The church in Rome

[chevyontheriver]

Yeah and the Spanish Inquisitions were the worst part of all the inquisitions which lasted for 356 years resulting in roughly 4,000 executions which is 11 people per year. Not even anywhere close to 72,000 per year.

We don't celebrate this at all. In fact we regret it. But it is nowhere near what the claims are. Truth does matter.

 

[Xeno.of.athens]

It's a wonder of human capacity of obtuseness that this thread's quite obvious thesis - namely, that the church in Rome is ancient - was attacked, converted to a sabbath argument, and then converted to a crazy set of claims about 50,000,000 killed by Catholics in the "middle ages inquisitions".

But, I think that maybe we have a consensus now that the church in Rome started some time in the early to mid first century AD, possibly in the same year that the sermon in Acts chapter two was given.

 

[tampasteve]

But, I think that maybe we have a consensus now that the church in Rome started some time in the early to mid first century AD, possibly in the same year that the sermon in Acts chapter two was given.

It honestly baffles me that people could believe anything else, it is pretty hard history and easy to prove. But then, people believe in a flat Earth...so there is that.

I don't think really any Christian except some fringe elements believe the church in Rome was not founded in the first part of the century. The issue for most non-Catholics would be the authority of the papacy. Often the two subjects get muddied into one and when people argue the "Roman Catholic Church was not founded in the 1st Century" they don't also mean that there was no Christian church in Rome, what they mean is that there was no hierarchical, papacy centered church based in Rome.

 

[Xeno.of.athens]

It honestly baffles me that people could believe anything else, it is pretty hard history and easy to prove. But then, people believe in a flat Earth...so there is that.

I don't think really any Christian except some fringe elements believe the church in Rome was not founded in the first part of the century. The issue for most non-Catholics would be the authority of the papacy. Often the two subjects get muddied into one and when people argue the "Roman Catholic Church was not founded in the 1st Century" they don't also mean that there was no Christian church in Rome, what they mean is that there was no hierarchical, papacy centered church based in Rome.

Saint Ignatius wrote in the late first century and very early second century about bishops and that is likely how every church, especially Rome, was governed. I think that it is very likely that every church established in the first century had an apostle or a bishop as its pastor and leader. And saint Clement of Rome wrote his letters to Corinth in the first century and it is unquestionable that he was the bishop of Rome at the time we wrote.​

---

Pope Clement I (Latin: Clemens Romanus; Ancient Greek: Κλήμης Ῥώμης, romanized: Klēmēs Rōmēs) (c. 35 AD – 99 AD) was bishop of Rome in the late first century AD. He is listed by Irenaeus and Tertullian as the bishop of Rome, holding office from 88 AD to his death in 99 AD.[2] He is considered to be the first Apostolic Father of the Church, one of the three chief ones together with Polycarp and Ignatius of Antioch.[3]​

​

Few details are known about Clement's life. Clement was said to have been consecrated by Peter the Apostle,[3] and he is known to have been a leading member of the church in Rome in the late 1st century. Early church lists place him as the second or third[2][a] bishop of Rome. The Catholic Church lists him as the fourth pope. The Liber Pontificalis states that Clement died in Greece in the third year of Emperor Trajan's reign, or 101 AD. Eusebius, in his book Church History, mentions Clement as the third bishop of Rome and the "co-labourer" of Paul.[4]​

​

Clement's only genuine extant writing is his letter to the church at Corinth (1 Clement) in response to a dispute in which certain presbyters of the Corinthian church had been deposed.[2] He asserted the authority of the presbyters as rulers of the church on the ground that the Apostles had appointed such.[2] His letter, which is one of the oldest extant Christian documents outside the New Testament, was read in church, along with other epistles, some of which later became part of the Christian canon. These works were the first to affirm the apostolic authority of the clergy.[2] A second epistle, 2 Clement, was once controversially attributed to Clement, although recent scholarship suggests it to be a homily by another author.[2] In the legendary Clementine literature, Clement is the intermediary through whom the apostles teach the church.[2]​

​

[Wikipedia]​

 

[tampasteve]

Saint Ignatius wrote in the late first century and very early second century about bishops and that is likely how every church, especially Rome, was governed. I think that it is very likely that every church established in the first century had an apostle or a bishop as its pastor and leader. And saint Clement of Rome wrote his letters to Corinth in the first century and it is unquestionable that he was the bishop of Rome at the time we wrote.

Yep, I am aware of those facts

 

[JulieB67]

Pope simply means "Papa" or "Father"

I do not accept Sola Scriptura, see 2 Thessalonians 2:15.

Pope simply means "Papa" or "Father"

II Thessalonians 2:15 "Therefore, brethren, stand fast, and hold the traditions which ye have been taught, whether by word, or our epistle."

