Roman/Italians converted by the teachings of Apostle Paul

tz620q

Regular Member
Supporter
Apr 19, 2007
2,658
1,038
Carmel, IN
✟567,457.00
Country
United States
Faith
Catholic
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Republican
Constantine never apointed anyone bishop of Rome. The line of successors to St. Peter is actually well documented in early Christian sources, though there is some haziness about the first couple successors of Peter in Rome, with some sources placing Peter's successor as Clement, and others listing Linus who was then followed by Clement. And this isn't just in the case of Rome, the succession of bishops from the Apostles was something which we see brought up as a major defense against the early major heretics of the first few centuries of the Church. For example St. Irenaeus in his Against Heresies (c. 190 AD) is quite firm that Christian bishops have a legitimate and well recorded line of succession (which at the time was only several generations ago)--in contrast to the various heretical groups whose leaders claimed new revelation and new special knowledge.
When I was reading this I was reminded of 1 Corinthians 1:10-17

"10 I appeal to you, brothers and sisters, in the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, that all of you agree with one another in what you say and that there be no divisions among you, but that you be perfectly united in mind and thought. My brothers and sisters, some from Chloe’s household have informed me that there are quarrels among you. What I mean is this: One of you says, “I follow Paul”; another, “I follow Apollos”; another, “I follow Cephas”; still another, “I follow Christ.”

13 Is Christ divided? Was Paul crucified for you? Were you baptized in the name of Paul? I thank God that I did not baptize any of you except Crispus and Gaius, so no one can say that you were baptized in my name. (Yes, I also baptized the household of Stephanas; beyond that, I don’t remember if I baptized anyone else.) For Christ did not send me to baptize, but to preach the gospel—not with wisdom and eloquence, lest the cross of Christ be emptied of its power."


My first takeaway is that the different apostles went to different areas (some overlapping) and started different churches. Paul is warning the Christians that they should not identify with the founder of the church at the expense of division in the body of Christ. So the different lines of succession of Bishops should all be teaching the same thing and be part of the same community. So to state that Rome is of Paul or of Peter is purely a historical argument and shouldn't be a theological argument. I have been in Rome twice to celebrate their highest feast of the church, the Feast of Peter and Paul, showing that they honor both apostles as working to found the church in Rome. I think that over time man's pride has increased and built walls that Paul would have been very irate about.

The second takeaway is this rather strange second paragraph above about Paul not baptizing anyone. It seems at first an odd affirmation by Paul who started many churches. Then I remembered that at that time baptism was the culmination of a long catechisis process that often took a year or more. So a traveling evangelist might not spend that amount of time in one place to see the actual baptism. But his main point is that people saw their new birth coming from the man or woman that baptized them and not from Christ. Looking at today and how we identify as belonging to one group of Christianity versus another and often that identity is based on which church baptized us, I think Paul was very prescient in his remarks.
 
  • Winner
Reactions: ralliann
Upvote 0

The Liturgist

Traditional Liturgical Christian
Supporter
Nov 26, 2019
10,927
5,591
49
The Wild West
✟461,572.00
Country
United States
Faith
Generic Orthodox Christian
Marital Status
Celibate
What I believe is that it was Simon Magus who with his blend of counterfeit Christianity and pagan beliefs is the more likely first Pope. Justin Martyr goes into detail about Simon Magus's efforts in Rome during this period. He was so well connected with the Emperor and Roman government there was a statue of him in Rome. Simon Magus's mission was to create a counterfeit religion in Rome. We will really never know for sure but you still have to decide if you believe in Roman Catholic tradition or the Apostle Paul.

Simon Magus succeeded, but the religion he organized was Gnosticism, which is entirely unlike either the Roman Catholic Church or Protestantism. All psuedo-Christian varieties of Gnosticism are extinct; the Paulicians lasted into the 19th century and there are still some people descended from them in Bulgaria, but their religion is gone. It was closer to Christianity than most Gnostic sects, but is still pretty far removed, if one takes a look at the surviving fragments of The Key of Truth, their manual of doctrine. The only surviving religion that is definitely Gnostic is Mandaeism from Iraq, which venerates John the Baptist and regards Jesus Christ our Lord and God as a false prophet.

The old Roman church was extremely conservative, and Constantine did not have much influence over it. It did not, for example, participate in the Council of Nicea, which he somewhat intrusively convened in order to resolve the controversy of Arianism (at which, Athanasius rallied the Christians and the Arians were defeated, but the Arian bishop Eusebius of Nicomedia got to Constantine’s heir and launched a persecution of Christians which lasted until the 380s). The old Roman church, for its part, just supported the Church of Alexandria (in which Arius was a Presbyter, until he denied the divinity of Christ).

