apostles. But things changed, and this affected how the Church began to refer to itself.

Jimmy Akin explains:

Soon, however, some local churches did acquire unorthodox beliefs and practices that resulted in their separating themselves from the worldwide Christian Church. The resulting groups were commonly named after their founders, the locations where they arose, or their most distinctive doctrines, practices, or traits. The Montanists were named after their founder Montanus. The Cataphrygians were named after the land of Phrygia. The Docetists were named after their claim that Christ only seemed (Greek, dokein) to be human, and the Quartodecimians were named after their insistence on celebrating Easter on the fourteenth of Nisan even if it did not fall on a Sunday.

By the second half of the first century there were enough separate, particular groups in existence that there needed to be a way to refer to the universal body of Christians constituting the original Church that Christ founded. The term that came into use for designating this all-embracing body was kataholos, which is brought over into English as &quot;Catholic.&quot; Though it is often somewhat loosely translated as &quot;universal,&quot; it means &quot;according [kata-] to the whole [holos].&quot;

By the early second century, the term &quot;Catholic&quot; was in common use as a designation for Christ’s Church. A belief or practice was said to be Catholic if it if it was in accord with what Christians as a whole believed or practiced, not just what was taught or done by some particular group that had split off from the Church. Christians who preferred their own views to those of the whole Church were known as heretics (roughly, &quot;opinionated ones&quot and those who separated from Catholic unity for non-doctrinal reasons were known as schismatics (roughly, &quot;divisive ones&quot.

The whole article can be read here if you are interested.

Soooo...all that being said...which particular EO Church do you consider yourself to be a part of?

God's Peace,

NewMan