The Roman Catholic Church "is not" the Early Church!

[OrthodoxyUSA]

When the first council was held in Jerusalem in the book of Acts, the Church of Rome didn't even exist yet.

I couldn't have said it better!
Forgive me....

 

[SolomonVII]

Jerusalem, however, was part of the Roman Empire.

The Byzantines, by the way, ever called their empire Byzantium. They considered themselves Roman as well. Changing the location of the capital from Rome to Constantine was merely a stategic move, and not a move away from being Roman,as they had always been from the time of the Ceasars.

Like Byzantine, the term Roman Catholic was of rather late coinage as well, and first used by Protestants, I believe. Catholic is usually considered the proper term.

The primacy of the Roman bishop, like the development of the Bible and Tradition, was a progressive affair. By the time that the Roman bishop excommunicated the patriarch of Constantinople on the grounds of Arian heresy, the reality of that primacy was on its way to being well established fact. It was more than a symbolic gesture of primacy of honor, but an act of saving grace for the eastern branch, which by then was fast on its way to becoming submerged into the heresy of Arianism.

 

[YahwehLove]

I couldn't have said it better!
Forgive me....

Niether is it Orthodox OR protestant.

It is Jesus' 'callng out''.
It is ALL men and women who repent and are baptised and follow Him to the best of their ability and knowledge.

 

[OrthodoxyUSA]

Jerusalem, however, was part of the Roman Empire.

The Byzantines, by the way, ever called their empire Byzantium. They considered themselves Roman as well. Changing the location of the capital from Rome to Constantine was merely a stategic move, and not a move away from being Roman,as they had always been from the time of the Ceasars.

Like Byzantine, the term Roman Catholic was of rather late coinage as well, and first used by Protestants, I believe. Catholic is usually considered the proper term.

The primacy of the Roman bishop, like the development of the Bible and Tradition, was a progressive affair. By the time that the Roman bishop excommunicated the patriarch of Constantinople on the grounds of Arian heresy, the reality of that primacy was on its way to being well established fact. It was more than a symbolic gesture of primacy of honor, but an act of saving grace for the eastern branch, which by then was fast on its way to becoming submerged into the heresy of Arianism.

Christianity was illeagal for the first 300 years and persicuted by the Romans. Are you suggesting that Rome should be able to lay claim to "ownership" of Chirstianity because Jersusalem was a Roman occupied state?

Forgive me....

 

[PaladinValer]

This is why I don't consider either the Eastern Orthodox Church, the Vatican Catholic Church, or the Oriental Orthodox Churches in existant immediately at Pentecost. They are, to me, various arms of the One Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church (along with my own Anglican one).

 

[katherine2001]

The Arian heresy took place in the 300's. The excommunication didn't take place until 1054--long after the Arian heresy. He excommunicated the Bishop of Constantinople because he was second in primacy after the Pope and he along with the other churches refused to give in to the Pope's wanting to control all of the churches, which went against the canons of the Church. It was certainly not an act of saving grace for the Eastern Church. Actually, at the first council outlined in Acts, James presided over it even though Peter was present. Since James was the Bishop of the Church of Jerusalem, which was the first Church, he presided over the council. If Peter was the head of the Church as the Roman Catholic church claims, why didn't Peter preside over the council?

 

[BjBarnett]

the protestants call us Roman Catholics because Peter moved his office to rome after the fact. So the fact that the church in rome didnt exist at the time is a moot point because the office of Pope was moved to Rome after that point.

 

[BjBarnett]

Since James was the Bishop of the Church of Jerusalem, which was the first Church, he presided over the council. If Peter was the head of the Church as the Roman Catholic church claims, why didn't Peter preside over the council?

hmm I thought even the Orthodox agreed that Peter was the first among equals.

ya learn something new everyday I guess

 

[PaladinValer]

BjBarnett, Fallacy of Equivocation; first-among-equals doesn't equate to "pope" as the Vatican Church understands it today.

 

[Iollain]

Niether is it Orthodox OR protestant.

It is Jesus' 'callng out''.
It is ALL men and women who repent and are baptised and follow Him to the best of their ability and knowledge.

It ain't no lie.

 

[OrthodoxyUSA]

hmm I thought even the Orthodox agreed that Peter was the first among equals.

ya learn something new everyday I guess

Peter was the first among "EQUALS".... James being Bishop of Jerusalem puts him in charge of of the council at Jerusalem.

And by the way didn't Christ tell us to turn to James after he was gone??? Not Peter....


Forgive me....

 

[PaladinValer]

The Church is Visible if it holds all of the orthodox doctrines and follows Holy Tradition, me thinks

 

[Jamza]

God bless us all, we're one Church! We're the bride of Christ, so stop arguing an start loving

 

[OrthodoxyUSA]

Niether is it Orthodox OR protestant.