A solid reading of history will indicate that Constantine primarily had influence in the two Patriarchates that were established as a result of his city-building at Byzantium and his wife’s rebuilding of Jerusalem, and his successors only really had influence over the Church of Constantinople. That did not prevent the most celebrated Patriarch of Constantinople, John Chrysostom, for taking Empress Eudoxia to task for her lavish lifestyle, which included the use of a solid gold toilet (it is good to be the Caesar eh?).

This did get him banished, death marched, in fact, but he is fondly remembered whereas Empress Eudoxia has faded into obscurity, as the sort of unpleasant character from antiquity one would expect to find Joan Collins or Elizabeth Taylor playing in an epic film from the late 1950s or early 60s. Actually Charleton Heston would have been awesome as John Chrysostom, with Richard Burton as Emperor Theodosius II and Jack Hawkins reprising his role from Ben Hur as a fictitious Roman general.
 
  • Winner
Reactions: Root of Jesse
Upvote 0

The Liturgist

Traditional Liturgical Christian
Supporter
Nov 26, 2019
10,927
5,591
49
The Wild West
✟461,572.00
Country
United States
Faith
Generic Orthodox Christian
Marital Status
Celibate
Paul is warning the Christians that they should not identify with the founder of the church at the expense of division in the body of Christ.

I think there is a lot to be said for that; I think it is very proper that Reformed churches do not call themselves Calvinist, and Anglican churches do not style themselves as Cranmerian, and the Methodist church for that matter is not called Wesleyan (although there are some Pietist churches fairly far removed from John Wesley that do style themselves as Wesleyan).

That being said, some nostalgia about the founding apostle I think is appropriate; Rome and Antioch celebrate their connection to St. Peter, Ephesus to St. Paul and St. John, and other Greek churches to Paul, and churches in the northern Hellenic region and the Black Sea have a connection to St. Andrew. Likewise, the Church of Jerusalem has a special relation with St. James the Just and St. Helen, the Church in Egypt (the Coptic and Greek Orthodox Patriarchates of Alexandria) to St. Mark, the Armenian church to St. Gregory the Illuminator, the Georgian church to St. Nino, and the Eastern churches descended from the church in Edessa, basically, the Indian Orthodox, Syriac Orthodox and the Assyrian Church of the East, were founded by St. Thomas as a single, unified entity that later was a part of the church of Antioch before being divided by schism. In fact, to this day, the native Christians of India, who have existed for three times longer than the Sikhs, and together with Christian converts elsewhere in the country outnumber the combined total of Sikhs and Jainists, call themselves St. Thomas or Mar Thoma Christians, as a formal alternative to their Hindu caste name “Nasrani.”
 
Upvote 0

Root of Jesse

Admiral of the Fleet/First Sea Lord
Supporter
Jun 23, 2011
18,910
3,646
Bay Area, California
Visit site
✟354,065.00
Faith
Catholic
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Constitution
There must have been Christians who converted under the teachings of the Apostles who never supported or followed Catholic doctrine. I understand that Catholic doctrine is a little fuzzy in the early centuries. Constantine (I) appointed the first bishop of Rome when he moved the capital to Constantinople in 330 AD. Between the later part of the 1st century and the first bishop, you had Christians in Rome who became Christians from the teachings of the early Church Fathers. It's difficult to believe that from 100 AD to 330 AD the Church was united in doctrine given the direction Roman Catholic doctrine ultimately became. It would seem logical that some early Christians never adopted the teachings of the appointed bishops and had their own doctrine that survived. I do not believe that Peter was ever in Rome. I think it's a pure fabrication to lend credibility to the formation of the Catholic Church and Papacy. Even the most elementary Christian can understand what Jesus was saying in regard to Peter being the Rock vs. Jesus himself being the Rock.
The problem with this theory is that the apostles all believed and taught the same thing. And they often died for that body of faith, not willing to settle for less in order to preserve their lives. They wanted Christ's faith, and only Christ's faith, and the Holy Spirit, Christ told them would preserve all truth. Constantine did not appoint the first bishop of Rome. Peter was the first bishop of Rome, followed by Linus, Cletus, Clement. Many of them were martyred for their faith, because Christianity was a criminal activity.
I know it's difficult to believe, but many people would die rather than turn from their faith. And even IF Peter was never in Rome, it doesn't matter. Christ was the one who appointed Peter to be the first among equals. And for you to believe that the Bible could mean one or the other, but not both, or many different meanings is to limit what Christ said and did. There is a lot of evidence, though, that Peter was in Rome and martyred there. St. Peter the Apostle - Tradition of Peter in Rome | Britannica
 
  • Like
Reactions: ralliann
Upvote 0

Root of Jesse

Admiral of the Fleet/First Sea Lord
Supporter
Jun 23, 2011
18,910
3,646
Bay Area, California
Visit site
✟354,065.00
Faith
Catholic
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Constitution
As for Peter, all the apostolic churches acknowledge that St. Peter was martyred in Rome. So that includes Eastern Orthodox, Oriental Orthodox, Church of the East and we don't follow the current Bishop of Rome.

