Who put them in charge?

[christianpaintballer32]

The catholic church is what I am talking about here. I seemed to be confused because Jesus never put any one church over the others. His instructions were to live as one body in Him and love everyone unconditionly as we love our God. So why does the Catholic church think they should control the ancient scrolls, make laws, and the everything else they have done for 100's of years. I have nothing against the Catholic church, I am just confused about this. The new revival which I believe is described in the new testament; which is starting to take place now, has no one church causing the movement but the Body of Christ stepping out into the land and starting the revival. That is just a different subject though. Thanks, God bless.

 

[davidoffinland]

From Finland.

This is what happens when "things" get institutionalized after centuries. The Roman Church isn´t the same as it was in the days of the Apostles. Try as they like not to admit it, the RC has changed and changed sooo dramatic that 1st CT Jewish/Christians would not recognize it. This is what happens when politics, synergism of worldly and pagan thought, mixes freely poluting the morality that is based on Scripture "Alone".

In Him, david.

 

[Metanoia02]

The catholic church is what I am talking about here. I seemed to be confused because Jesus never put any one church over the others. His instructions were to live as one body in Him and love everyone unconditionly as we love our God. So why does the Catholic church think they should control the ancient scrolls, make laws, and the everything else they have done for 100's of years. I have nothing against the Catholic church, I am just confused about this. The new revival which I believe is described in the new testament; which is starting to take place now, has no one church causing the movement but the Body of Christ stepping out into the land and starting the revival. That is just a different subject though. Thanks, God bless.

The Catholic Church is a predenominational Church it existed from the beginning. Like it or not it was there from day one. It's first leader was Peter and has continued to be the Church Christ instituted since then. All Other denominations evolved from the Catholic Church. It has weathered the storm for 2000 years. Revivals have come and gone for 2000 years, the only constant is the Catholic Church. It existed before the Bible was complied into one book. It mediated disputes about the nature of Jesus, it spread the Gospel to the ends of the earth before the first Protestant drew thier first breath. This is why they have the authority. It is the Church Jesus said that the gates of Hell would not prevail against. He was right, it still exisit today.

 

[Rick Otto]

it does still exist today, but it sure looks different than it did even 50 yrs ago.

Paintballer, you have realy put your foot in it now.

You desperately need to read up on Apostolic Succession and other Papal theory.

So glad you are expressing interest. Too few do, & THAT on both sides of the equation.

 

[authiodionitist]

Why is everyone always obsessed about Rome? Is there a sort of subconscious obsession? Or Romaphilia? I'm just unsure....

And regarding institutioanlization - well, we all needed to be institutionalized, but then Christ came to grant us great mercy.

 

[christianpaintballer32]

The Catholic Church is a predenominational Church it existed from the beginning. Like it or not it was there from day one. It's first leader was Peter and has continued to be the Church Christ instituted since then. All Other denominations evolved from the Catholic Church. It has weathered the storm for 2000 years. Revivals have come and gone for 2000 years, the only constant is the Catholic Church. It existed before the Bible was complied into one book. It mediated disputes about the nature of Jesus, it spread the Gospel to the ends of the earth before the first Protestant drew thier first breath. This is why they have the authority. It is the Church Jesus said that the gates of Hell would not prevail against. He was right, it still exisit today.

I at no point wanted to offend you, but how can you trace back the "religious" traditions they follow in the catholic church anywhere when Peter started to plant the first churches? I understand how deeply people feel about their demoninations, which is why I have no demonination. THERE was no specific church to start out, Christ said the body of the church would follow the word of God nothing else but that and belief in Him!

 

[davidoffinland]

From Finland.

Tertullian, Origen, Cyprian, Eusebius, Augustine, Ambrose, Chrysostom, Theodoret of cyr, Cyril of Alexandria all have wrote in similar fashion that it is Peter´s confession of faith that, "Thou art the Christ/Messiah, the Son of the living God." This is the Rock (Christ) that the church is built on, and the church is built through him as the gospel is preached. Peter is simply a representative of all true believers.

It is this confession of faith that Peter made and not the person of Peter that the church is built on.

Something to think about for awhile.

Shalom and in Him, david.

 

[Rick Otto]

Hi Authio~...
Call it Romaphobia VS Romomania!

Tag teaming in the mud of religion.

 

[Metanoia02]

Christ said the body of the church would follow the word of God nothing else but that and belief in Him!

Where did He say that? He put Peter in charge of the Church and it has continued throught apostolic succession for 2000 years. Have you read the last chapter of the Gospel of John? It tells you all you need to know about Peter's role in the Church. This was the Catholic Church that was responsible for the transmission of the Gospel that is preached today.

 

[Metanoia02]

From Finland.

Tertullian, Origen, Cyprian, Eusebius, Augustine, Ambrose, Chrysostom, Theodoret of cyr, Cyril of Alexandria all have wrote in similar fashion that it is Peter´s confession of faith that, "Thou art the Christ/Messiah, the Son of the living God." This is the Rock (Christ) that the church is built on, and the church is built through him as the gospel is preached. Peter is simply a representative of all true believers.