It is Jesus' 'callng out''.
It is ALL men and women who repent and are baptised and follow Him to the best of their ability and knowledge.

I beg to differ...

Forgive me.....

 

[OrthodoxyUSA]

God bless us all, we're one Church! We're the bride of Christ, so stop arguing an start loving

No we are not....and we are discussing not arguing...

Forgive me....

 

[Iollain]

Orthodoxyusa, am i to assume that you do not believe any RCC or 'protestants' are saved and in the Body of Christ?

 

[OrthodoxyUSA]

According to Roman Catholic Doctrine, as clarified and declared by the First Session of the First Vatican Council, Jesus Christ Himself named Peter to be His successor and placed him at the head of the Christian church. The Catholic faithful are to believe this, without reservation, under pain of anathema.

"Chapter 1 On the institution of the apostolic primacy in blessed Peter

"1.We teach and declare that, according to the gospel evidence, a primacy of jurisdiction over the whole church of God was immediately and directly promised to the blessed apostle Peter and conferred on him by Christ the lord.

" [PROMISED]

" 2.It was to Simon alone, to whom he had already said You shall be called Cephas [42] , that the Lord, after his confession, You are the Christ, the son of the living God, spoke these words: 'Blessed are you, Simon Bar-Jona. For flesh and blood has not revealed this to you, but my Father who is in heaven. And I tell you, you are Peter, and on this rock I will build my church, and the gates of the underworld shall not prevail against it. I will give you the keys of the kingdom of heaven, and whatever you bind on earth shall be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven' .

" [CONFERRED]

"3.And it was to Peter alone that Jesus, after his resurrection, confided the jurisdiction of supreme pastor and ruler of his whole fold, saying: Feed my lambs, feed my sheep.'

"4.To this absolutely manifest teaching of the sacred scriptures, as it has always been understood by the catholic church, are clearly opposed the distorted opinions of those who misrepresent the form of government which Christ the lord established in his church and deny that Peter, in preference to the rest of the apostles, taken singly or collectively, was endowed by Christ with a true and proper primacy of jurisdiction.

"5.The same may be said of those who assert that this primacy was not conferred immediately and directly on blessed Peter himself, but rather on the church, and that it was through the church that it was transmitted to him in his capacity as her minister.

"6.Therefore, if anyone says that blessed Peter the apostle was not appointed by Christ the lord as prince of all the apostles and visible head of the whole church militant; or that it was a primacy of honour only and not one of true and proper jurisdiction that he directly and immediately received from our lord Jesus Christ himself: let him be anathema." (First Vatican Council, Session 4, July 18, 1870, "First Dogmatic Constitution on the Church of Christ," Chapter 1 (On the institution of the apostolic primacy in blessed Peter)

That's pretty strong stuff. Either believe this doctrine, which is declared by an "infallible" general council and promulgated by a Pope, or be declared anathema. Typical mind-control tactics as so often seen in the machinations of the Roman cult. Tell those bound by Roman chains what they are to believe and then threaten them with terrible punishments if they dare to doubt what the Magisterium spews out to them.

That sound hermeneutics reveals nothing in Scripture to support this Romish claim is meaningless to the Magisterium, the infallible teaching authority of the RCC, for it does not rely only on the written Word of God but also "holy Tradition." This Tradition seems to be a catchall repository for all the things the Holy Spirit neglected to include in Scripture but revealed to those whose labors sustain the Magisterium. What are the Holy Traditions? How might one study them and so fulfill the biblical command to study to show oneself approved (2 Timothy 2:15)? Well, now, that's a tough question. You see, there is no written compilation of the Holy Traditions one might turn to for enlightenment. Say what they will, the truth of the matter is that all that Tradition is nothing more than solidified expedient responses to threats and challenges to the power of the RCC hierarchy.

Here, we come to an interesting conundrum. Given the clearly defined infallibility of general councils, the Pope when speaking ex cathedra on matters of faith and morals, and the Magisterium, one would think their pronouncements to be pure and enduring truth. It is a commonly heard position of RCC apologists on this board that such truths have always been held in the RCC, though they may not be formally declared for some time. If that is the case, then one must wonder how so many of those early church fathers Roman apologists so love to refer to could have been so wrong concerning who was the first leader of the "church militant." Given that so many of these luminaries of the church did not agree with the the always understood and infallible truth of this dogmatic constitution, does this mean they have been anathematized ex post facto? Or is this but another example of the RCC "infallibly" declaring something and doing something different?

