Catholicism part 4 "The Church, Papacy, and Authority"

[bumperjack]

Silent for 300 years there was no catholic church all these successors were not in Rome and History claims Christanity didnt take off untill the Fifth Century I understand that is your claim if that is not upheld the foundation will come crashing down History claims when Christianity was founded in Rome there was no bishops of Rome in them days no where in History backs up these claims peter and paul visited Rome and was killed there but neither lead any terms as bishops when no church existed in them days,Christianity wasnt adopted yet brother so Im not buying it! You are lead to believe what you wish we all are at liberty to believe what we want of course we have free will and God did not leave authority to any Church through any apostles to a church homie Im not buying it.

[bumperjack]

Silent the problem is 300 years is along time for sucession from the apostles when Christianity can be proved was adopted many many years after Christ and these so called bishops had no church in Rome because it wasnt even adopted I side with History not accounts and letters that can not prove Apostlic Succession,Im not buying it homie.

[silentwssj]

Ok Bumperjack here is proof that the early Church recognized Peter as the head of the Church! Where are any letters written by the first Christians that say something different?

Share on facebookShare on twitterShare on emailShare on pinterest_shareMore Sharing Services179

“You are Peter, and on this rock I will build my Church, and the gates of hell will not prevail against it” (Matt. 16:18) is probably the most disputed metaphor for the foundation of the Church by protestant thinkers. Some argue that Jesus did not really mean the Church would be build on Peter.

Some relate that in the passage there is some slight difference between “Petros” the Greek term for Peter and “petra” the term for rock. Yet its obvious that one would not refer to a man as feminine since petra, a feminine noun has been modified to have a masculine ending.

We know Jesus spoke Aramaic, and John tell us (John 1:42) that the Lord referred to Peter in everyday life as Kepha or Cephas depending on translation. This term is what’s translated into Greek as petros. So This is what Christ actually used when referring to Peter as “rock”, “Kepha”. If this is taken into account, it means that Christ actually meant Peter would have the Church built upon him. He is First Pope of the Church, the first Prince of the Apostles, and first Vicar of Christ.

And the Fathers agree:


Tatian the Syrian



“Simon Cephas answered and said, ‘You are the Messiah, the Son of the living God.’ Jesus answered and said unto him, ‘Blessed are you, Simon, son of Jonah: flesh and blood has not revealed it unto thee, but my Father which is in heaven. And I say unto thee also, that you are Cephas, and on this rock will I build my Church; and the gates of hades shall not prevail against it” (The Diatesseron 23 [A.D. 170]).



Tertullian



“Was anything withheld from the knowledge of Peter, who is called ‘the rock on which the Church would be built’ [Matt. 16:18] with the power of ‘loosing and binding in heaven and on earth’ [Matt. 16:19]?” (Demurrer Against the Heretics 22 [A.D. 200]).

“[T]he Lord said to Peter, ‘On this rock I will build my Church, I have given you the keys of the kingdom of heaven [and] whatever you shall have bound or loosed on earth will be bound or loosed in heaven’ [Matt. 16:18–19]. . . . What kind of man are you, subverting and changing what was the manifest intent of the Lord when he conferred this personally upon Peter? Upon you, he says, I will build my Church; and I will give to you the keys” (Modesty 21:9–10 [A.D. 220]).



The Letter of Clement to James



“Be it known to you, my lord, that Simon [Peter], who, for the sake of the true faith, and the most sure foundation of his doctrine, was set apart to be the foundation of the Church, and for this end was by Jesus himself, with his truthful mouth, named Peter” (Letter of Clement to James 2 [A.D. 221]).



The Clementine Homilies



“[Simon Peter said to Simon Magus in Rome:] ‘For you now stand in direct opposition to me, who am a firm rock, the foundation of the Church’ [Matt. 16:18]” (Clementine Homilies 17:19 [A.D. 221]).



Origen



“Look at [Peter], the great foundation of the Church, that most solid of rocks, upon whom Christ built the Church [Matt. 16:18]. And what does our Lord say to him? ‘Oh you of little faith,’ he says, ‘why do you doubt?’ [Matt. 14:31]” (Homilies on Exodus 5:4 [A.D. 248]).



Cyprian of Carthage



“The Lord says to Peter: ‘I say to you,’ he says, ‘that you are Peter, and upon this rock I will build my Church, and the gates of hell will not overcome it. And to you I will give the keys of the kingdom of heaven . . . ’ [Matt. 16:18–19]. On him [Peter] he builds the Church, and to him he gives the command to feed the sheep [John 21:17], and although he assigns a like power to all the apostles, yet he founded a single chair [cathedra], and he established by his own authority a source and an intrinsic reason for that unity. Indeed, the others were that also which Peter was [i.e., apostles], but a primacy is given to Peter, whereby it is made clear that there is but one Church and one chair. . . . If someone does not hold fast to this unity of Peter, can he imagine that he still holds the faith? If he [should] desert the chair of Peter upon whom the Church was built, can he still be confident that he is in the Church?” (The Unity of the Catholic Church 4; 1st edition [A.D. 251]).

“There is one God and one Christ, and one Church, and one chair founded on Peter by the word of the Lord. It is not possible to set up another altar or for there to be another priesthood besides that one altar and that one priesthood. Whoever has gathered elsewhere is scattering” (Letters 43[40]:5 [A.D. 253]).

“There [John 6:68–69] speaks Peter, upon whom the Church would be built, teaching in the name of the Church and showing that even if a stubborn and proud multitude withdraws because it does not wish to obey, yet the Church does not withdraw from Christ. The people joined to the priest and the flock clinging to their shepherd are the Church. You ought to know, then, that the bishop is in the Church and the Church in the bishop, and if someone is not with the bishop, he is not in the Church. They vainly flatter themselves who creep up, not having peace with the priests of God, believing that they are
secretly [i.e., invisibly] in communion with certain individuals. For the Church, which is one and Catholic, is not split nor divided, but it is indeed united and joined by the cement of priests who adhere one to another” (ibid., 66[69]:8).



Firmilian



“But what is his error . . . who does not remain on the foundation of the one Church which was founded upon the rock by Christ [Matt. 16:18], can be learned from this, which Christ said to Peter alone: ‘Whatever things you shall bind on earth shall be bound also in heaven; and whatever you loose on earth, they shall be loosed in heaven’ [Matt. 16:19]” (collected in Cyprian’s Letters74[75]:16 [A.D. 253]).



“[Pope] Stephen . . . boasts of the place of his episcopate, and contends that he holds the succession from Peter, on whom the foundations of the Church were laid [Matt. 16:18]. . . . [Pope] Stephen . . . announces that he holds by succession the throne of Peter” (ibid., 74[75]:17).



Ephraim the Syrian



“[Jesus said:] ‘Simon, my follower, I have made you the foundation of the holy Church. I betimes called you Peter, because you will support all its buildings. You are the inspector of those who will build on earth a Church for me. If they should wish to build what is false, you, the foundation, will condemn them. You are the head of the fountain from which my teaching flows; you are the chief of my disciples’” (Homilies 4:1 [A.D. 351]).



Optatus



“You cannot deny that you are aware that in the city of Rome the episcopal chair was given first to Peter; the chair in which Peter sat, the same who was head—that is why he is also called Cephas [‘Rock’]—of all the apostles; the one chair in which unity is maintained by all” (The Schism of the Donatists 2:2 [A.D. 367]).



Ambrose of Milan



“[Christ] made answer: ‘You are Peter, and upon this rock will I build my Church. . . . ’ Could he not, then, strengthen the faith of the man to whom, acting on his own authority, he gave the kingdom, whom he called the rock, thereby declaring him to be the foundation of the Church [Matt. 16:18]?” (The Faith 4:5 [A.D. 379]).