Either the early Roman Catholic Church is lying or the Apostle Paul is lying. Romans 15:20. We know from Paul's own writing that he himself was in Rome. There is no place in scripture placing Peter in Rome. His own writing is in contradiction to the early Roman Catholic doctrine. I believe that the Roman Catholic Church created the story of Peter being in Rome and being the foundation of the Catholic Church and being the first Pope due to their misunderstanding of Matthew 16: 16-18. Jesus is the Rock, not Peter.
This scripture is still falsely quoted to this day even though they actually know better. What better way in the early days of Roman Catholicism to establish control and doctrine than to make the claim that Saint Peter is the founder of the church.
So Scripture is your source for Church history past the first generation...nope. But it really doesn't matter where Peter was. Where he was, he was the apostle Jesus made His vicar, obviously preparing for his crucifixion.
 
Last edited:
  • Winner
Reactions: The Liturgist
Upvote 0

Root of Jesse

Admiral of the Fleet/First Sea Lord
Supporter
Jun 23, 2011
18,910
3,646
Bay Area, California
Visit site
✟354,065.00
Faith
Catholic
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Constitution
What I believe is that it was Simon Magus who with his blend of counterfeit Christianity and pagan beliefs is the more likely first Pope. Justin Martyr goes into detail about Simon Magus's efforts in Rome during this period. He was so well connected with the Emperor and Roman government there was a statue of him in Rome. Simon Magus's mission was to create a counterfeit religion in Rome. We will really never know for sure but you still have to decide if you believe in Roman Catholic tradition or the Apostle Paul.
Personally, I believe both Catholic tradition and Paul. It's a non-binary.
 
Upvote 0

ViaCrucis

Confessional Lutheran
Oct 2, 2011
37,342
26,786
Pacific Northwest
✟728,226.00
Country
United States
Faith
Lutheran
Marital Status
In Relationship
Politics
US-Others
Either the early Roman Catholic Church is lying or the Apostle Paul is lying. Romans 15:20. We know from Paul's own writing that he himself was in Rome. There is no place in scripture placing Peter in Rome. His own writing is in contradiction to the early Roman Catholic doctrine. I believe that the Roman Catholic Church created the story of Peter being in Rome and being the foundation of the Catholic Church and being the first Pope due to their misunderstanding of Matthew 16: 16-18. Jesus is the Rock, not Peter.
This scripture is still falsely quoted to this day even though they actually know better. What better way in the early days of Roman Catholicism to establish control and doctrine than to make the claim that Saint Peter is the founder of the church.

St. Peter himself places himself in Rome under the code-name of "Babylon" (1 Peter 5:13). Literal Babylon, in the first century, was barely anything more than a pile of rubble surrounded by small farming villages.

That Peter means Rome when he says "Babylon", and Peter's own presence in Rome is alluded to also in St. Clement of Rome's epistle (95 AD), and also in St. Ignatius of Antioch's epistle to the Romans (107 AD).

Christian tradition, going back to the earliest years of Christianity, place Peter's martyrdom in Rome under Nero, and mark both Peter and Paul as playing a role in building up the Roman church, even as both played a role in building up the Antiochene Church.

There really just isn't any doubt within the ancient and universal Church of Jesus Christ that:

A) That the bishops of Rome traced themselves back to Peter and
B) That Peter was martyred in Rome under Nero.

The matter of Matthew 16:16-18 is a much bigger, more complicated, and in many ways a totally separate issue.

-CryptoLutheran
 
Upvote 0

The Liturgist

Traditional Liturgical Christian
Supporter
Nov 26, 2019
10,927
5,591
49
The Wild West
✟461,572.00
Country
United States
Faith
Generic Orthodox Christian
Marital Status
Celibate
St. Peter himself places himself in Rome under the code-name of "Babylon" (1 Peter 5:13). Literal Babylon, in the first century, was barely anything more than a pile of rubble surrounded by small farming villages.

That Peter means Rome when he says "Babylon", and Peter's own presence in Rome is alluded to also in St. Clement of Rome's epistle (95 AD), and also in St. Ignatius of Antioch's epistle to the Romans (107 AD).

Christian tradition, going back to the earliest years of Christianity, place Peter's martyrdom in Rome under Nero, and mark both Peter and Paul as playing a role in building up the Roman church, even as both played a role in building up the Antiochene Church.

There really just isn't any doubt within the ancient and universal Church of Jesus Christ that:

A) That the bishops of Rome traced themselves back to Peter and
B) That Peter was martyred in Rome under Nero.

The matter of Matthew 16:16-18 is a much bigger, more complicated, and in many ways a totally separate issue.

-CryptoLutheran

Indeed so, and it needs to be stressed that this isn’t a question of Roman Catholic tradition only; the historical records of all of the ancient churches, even the heretical ones, say that Peter was in Rome and was martyred there.

