The RCC born in 313 AD? (2)

[MoreCoffee]

Saint Irenaeus wrote the following in about 180 AD.

3. The blessed apostles, then, having founded and built up the Church, committed into the hands of Linus the office of the episcopate. Of this Linus, Paul makes mention in the Epistles to Timothy. To him succeeded Anacletus; and after him, in the third place from the apostles, Clement was allotted the bishopric. This man, as he had seen the blessed apostles, and had been conversant with them, might be said to have the preaching of the apostles still echoing [in his ears], and their traditions before his eyes. Nor was he alone [in this], for there were many still remaining who had received instructions from the apostles. In the time of this Clement, no small dissension having occurred among the brethren at Corinth, the Church in Rome dispatched a most powerful letter to the Corinthians, exhorting them to peace, renewing their faith, and declaring the tradition which it had lately received from the apostles, proclaiming the one God, omnipotent, the Maker of heaven and earth, the Creator of man, who brought on the deluge, and called Abraham, who led the people from the land of Egypt, spoke with Moses, set forth the law, sent the prophets, and who has prepared fire for the devil and his angels. From this document, whosoever chooses to do so, may learn that He, the Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, was preached by the Churches, and may also understand the tradition of the Church, since this Epistle is of older date than these men who are now propagating falsehood, and who conjure into existence another god beyond the Creator and the Maker of all existing things. To this Clement there succeeded Evaristus. Alexander followed Evaristus; then, sixth from the apostles, Sixtus was appointed; after him, Telephorus, who was gloriously martyred; then Hyginus; after him, Pius; then after him, Anicetus. Soter having succeeded Anicetus, Eleutherius does now, in the twelfth place from the apostles, hold the inheritance of the episcopate. In this order, and by this succession, the ecclesiastical tradition from the apostles, and the preaching of the truth, have come down to us. And this is most abundant proof that there is one and the same vivifying faith, which has been preserved in the Church from the apostles until now, and handed down in truth.​

 

[LittleLambofJesus]

Originally Posted by MoreCoffee

Please do not offer a mere rhetorical "friendship" in what is written in one's posts.
The Catholic Church does claim the attributes (not titles) of the Church that Jesus Christ founded. She is one. holy, catholic, and apostolic.
Consequently she is not founded in 313 AD. 33 AD is nearer the mark.
​

It may be the c/Catholic church, but isn't it the doctrine of "Roman Catholicism" and Papal supremacy that is being questioned? Just asking. Thanks

http://www.christianforums.com/t7213672-200/
Is Catholicism the same Church that the Apostles set up

In Christianity, Apostolic Succession refers to the uninterrupted lines of bishops which are historically traceable back to the original Twelve Apostles. Apostolic Succession is transmitted during episcopal consecrations (the ordination of bishops) by the laying on of hands of a bishop previously consecrated with Apostolic Succession. Generally, all pre-Protestant Reformation churches including the Roman Catholic, Eastern Orthodox, and Oriental Orthodox claim Apostolic Succession.
Due to the sacramental theology of these churches, Apostolic Succession is considered necessary for the valid ordination of priests and bishops, which are in turn necessary for the validity of several of the other sacraments, including the Eucharist, Confession, Confirmation, and the Anointing of the Sick.

Apostolic Succession is claimed by all of the pre-Protestant Reformation churches, including the Assyrian Church of the East, the Coptic Orthodox Church of Alexandria, the Armenian Apostolic Church, the Greek Orthodox Church, the Russian Orthodox Church, the Ethiopian Orthodox Church, the Roman Catholic Church, the original Thomas Christians in India, and other Eastern Orthodox and Oriental Orthodox churches.

Apostolic Succession is claimed by the Old Catholic Church and the Polish National Catholic Church, which separated from Roman Catholicism after the reformation.

The churches of the Anglican Communion also claim Apostolic Succession. While their claim is recognized by some Eastern Christian churches, it is not officially recognized by the Roman Catholic Church, based on Pope Leo XIII's papal bull Apostolicae Curae. However, since the promulgation of Apostolicae Curae, Anglican bishops have acquired Old Catholic lines of Apostolic Succession recognized by Rome.