“It is to Peter that he says: ‘You are Peter, and upon this rock I will build my Church’ [Matt. 16:18]. Where Peter is, there is the Church. And where the Church is, no death is there, but life eternal” (Commentary on Twelve Psalms of David 40:30 [A.D. 389]).



Pope Damasus I



“Likewise it is decreed . . . that it ought to be announced that . . . the holy Roman Church has not been placed at the forefront [of the churches] by the conciliar decisions of other churches, but has received the primacy by the evangelic voice of our Lord and Savior, who says: ‘You are Peter, and upon this rock I will build my Church, and the gates of hell will not prevail against it; and I will give to you the keys of the kingdom of heaven. . . . ’ [Matt. 16:18–19]. The first see, therefore, is that of Peter the apostle, that of the Roman Church, which has neither stain nor blemish nor anything like it” (Decree of Damasus 3 [A.D. 382]).



Jerome



“‘But,’ you [Jovinian] will say, ‘it was on Peter that the Church was founded’ [Matt. 16:18]. Well . . . one among the twelve is chosen to be their head in order to remove any occasion for division” (Against Jovinian 1:26 [A.D. 393]).

“I follow no leader but Christ and join in communion with none but your blessedness [Pope Damasus I], that is, with the chair of Peter. I know that this is the rock on which the Church has been built. Whoever eats the Lamb outside this house is profane. Anyone who is not in the ark of Noah will perish when the flood prevails” (Letters 15:2 [A.D. 396]).



Augustine



“If the very order of episcopal succession is to be considered, how much more surely, truly, and safely do we number them [the bishops of Rome] from Peter himself, to whom, as to one representing the whole Church, the Lord said, ‘Upon this rock I will build my Church, and the gates of hell shall not conquer it.’ Peter was succeeded by Linus, Linus by Clement. … In this order of succession a Donatist bishop is not to be found” (Letters 53:1:2 [A.D. 412]).



Council of Ephesus



“Philip, the presbyter and legate of the Apostolic See [Rome], said: ‘There is no doubt, and in fact it has been known in all ages, that the holy and most blessed Peter, prince and head of the apostles, pillar of the faith, and foundation of the Catholic Church, received the keys of the kingdom from our Lord Jesus Christ, the Savior and Redeemer of the human race, and that to him was given the power of loosing and binding sins: who down even to today and forever both lives and judges in his successors’” (Acts of the Council, session 3 [A.D. 431]).



Sechnall of Ireland



“Steadfast in the fear of God, and in faith immovable, upon [Patrick] as upon Peter the [Irish] church is built; and he has been allotted his apostleship by God; against him the gates of hell prevail not” (Hymn in Praise of St. Patrick 3 [A.D. 444]).



Pope Leo I



“Our Lord Jesus Christ . . . has placed the principal charge on the blessed Peter, chief of all the apostles. . . . He wished him who had been received into partnership in his undivided unity to be named what he himself was, when he said: ‘You are Peter, and upon this rock I will build my Church’ [Matt. 16:18], that the building of the eternal temple might rest on Peter’s solid rock, strengthening his Church so surely that neither could human rashness assail it nor the gates of hell prevail against it” (Letters 10:1 [A.D. 445]).



Council of Chalcedon



“Wherefore the most holy and blessed Leo, archbishop of the great and elder Rome, through us, and through this present most holy synod, together with the thrice blessed and all-glorious Peter the apostle, who is the rock and foundation of the Catholic Church, and the foundation of the orthodox faith, has stripped him [Dioscorus] of the episcopate” (Acts of the Council, session 3 [A.D. 451]).

[silentwssj]

The Catholic Church is not founded by Jesus Christ, the Emperor Constantine was the one who founded the Church of Rome thus its foundation and origin is paganism and not the Gospel of Jesus Christ.


Answer:


The premise that the foundation of the Catholic Church is paganism can only be true if it is indeed founded by the emperor Constantine. However this is not the case even before the birth of Emperor Constantine the Catholic Church already existed. As a matter of fact this great pagan emperor converted to Christianity on his deathbed and was baptize as a Catholic. Constantine became the emperor of Rome from 306 A.D until his death on 337 A.D, all the emperors before him scorned Christianity and persecuted each and every followers of Christ from the laity, the priests and the bishops. Constantine was the 1st Roman emperor to support Christianity and become Christian. From the time of Constantine, Christianity became the Roman religion.[1] If the emperor Constantine was the founder of the Catholic Church then it would be superfluous for him to convert to the religion that he himself founded. However, Constantine converted to Christianity which logically would imply that Christianity (Catholic Church) already existed even before Constantine was born. Furthermore, Constantine issued the edict of Milan which gave Christianity legal status in the empire. At the end of the fourth century, in the year 380, Christianity became the official state religion of the Roman Empire.[2] Prior to the edict of Milan Christians in Rome cannot publicly and freely practice their religion for the fear of being persecuted and killed like what the previous emperors did. Therefore, even before Constantine became an emperor and issued the edict of Milan the Catholic Church already existed and was being persecuted for hundreds of years. The idea that the founder of the Catholic Church is Emperor Constantine is baseless and no iota of historical proof will ever support it. 300 hundred years prior to the birth of Constantine a Catholic bishop already spoke of the existence of the Catholic Church and this bishop was even martyred in Rome! St. Ignatius bishop of Antioch explicitly mentions the Catholic Church on his letter to the Smyrnaeans, this faithful bishop wrote; “Wherever the bishop appears, let the people be there, just as wherever Jesus Christ is, there is the Catholic Church.”[3] St. Ignatius of Antioch was compelled to call the Church that Jesus Christ founded “Catholic” “in order to separate itself from the various heretical groups and sects, the ancient church began calling itself “Catholic.” This title underscored both its universality and the inclusiveness of the witness on which it stood. It was the church according to the whole, that is, according to the total witness of all the apostles.”[4] Emperor Constantine cannot be the founder of the Catholic Church because even before his birth the Catholic Church already exists and this Church and the Church that Jesus Christ founded in 33 A.D (Mt.16:17-19) are one and the same. Aside from St. Ignatius of Antioch another faithful bishop also called the Church that Jesus Christ founded as the Catholic Church. St. Polycarp in his letters to various Christian communities attests that the Catholic Church and the Church that Jesus Christ founded are one and the same. St. Polycarp wrote; “The Church of God which sojourns in Smyrna, to the Church of God which sojourns in Philomelium, and to all the dioceses of the holy and Catholic Church in every place: May mercy, peace, and love of God the Father and of our Lord Jesus Christ be given to you in abundance.”[5] These are just a few statements coming from the early Church Fathers which prove that the Catholic Church already exists even before the time of Emperor Constantine. Logically it follows that emperor Constantine cannot be the founder of the Catholic Church, it is inconceivable to admit that emperor Constantine is the founder of the Catholic Church even without an iota of historical proof. Sadly, Protestants are willing to accept any baseless claims against the Catholic Church even if it cannot be proven historically and biblically. A person or people who claim to be following Christ must also know how to accept the truth even if they are not amendable to it, and this is the truth that Emperor Constantine is not the founder of the Catholic Church nor its origin is paganism. The sole founder of the Catholic Church is Jesus Christ when he said to Peter “Though art Peter and upon this rock I will build my Church” (Mt.16:17-19). Out of desperation and ignorance of history Protestants use this claim in order to dismiss the divine origin of the Catholic Church but a close reading of history it can be proven that their claim is false and inaccurate.

[silentwssj]

Bumperjack your historical version of Christianity does not even exist! You if someone is misguided it definitely is not me! I deal with facts! Just saying! No one put forth a version of Christianity that you adhere to until 1500 years later! If you think not then lets see the proof! Anyhow, much respect, I definitely want to keep it civil as well! I am simply trying to guide you to the truth! Peaceout Homie! Its time for work!