Did Christ appoint Peter to lead the Christian Church? Did the apostles and other disciples of Christ recognize Peter as their leader? Well, Scripture nowhere supports such a position, unless one calls in the Magisterial spin doctors to distort Matthew 16:18-19, Acts 15 and elsewhere. Romish apologists often tell us that the early church fathers, many of who were contemporaries of the apostles and disciples or those who knew them personally, were unanimously in agreement that Peter was the first leader of the Church. Is that true? Or are the masters of misinformation running a game on the unsuspecting? Let's see for ourselves.

John Chrysostom, that bright light of the Eastern church, was aclaimed as a gifted speaker. Many of his homilies survive. In one of them, we can read this reference to, not Peter, but James, having been the first bishop of the Jerusalem church.

"6. Nevertheless they, who did not believe at first, became afterwards admirable, and illustrious. At least when Paul and they that were of his company were come up to Jerusalem about decrees they went in straightway unto James. For he was so admired as even to be the first to be entrusted with the bishop's office." (Philip Schaff, Ed., "The Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers, 1st Series, Vol 10, "Chrysostom: Homilies on the Gospel of St. Matthew", Homily 5; p. 94)

Hmmm. If James was the first Bishop of the Jerusalem church, that would appear to indicate that Peter was not the guy running that first council as Roman apologists would have us believe Acts 15 clearly proves. Perhaps one should not draw any conclusions from the comments of just one man, even one so respected in his time as was John Chrysostom. Are there any other witnesses to James' appointment as the first ruler of the Jerusalem church?

John Cassian, another church father, appears to have considered James the Just to have been the leader of the Jerusalem church. At least that seems to be the implications of his words in his account of the Second Conference of Joseph:

"And that we may trace these matters out more carefully and recount one by one the glories of the good deeds of the Apostles, some one may ask how the blessed Apostle can be proved to have suited himself to all men in all things. When did he to the Jews become as a Jew? Certainly in the case where, while he still kept in his inmost heart the opinion which he had maintained to the Galatians saying: "Behold, I, Paul, say unto you that if ye be circumcised Christ shall profit you nothing," yet by circumcising Timothy he adopted a shadow as it were of Jewish superstition. And again, where did he become to those under the law, as under the law? There certainly where James and all the Elders of the Church, fearing lest he might be attacked by the multitude of Jewish believers, or rather of Judaizing Christians, who had received the faith of Christ in such a way as still to be bound by the rites of legal ceremonies, came to his rescue in his difficulty . . . (Philip Schaff, Ed., The Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers, 2nd Series, Vol. 11, "The Second Part of the Conferences of John Cassian, the Second Conference of Abbot Joseph", Chap. 20, pp. 950-1)

"James and the Elders" certainly seems to indicate that James held a position superior to the elders in that church. Not clear enough, you say? Then let us continue searching the writings of these venerable men of the ancient church.

"But now is Christ risen from the dead, the first fruits of them that are asleep; — And He was seen of Cephas, then of the twelve; (for if thou believe not the one witness, thou hast twelve witnesses then He was seen of above five hundred brethren at once; (if they disbelieve the twelve, let them admit the five hundred after that He was seen of James, His own brother, and first Bishop of this diocese. Seeing then that such a Bishop originally saw Christ Jesus when risen, do not thou, his disciple, disbelieve him. But thou sayest that His brother James was a partial witness; afterwards He was seen also of me Paul, His enemy; and what testimony is doubted, when an enemy proclaims it? "I, who was before a persecutor, now preach the glad tidings of the Resurrection." (Philip Schaff, Ed., "The Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers, 2nd Series," Vol 7, S. Cyril, Archbishop of Jerusalem, "Catechetical Lectures," Lecture 14, p. 269)

Notice that, while he does mention Peter (Cephas), Archbishop Cyril calls James the "first Bishop of this diocese.?" Seems to me Cyril's understanding of who was running the early church does not agree with the pronouncement of the infallible First Ecumenical Council. Does that mean Cyril of Jerusalem is anathematized? Should Rome take back his sainthood? Inquiring minds want to know.