So, considering that the Assyrian Church of the East, the Armenian Apostolic Church, the Indian Orthodox Church, the Georgian Orthodox Church, the Ethiopian Tewahedo Orthodox Church, the Syriac and the Greek Orthodox Patriarchates of Antioch, the Coptic and the Greek Orthodox Patriarchates of Alexandria, none of which were under the control of the Roman Catholic Church at any time, and none of which are heretical, all agree that Peter was in Rome and was martyred there, and additionally, some heretical sects which are no longer extant but unrelated to the Gnostic heresy of Simon Magus, like the Ebionites, Montanists, Arians, Alogians, Apollinarians, Collyridians, Antidicomarians, Novationists, Donatists, Nestorians*, Apollinarians, Monophysites*, Monothelites, Iconolatrians and Iconoclasts, all agree that Peter was martyred in Rome, and additionally, since all the Gnostics like the Valentinians and Tatianists and semi-Gnostics like the Marcionists also agree Peter was martyred in Rome, well, its safe to say Peter the Apostle was martyred in Rome. There was no one in antiquity who denied this fact, at least that I am aware of, and indeed the consensus is so overpowering that I would suspect any document that did so claim of being a forgery.
 
  • Winner
Reactions: Root of Jesse
Upvote 0

Points To Ponder

The Scriptures are the foundation of my faith.
May 2, 2021
72
43
64
Houston
✟24,155.00
Country
United States
Faith
Protestant
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Constitution
Indeed so, and it needs to be stressed that this isn’t a question of Roman Catholic tradition only; the historical records of all of the ancient churches, even the heretical ones, say that Peter was in Rome and was martyred there.

So, considering that the Assyrian Church of the East, the Armenian Apostolic Church, the Indian Orthodox Church, the Georgian Orthodox Church, the Ethiopian Tewahedo Orthodox Church, the Syriac and the Greek Orthodox Patriarchates of Antioch, the Coptic and the Greek Orthodox Patriarchates of Alexandria, none of which were under the control of the Roman Catholic Church at any time, and none of which are heretical, all agree that Peter was in Rome and was martyred there, and additionally, some heretical sects which are no longer extant but unrelated to the Gnostic heresy of Simon Magus, like the Ebionites, Montanists, Arians, Alogians, Apollinarians, Collyridians, Antidicomarians, Novationists, Donatists, Nestorians*, Apollinarians, Monophysites*, Monothelites, Iconolatrians and Iconoclasts, all agree that Peter was martyred in Rome, and additionally, since all the Gnostics like the Valentinians and Tatianists and semi-Gnostics like the Marcionists also agree Peter was martyred in Rome, well, its safe to say Peter the Apostle was martyred in Rome. There was no one in antiquity who denied this fact, at least that I am aware of, and indeed the consensus is so overpowering that I would suspect any document that did so claim of being a forgery.

Thanks to everyone for sharing your knowledge. I just want to make sure I'm following you correctly.

The Catholic Church in Rome for several centuries had a doctrine more aligned with the Gospel taught by the Apostles and was later corrupted with new doctrine that we see today? I find it hard to believe that Peter or Paul were in agreement with anything near the doctrine of the Catholic Church today. It would seem that a major change in doctrine would have taken place.
 
Upvote 0

ViaCrucis

Confessional Lutheran
Oct 2, 2011
37,342
26,786
Pacific Northwest
✟728,226.00
Country
United States
Faith
Lutheran
Marital Status
In Relationship
Politics
US-Others
Thanks to everyone for sharing your knowledge. I just want to make sure I'm following you correctly.

The Catholic Church in Rome for several centuries had a doctrine more aligned with the Gospel taught by the Apostles and was later corrupted with new doctrine that we see today? I find it hard to believe that Peter or Paul were in agreement with anything near the doctrine of the Catholic Church today. It would seem that a major change in doctrine would have taken place.

The Catholic Church simply refers to the Church in its entirety. Up until the 5th century the Catholic Church, the Church our Lord Jesus Himself founded, was one and united.

In the 5th century there were two major Schisms. The first was the Schism of 431, in which year Nestorius of Constantinople was condemned by a Church Council in Ephesus; the result of this was a schism between the Church of the East (the Church which largely was in Persian territory in what is now modern Iraq) and the rest of the Catholic Church. Today the Church of the East is much smaller than it once was, but at one point extended from Syria to the island of Socrata south of the Arabian peninsula, all the way to China and Mongolia. The second was the Schism of 451, in which (what ultimately appears to have been more a matter of semantics than theology) at which the Council of Chalcedon put forward the Christological formula which all Roman Catholics, Protestants, and Eastern Orthodox today still use: Jesus Christ is one Person in two natures, fully God and fully man without separation or confusion of the natures nor any division of His Person. The Oriental Orthodox or Non-Chalcedonian Churches today include the Coptic Orthodox, Armenian Apostolic, and Ethiopian Orthodox Tawehedo Churches.