The Roman Catholic Church further asserts that Jesus Christ gave Saint Peter a unique primacy among the apostles, which has been passed on in the office of the Papacy.

Eastern Orthodox theology and ecclesiology teaches that each bishop is equal to the other bishops, even the Ecumenical Patriarch, who is first amongst equals, continuing the ancient practice of the church, who considered the Roman Pontiff to be first but not superior to the rest of the bishops.

.

 

[Restoresmysoul]

I have already provided evidence in a number of posts. Proof however, in matters of history, is no easy task and those who choose to stick with their story will reject any evidence that is presented with a complaint of some sort against it. But here is the summary

• Paul wrote a letter (written around 55 AD to 56 AD) to the church(es) in Rome.
• Saint Peter preached to people who came from Rome on the day of Pentecost.
• Acts 18 tells some of the story of the expulsion of the Jews from Rome and points out that Priscilla and Aquila were among those expelled (they were Christians but the Roman authorities may not have realised that there was any difference between Jews and Christians in the 40s or early 50s AD when the expulsion took place) thus providing evidence that a christian church or churches of some kind existed in Rome in that period.
• When saint Paul went to Rome in the late 50s AD or early 60s AD there was already a church there.
• Irenaeus gives a list of popes in Rome (pope means father, it is only an honorary/spiritual title) his list starts with saint Peter.
• Other early Christian writers also include lists of the popes in Rome always starting with saint Peter.
• The doctrines taught in Rome by the popes are distinctly Catholic; specifically, the real presence, baptismal efficacy and grace (some protestants call his baptismal regeneration), the episcopal office, apostolic succession, the importance of apostolic tradition, the liturgy of the mass (or divine liturgy), and a host of other doctrines that many Protestants reject.

Thus a Catholic church existed in Rome from the earliest times for which we have written records (including the writings of the new testament) and it was distinctly catholic. In fact all the ancient churches that maintained the teaching that they received from the apostles were catholic in the first ten centuries of the christian era.

Lets get to the points i raised. Show me how RC obeys Paul's teaching on Holy days. Please don't give me a reference to Paul collecting money on Sunday, just show me how they observe Romans 14. Otherwise their doctrine on this subject is flawed, as i suggested.

 

[MoreCoffee]

Lets get to the points i raised. Show me how RC obeys Paul's teaching on Holy days. Please don't give me a reference to Paul collecting money on Sunday, just show me how they observe Romans 14. Otherwise their doctrine on this subject is flawed, as i suggested.

How many ways can I say what I've already said regarding that issue. It is not the day that is holy so much as the congregational worship from which one ought not to absent one's self. That is discussed in Hebrews 10:24-27.

And let us be considerate of one another, so as to prompt ourselves to charity and to good works, not deserting our assembly, as some are accustomed to do, but consoling one another, and even more so as you see that the day is approaching. For if we sin willingly, after receiving knowledge of the truth, there is no sacrifice remaining for sins, but instead, a certain terrible expectation of judgment, and the rage of a fire that shall consume its adversaries.​

Thus Catholics don't make a fuss about keeping a Saturday Sabbath, nor keeping the feasts of the old covenant. But Catholics gather on a Sunday, as was the custom of the early Church, to celebrate the mass as their worship of God. And Catholics also gather for worship on special occasions, such as the celebration of the birthday of Jesus Christ because on a day, chosen by the church, it is good catechesis to gather and remember who was born and why he was born as the son of Mary in a manger with shepherds and his parents as witnesses. These things are not in contravention of saint Paul's urging the Galatians not to be under the bondage of keeping the days and feasts of the Law of Moses. These celebrations are Christian and not a revival of Moses' Law. Why do you not understand this?

 

[Restoresmysoul]

How many ways can I say what I've already said regarding that issue. It is not the day that is holy so much as the congregational worship from which one ought not to absent one's self. That is discussed in Hebrews 10:24-27.