[MMRbkaRudog]

Hey there Bumperjack! Read these two articles and tell me what you think! I am not buying the Constantine theory at all! Obviously the Catholic Church was there from the beginning or it wouldn't have all those writings that I posted above! As far as the similarities with other religions go I don't buy that either! It is a Fallacy to say that because something is similar to something else it has to have originated from within it! I would be real careful with those kind of assumptions as they apply to you Protestants just as equally as they do us Catholics! The primary pushers of this are actually Atheists seeking to destroy all forms of Christianity! Anyhow, Much love and respect though! I like this dialogue that we are carrying on! Honestly it is forcing me to learn more everyday! I would like to complement you on how you have been carrying yourself on this post as well. You are staying respectful and on topic which is perfect! That way we can address this one subject and then move on! Anyhow, peaceout Brother! Silent!

That is where I was trying to get at earlier. The agenda with some of those non believers.

[bumperjack]

Church

Typically, the Roman Catholic Church has claimed early church history for its own. It quotes the early church fathers as its authorities that they are the one true church, and then the Protestants argue against the authority of the fathers.

It's high time we correct the RCC's revisionist history. Their historians know very well how dishonest they have to be with history, carefully selecting their quotes, and often pulling them out of context. The church fathers, especially prior to the Council of Nicea, do not back up the Roman Catholic version of history.

This page assumes that you know that the Roman Catholic Church bases their authority on the teaching that Peter received universal authority from Jesus, then passed it on to the bishop of Rome.

Whoever is the bishop of Rome is thus automatically the pope, bishop over all other bishops.

There is a lot of information on this page. I believe you'll find it captivating; however, if you want a lot of this same information in video form, I have a video teaching on apostolic succession and another on the history of the papacy, which thus addresses whether the Roman Catholic Church is the one true church.

Why the timing of Nicea Matters

I am going to be quoting exclusively from pre-Nicene writers (those who wrote before the Council of Nicea in A.D. 325). Here's the reasons that they are the only quotes that matter.

1. The timing of Nicea matters because a long time had elapsed.

First, there are 300 years between Jesus' coming to earth and the Council of Nicea. That's a long time.

Once 300 years have elapsed, it's too late to quote church leaders—no matter how important or wonderful they are—as authorities that the whole church should be subject to the Roman Catholic pope. If that had been taught by the apostles, or even soon after the apostles, then why isn't it mentioned for 300 years.

And it's not!

2. The Council of Nicea matters because the church was very different afterwards.

The church changed after the Council of Nicea. Whereas before Nicea the emperor of Rome had persecuted the church, after Nicea he was heavily involved in the affairs of the church, appointing and removing bishops. Before Nicea, a bishop in a church had no political power whatsoever. After Nicea, a bishop's political influence could be significant.

There were battles for the office of bishop between ambitious men even prior to Nicea, but nothing like there were afterwards.

With the position of bishop gaining authority, especially in major cities, the testimony of the fathers after Nicea cannot be relied upon to represent the views of earlier centuries on the role of central bishops like the one in Rome.

The Testimony of the Fathers Prior to Nicea Concerning the Roman Church as the One True Church

These facts are presented in a very short form due to the limitations of a web page. If you'd like a longer version of this history, I have a series of videos on this page.

The Council of Nicea Gives the Extent of the Roman Bishop's Power in A.D. 325

At the Council of Nicea, the bishop of Rome was given an authority similar to that of the bishop of Alexandria, Egypt.
This one point ought to end all discussion! The bishop of Alexandria, Egypt was given authority over Egypt, Libya, and Pentapolis, and the council said that "the like is customary for the bishop of Rome also" (Canon 6).

The Roman bishop had authority over a region similar to the Alexandrian bishop's, and this wasn't so until the 4th century. How can we discuss his having more authority than that prior to Nicea???

In the First and Early Second Centuries There Were Multiple Bishops in Rome

Clement of Rome, Peter, and Paul all used bishop and presbyter, the word from which the Roman Catholics get priest, interchangeably, and they speak of multiple bishops in each church.
Clement's quotes, from a letter written just sixty years after Jesus died and rose again, are as follows:

[The apostles] appointed the firstfruits, having first proved them by the Spirit, to be bishops and deacons of those who should afterwards believe. Nor was this any new thing, since indeed many ages before it was written concerning bishops and deacons. For thus saith the Scripture in a certain place, "I will appoint their bishops in righteousness, and their deacons in faith" [Isaiah 60:17, from the Septuagint]. (First Clement 42)
Note that he doesn't mention elders (or presbyters) and that he uses bishops in the plural. That is because an elder and a bishop were the same thing to Clement:

Our sin will not be small, if we eject from the office of bishop those who have blamelessly and holily fulfilled its duties. Blessed are those presbyters who, having finished their course before now, have obtained a fruitful and perfect departure [from this world]; for they have no fear lest any one deprive them of the place now appointed them. (ibid. 44)
Here Clement does mention presbyters (elders), and it is clear that he sees them as filling the office of bishop.

This is no surprise because tradition tells us that Clement was appointed by Paul and Peter as one of those bishops, and they both used bishop and elder interchangeably (Acts 20:17,28; 1 Pet. 5:1-4).

We should also note that 1 Clement does not say it is written by Clement. It is addressed from the church in Rome to the church in Corinth. Both these churches would have had their leadership set up by Paul (and in Rome's case, Peter as well), and so both churches would have had multiple elders who were all bishops at this early date.

Ignatius of Antioch, who greatly emphasized the office of bishop, did not even mention a bishop in his letter to Rome in A.D. 110.
There is much speculation as to why this is so. Personally, I think it's obvious. Rome was the only church that Ignatius wrote to whose leadership was set up by Paul. It had no monarchial (single or individual rule) bishop for him to point out.

Ignatius did write to Ephesus, but John lived in Ephesus for 30 years after Paul died. John did not set up leadership the same way that Paul and Peter did. He had a group of elders, but only one of those elders was the bishop.

Eventually, probably by the middle of the 2nd century or shortly thereafter, John's structure would hold sway everywhere.

It's been argued to me by Roman Catholic apologists that Ignatius didn't mention the bishop because he was so important, being the pope, that it was unnecessary. This hardly seems reasonable, and in addition, Polycarp avoids mentioning a bishop in the very same situation with the Philippians …

Polycarp Speaks Only of Elders and Deacons in His Letter to the Philippians in the Early 2nd Century
Polycarp's letter is interesting because he was a monarchial bishop, from Smyrna, but he was writing to the Philippians, a Pauline church, at a time when they would still have had Paul's leadership structure. Thus, he avoids mentioning the distinction between bishop and presbyter/elder.

He begins the letter with:

Polycarp, and the elders with him, to the church of God sojourning at Philippi …
Later, when he discusses the responsibilities of church leadership, he mentions only elders and deacons (chs. 4-5). There is no comment about a bishop, or even about bishops.

The first time a monarchial bishop is mentioned in Rome is A.D. 185
Irenaeus’ Against Heresies is the 1st time we read of a singular bishop in Rome. It is written 90 years after 1 Clement.

Again, it's no surprise that Irenaeus assumes there was always one bishop in Rome. Ireneaus was raised in one of John's churches (Smyrna), with a monarchial bishop. By 185, even Rome and the rest of Paul and Peter’s churches had adopted the eastern custom of one bishop.

Roman Catholic Apologists Misrepresent Pre-Nicene Quotes About Peter's Authority

Matthew 16:18-19 says nothing of passing anything on to Rome or any other church
Roman Catholic Apologists love to quote Matthew 16:19 as proving that Peter had "the keys of the kingdom" and that the church was built on him.

Protestants, of course, object, and they argue that the church was built on Peter's confession of Christ.