This doesn't mean that the church can add new traditions. This just simply means what had been taught (the ministry that Christ put forth) and their letters. There's simply no reason to add anything to what we have been taught. We are to "hold" onto what has already been taught. As Christ states certain traditions made void the word of God.

And we can see that we were taught not to call anyone on this earth Father (I'm sure in reverance) and we can all see how that went out the door. Christ's very own words.

I think all denominations have added traditions/doctrines over the years that have made void the word of God. So this debating about what church came first doesn't make any difference if what you believe or teach pushes you farther away than what the original Word and Christ's ministry was to begin with. If you put the tradtions of "man" over the Word/Christ's ministry than you're not a true church. That's my opinion. By their fruits you will know them. Men's traditions I think being a huge part of that.

 

[RileyG]

II Thessalonians 2:15 "Therefore, brethren, stand fast, and hold the traditions which ye have been taught, whether by word, or our epistle."

This doesn't mean that the church can add new traditions. This just simply means what had been taught (the ministry that Christ put forth) and their letters. There's simply no reason to add anything to what we have been taught. We are to "hold" onto what has already been taught. As Christ states certain traditions made void the word of God.

And we can see that we were taught not to call anyone on this earth Father (I'm sure in reverance) and we can all see how that went out the door. Christ's very own words.

I think all denominations have added traditions/doctrines over the years that have made void the word of God. So this debating about what church came first doesn't make any difference if what you believe or teach pushes you farther away than what the original Word and Christ's ministry was to begin with. If you put the tradtions of "man" over the Word/Christ's ministry than you're not a true church. That's my opinion. By their fruits you will know them. Men's traditions I think being a huge part of that.

Not call anyone father? What do you call your biological person who is/was (I assume) married to your mother?

Besides, St. Paul said he became a FATHER through the gospel (1 Corinthians 4:15), and there was FATHER Abraham (John 8:56).

Read the whole chapter. Do you cal people Miss, Mrs. Mr. Doctor, teacher etc? If so, you are breaking those rules, apparently.

 

[JulieB67]

What do you call your biological person who is/was (I assume) married to your mother?

Read the whole chapter. Do you cal people Miss, Mrs. Mr. Doctor, teacher etc? If so, you are breaking those rules, apparently.

I have read the entire chapter. You can put whatever spin you want on it. We know Christ meant in reverance. Meaning only our Father in Heaven deserves that. Not any priest, pastor or Pope. The disciples/apostles never wanted any reverance, etc. Christ told them they were all brethren.

It is what comes from reading a verse and pretending that it teaches doctrine absent its context

Yes, context is important. We should read chapter by chapter and verse by verse so we don't lose context. Christ already mentioned others as well (including Rabbis) His intent is very clear-

Matthew 23:5 "But all their works they do for to be seen of men: they make broad their phylacteries, and enlarge the borders of their garments,"

Matthew 23:6 "And love the uppermost rooms at feasts, and the chief seats in the synagogues,"

Matthew 23:7 "And greetings in the markets, and to be called of men, Rabbi, Rabbi,"

Matthew 23:8 "But be not ye called Rabbi: for One is your Master, even Christ; and all ye are brethren."

Matthew 23:9 "And call no man your father upon the earth: for one is your Father, which is in heaven."

Again, you can spin this but he clearly means in reverance. This has nothing do with parents, etc.

Matthew 23:10 "Neither be ye called masters: for One is your Master, even Christ."

Matthew 23:11 "But he that is greatest among you shall be your servant."

Matthew 23:12 "And whosoever shall exalt himself shall be abased; and he that shall humble himself shall be exalted."

 

[Xeno.of.athens]

I have read the entire chapter. You can put whatever spin you want on it. We know Christ meant in reverance. Meaning only our Father in Heaven deserves that. Not any priest, pastor or Pope. The disciples/apostles never wanted any reverance, etc. Christ told them they were all brethren.

Yes, context is important. We should read chapter by chapter and verse by verse so we don't lose context. Christ already mentioned others as well (including Rabbis) His intent is very clear-

Matthew 23:5 "But all their works they do for to be seen of men: they make broad their phylacteries, and enlarge the borders of their garments,"

Matthew 23:6 "And love the uppermost rooms at feasts, and the chief seats in the synagogues,"

Matthew 23:7 "And greetings in the markets, and to be called of men, Rabbi, Rabbi,"

Matthew 23:8 "But be not ye called Rabbi: for One is your Master, even Christ; and all ye are brethren."

Matthew 23:9 "And call no man your father upon the earth: for one is your Father, which is in heaven."

Again, you can spin this but he clearly means in reverance. This has nothing do with parents, etc.

Matthew 23:10 "Neither be ye called masters: for One is your Master, even Christ."