And let us be considerate of one another, so as to prompt ourselves to charity and to good works, not deserting our assembly, as some are accustomed to do, but consoling one another, and even more so as you see that the day is approaching. For if we sin willingly, after receiving knowledge of the truth, there is no sacrifice remaining for sins, but instead, a certain terrible expectation of judgment, and the rage of a fire that shall consume its adversaries.​

Thus Catholics don't make a fuss about keeping a Saturday Sabbath, nor keeping the feasts of the old covenant. But Catholics gather on a Sunday, as was the custom of the early Church, to celebrate the mass as their worship of God. And Catholics also gather for worship on special occasions, such as the celebration of the birthday of Jesus Christ because on a day, chosen by the church, it is good catechesis to gather and remember who was born and why he was born as the son of Mary in a manger with shepherds and his parents as witnesses. These things are not in contravention of saint Paul's urging the Galatians not to be under the bondage of keeping the days and feasts of the Law of Moses. These celebrations are Christian and not a revival of Moses' Law. Why do you not understand this?

Yes, RC doesn't make a fuss over Saturday i know, they do however make a fuss over Sunday, if i'm not mistaken. Correct? This is not what Paul taught in Romans 14, is it? Doesn't making a fuss over Sunday or any other day actually fail to observe Paul's Rom 14 command? (or his exhortation, take it as you will)

 

[BobRyan]

meant to "add" this point not "edit" an old one.

hmm - a welcomed change of heart ... the idea of the Bible needed to prove or disprove a doctrine.


The RCC evolved over time as error after error was incorporated.

No pugatory in the NT.

no "Mary mother of God" in the NT

no prayers to the dead in the NT.

No "confecting the body and divinity of Christ" in the NT.

No indulgences in the NT.

No exterminating heretics in the NT.

No Pope Peter in the NT - as we see in Acts 15 - James is the leader.

No infant baptism in the NT

No order of priests in the NT

And without all of that - do you really have the RCC in the NT?

No.

hint - even Catholic sources themselves admit that the RCC doctrines "evolved over time" see "A Concise history of the Catholic Church" and "Catholic Digest" as they research the history of infant baptism and priests.

==========================


And of course the never-answered-question for this thread ...."And without all of that before 100 AD - do you really have the RCC in the NT until 313?"

Nope

It has been answered!

Please do not offer a mere rhetorical "friendship" in what is written in one's posts.
The Catholic Church does claim the attributes (not titles) of the Church that Jesus Christ founded. She is one. holy, catholic, and apostolic. Consequently she is not founded in 313 AD. 33 AD is nearer the mark.

Islam, Catholicism, Mormons and many other denominations "make a lot of claims" - but the idea was to provide some objective basis for evaluating the 33AD vs 313AD discussion.

Care to answer the question?

in Christ,

Bob

 

[BobRyan]

Yes, RC doesn't make a fuss over Saturday i know, they do however make a fuss over Sunday, if i'm not mistaken. Correct?

Check out John Paul II -- and his "Dies Domini" to see just how emphatic they are about imposing civil laws to enforce that idea.

As for how this fits into their overall view of the Law vs the weekly observance - #1

in Christ,

Bob

 

[MoreCoffee]

Yes, RC doesn't make a fuss over Saturday i know, they do however make a fuss over Sunday, if i'm not mistaken. Correct? This is not what Paul taught in Romans 14, is it? Doesn't making a fuss over Sunday or any other day actually fail to observe Paul's Rom 14 command? (or his exhortation, take it as you will)

Sunday is the day on which we meet for high mass; it is, as I said before, not the day in and of itself that is important but the gathering together to celebrate the liturgy of the mass as our congregational worship of God. This is the fourth or fifth time I've said this to you. The choice of Sunday is based on sacred Tradition and to a degree on the example set in sacred scripture. Specifically, the Lord rose from the dead and was seen by the apostles as witnesses of the resurrection on the first day of the week, which is Sunday. And we have apostolic example for reading the scriptures teaching and prayer and the breaking of bread on the first day of the week (Sunday). And we have the name "the Lord's day" in Revelation as a sign that the day was set aside for the liturgy in the later years of the apostolic era. So the Church chose Sunday as the day on which to meet for the purpose of worshipping of God.

 

[Restoresmysoul]

Check out John Paul II -- and his "Dies Domini" to see just how emphatic they are about imposing civil laws to enforce that idea.

in Christ,

Bob

He quoted the Psalmist who said in Psalm 118:24-

"24 This is the day the Lord has made;
We will rejoice and be glad in it."