Thus by the end of the 5th century there were three Churches which could claim to be the Catholic Church. What we can call the Church of the East (Nestorian), the Non-Chalcedonian Church (the Oriental Orthodox), and the Chalcedonian Church (what would become Roman Catholicism, Eastern Orthodoxy, and the various Protestant churches).

In 1054 AD the Chalcedonian Church underwent the Great East-West Schism. This resulted in the Patriarch of the West (Rome) and the Patriarchs of the East (Constantinople, Alexandria, Antioch, and Jerusalem) falling out of communion. As such, under the sole power of Rome in the West, would come what we call the Roman Catholic Church, often just called "the Catholic Church", especially by [Roman] Catholics themselves. On the other hand, the Eastern Churches would come to be referred to as the Eastern Orthodox Church.

Both Rome and the Eastern Patriarchs both claim to be the one and only Catholic Church--Christ's Church. Each claiming that the other went into schism. Thus from the Roman Catholic perspective, it is the Eastern Orthodox who have to return to the Catholic Church; while from the Eastern Orthodox perspective, it is the Roman Catholics who have to return to the Catholic Church.

All modern Protestants, no matter how much their doctrines have slowly changed and drifted away from the medieval Western Church are still very much part of that Western ecclesiastical tradition. Modern Protestants who have drastically departed away from the teachings of the Protestant Reformers themselves are still part of the overall Protestant historic movement and thus through that are within that Western Church tradition, the same as Roman Catholicism.

When talking about "clear changes in doctrine", this is going to be quite subjective. You read the Bible in light of the theology which you subscribe to as part of the church tradition you are part of. So, for example, a Baptist is going to argue that infant baptism is wrong, and thus see infant baptism as a later change in teaching and practice; on the other hand I'm a Lutheran, infant baptism is simply always been part of Christian practice (as verified in the historical record), and I don't see any change in doctrine or practice--it is in fact the denial of baptism to infants that I view as a change and innovation in doctrine. From a Lutheran view to deny baptism to infants is to violate the divinely inspired teaching of Scripture and go against Christ's word to His Church.

So the first thing that must be established is what you believe changed, and why you believe it changed. And that is going to mean putting your beliefs out there to be challenged, and see what happens when you place them into the crucible of criticism.

-CryptoLutheran
 
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

The Liturgist

Traditional Liturgical Christian
Supporter
Nov 26, 2019
10,927
5,591
49
The Wild West
✟461,572.00
Country
United States
Faith
Generic Orthodox Christian
Marital Status
Celibate
The Catholic Church simply refers to the Church in its entirety. Up until the 5th century the Catholic Church, the Church our Lord Jesus Himself founded, was one and united.

In the 5th century there were two major Schisms. The first was the Schism of 431, in which year Nestorius of Constantinople was condemned by a Church Council in Ephesus; the result of this was a schism between the Church of the East (the Church which largely was in Persian territory in what is now modern Iraq) and the rest of the Catholic Church. Today the Church of the East is much smaller than it once was, but at one point extended from Syria to the island of Socrata south of the Arabian peninsula, all the way to China and Mongolia. The second was the Schism of 451, in which (what ultimately appears to have been more a matter of semantics than theology) at which the Council of Chalcedon put forward the Christological formula which all Roman Catholics, Protestants, and Eastern Orthodox today still use: Jesus Christ is one Person in two natures, fully God and fully man without separation or confusion of the natures nor any division of His Person. The Oriental Orthodox or Non-Chalcedonian Churches today include the Coptic Orthodox, Armenian Apostolic, and Ethiopian Orthodox Tawehedo Churches.

Thus by the end of the 5th century there were three Churches which could claim to be the Catholic Church. What we can call the Church of the East (Nestorian), the Non-Chalcedonian Church (the Oriental Orthodox), and the Chalcedonian Church (what would become Roman Catholicism, Eastern Orthodoxy, and the various Protestant churches).

In 1054 AD the Chalcedonian Church underwent the Great East-West Schism. This resulted in the Patriarch of the West (Rome) and the Patriarchs of the East (Constantinople, Alexandria, Antioch, and Jerusalem) falling out of communion. As such, under the sole power of Rome in the West, would come what we call the Roman Catholic Church, often just called "the Catholic Church", especially by [Roman] Catholics themselves. On the other hand, the Eastern Churches would come to be referred to as the Eastern Orthodox Church.

Both Rome and the Eastern Patriarchs both claim to be the one and only Catholic Church--Christ's Church. Each claiming that the other went into schism. Thus from the Roman Catholic perspective, it is the Eastern Orthodox who have to return to the Catholic Church; while from the Eastern Orthodox perspective, it is the Roman Catholics who have to return to the Catholic Church.

All modern Protestants, no matter how much their doctrines have slowly changed and drifted away from the medieval Western Church are still very much part of that Western ecclesiastical tradition. Modern Protestants who have drastically departed away from the teachings of the Protestant Reformers themselves are still part of the overall Protestant historic movement and thus through that are within that Western Church tradition, the same as Roman Catholicism.