For our purposes, that interpretation doesn't matter. There's really nothing in that verse that remotely suggests that Peter would be passing on authority to some other person, such as the bishop of Rome, who would then have authority over all churches. Nothing in that verse would make any unbiased reader think even that Peter had authority over other apostles.

Instead, the keys of the kingdom suggest that Peter would open up the kingdom of heaven to others, and if he's the rock upon which the church is built, then he's basically the first Christian. Both these statements have to do with being first, not with having authority over others, and neither suggest that someone other than Peter would inherit his role.

No one says Peter's authority was passed on until A.D. 250, when Cyprian does so, and Cyprian specifically rejects the authority of the bishop of Rome.
Cyprian called the 7th Council of Carthage in A.D. 258. The council was called specifically because Stephen, bishop of Rome, had condemned the decrees of a previous north African council. There, as he introduced the council to 87 bishops of North Africa, he declared:

On this matter, each of us should bring forth what he thinks … for neither does any of us set himself up as a bishop of bishops, nor by tyrannical terror does any compel his colleague to the necessity of obedience; since every bishop … has his own proper right of judgment, and can no more be judged by another than he himself can judge another. (Ante-Nicene Fathers vol. V, "The Seventh Council of Carthage under Cyprian")
Whether a Roman Catholic agrees with Cyprian on that or not, he is being dishonest if he quotes Cyprian on the matter of Peter's authority and then implies or suggests that Cyprian meant that the bishop of Rome had Peter's authority. Cyprian clearly states that no bishop can rule another.

So what did Cyprian think happened to Peter's authority?

This unity we ought firmly to hold and assert, especially those of us that are bishops who preside in the Church, that we may also prove the episcopate [office of bishop] itself to be one and undivided. Let … no one corrupt the truth of the faith by treacherous deception. The episcopate is one, each part of which is held by each one for the whole. (On the Unity of the Church 5)
I'd say that if Roman Catholic apologists are going to quote Cyprian, then they ought to quit "corrupting the truth of the faith by treacherous deception"!

Roman Catholic Apologists Misrepresent Pre-Nicene Quotes about Apostolic Succession and Rome's Authority

Irenaeus used Rome as one example of a church that held to the truth, not as a church having authority over other churches.
Oh, how the Roman Catholics love this statement about the church in Rome, written by Irenaeus around A.D. 185:

It is a matter of necessity that every church should agree with this church, on account of its pre-eminent authority [Latin, potiorem principalitatem, or "powerful first-ness"], that is, the faithful everywhere, inasmuch as the apostolical tradition has been preserved continuously by those who exist everywhere. (Against Heresies III:3:2)
Whoo, whoo! How much more clearly could this be said? Every church should agree with Rome.

What did Irenaeus really mean?

"To uproot the evil of simony [the purchase of clerical positions, including the papacy] so prevalent during the Middle Ages, the Church decreed the severest penalties against its perpetrators. Pope Julius II declared simoniacal papal elections invalid, an enactment which has since been rescinded, however, by Pope Pius X."
Catholic Encyclopedia

"At this period [early 500's] simony in the election of popes and bishops was rife among clergy and laity."

Catholic Encyclopedia

Well, first, let me tell you that he really meant that every church should agree with Rome. That is the context of his whole argument. He is arguing that the apostles established churches, and then they appointed elders in those churches. To those elders they left a "tradition," a body of truth that the early church called the rule of faith. It was the elders job to preserve that rule:

We refer [the gnostic heretics] to that tradition which originates from the apostles, which is preserved by means of the succession of presbyters in the churches. (ibid. III:2:2)
Thus, Irenaeus was arguing that the gnostic should agree with all the churches that were founded by apostles and who preserved the truth by a succession of elders.

Is that really true, or am I imagining that? Here is what else Irenaeus said about Rome:

Since, however, it would be very tedious, in such a volume as this, to reckon up the successions of all the churches, we do put to confusion all those who … assemble in unauthorized meetings by indicating that tradition derived from the apostles of the very great, the very ancient, and universally known Church founded and organized at Rome by the two most glorious apostles, Peter and Paul; also the faith preached to men, which comes down to our time by means of the successions of the bishops.(ibid. III:3:2)
So, why Rome? Because it would be tedious to reckon up the succession in all the churches, and besides, Rome was founded by the two greatest apostles.

Isn't it interesting that he mentions two? If the authority of Rome was based on a succession from Peter, then don't you think he would have mentioned that, rather than pointing to the fact that they were founded by the two greatest apostles?

Finally, Irenaeus, when he is finished giving Rome's succession, adds:

Polycarp also was not only instructed by apostles, and conversed with many who had seen Christ, but was also, by apostles in Asia, appointed bishop of the church in Smyrna … when a very old man, gloriously and most nobly suffering martyrdom, departed this life, having always taught the things which he had learned from the apostles, and which the church has handed down, and which alone are true. To these things all the Asiatic churches testify, as do also those men who have succeeded Polycarp down to the present time. … There is also a very powerful Epistle of Polycarp written to the Philippians, from which those who choose to do so … can learn … the preaching of the truth.
Then, again, the church in Ephesus, founded by Paul, and having John remaining among them permanently until the times of Trajan, is a true witness of the tradition of the apostles. (ibid. III:3:4)
In other words, Irenaeus could have used Smyrna or Ephesus as easily as Rome.

Irenaeus' Concern Was the Preservation of Truth, Not the Handing Down of Authority
The argument Irenaeus was presenting had nothing whatsoever to do with one bishop's authority over another or one church's authority over another. He was arguing that the churches started by the apostles held to the truth of God, while the gnostic churches were in error.

When we refer [the gnostics] to that tradition which originates from the apostles, which is preserved by means of the succession of presbyters in the Churches, they object to tradition, saying that they themselves are wiser not merely than the presbyters, but even than the apostles. (ibid. III:3:2)
We are in a position to reckon up those who were by the apostles instituted bishops in the churches and the succession of these men to our own times. These men neither taught nor knew of anything like what [the gnostics] rave about. For if the apostles had known hidden mysteries, which they were in the habit of imparting to "the perfect" apart and privately from the rest, they would have delivered them especially to those to whom they were also committing the churches themselves. (ibid. III:3:1)
And after Irenaeus is done giving the succession of Rome, he states:

In this order and by this succession, the ecclesiastical tradition from the apostles and the preaching of the truth have come down to us. And this is most abundant proof that there is one and the same vivifying faith, which has been preserved in the church from the apostles until now, and handed down in truth. (ibid. III:3:3)
It is "most abundant proof that their is one and the same life-giving faith" from the apostles until Irenaeus' time? Or is it rather proof that the church in Rome has authority over all other churches and that 1,800 years later we should all listen to the bishop of Rome whether he's preserved apostolic truth or not?

I submit that it's the former, since that is what Irenaeus said.

Tertullian, who uses the same argument as Irenaeus, uses multiple churches rather than just Rome, just 20 years later.
Now, what that was which they preached … can … properly be proved in no other way than by those very churches which the apostles founded in person, by declaring the gospel to them directly themselves, both viva voce, as the phrase is, and subsequently by their epistles.If, then, these things are so, it equally apparent that all doctrine which agrees with the apostolic churches—those molds and original sources of the faith—must be reckoned for truth, as undoubtedly containing what the churches received from the apostles, the apostles from Christ, Christ from God. (Prescription Against Heretics 21)
For this is the manner in which the apostolic churches transmit their registers: as the church of Smyrna, which records that Polycarp was placed therein by John; as also the church of Rome, which makes Clement to have been ordained in like manner by Peter. In exactly the same way the other churches likewise exhibit those whom, because they have been appointed to their episcopal places by apostles, they regard as transmitters of the apostolic seed. (ibid. 32)
Come now, you who would indulge a better curiosity, if you would apply it to the business of your salvation, run over to the apostolic churches, in which the very chairs of the apostles are still pre-eminent in their places, in which their own authentic writings are read, uttering the voice and representing the face of each of them severally. Achaia is very near you; you find Corinth. Since you are not far from Macedonia, you have Philippi; you have the Thessalonians. Since you are able to cross to Asia, you get Ephesus. Since, moreover, you are close upon Italy, you have Rome, from which there comes even into our own hands true authority. How happy is its church, on which apostles poured forth all their doctrine along with their blood! There Peter endures a passion like his Lord’s! There Paul wins his crown in a death like John’s [the Baptist, where the apostle John was first plunged, unhurt, into boiling oil, and from there remitted to his island exile! See what she has learned, what taught, what fellowship has had with even churches in Africa! (ibid. 36)
Note that Tertullian does give Rome a special place, but it is based on the blood of so many martyrs, not on a unique succession from Peter, nor an authority over other churches.