Matthew 23:11 "But he that is greatest among you shall be your servant."

Matthew 23:12 "And whosoever shall exalt himself shall be abased; and he that shall humble himself shall be exalted."

John Wesley, founder of Methodism, wrote:

The Jewish rabbis were also called father and master, by their several disciples, whom they required, To believe implicitly what they affirmed, without asking any farther reason; To obey implicitly what they enjoined, without seeking farther authority. Our Lord, therefore, by forbidding us either to give or receive the title of rabbi, master, or father, forbids us either to receive any such reverence, or to pay any such to any but God.​

The reverend Haydock commented:

Call none your father ... Neither be ye called masters, &c. The meaning is, that our Father in heaven is incomparably more to be regarded, than any father upon earth: and no master is to be followed, who would lead us away from Christ. But this does not hinder but that we are by the law of God to have a due respect both for our parents and spiritual fathers, (1 Corinthians iv. 15,) and for our masters and teachers. (Challoner)
--- This name was a title of dignity: the presidents of the assembly of twenty-three judges where so called; the second judge of the Sanhedrim, &c. (Bible de Vence)
--- Nothing is here forbidden but the contentious divisions, and self-assumed authority, of such as make themselves leaders and favourers of schisms and sects; as Donatus, Arius, Luther, Calvin, and innumerable other of very modern date. But by no means the title of father, attributed by the faith, piety, and confidence of good people, to their directors; for, St. Paul tells the Corinthians, that he is their only spiritual Father: If you have 10,000 instructors in Christ, yet not many Fathers. (1 Corinthians iv. 15.)​

 

[JulieB67]

The reverend Haydock commented:
Call none your father ... Neither be ye called masters, &c. The meaning is, that our Father in heaven is incomparably more to be regarded, than any father upon earth: and no master is to be followed, who would lead us away from Christ. But this does not hinder but that we are by the law of God to have a due respect both for our parents and spiritual fathers, (1 Corinthians iv. 15,) and for our masters and teachers. (Challoner)
--- This name was a title of dignity: the presidents of the assembly of twenty-three judges where so called; the second judge of the Sanhedrim, &c. (Bible de Vence)
--- Nothing is here forbidden but the contentious divisions, and self-assumed authority, of such as make themselves leaders and favourers of schisms and sects; as Donatus, Arius, Luther, Calvin, and innumerable other of very modern date. But by no means the title of father, attributed by the faith, piety, and confidence of good people, to their directors; for, St. Paul tells the Corinthians, that he is their only spiritual Father: If you have 10,000 instructors in Christ, yet not many Fathers. (1 Corinthians iv. 15.)

who would lead us away from Christ

This has nothing to do with respect of persons like church leaders, parents, etc. There's nothing wrong with that. But it's the reverance that is the problem. Pastors, priests, and Popes are no better than we are. And we should not hold them up as if they are. That is what Christ is talking about.
Once the veil was rent from top to bottom that was it. All may boldly enter in. But the traditions of men have even taken that away in some churches. So, yes, that does take Christ (our one mediator) and our Father in Heaven out of the equation.

And if you think the disciples/apostles would be fine with the apparent reverance of these people, than we are not reading the same Word. Yes, even Paul. And sadly he knew what would happen after he died.

Acts 20:29 "For I know this, that after my departing shall grievous wolves enter in among you, not sparing the flock.

Acts 20:30 "Also of your own selves shall men arise, speaking perverse things, to draw away disciples after them

Acts 20:31 "Therefore watch, and remember, that by the space of three years I ceased not to warn every one night and day with tears."

He warned everyone for 3 years this was going to happen.

So the only way we can know we are on the right path is if we only hold to the traditions that were taught, not add to them. Or teach anything contrary to them. Christ has foretold us all things, through himself and the disciples/apostles.

I'm getting way off your original topic but I don't think the churches of today (many denominations) has anything to do with Christ's/apostles original ministry -churches they founded. Most in fact are far removed from those early churches. By their fruits you will know them....

 

[RileyG]

I have read the entire chapter. You can put whatever spin you want on it. We know Christ meant in reverance. Meaning only our Father in Heaven deserves that. Not any priest, pastor or Pope. The disciples/apostles never wanted any reverance, etc. Christ told them they were all brethren.

Yes, context is important. We should read chapter by chapter and verse by verse so we don't lose context. Christ already mentioned others as well (including Rabbis) His intent is very clear-

Matthew 23:5 "But all their works they do for to be seen of men: they make broad their phylacteries, and enlarge the borders of their garments,"

Matthew 23:6 "And love the uppermost rooms at feasts, and the chief seats in the synagogues,"

Matthew 23:7 "And greetings in the markets, and to be called of men, Rabbi, Rabbi,"

Matthew 23:8 "But be not ye called Rabbi: for One is your Master, even Christ; and all ye are brethren."