When talking about "clear changes in doctrine", this is going to be quite subjective. You read the Bible in light of the theology which you subscribe to as part of the church tradition you are part of. So, for example, a Baptist is going to argue that infant baptism is wrong, and thus see infant baptism as a later change in teaching and practice; on the other hand I'm a Lutheran, infant baptism is simply always been part of Christian practice (as verified in the historical record), and I don't see any change in doctrine or practice--it is in fact the denial of baptism to infants that I view as a change and innovation in doctrine. From a Lutheran view to deny baptism to infants is to violate the divinely inspired teaching of Scripture and go against Christ's word to His Church.

So the first thing that must be established is what you believe changed, and why you believe it changed. And that is going to mean putting your beliefs out there to be challenged, and see what happens when you place them into the crucible of criticism.

-CryptoLutheran

Wisdom, let us attend.*

*I felt like replying to your brilliant history of the Western Church with a quote from the liturgy of the Eastern Church.
 
Upvote 0

tz620q

Regular Member
Supporter
Apr 19, 2007
2,658
1,038
Carmel, IN
✟567,457.00
Country
United States
Faith
Catholic
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Republican
Thanks to everyone for sharing your knowledge. I just want to make sure I'm following you correctly.

The Catholic Church in Rome for several centuries had a doctrine more aligned with the Gospel taught by the Apostles and was later corrupted with new doctrine that we see today? I find it hard to believe that Peter or Paul were in agreement with anything near the doctrine of the Catholic Church today. It would seem that a major change in doctrine would have taken place.
My Brother in Christ, From many conversations on here, I have found that most Protestants that are still trying to confirm their faith by oppositional apologetics against the Catholic Church are usually ex-Catholics. For most Protestants, they have usually inherited a paradigm from their church that does not require the Catholic Church to be fallen for themselves to be raised. The one exception that sometimes we have on this Church History forum are those who are trying to draw the lines backwards in history between their beliefs and those of the early church. That action, though, is one that require an openness to contradictory beliefs as man over this history has been very good at trying to subvert parts of the church doctrine to their own ego and beliefs. Perhaps instead of throwing your beliefs into the grist mill of public discussion, it might be better if you find a belief of yours that you can trace back to the early church and we can discuss this area of common ground.
 
  • Useful
Reactions: ralliann
Upvote 0

Points To Ponder

The Scriptures are the foundation of my faith.
May 2, 2021
72
43
64
Houston
✟24,155.00
Country
United States
Faith
Protestant
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Constitution
My Brother in Christ, From many conversations on here, I have found that most Protestants that are still trying to confirm their faith by oppositional apologetics against the Catholic Church are usually ex-Catholics. For most Protestants, they have usually inherited a paradigm from their church that does not require the Catholic Church to be fallen for themselves to be raised. The one exception that sometimes we have on this Church History forum are those who are trying to draw the lines backwards in history between their beliefs and those of the early church. That action, though, is one that require an openness to contradictory beliefs as man over this history has been very good at trying to subvert parts of the church doctrine to their own ego and beliefs. Perhaps instead of throwing your beliefs into the grist mill of public discussion, it might be better if you find a belief of yours that you can trace back to the early church and we can discuss this area of common ground.
You may very well be correct (I think). I've never been Catholic but I have developed an interest in the history of the early Church and the Apostles. From my understanding of the Catholic Church doctrine there are numerous practices and beliefs that are not only void in the Bible but opposed. I'm no scholar but I'll list the key differences that I feel are contradictory to the Holy Bible below. The exercise is not to-rebuke but to understand how such differences developed. Obviously history is well documented in the serious and deadly events leading up to the Reformation and years following it. It was clear that the Church and Papacy did many things to prevent the common man from having access to the scripture (why). I'm quite certain the belief of Indulgences was not part of Peter's Gospel. This exploitation by the Church was wide spread and fought to preserve by the Papacy. The long held belief of the infallibility of the Pope which we all know is a lie due to the uncovered scandals over the past several centuries. The worship of Saints, Celibacy (Peter was married), the Pope having supremacy over the Bible, the elevation of Mary and several other things not supported in the Bible.

It's clear that something changed from the time of Peter and Paul and the Catholic Church doctrine leading up to the Reformation. It seems to me that the Catholic faith and the Mormons are similar in that the Pope using Church history has developed requirements and practices outside of the scripture much like the Mormons have done with the Mormon Bible. I do not support adding or taking away things from the Holy Bible. Those things are from fallible man.
 