The Argument from Apostolic Succession Is No Longer a Good Argument
The argument presented by Irenaeus and Tertullian is that the succession of bishops (and elders) in the churches is proof that the apostolic churches had maintained apostolic teaching. Anyone who's ever played the "telephone" game knows that this might be a good argument 100 years after the last apostle died, but it's a very poor argument 1900 years later.

Pre-Nicene Writers Speak of the Authority of Churches, Not the Church

I first noticed this when I was quoting something from Tertullian's Prescription Against Heretics. In chapter 21 the editors of The Ante-Nicene Fathers series give this heading:

All Doctrine True Which Comes Through the Church from the Apostles

The problem is, Tertullian mentions "churches" five times in that chapter, but he never uses "church" in the singular. For example, he writes:

Now, what that was which they preached … can … properly be proved in no other way than by those very churches which the apostles founded in person, by declaring the gospel to them directly themselves, both viva voce, as the phrase is, and subsequently by their epistles.
When the apostle Paul speaks of the authority of the church in 1 Tim. 3:15, saying the church is the pillar and support of the truth, he is speaking of the local church, not some hierarchy in a distant city. There was no such hierarchy in Paul's day, and there wouldn't be one until the emperor got involved in the government of the churches almost three centuries later.

As proof of the paragraph above, I refer you to Ephesians 4:11-16, where Paul says that the ministry of Christians in the local church to one another will keep them from being blown about by winds of doctrine and deceived by cunning and crafty men. That sort of ministry can't happen in an extra-local hierarchy.
As you can see from the above, the pre-Nicene Christians agreed with this, ascribing apostolic authority to all churches the apostles started. In fact, even churches not started by apostles have such authority if they hold to apostolic truth:

[The heretics] very doctrine, after comparison with that of the apostles, will declare, by its own diversity and disagreement, that it had for its author neither an apostle nor an apostolic man … To this test, therefore, they will be submitted for proof by those churches, who, although they derive not their founder from apostles or apostolic men—as being of much later date, for they are in fact being founded daily—yet, since they agree in the same faith, they are accounted as not less apostolic because they are akin in doctrine. (Prescription Against Heretics 32)
A Personal and Scriptural Note on the Church

I add this because if you are deceived into believing that the Roman Catholic Church is the one true church, then you are almost guaranteed to miss out on a Scriptural experience of the church, which is far more important than most modern Christians, Roman Catholic or Protestant, realize.

Here are the things that are true of a true church, which can only be a local church:

The church is saved from deception by the leading of God through its members (Eph. 4:11-16; 1 Jn. 2:27).
The church grows together, and only as each part is doing its share (1 Cor. 12:12-26; Eph. 4:15-16).
The unity and good works of the church together is the light and testimony of the world (Matt. 5:13-16, where all the "yous" are plural; Jn. 17:20-23; 1 Thess. 1:6-10).
The church shares all things, taking care of one another, though voluntarily rather than under complusion (Acts 2:42-47; 4:32; 2 Cor. 8:13-15; Heb. 10:33-34; and that this continued long past apostolic times is testified to until at least A.D. 210).
The church is a family with responsibility to one another, even more so than our biological families (Luke 14:26; 18:29-30; Gal. 6:10; 1 Tim. 3:15).
I can't resist adding this quote, from around A.D. 210, showing that when the church was young, the local churches were family. Note that this is not written in command form but as a simple declaration of how Christians lived.

But it is mainly the deeds of a love so noble that lead many to put a brand upon us. "See," they say, "how they love one another," for they themselves are animated by mutual hatred. "How they are ready even to die for one another," for they themselves will sooner put to death. And they are angry with us, too, because we call each other brothers; for no other reason, I think, than because among themselves names of consanguinity [blood relations] are assumed in mere pretence of affection.
But we are your brothers as well, by the law of our common mother nature, though you are hardly men, because brothers so unkind. At the same time, how much more fittingly they are called and counted brothers who have been led to the knowledge of God as their common Father, who have drunk in one spirit of holiness, who from the same womb of a common ignorance have agonized into the same light of truth! But on this very account, perhaps, we are regarded as having less claim to be held true brothers, that no tragedy makes a noise in our brotherhood, or that the family possessions, which generally destroy brotherhood among you, create fraternal bonds among us. One in mind and soul, we do not hesitate to share our earthly goods with one another. All things are common among us but our wives. (Tertullian, Apology 39)
This is the same man, who in the same chapter of the same work, said this of their monthly collections:

There is no buying and selling of any sort in the things of God. Though we have our treasure chest, it is not made up of purchase money, as of a religion that has its price. On the monthly day, if anyone wants, each puts in a small donation; but only if it be his pleasure and only if he be able. There is no compulsion; all is voluntary.
Of course, you won't find this care of one another even in Protestant churches, unless you happen upon a very rare one.

The things I say in this section are radical; I know it. However, they are Scriptural. They are not even deeply Scriptural; they can be found by simply reading.

The problem is, so few people are willing to preach the Gospel preached by Jesus and his apostles. They are afraid to tell peope the cost, which Jesus said must be counted.

What cost did he speak of? You can read it for yourself in Luke 14:26-33. Basically, he asks for everything, nothing held back. Even more importantly, he adds that you cannot be his disciple unless you pay that cost.

It is impossible to form a church with people that are not disciples. Yes, there will always be counterfeit Christians; those who try to act like the real thing but are not. They should be the exception, however, and not the rule. To have an organization filled with people that have never even considered paying the cost Christ asked for and calling it a church is absurd.

You will certainly never have the things the Scriptures say about the church unless disciples leave the absurd organizations (see last paragraph) most of them belong to and they come together by Jesus authority to find him in their midst.

Silent this arugument could go on for many days,weeks,months and years you have opened my eyes and I truly thank you from the bottom of my heart I plan on going to school to get my degree in Theology so all this helps and history is important when it come s to religion you have some great aruguments & i now see some merit to the things you have been writing brother But we are saved by grace through faith and we need to be born again & baptised but that does not give us salvation calling upon the name of the lord does brother and Once we become born again the Holy spirit takes up residence in you.
Your faith is strong and your arugments are valid,but there are some things that are not so Apostlic succession in my studies has not been backed up by scripture History can only place peter in Rome he was not the pope there for 25 years,History and scripture we have to closely examine but I thank God for your perserverence and your attention to detail.Bumperjack

[bumperjack]

Silent we have to go back in History your claim is the Church started from the apostles and that is nonsense in a respectful way and yes facts are in history.I can study you can study you go by what you believe to be the truth.There was a span of over 300 years that is a fact in history my friend and it can be proven also.But lets keep it moving on and you are right in some things but way off the mark in others brother but like we mentioned before we will keep it respectful homie I dont agree With were it started and when it started and all that other stuff lets just say.

[bumperjack]

This early church history timeline, in my opinion, addresses issues that ought to be of concern to all Christians. Silent these are some facts: thats what were looking for and to have the truth you have to look at every angle,You have your veiw doesnt make it the truth homie just saying,You have alot of information. Seriously Silent I dont believe the Catholic Church to be the one true church and there was Never No Apostlic Succession that ever happened in my eyes and I see clearly brother.