Every time i read this it means that i should rejoice in the Lord every day, he has made every day and every day is holy, none above another, equally holy.

As Paul said-

Philippians 4:4 "Rejoice in the Lord always. Again I will say, rejoice!"

And

Romans 14:5 "One person esteems one day above another; another esteems every day alike."

To me every day is holy, i cannot see it any other way.

 

[LittleLambofJesus]

Originally Posted by Restoresmysoul

Yes, RC doesn't make a fuss over Saturday i know, they do however make a fuss over Sunday, if i'm not mistaken. Correct?
​

Check out John Paul II -- and his "Dies Domini" to see just how emphatic they are about imposing civil laws to enforce that idea.

in Christ,

Bob

Seems as if that is more of a pet peeve for the SDAs/MJs than for mainstream Christianity. It is an interesting topic tho....

http://www.christianforums.com/t7559976/
Dies Domini

Originally Posted by Jared R

Have you read this letter by Bl. John Paul II? Has it affected your observance of the Lord's Day? I'm currently studying it and was curious if anyone would like to discuss it.
​

Dies Domini, is fulfilling Bible Prophecy...

I am more than willing to discuss it, but who is willing to hear it?

I for one will not be addressing the post above mine by σύνδουλόν as SDA doctrines and beliefs have no business being promoted in OBOB, especially in contradiction to Catholic teaching.

Dies Domini - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Dies Domini is an apostolic letter promulgated by Pope John Paul II on July 30, 1998. In this doctrine, Pope John Paul encourages the Catholic population to 'rediscover the meaning' behind keeping the Lord's Day holy. “
Pope John Paul II explains the meaning of the Sunday in the light of Christian tradition. To celebrate Sunday is to make present the graces of the Paschal mystery, which is the climax of the salvation history:

It is the day which recalls in grateful adoration the world’s first day and looks forward in active hope to the ‘last day,’ when Christ will come in glory and all things will be made new.” Some[who?] think every seven days, the Church celebrates the Easter mystery, rather than the traditional once per year. This is a tradition going back to the Apostles[citation needed], taking its origin from the actual day of Christ’s Resurrection—a day thus appropriately designated “ the Lord’s Day.”



.

 

[BobRyan]

Sunday is the day on which we meet for high mass; it is, as I said before, not the day in and of itself that is important but the gathering together to celebrate the liturgy of the mass as our congregational worship of God. This is the fourth or fifth time I've said this to you. The choice of Sunday is based on sacred Tradition and to a degree on the example set in sacred scripture. Specifically, the Lord rose from the dead and was seen by the apostles as witnesses of the resurrection on the first day of the week, which is Sunday.

Both seventh day Sabbath keeping Christians and sunday Christians like the RCC would agree that Christ was raised on Sunday - week day 1 as the Bible calls it.

And SDAs strongly agree that the Catholic claim to have made this change in the Sabbath Commandment via an appeal to tradition is the primary historic source for it.

And we have apostolic example for reading the scriptures teaching and prayer and the breaking of bread on the first day of the week (Sunday).

There is no Communion service recorded in scripture as having taken place specifically on week day 1 or in commemoration of the resurrection.

And we have the name "the Lord's day" in Revelation as a sign that the day was set aside for the liturgy in the later years of the apostolic era.

But no connection to week day 1 for Lord's Day in Revelation.

So the (Catholic) Church chose Sunday as the day on which to meet for the purpose of worshipping of God.

I think that adding the word "Catholic" makes it more accurate in that case.

Leo Trese' "The Faith Explained" appears to agree.

in Christ,

Bob

 

[MoreCoffee]

He quoted the Psalmist who said in Psalm 118:24-

"24 This is the day the Lord has made;
We will rejoice and be glad in it."

Every time i read this it means that i should rejoice in the Lord every day, he has made every day and every day is holy, none above another, equally holy.

As Paul said-

Philippians 4:4 "Rejoice in the Lord always. Again I will say, rejoice!"

And

Romans 14:5 "One person esteems one day above another; another esteems every day alike."

To me every day is holy, i cannot see it any other way.

But does the church gather to worship every day? No?

That's the point. Read Hebrews 10:24-27 and see if it makes any sense in the context of gathering to worship God on a specific day and a specified time.