Upvote 0

tz620q

Regular Member
Supporter
Apr 19, 2007
2,658
1,038
Carmel, IN
✟567,457.00
Country
United States
Faith
Catholic
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Republican
From my understanding of the Catholic Church doctrine there are numerous practices and beliefs that are not only void in the Bible but opposed. I'm no scholar but I'll list the key differences that I feel are contradictory to the Holy Bible below. The exercise is not to-rebuke but to understand how such differences developed.
I think Catholics here are leery about entering into such a broad debate with someone where the motivation for the questions is not readily apparent. When I first started debating these topics, I thought that providing academic material would be sufficient to show my side of the story. There are many though that are motivated by having to win an argument. When brought to the point of not having an argument on their side, they resort to calling Catholics liars and refuse to believe what we post or say that the shared material has been twisted by the Catholics Church (the victors) to only show the Catholic viewpoint. Anyway, it seems you want Catholics to be on the defensive by how you are approaching this topic.

Let's pick one topic that does have historical records that can be easily verified. Your high value of Scripture is good and Scripture is treasured in the Catholic Church as well. I think the watershed event that you could research is how "books" were made prior to the movable type printing press of Gutenberg and how the printing press changed everything, in many ways, such as literacy, availability, standardization of language, education, etc. This will allow you to see the Catholic side to some of these arguments rather than take the opinion of whoever has been guiding you. I will make one point. None of these opinions are in the Bible. They are all from someone's faith perspective. It just seems strange to me that someone (not you) who is not Catholic tries to build up their holiness by tearing down someone else's without truly understanding it. I hope we can get beyond that to seeing each other's side of the topic.
 
Upvote 0

Points To Ponder

The Scriptures are the foundation of my faith.
May 2, 2021
72
43
64
Houston
✟24,155.00
Country
United States
Faith
Protestant
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Constitution
I think Catholics here are leery about entering into such a broad debate with someone where the motivation for the questions is not readily apparent. When I first started debating these topics, I thought that providing academic material would be sufficient to show my side of the story. There are many though that are motivated by having to win an argument. When brought to the point of not having an argument on their side, they resort to calling Catholics liars and refuse to believe what we post or say that the shared material has been twisted by the Catholics Church (the victors) to only show the Catholic viewpoint. Anyway, it seems you want Catholics to be on the defensive by how you are approaching this topic.

Let's pick one topic that does have historical records that can be easily verified. Your high value of Scripture is good and Scripture is treasured in the Catholic Church as well. I think the watershed event that you could research is how "books" were made prior to the movable type printing press of Gutenberg and how the printing press changed everything, in many ways, such as literacy, availability, standardization of language, education, etc. This will allow you to see the Catholic side to some of these arguments rather than take the opinion of whoever has been guiding you. I will make one point. None of these opinions are in the Bible. They are all from someone's faith perspective. It just seems strange to me that someone (not you) who is not Catholic tries to build up their holiness by tearing down someone else's without truly understanding it. I hope we can get beyond that to seeing each other's side of the topic.

Mr tz I assure you that my interest is focused on how the differences in what I and many Protestants see in the Catholic Church and the majority of Churches after the Reformation. I have no interest in throwing rocks. From my prospective it looks like that many denominations do their best at following the exact teachings of the Bible without adding man made requirements and symbolic practices necessary for salvation. In its most elementary analysis many Churches stick to the Bible and Catholics have additional beliefs that are not in the Bible. The Bible warns us to not add or delete from the scripture.

My first attempt to understand started with the early manuscripts assuming there must have been a set that had a different doctrine. I could not find evidence of that. Somehow the Catholic faith post Peter and Paul decided the things I mentioned in my earlier post were necessary. Was that 300 years after their execution, 500, 1000 I'm not sure. It would seem logical that those add on teachings happened many yeas after their deaths or they would not have come about so differently than their teachings of Peter and Paul. Please understand that my lack of understanding on these add on beliefs and teachings are not a point I wish to debate or argue. I'm firmly planted in my faith and beliefs. I do find it interesting to understand the timing of the shift. Who are what crept in to the Catholic Church that allowed the very different views to become established.

I assumed that something outside of the Apostles and those they mentored established the changes. Maybe the government? If this was so was there a group that split from the Catholic Church that did not embrace those changes in 300 or 500 AD or later that survives today. My original view was maybe it was the Waldensians. Maybe none until the Reformation and that pulled things back more inline with the Bible. Of course it's never so simple.
 
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

tz620q

Regular Member
Supporter
Apr 19, 2007
2,658
1,038
Carmel, IN
✟567,457.00
Country
United States
Faith
Catholic
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Republican
From my prospective it looks like that many denominations do their best at following the exact teachings of the Bible without adding man made requirements and symbolic practices necessary for salvation. In its most elementary analysis many Churches stick to the Bible and Catholics have additional beliefs that are not in the Bible. The Bible warns us to not add or delete from the scripture.