It is this confession of faith that Peter made and not the person of Peter that the church is built on.

Something to think about for awhile.

Shalom and in Him, david.

All of these people you list believed and confessed Peter to be the leader Christ put in charge of the early Church. If you care to provide evidence to the contrary, please do.

 

[Trento]

The catholic church is what I am talking about here. I seemed to be confused because Jesus never put any one church over the others. His instructions were to live as one body in Him and love everyone unconditionly as we love our God. So why does the Catholic church think they should control the ancient scrolls, make laws, and the everything else they have done for 100's of years. I have nothing against the Catholic church, I am just confused about this. The new revival which I believe is described in the new testament; which is starting to take place now, has no one church causing the movement but the Body of Christ stepping out into the land and starting the revival. That is just a different subject though. Thanks, God bless.

Go to the Scholars who have studied Patristic history in order to find your answers. Here i Quote a Protestant Scholar who wrote a HISTORY of the CHRISTIAN CHURCH Philip Schaff .

The ministerial office was instituted by the Lord before his ascension, and solemnly inaugurated on the first Christian Pentecost by the outpouring of the Holy Ghost, to be the regular organ of the kingly power of Christ on earth in founding, maintaining, and extending the church. It appears in the New Testament under different names, descriptive of its various functions:—the "ministry of the word," "of the Spirit," "of righteousness," "of reconciliation." It includes the preaching of the gospel, the administration of the sacraments, and church discipline or the power of the keys, the power to open and shut the gates of the kingdom of heaven, in other words, to declare to the penitent the forgiveness of sins, and to the unworthy excommunication in the name and by the Authority of Christ.
The idea and institution of a special priesthood, distinct from the body of the people, with the accompanying notion of sacrifice and altar, passed imperceptibly from Jewish reminiscences and analogies into the Christian church.
In the external organization of the church, several important changes appear in the period before us. The distinction of clergy and laity, and the sacerdotal view of the ministry becomes prominent and fixed; subordinate church offices are multiplied; the episcopate arises; the beginnings of the Roman primacy appear; and the exclusive unity of the Catholic church develops itself in opposition to heretics and schismatics. The apostolical organization of the first century now gives place to the Catholic episcopal system.

 

[Anoetos]

This thread should probably be in Ecclesiology...at least a case could be made for that.

 

[authiodionitist]

Hi Authio~...
Call it Romaphobia VS Romomania!

Tag teaming in the mud of religion.

Rome's pretty interesting. Did you know that in the late 14th/early 15th century, most of Rome was unoccupied? And it was during this time (it can be argued) that the Pope cemented his secular domains (only to be challenged by liberalism in the 18th century - a losing battle, from a political perspective). Very interesting development.... and now it's a center of trade and tourism in the secular way like in the time of the Roman Empire.

But these are merely generalizations which can lead to much slinging of mud.

 

[davidoffinland]

All of these people you list believed and confessed Peter to be the leader Christ put in charge of the early Church. If you care to provide evidence to the contrary, please do.

From Finland.

Cyprian (AD 200/210-258) wrote about the Unity of the Church, but the confusion is interpreted different by both RC scholars. Cyprian wrote two views on this. The 1st writing speaks of the chair of Peter in which he equates the true church with that chair. He states that there is only one church and one chair and a primacy given to Peter. The 2nd writing give emphasis to the theme and co-equality of all the bishops. He wrote this in order to offset a pro-Roman interpretation which was being attached to his words which he never intended.

One writer poined out that Cyprian used the phrase, the Chair of Peter, in his epistle 43, which Roman apologist often cite in defense of an exclusive Roman primacy, to refer to his own see of Cathage, and not the see of Rome.

Both documents are accepted by RC and Protestant scholars. So what is the truth? Histoical we know that this changed during the Council of Constantinople I, 381 when there was a principle of accommodation, the fathers proclaimed, "The Bishop of Constantinople shall have primacy of honor after the Bishop of Rome because Contantinople is the new Rome." Where is the co-equality here?

Constantinople III, 680, the pope declared to the emperor, " The Roman church has by God´s grace never erred from the pathway of the apostolic teaching, nor has it lapsed into heretical novelties, but from the very beginning of the christian faith has preserved unimpaired that which it received from its foundations..."

Some of my catholic friends would still agree with this...but the Roman church has changed doctrinally where by most of the doctrines do not have a leg to stand on Biblically if they are founded on the apostles and prophets, and the sayings of Jesus. Mariology? The Mass? Purgatory?

(sources: The first Seven Eumenical Councils; Church Fathers Interpretatin of the Rock of Matthew 16:18)

In Him, david.

 

[christianpaintballer32]

From Finland.