Then you can give consideration to the wisdom of setting aside a whole day, as far as is practical given your station in life, for rest and fellowship with God and your brothers and sisters in the faith.

Finally, you can draw a lesson from the third commandment (the sabbath commandment) and the many passages in the prophets that expand on the meaning of that day, and last of all (but most important) you can see what setting aside a day is intended to teach by reading Hebrews chapters three and four.

 

[Restoresmysoul]

Sunday is the day on which we meet for high mass; it is, as I said before, not the day in and of itself that is important but the gathering together to celebrate the liturgy of the mass as our congregational worship of God. This is the fourth or fifth time I've said this to you. The choice of Sunday is based on sacred Tradition and to a degree on the example set in sacred scripture. Specifically, the Lord rose from the dead and was seen by the apostles as witnesses of the resurrection on the first day of the week, which is Sunday. And we have apostolic example for reading the scriptures teaching and prayer and the breaking of bread on the first day of the week (Sunday). And we have the name "the Lord's day" in Revelation as a sign that the day was set aside for the liturgy in the later years of the apostolic era. So the Church chose Sunday as the day on which to meet for the purpose of worshipping of God.

That's fine, i'm not criticizing Sunday worship any more than i am Saturday worship. I merely suggesting that this tradition of commanding anyone to treat Sunday as holy is not the apostles tradition or their command, Romans 14 is their tradition and their command. RC invented this tradition all by themselves. The Catholic and Apostolic Church that the Apostles established had nothing to do with it. Fair enough?

 

[BobRyan]

The RCC evolved over time as error after error was incorporated.

No pugatory in the NT.

no "Mary mother of God" in the NT

no prayers to the dead in the NT.

No "confecting the body and divinity of Christ" in the NT.

No indulgences in the NT.

No exterminating heretics in the NT.

No Pope Peter in the NT - as we see in Acts 15 - James is the leader.

No infant baptism in the NT

No order of priests in the NT

And without all of that - do you really have the RCC in the NT?

No.

hint - even Catholic sources themselves admit that the RCC doctrines "evolved over time" see "A Concise history of the Catholic Church" and "Catholic Digest" as they research the history of infant baptism and priests.

==========================


And of course the never-answered-question for this thread ...."And without all of that before 100 AD - do you really have the RCC in the NT until 313?"
[/quote]

Nope

It has been answered!

Please do not offer a mere rhetorical "friendship" in what is written in one's posts.
The Catholic Church does claim the attributes (not titles) of the Church that Jesus Christ founded. She is one. holy, catholic, and apostolic. Consequently she is not founded in 313 AD. 33 AD is nearer the mark.

Islam, Catholicism, Mormons and many other denominations "make a lot of claims" - but the idea was to provide some objective basis for evaluating the 33AD vs 313AD discussion.

Care to answer the question?

I have already provided evidence in a number of posts. Proof however, in matters of history, is no easy task and those who choose to stick with their story will reject any evidence that is presented with a complaint of some sort against it. But here is the summary

• Paul wrote a letter (written around 55 AD to 56 AD) to the church(es) in Rome.
• Saint Peter preached to people who came from Rome on the day of Pentecost.
• Acts 18 tells some of the story of the expulsion of the Jews from Rome and points out that Priscilla and Aquila were among those expelled (they were Christians but the Roman authorities may not have realised that there was any difference between Jews and Christians in the 40s or early 50s AD when the expulsion took place) thus providing evidence that a christian church or churches of some kind existed in Rome in that period.
• When saint Paul went to Rome in the late 50s AD or early 60s AD there was already a church there.

Few people question whether a Christian church existed prior to 100 AD. or whether one existed in some form in Rome.


What is questioned is whether it was really the RCC -- given that the RCC does not exist without its doctrines.

• Irenaeus gives a list of popes in Rome (pope means father, it is only an honorary/spiritual title) his list starts with saint Peter.
• Other early Christian writers also include lists of the popes in Rome always starting with saint Peter.

Whether Peter stayed in Rome beyond being a prisoner there does not help unless you can show that Peter believed and taught RCC doctrine.


Which seems to be the problem.