My first attempt to understand started with the early manuscripts assuming there must have been a set that had a different doctrine. I could not find evidence of that. Somehow the Catholic faith post Peter and Paul decided the things I mentioned in my earlier post were necessary. Was that 300 years after their execution, 500, 1000 I'm not sure. It would seem logical that those add on teachings happened many yeas after their deaths or they would not have come about so differently than their teachings of Peter and Paul. Please understand that my lack of understanding on these add on beliefs and teachings are not a point I wish to debate or argue. I'm firmly planted in my faith and beliefs. I do find it interesting to understand the timing of the shift. Who are what crept in to the Catholic Church that allowed the very different views to become established.

I assumed that something outside of the Apostles and those they mentored established the changes. Maybe the government? If this was so was there a group that split from the Catholic Church that did not embrace those changes in 300 or 500 AD or later that survives today. My original view was maybe it was the Waldensians. Maybe none until the Reformation and that pulled things back more inline with the Bible. Of course it's never so simple.
I think the first thing that is different from a Protestant Bible-only approach to a Catholic Tradition approach is to realize that the things handed down were both written down and orally communicated.
2:Thelssalonians 2:15 - "So then, brothers and sisters, stand firm and hold fast to the teachings we passed on to you, whether by word of mouth or by letter."

In a society with low literacy, most of that education or evangelization is done by word of mouth. So to look at a written record and say that that is the only source of doctrine is a very Protestant thing to do (and there are Protestant groups that believe in oral tradition as well). The doctrinal teachings would be mainly conveyed by catechesis, which was originally done orally. To a Catholic, the Bible is from that same source. The oral teachings were later written down to solidify and codify the oral transmission. Many today read the Bible translated into their own language without looking at extra-biblical documents to get a better feel for what these early Christians believed and taught. This is like drinking from a stream without knowing its source.
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0

Albion

Facilitator
Dec 8, 2004
111,138
33,258
✟583,842.00
Country
United States
Faith
Anglican
Marital Status
Married
I think the first thing that is different from a Protestant Bible-only approach to a Catholic Tradition approach is to realize that the things handed down were both written down and orally communicated.
2:Thelssalonians 2:15 - "So then, brothers and sisters, stand firm and hold fast to the teachings we passed on to you, whether by word of mouth or by letter."
The problem with relying upon that verse in order to justify acceptance of a second source (after the Bible) of divine revelation is that it says nothing about a second source of divine revelation equal to the Holy Scriptures, nor does it speak to doctrine at all, although defining new doctrines is the point of what is called "Sacred Tradition." It simply says that the listeners should hold fast to unnamed teachings/traditions which might very well refer to religious customs, gatherings, or any number of ordinary traditions. The idea that it justifies or even commands turning legends and folklore into dogmas is completely fanciful.
 
Upvote 0

tz620q

Regular Member
Supporter
Apr 19, 2007
2,658
1,038
Carmel, IN
✟567,457.00
Country
United States
Faith
Catholic
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Republican
The problem with relying upon that verse in order to justify acceptance of a second source (after the Bible) of divine revelation is that it says nothing about a second source of divine revelation equal to the Holy Scriptures, nor does it speak to doctrine at all, although defining new doctrines is the point of what is called "Sacred Tradition." It simply says that the listeners should hold fast to unnamed teachings/traditions which might very well refer to religious customs, gatherings, or any number of ordinary traditions. The idea that it justifies or even commands turning legends and folklore into dogmas is completely fanciful.
I guess when the Bible says "stand firm and hold fast" I take that as declaring what he had taught them was doctrinal. The rest is reductio ad absurdum. Paul was not talking about legends and folklore; but what he had conveyed to them personally.
 
Upvote 0

Albion

Facilitator
Dec 8, 2004
111,138
33,258
✟583,842.00
Country
United States
Faith
Anglican
Marital Status
Married
I guess when the Bible says "stand firm and hold fast" I take that as declaring what he had taught them was doctrinal.
There's no reason to do so, and no indication that we should.

What's more, we are not given, from that verse, to know what particular "traditions" the hearers were supposed to "hold fast!"

The position taken by the churches which consider human traditions to be the equal of the Bible when it comes to determining essential doctrine amounts to "we'll just decide as we go along and as something added to the contents of the Bible is needed."

Clearly, those who heard these words from Paul about holding fast to their traditions did not count among those traditions such things as the bodily Assumption of Mary into heaven or Papal Infallibility! Neither of these notions was even heard of until many years later.
 
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

tz620q

Regular Member
Supporter
Apr 19, 2007
2,658
1,038
Carmel, IN
✟567,457.00
Country
United States
Faith
Catholic
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Republican
There's no reason to do so, and no indication that we should.

What's more, we are not given, from that verse, to know what particular "traditions" the hearers were supposed to "hold fast!"
This seems to be an argument against Bible alone. If Paul told them to hold fast to these teachings and did not enumerate them in his letter, then his oral teachings were the source of his doctrine. He didn't say that what he had told them was the complete and full list of all doctrine, only that they should maintain his teachings. This would imply that they should teach others and teach their children and so keep these teachings from being lost.
 
Upvote 0