Cyprian (AD 200/210-258) wrote about the Unity of the Church, but the confusion is interpreted different by both RC scholars. Cyprian wrote two views on this. The 1st writing speaks of the chair of Peter in which he equates the true church with that chair. He states that there is only one church and one chair and a primacy given to Peter. The 2nd writing give emphasis to the theme and co-equality of all the bishops. He wrote this in order to offset a pro-Roman interpretation which was being attached to his words which he never intended.

One writer poined out that Cyprian used the phrase, the Chair of Peter, in his epistle 43, which Roman apologist often cite in defense of an exclusive Roman primacy, to refer to his own see of Cathage, and not the see of Rome.

Both documents are accepted by RC and Protestant scholars. So what is the truth? Histoical we know that this changed during the Council of Constantinople I, 381 when there was a principle of accommodation, the fathers proclaimed, "The Bishop of Constantinople shall have primacy of honor after the Bishop of Rome because Contantinople is the new Rome." Where is the co-equality here?

Constantinople III, 680, the pope declared to the emperor, " The Roman church has by God´s grace never erred from the pathway of the apostolic teaching, nor has it lapsed into heretical novelties, but from the very beginning of the christian faith has preserved unimpaired that which it received from its foundations..."

Some of my catholic friends would still agree with this...but the Roman church has changed doctrinally where by most of the doctrines do not have a leg to stand on Biblically if they are founded on the apostles and prophets, and the sayings of Jesus. Mariology? The Mass? Purgatory?

(sources: The first Seven Eumenical Councils; Church Fathers Interpretatin of the Rock of Matthew 16:18)

In Him, david.

I like what you say here at the end of your post, good points to take in. I just finished a little investigating and research and found that the Roman Catholic church is the name that was giving to the church Peter founded, BUT was not given this name until long after the death of the last apostle John in 100 AD. Later after Johns death, Ignatius of Antioch used the name "catholic" so technically it wasn't until 100's of years later when they started to change doctrine and start to make up their own traditions which has led to where they are now. Not that it is a bad place, but NO WHERE in the Bible does it say to pray to Mary, that only through Priest's or their "father" at their church they must confess their sins to be forgiven. I just want to know why they started these traditions and who got these ideas?

 

[Rick Otto]

they use. These doctrines/traditions, etc. are "implicit" in scripture.

I will be interested in what you find out about the "implicators" who instituted those things.

 

[IgnatiusOfAntioch]

Go to the Scholars who have studied Patristic history in order to find your answers. Here i Quote a Protestant Scholar who wrote a HISTORY of the CHRISTIAN CHURCH Philip Schaff .

The ministerial office was instituted by the Lord before his ascension, and solemnly inaugurated on the first Christian Pentecost by the outpouring of the Holy Ghost, to be the regular organ of the kingly power of Christ on earth in founding, maintaining, and extending the church. It appears in the New Testament under different names, descriptive of its various functions:—the "ministry of the word," "of the Spirit," "of righteousness," "of reconciliation." It includes the preaching of the gospel, the administration of the sacraments, and church discipline or the power of the keys, the power to open and shut the gates of the kingdom of heaven, in other words, to declare to the penitent the forgiveness of sins, and to the unworthy excommunication in the name and by the Authority of Christ.
The idea and institution of a special priesthood, distinct from the body of the people, with the accompanying notion of sacrifice and altar, passed imperceptibly from Jewish reminiscences and analogies into the Christian church.
In the external organization of the church, several important changes appear in the period before us. The distinction of clergy and laity, and the sacerdotal view of the ministry becomes prominent and fixed; subordinate church offices are multiplied; the episcopate arises; the beginnings of the Roman primacy appear; and the exclusive unity of the Catholic church develops itself in opposition to heretics and schismatics. The apostolical organization of the first century now gives place to the Catholic episcopal system.

Another good way to find the Truth in this subject is to look at the Original pastoral staff of the various Churches and to trace them back to find out when and by whom the various protestant churches were founded.

Grace and peace.

Yours in Christ.

 

[lionroar0]

"Implicit" is the operative word...


they use. These doctrines/traditions, etc. are "implicit" in scripture.

I will be interested in what you find out about the "implicators" who instituted those things.

Just like the Trinity and the hypostatic union.

Peace

 

[Anoetos]

I agree that Protestants who have divorced themselves from the whole history of the Church are in very bad shape when it comes to explaining why they believe in some things.

But it doesn't mean that all Protestants have done so.

IMO, this is a huge indictment of Mega-Churchery...

 

[Anoetos]

Another good way to find the Truth in this subject is to look at the Original pastoral staff of the various Churches and to trace them back to find out when and by whom the various protestant churches were founded.

Grace and peace.

Yours in Christ.

The more responsible Protestant Churches confess that they are rooted in the church catholic and represent nothing more than a reformation and restoration of that church to its apostolic foundations.

You can argue with the validity of that confession (and I am sure you will). But you can't say that they were founded by anyone other than Christ.

Besides being provocative and uncharitable such a suggestion fairly hemorrhages a commitment to denying churches and their representatives the right to tell their own story.