• The doctrines taught in Rome by the popes are distinctly Catholic; specifically, the real presence, baptismal efficacy and grace (some protestants call his baptismal regeneration), the episcopal office, apostolic succession, the importance of apostolic tradition, the liturgy of the mass (or divine liturgy), and a host of other doctrines that many Protestants reject.

Just not in the first 100 years.

Just not in the actual NT.

Just not by the actual Apostles.

Which is the sticking point being avoided.




in Christ,

Bob

 

[MoreCoffee]

That's fine, i'm not criticizing Sunday worship any more than i am Saturday worship. I merely suggesting that this tradition of commanding anyone to treat Sunday as holy is not the apostles tradition or their command, Romans 14 is their tradition and their command. RC invented this tradition all by themselves. The Catholic and Apostolic Church that the Apostles established had nothing to do with it. Fair enough?

No, not fair at all. Do you think that Hebrews 10:24-27 is about nothing? Just the writer saying "hey folks, be good chaps and come to the meetings at the scheduled time on the chosen day. But if you want to take a stroll, play some sports, sleep in, then fine by me, ignore this. And pay no heed to the verses following ... all that stuff about fearful waiting for the final judgement isn't applicable you you nice chaps, even if you're too otherwise occupied to come to worship God"

If you're contending for no meetings or something like that then okay, I know what you're about and we can stop this discussion right now. It isn't really in keeping with the thread theme anyway. But if you do go to a meeting and you do think it matters then why are you complaining about Catholics going to mass on Sunday? What gives? Or is this just playing games to be contrary to what the Catholic chap says? Honestly there are better ways to pass time than this.

 

[Restoresmysoul]

But does the church gather to worship every day? No?

Maybe they should, its tradition after all. And having Church at home may even be a tradition, if i understand it correctly. Another tradition that went out was selling all their possessions, it seemed that the early Christians who witnessed miracles were filled with the spirit and had great joy in selling off worldly wealth..


Acts 2:44 Now all who believed were together, and had all things in common, 45 and sold their possessions and goods, and divided them among all, as anyone had need.

46 So continuing daily with one accord in the temple, and breaking bread from house to house, they ate their food with gladness and simplicity of heart, 47 praising God and having favor with all the people. And the Lord added to the church[h] daily those who were being saved.

 

[MoreCoffee]

Maybe they should, its tradition after all. And having Church at home may even be a tradition, if i understand it correctly. Another tradition that went out was selling all their possessions, it seemed that the early Christians who witnessed miracles were filled with the spirit and had great joy in selling off worldly wealth..

What is this? Some sort of sport for you?

If you want to drag me into every semi-random thought bubble that pops out of your head I say no thanks.

This thread is about when the Catholic Church started. You more or less ignored the evidence I gave to you about that. Now you're writing about days and who knows what else! Try sticking to the topic. It helps, you know.

 

[Restoresmysoul]

No, not fair at all. Do you think that Hebrews 10:24-27 is about nothing? Just the writer saying "hey folks, be good chaps and come to the meetings at the scheduled time on the chosen day. But if you want to take a stroll, play some sports, sleep in, then fine by me, ignore this. And pay no heed to the verses following ... all that stuff about fearful waiting for the final judgement isn't applicable you you nice chaps, even if you're too otherwise occupied to come to worship God"

If you're contending for no meetings or something like that then okay, I know what you're about and we can stop this discussion right now. It isn't really in keeping with the thread theme anyway. But if you do go to a meeting and you do think it matters then why are you complaining about Catholics going to mass on Sunday? What gives? Or is this just playing games to be contrary to what the Catholic chap says? Honestly there are better ways to pass time than this.

I don't think Hebrews 10 was suggesting that we should make Sunday a holy day.

 

[MoreCoffee]

I don't think Hebrews 10 was suggesting that we should make Sunday a holy day.

And I think that reply is entirely irrelevant.

 

[Restoresmysoul]

What is this? Some sort of sport for you?

If you want to drag me into every semi-random thought bubble that pops out of your head I say no thanks.

This thread is about when the Catholic Church started. You more or less ignored the evidence I gave to you about that. Now you're writing about days and who knows what else! Try sticking to the topic. It helps, you know.

Its not random or irrelevant. It is a record of when the Church started and what traditions they kept. And this Acts 2 record of tradition is not what RC tradition looks like.