We are told to "contend earnestly for the faith once for all delivered to the saints" (Jude 3). How are we to do that if we don't know what that faith is?

Most Protestants will claim that the historic Christian faith can be determined from the Bible, but a simple comparison of the multitude of doctrines taught by Protestants makes it clear this is not true.

The terrible result of this is that early church history is left far too often to the revisionist history of the Roman Catholics. The world is in desperate need of a testimony like that of the apostles and their churches!

Fortunately, numerous writings have been left to us from all periods of the church, even the earliest, and it is not difficult to determine what was important to the churches the apostles started. Further, as we see doctrines introduced at later periods into the teaching of the churches, we can conclude that those doctrines are not apostolic.

After the reign of Constantine and the first general council of the church at Nicea, two very significant events occurred.

One, the churches now had an official means to decree doctrine. Doctrines that were universal in the church before that time were very likely to have come from a common source, the apostles, because there was no hierarchy to establish new doctrines universally.

Two, most of the citizens of the Roman empire became Christians, making it almost impossible after Nicea to find anything resembling the churches before Nicea. No longer were the churches gatherings of those who had chosen the Christian faith against what was accepted in society. Now, the churches consisted mostly of those who were just doing what everyone else was doing. (This is evidenced by the awful behavior of the churches and their leaders after Nicea)

Jesus said that prophets were to be judged by their fruit. In early church history it is possible not just to see the apostolic or non-apostolic origin of doctrines, it's also possible to see the fruit of new doctrines as they arrived on the scene.

First Century: A.D. 1 – 100

10 to 3 B.C.: Jesus is born in Bethlehem.
It may seem strange that Jesus was born at least three years "Before Christ," (before himself?), but it's easily explained. The method for counting years that we use today was not developed until A.D. 525, by a monk named Dionysius Exeguus. Using unknown calculations, Dionysius stated it had been 525 years since Jesus was born.

He was wrong, but we've never stopped using his calculations.

We know he was wrong. King Herod almost certainly died in 4 BC, for which there is strong evidence. Since Josephus tied Herod's death to an eclipse, it might also have been 1 BC, but other evidence makes the 1 BC date less likely. Most scholars are settled on 4 BC for Herod's death.

This means Jesus could not have been born later than this.

Herod ordered the death of all children under 2 years old in Bethlehem. Joseph and Mary narrowly escaped this, and they went to Egypt until Herod died (Matt. 2:15). How long this was, we don't know. Generally, I've heard that Jesus was born in 6 BC at the latest to allow time for these events.

Luke does offer a clue to Jesus' age. He says that John began to baptize in the 15th year of the reign of Tiberius Caesar. That year was from Sept., A.D. 28 to Sept., A.D. 29. He adds that Jesus was "about" 30 years old (Luke 3:1,23).

Thirty years runs us back to 3 BC. The problem is that Luke was writing (by the most conservative estimates) decades after the events he describes, and he says Jesus was "about" 30. That's not very precise dating.

I have chosen to list Jesus' birth as happening between 10 and 3 BC to encompass two extremes. At one extreme I'm using Luke's dating as exact and assuming Herod died in 1 BC. At the other extreme I'm using Irenaeus' (writing A.D. 185) suggestion that Jesus lived to be over 40 (based on Jn. 8:57). Jesus would then have been 6 years old when Herod died and Joseph returned from Egypt.

Irenaeus argues that the Jews told Jesus he was "not yet 50" in John 8:57. Why wouldn't they have said "not yet 40," if Jesus had been only 32 or 33 at the time? Interesting point, in my opinion, but I've never found anyone who agrees with him, although he claims (Against Heresies II:22:5) that he was told Jesus broke 40 years of age by elders who knew the apostles.

A.D. 30 or 33: Jesus is crucified and rises from the dead.
It is likely that Nisan 14 (Passover) occurred on a Thursday evening, Friday day in A.D. 30 or 33, making one of those years the death of Christ. If it was A.D. 30, then Jesus' ministry was less than two years (counting from the beginning of Tiberius' 15th year to Spring of A.D. 30). If it was A.D. 33, then his ministry was 4 years, plus or minus six months.

There is no Scripture that says Jesus' ministry was 3 years, as commonly supposed.

As in the case of many points of early history, there's a lot of room for argument here.

33 to 44: The Gospel reaches the Samaritans and Gentiles; Saul is converted, and after A.D. 44, on his first missionary journey, takes the name Paul
33 to 44: Simon Magus is falsely converted in Samaria, rejected by Peter, and founds the Gnostics
This is an extremely signficant event. According to early church apologists, Simon went to Rome and claimed that the spirit of Christ had left Jesus and come to him after the crucifixion. All the elaborate and unusual versions of gnosticism then spread from that source.

Gnostic teachings would make their way into the early church, and it would take nearly a century for Christians to drive them out. As late as the second half of the second century, Tatian—a disciple of Justin Martyr—fell away to gnosticism, and Irenaeus had to rescue a Roman bishop from gnostic Valentinian influence.

44: Herod Agrippa dies, and Barnabas and Paul begin traveling soon after (Acts 12:21-13:1).
This is another very important date because it's a certain one.

49: Paul writes his first letter, either Galatians or 1 Thessalonians.
Historians are guessing here.

51 or 52: Paul appears before the Proconsul Gallio in Corinth after spending 18 months in the city (Acts 18:11-12).
This is of signficance because it's the most firmly dated event in Paul's life. Gallio would only have been proconsul for a year, and there are fragments extant of a letter written by Claudius Caesar dating his proconsulate to A.D. 51 or 52.

54: 1 Corinthians is written, containing the first reference to gnostic teachings in the early church (1 Cor. 15:12)
64 to 67: Paul and Peter put to death by Nero (probably).
There's a lot of later tradition about the death of Paul and Peter, but no 1st century testimonies. Tacitus does say that Nero persecuted Christians after the great fire of A.D. 64.

Some give a date as early as A.D. 60, but I'm convinced that Paul's captivity at the end of the Book of Acts ended in his release. There is much early church testimony that Paul went west to Spain and possibly England and was only later put to death.

70: Jerusalem is destroyed by the Roman general and future emperor, Titus.
96: Clement of Rome writes a letter to the Corinthians.
Chances are, this is the earliest Christian letter outside the New Testament (NT). The Didache, The Letter of Barnabas, and the anonymous Letter to Diognetus could all be earlier, but their dates are uncertain. First Clement, as this letter from Rome to Corinth is known, has the earliest certain date for Christian writing outside the NT.

The letter is from the church at Rome, not Clement himself, but it has always been attributed to Clement specifically.

98: First year of the emperor Trajan; John dies soon after.
Irenaeus (Against Heresies II:22:5, c. A.D. 185) says that John lived until the times of Trajan. Irenaeus sat at the feet of Polycarp, and Polycarp was appointed bishop of Smyrna by John. Thus, Irenaeus' testimony on this matter carries some weight. Clement of Alexandria says the same in his Who Is the Rich Man Who Will Be Saved.

It is a long standing tradition that John lived to be a hundred years old.

99: All New Testament writings are finished.
John, who according to early church testimony was the last of the four evangelists to write his Gospel, lived into the times of Trajan. Thus, it is possible that his Gospel and even his letters were not written until around this time.

The Book of Revelation was completed much earlier, and is usually dated to before A.D. 70. There is some question as to whether the apostle wrote it, and some suggest it was written by an elder from Ephesus that was also named John.