Matthew 23:9 "And call no man your father upon the earth: for one is your Father, which is in heaven."

Again, you can spin this but he clearly means in reverance. This has nothing do with parents, etc.

Matthew 23:10 "Neither be ye called masters: for One is your Master, even Christ."

Matthew 23:11 "But he that is greatest among you shall be your servant."

Matthew 23:12 "And whosoever shall exalt himself shall be abased; and he that shall humble himself shall be exalted."

Have you read the verses I gave you?

God bless

 

[JulieB67]

Have you read the verses I gave you?

I have read those. And it's still the same case. Just because Paul considered them beloved sons and started their church does not mean he would want to be reveranced as some are today. He would be the exact opposite. He wanted them to follow his teachings but not reveranced. And Abraham actually birthed all the tribes of Israel. Of course he's considered a father to them all. But again, I'm specifically talking reverance. We should not hold any other person in the church higher than the other. We are all brethren. That's the entire intent of Christ's teaching. That includes the leaders. It's good to have teachers (holding those traditions that were taught and teaching from the word) but we are also to study to show ourselves approved.
And Christ said someone that is exalted should be humbled. Paul was very humble and never even sought payment, etc. A far cry from many churches today. He taught but supported himself by being a tent maker. We have to really sit back and look at the churches today imo. Are we getting fed milk (same thing every week) or are we really getting into the meat of God's word and overall plan, how things began, how they end and so on so one can be prepared and on watch. In my opinion, if you're not getting meat going to church is useless. You can ask for forgiveness in your own home in secret if that's the only reason one goes to church. I'm sure many don't but I'm sure that's the case for many.

And once again, I'm geting OT....

 

[Xeno.of.athens]

By their fruits you will know them....

Interesting; so the fruit of Protestantism is division, lots of division.

 

[JulieB67]

Interesting; so the fruit of Protestantism is division, lots of division.

I agree. I am of no denomination. I left my church years ago over false doctrines being taught.

 

[Xeno.of.athens]

I agree. I am of no denomination. I left my church years ago over false doctrines being taught.

Being of no denomination is to be a denomination of one person, is it not?

 

[RileyG]

I have read those. And it's still the same case. Just because Paul considered them beloved sons and started their church does not mean he would want to be reveranced as some are today. He would be the exact opposite. He wanted them to follow his teachings but not reveranced. And Abraham actually birthed all the tribes of Israel. Of course he's considered a father to them all. But again, I'm specifically talking reverance. We should not hold any other person in the church higher than the other. We are all brethren. That's the entire intent of Christ's teaching. That includes the leaders. It's good to have teachers (holding those traditions that were taught and teaching from the word) but we are also to study to show ourselves approved.
And Christ said someone that is exalted should be humbled. Paul was very humble and never even sought payment, etc. A far cry from many churches today. He taught but supported himself by being a tent maker. We have to really sit back and look at the churches today imo. Are we getting fed milk (same thing every week) or are we really getting into the meat of God's word and overall plan, how things began, how they end and so on so one can be prepared and on watch. In my opinion, if you're not getting meat going to church is useless. You can ask for forgiveness in your own home in secret if that's the only reason one goes to church. I'm sure many don't but I'm sure that's the case for many.

And once again, I'm geting OT....

Oh, I misunderstood. Most priests are some of the humblest men I know.

 

[bbbbbbb]

Being of no denomination is to be a denomination of one person, is it not?

Sometimes yes, but sometimes not. Paul, in his first letter to the Corinthians, made it quite clear that he rejected denominationalism.

My Catholic friends are quick to tell me that their church is neither a sect nor a denomination, as are all of the other forms of Christianity. If Catholics are of no denomination, are they individually a demonination of one person?

 

[Xeno.of.athens]

Sometimes yes, but sometimes not. Paul, in his first letter to the Corinthians, made it quite clear that he rejected denominationalism.

My Catholic friends are quick to tell me that their church is neither a sect nor a denomination, as are all of the other forms of Christianity. If Catholics are of no denomination, are they individually a demonination of one person?

No, they are in the one, holy, catholic, and apostolic church.

 

[bbbbbbb]

No, they are in the one, holy, catholic, and apostolic church.

As is everyone of like sentiments.

 

[Uncleo]

Ellen Gould White is more a pope to them than any Catholic would treat our popes. They hold that she wrote inspired teaching. Catholics have conceded that popes cannot err in limited ways. They treat her writings on par with Scriptures. Talk about adding to Scripture. And so they are locked into whatever errors she has made, historical errors, doctrinal errors, moral errors, medical errors, attitudinal errors.