"Now Clement, writing in the sixth book of the Hypotyposes, makes this statement. For he says that Peter and James and John, after the Savior's ascension, though pre-eminently honored by the Lord, did not contend for glory, but made James the Just, bishop of Jerusalem." (A. Roberts and J. Donaldson, Eds.; The Ante-Nicene Fathers, Vol. 2, Clement of Alexandria Fragments, Eusebius: Ecclesiastical History, Book 6.2.1; p. 1177)

According to Clement's account, it seems that not Peter, nor James nor John were interested in being the big boss of the new church and, in a wonderful display of Christlike humility, accorded that honor to James the Just. Early church historian Eusebius lends his support to the idea that James the Just, not Peter, was in charge of the Jerusalem church:

"FIRST, then, in the place of Judas, the betrayer, Matthias, who, as has been shown was also one of the Seventy, was chosen to the Apostolate. And there were appointed to the diaconate, for the service of the congregation, by prayer and the laying on of the hands of the apostles, approved men, seven in number, of whom Stephen was one. He first, after the Lord, was stoned to death at the time of his ordination by the slayers of the Lord, as if he had been promoted for this very purpose. And thus he was the first to receive the crown, corresponding to his name, which belongs to the martyrs of Christ, who are worthy of the meed of victory. Then James, whom the ancients surnamed the Just on account of the excellence of his virtue, is recorded to have been the first to be made bishop of the church of Jerusalem." (Philip Schaff, Ed., "The Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers, 2nd Series," Vol 1., "The Church History of Eusebius," pp. 133-4)

Just one more selection, again from Eusebius:

"AFTER Nero had held the power thirteen years, and Galba and Otho had ruled a year and six months, Vespasian, who had become distinguished in the campaigns against the Jews, was proclaimed sovereign in Judea and received the title of Emperor from the armies there. Setting out immediately, therefore, for Rome, he entrusted the conduct of the war . against the Jews to his son Titus. For the Jews after the ascension of our Savior, in addition to their crime against him, had been devising as many plots as they could against his apostles. First Stephen was stoned to death by them, and after him James, the son of Zebedee and the brother of John, was beheaded, and finally James, the first that had obtained the episcopal seat in Jerusalem after the ascension of our Savior, died in the manner already described. . . .(Philip Schaff, Ed.; The Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers, 2nd SERIES, VOLUME 1, The Church History of Eusebius, Book 3, Chapter 5, p. 216)

Given the foregoing, I reckon it is not a fact that the early church fathers unanimously accepted that Christ placed the leadership of the new church, which existed only in Jerusalem at the time of His ascension, into the hands of Peter. Who is in error? The early church fathers, some of whom were contemporaries or near-contemporaries of the Apostles? Or the "infallible" men of the "infallible" First Ecumenical Council, who met some 1800 years after the fact?

Scripture warns us:


"Now the Spirit speaketh expressly, that in the latter times some shall depart from the faith, giving heed to seducing spirits, and doctrines of devils; Speaking lies in hypocrisy; having their conscience seared with a hot iron; Forbidding to marry, and commanding to abstain from meats, which God hath created to be received with thanksgiving of them which believe and know the truth. For every creature of God is good, and nothing to be refused, if it be received with thanksgiving: For it is sanctified by the word of God and prayer." (1 Timothy 4:1-5)



Forgive me....

 

[OrthodoxyUSA]

Orthodoxyusa, am i to assume that you do not believe any RCC or 'protestants' are saved and in the Body of Christ?

My dearest sister Iollain,

Not at all.... but salvation does not work that way....

Nobody is going to check your membership card after you die.... you either live a Godly life or you don't....

God saves whom he will... We are not assured of our salvation until after it's all over... salvation is a life long struggle.

Many RCC and Protestants and Budists and Muslims and "you name it" have lived Godly lives and will be in the presence of God... (heaven).

This is the Orthodox teaching. There are no exlusionary rules...

Just because you don't follow the "Roman Catholic" dogma does not mean you are going to burn in Hell..... but the Roman Church has put this idea forward... and stated that it is "The Church" and there is no other.....

Fact is... the Roman Chruch left the communion of the orthodox chruchs in pursuit of its own goals of Political power.

There is the "Chruch militant" (here on earth, living) and there is the "Church Triumphant" (in the heavenly kingdom). The "Chruch Triumphant" is often refered to as "the invisable Church" by the Protestants..... as the Chruch we are all members of....

However "The Chruch" on Earth was given authority over men to forgive and retain sins.... but I would not have you believe that "The Church" is the Roman Catholic Church which makes rules and trys to explain everything at the expense of the mysteries of God.

As bad as all this sounds... Please do not get the idea that I am anti-Catholic.
I am anti-change.

Christ and "The Church" he set up on Earth has not changed and WE should conform to him not vice-versa. To become like Chirst should be our goal.


Forgive me.....

 

[InnerPhyre]

This is one flame war waiting to happen that I'm not gonna jump into, so I'll just say that I love you, my Orthodox brothers and sisters and your faith and praxis are beautiful.

 

[Lynn73]

Niether is it Orthodox OR protestant.

It is Jesus' 'callng out''.
It is ALL men and women who repent and are baptised and follow Him to the best of their ability and knowledge.

BINGO!

Ac 2:47 - Show Context Praising God, and having favour with all the people. And the Lord added to the church daily such as should be saved.