Dionysius, a 3rd century bishop from Alexandria, writes:

That this person was called John, therefore, and that this was the writing of a John, I do not deny. And I admit further, that it was also the work of some holy and inspired man. But I could not so easily admit that this was the apostle, the son of Zebedee, the brother of James, and the same person with him who wrote the Gospel which bears the title according to John, and the catholic epistle.
But from the character of both, and the forms of expression, and the whole disposition and execution of the book, I draw the conclusion that the authorship is not his. For the evangelist nowhere else subjoins his name, and he never proclaims himself either in the Gospel or in the epistle. …
And furthermore, on the ground of difference in diction, it is possible to prove a distinction between the Gospel and the Epistle on the one hand, and the Revelation on the other. For the former are written not only without actual error as regards the Greek language, but also with the greatest elegance, both in their expressions and in their reasonings, and in the whole structure of their style. They are very far indeed from betraying any barbarism or solecism [i.e., nonstandard or ungrammatical usage], or any sort of vulgarism, in their diction. … That the author of the latter, however, saw a revelation, and received knowledge and prophecy, I do not deny. Only I perceive that his dialect and language are not of the exact Greek type, and that he employs barbarous idioms, and in some places also solecisms. (Fragments from the two books on the promises; Ante-Nicene Fathers, vol. VI)
100: The Jewish canon is limited to the 39 books of the Masoretic Text
No one knows exactly how or when this happened, but scholars seem certain the Jewish canon was set by A.D. 100.

This is significant because it means the early churches had no set canon, even for the Old Testament. Even Augustine, near A.D. 400, says there are books accepted by some churches but rejected by others.

2nd Century: A.D. 101 – 200

107 to 116: Ignatius is martyred and writes seven letters.
There is controversy about all of this. Not much is known of Ignatius except what is contained in his letters and The Martyrdom of Ignatius. Generally, though, most scholars accept Ignatius' seven letters, in their shorter version, as genuine.

Some, though, give 116 as the year of his martyrdom, and others say that the description of the travels in The Martyrdom of Ignatius are impossible. Personally, I think most of the "that's impossible" statements about history are unreliable. We don't have enough knowledge of ancient times to be declaring something impossible that a contemporary witness says happened.

107 to 155: Polycarp is bishop of Smyrna.
Polycarp is an interesting character who wrote a beautiful letter to the Philippians sometime during this period.

We have a minimum start and end date for Polycarp's ministry as bishop. He is said to have been appointed by John, and he is addressed as bishop in two letters by Ignatius (A.D. 107 or 116). His martyrdom took place around A.D. 155 (I've since read 165).

The story of his martyrdom is preserved by Eusebius in his Church History, a history of the early church through 323. It lets us know that the text we have is reasonably accurate, though there have been several interpolations of miraculous events that did not happen. [Don't write me an email about that. I believe in miracles. In this case, there's evidence that these extreme miracles were just later stories.]

A.D. 125: Aristides writes the first early church "Apology," a defense of the faith presented to the emperor Hadrian.
132 to 136 – Jewish Insurrection [Bar-Kokhba] against Hadrian
This insurrection is significant for several reasons. Though the temple and Jerusalem had fallen to Titus in A.D. 70, it was the Bar-Kokhba rebellion that ended all Jewish claim to Israel and Jerusalem for many centuries.

It was a difficult war, and an angry Hadrian had Jerusalem plowed with oxen; deported many Jews or sold them into slavery; built a new city in Jerusalem's place; and he renamed Israel as Syria Palestina. He then began to persecute Jews, forbidding Sabbath observance, circumcision, and numerous other uniquely Jewish rituals.

The insurrection under Hadrian is useful for dating some early church writings. The Letter of Barnabas, for example, deals in great length with the Law of Moses. It mentions the destruction of the temple (ch. 16), thus dating it after A.D. 70, but it seems unlikely he knew of the destruction and persecution under Hadrian, else he would have mentioned it. The result is that we can date The Letter of Barnabas before 130.

155: Justin Martyr writes his First Apology
Justin was a prolific writer, and I personally believe his Dialogue with Trypho preserves much of Jesus' teaching on the road to Emmaus, where Jesus expounded "the things concerning himself in all the Scriptures" (Luke 24:27). Justin inaugurates the age of the apologists, and he is ably followed by Theophilus (168), Athenagoras (177), Irenaeus (c. 185), and Tertullian (200 - 220), as well as by his eventually apostate disciple Tatian (c. 165).

155 to 165: Polycarp is martyred.
168: Theophilus dates the creation of Adam and thus predicts the fall of Rome 300 years in advance.
177: Athenagoras' A Plea for the Christians contains a description of the Trinity that mentions the "same substance" of the Father and Son.
"Homoousios," or same substance, would eventually be the main issue at the Council of Nicea in 325, a major early church controversy.

"We employ language which makes a distinction between God and matter, and the natures of the two. For, as we acknowledge a God, and a Son his Logos, and a Holy Spirit, united in essence." (ch. 24)
183 to 186: Irenaeus writes Against Heresies, the most thorough book on gnosticism ever written.
Irenaeus' tome is a terrific glimpse of early church theology. It pulls back the curtains like no other writing of its time. Irenaeus was a disciple of Polycarp, who knew John, so he's the strongest witness to the apostolic age of his time period.

190 to 200: Clement of Alexandria teaches new Christians in Alexandria and leaves us copious writings.
Clement wrote on EVERYTHING. He talks about exercise—men should strip and wrestle, and women should clean house—clothing, drinking alcohol, music, manners, and anything else you could possible think of. These are covered in Miscellanies and The Instructor.

3rd Century, A.D. 201 – 300

200 to 220: Tertullian, a Christian lawyer from Carthage in north Africa, wrote several books and numerous tracts.
Tertullian was bothered by a lack of separation from the world in some Christians, so he wrote tracts on numerous subjects. He wrote on avoiding the Roman games, not wearing a crown, and other issues. He also wrote against the Roman religion, against various gnostics, and against heretics in general. His Apology is a terrific description of the early church as it entered the 3rd century.

His Against Praxeas is the most thorough description of the Trinity in the early Christian writings, and he's the first to use the term Trinity.

Tertullian was extremely caustic and sarcastic. He pulled no punches, and he didn't try to be nice. It makes his writings very interesting, but I'm not sure how effective they were. He got so frustrated with what he considered a lack of holiness that he joined the Montanist sect, which emphasized prophecy and had some very strict rules. Eventually he repented and returned to the catholic churches. (Catholic, in this context, just means the united early churches started by the apostles, not the Roman Catholic Church, which did not yet exist.)

220 to 303: (This section to be expanded later)
The early church grew larger and more organized during this period. During times of peace, they brought in a large number of members, not all of whom were fully active or committed, like the smaller, 2nd century churches were. Thus, when periods of persecution arose, a lot of Christians fell away, either sacrificing to the Roman gods or purchasing a certificate saying that they had.

Later, when the persecution ended, many of them asked to be readmitted to the church. This caused a lot of strife, and a new set of churches, believing all the same things as the catholics, arose under a Roman teacher named Novatian.

The Novatianist churches refused to admit those that had lapsed during persecution. After 325, when all persecution stopped, Novatianist churches slowly melded back into the catholic churches.

4th Century: A.D. 301 – 400

303 to 311: The Great Persecution
An emperor named Diocletian ordered an empire-wide persecution of the early church in 303. In 305, he retired, the only Roman emperor ever to do so, and Galerius continued his policy of persecution for 6 more years. There were up to 4 emperors during this time, and the emperors in the west didn't always carry out the policy of persecution, but Galerius did in the east.

In 311, Galerius issued the Edict of Toleration, and the persecution ended.

312: Constantine the Great has a vision of a cross
In 312, one of the emperors, Constantine the Great, on his way to fight his co-emperor Maxentius, had a vision of a cross with the words, "In this sign conquer," written under it. He won the battle and attributed his victory to the Christian God. Becoming a supporter of the early church, in 313, he and his co-emperor Licinius issued the Edict of Milan, restoring Christianity to favor.

Constantine and Licinius then rebuilt the destroyed church buildings of the early church and restored all possessions confiscated during the persecution.

313 to 337: Constantine's reign brings favor to the early churches
Constantine was received with great joy by the early churches, which were grateful that he had not only ended persecution but granted them favor. Roman citizens flocked into the churches, even though Constantine remained the head of the Roman pagan religion as well.

318 to 325: The Arian controversy
In 318 an elder by the name of Arius came up with a slightly different explanation of Jesus' divinity and his relationship with God the Father. When he was corrected he refused to back down, so he was excommunicated by his church in Alexandria, Egypt in 321.

This did no good. A Middle Eastern bishop by the name of Eusebius, from Nicomedia, took Arius in and promoted his doctrines. Arius began writing jingles and teaching them to children, tradesman, and sailors. His doctrines began to spread, threatening to cause a split in the church.

Constantine was involved in a civil war with Licinius at the time. In 324 he was victorius, uniting the empire. He was terrified, however, that the Arian controversy would split not only the church but his newly united empire, so he called all the bishops of the early churches to Nicea, in modern Turkey, to resolve the dispute.

323: Eusebius of Caesarea writes Ecclesiastical History
Ecclesiastical History by Eusebius of Caesarea, a different Eusebius than the one from Nicomedia, is perhaps the most important book in Christian history. It quotes extensively from earlier writings, preserving some and helping us identify others that we would otherwise know nothing about. It is to this day the best overview of the first three centuries of Christianity.

325: The Council of Nicea
Almost as important as the council itself is the fact that Constantine sat as a moderator. This intimate interaction between emperor and early churches would carry on into the middle ages without cessation.

The Council of Nicea issued an official creed, based on the early church's rule of faith. It also directly condemned the tentes of Arianism, though the Arian controversy would not be fully resolved until the Council of Constantinople in 381.

Another important issue at the Council of Nicea was the official approval of "patriarchs." These were the bishops of Alexandria, Rome, and Antioch, who were given authority over very large provinces. This would lead eventually to the bishop of Rome becoming pope of the Roman Catholic Church in the west. The other patriarchs—several have been added since—are still leaders of the Eastern Orthodox Church, which is basically the Catholic Church of the east.

325 to 381: The fall of the Church, the resolution of the Arian controversy, and the rise of monasticism. (to be expanded later)
Unfortunately, the Council of Nicea did almost nothing to resolve the Arian controversy. Arius was banished from the empire, but he eventually appealed to Constantine. Constantine ordered the church in Alexandria to begin reconciling with him, but when Arius went to Alexandria he died under unknown, and thus suspicious, circumstances.

Histories of Christianity written in the 5th century (400 to 499) let us know that murdering Arius would not have been outside what early churches would do in the 4th century. The difference between Eusebius' Ecclesiastical History (323) and later histories is marked. Violence, political intrigue, warfare, deceit, and murder happened regularly after the emperors became involved in Christianity.

The problem was that now almost everyone was a "Christian," but it was still the few that really wanted to follow Christ. Those that did want to follow Christ often formed communities of committed disciples, the first monks. Others simply left the cities to live alone in the desert. These were the first Christian hermits, and there are many legends of miraculous powers among the hermits. (Those are probably just legends.)

During the 4th century and throughout the Middle Ages there was great political power in being a bishop. Thus, it was common for ambitious and unholy men to push their way into that position, or even to pay some important government official or bishop for the position. This led to great corruption in the church. In fact, it would be fair to say the Church fell during this period, and the holy testimony of the pre-Nicene churches has never been known since.

During this entire time there continued to be "Nicene" and "Arian" bishops, depending on whether they supported Arius or the Council of Nicea. Most of the political intrigue and even violence during the 4th century was over this issue.

A man named Athanasius took up the cause of the Nicene doctrine after the Council of Nicea. He was banished from the eastern empire by the emperor for his efforts no less than 5 times. He stuck it out, however, and he can be credited with the triumph of the Nicene doctrine. He can also be credited with changing it over the decades after Nicea. From a Nicene doctrine teaching that there was one God, the Father, with a divine Son of the same essence, he helped create a Triune God consisting of three co-equal persons. While the Orthodox churches of the east continues to believe in a Trinity much like that taught in Nicea, most western Christians, Catholic or Protestant, have never even heard the Nicene doctrine, and they have no idea that the Council of Nicea taught something different than they believe.

All of this was finally put to rest at the Council of Constantinople in 381. That Council declared all general church councils to be authoritative, requiring all Christians to agree with whatever such a council decided. That decision stuck, and the Arian controversy was put to rest (except that barbarian Germanic tribes continued to be Arian until the 6th century when they started fully submitting to the pope).

[silentwssj]

DEBUNKING THE MYTH THAT CONSTANTINE FOUNDED CATHOLICISM
Naming Emperor Constantine as the founder of the Catholic Church is an evidence of poor scholarship and gross ignorance of history. Even Protestant writers admit that Constantine is not the founder of the Catholic Church.


The church in Rome was by far the most important church in Christendom: it was situated in the ancient imperial capital of the empire; it had the largest congregation of Christians; and its ROOTS WENT BACK TO PETER AND PAUL, the two greatest saints in the church. (A HANDBOOK OF THE CHRISTIAN FAITH, By: John SCHWARZ, page 153)


John Schwarz is a protestant writer he admit that the history of the Catholic Church can be traced back into the time of the apostles Peter and Paul. During the time of Peter and Paul Emperor Constantine was not yet born!


At one level, of course, the interpretation of Roman Catholicism is closely related to the interpretation of Christianity as such. For by its own reading of history, Roman Catholicism began with the very beginnings of the Christian movement. (A HISTORY OF CHRISTIANITY, By: Robert A. Guisepi)


Christianity began at 33 A.D when Christ established the Church, and according to this source the history of the Catholic Church began at the beginning of Christianity itself! At 33 A.D Emperor Constantine was not yet born!


That the Emperor was sincere, and not a dissembler, in regard to his conversion to Christianity, no person can doubt who believes that men's actions are an index of their real feelings. It is indeed true that Constantine's life was not such as the precepts of Christianity required; and it is also true that he remained a catechumen all his life, and was received to full membership in the Church, by baptism, only a few days before his death, at Nicomedia. (CONVERSION OF CONSTANTINE: DECLINE OF PAGANISM, By: Johann Lorenz Von Mosheim)


Constantine converted to Christianity 2 days before his death! Why would he convert to Catholicism if he founded it? clearly Constantine is not the founder of the Catholic Church! If Constantine is not the founder then who is?


No other than but JESUS CHRIST HIMSELF


Groiler Encyclopedia Vol. V. page 10, International EncyclopediaVol XV page 520 and World Almanac page 732.


Aside from this we also have the statement from the early Church Fathers


"See that ye all follow the bishop, even as Christ Jesus does the Father, and the presbytery as ye would the apostles. Do ye also reverence the deacons, as those that carry out the appointment of God. Let no man do anything connected with the Church without the bishop. Let that be deemed a proper Eucharist, which is [administered] either by the bishop, or by one to whom he has entrusted it. Wherever the bishop shall appear, there let the multitude also be; by the bishop, or by one to whom he has entrusted it. Wherever the bishop shall appear, there let the multitude also be; even as, wherever Jesus Christ is, there is the Catholic Church." Ignatius of Antioch, Epistle to the Smyrneans, 8:2 (c. A.D. 110).


"[A]ll the people wondered that there should be such a difference between the unbelievers and the elect, of whom this most admirable Polycarp was one, having in our own times been an apostolic and prophetic teacher, and bishop of the Catholic Church which is in Smyrna. For every word that went out of his mouth either has been or shall yet be accomplished." Martyrdom of Polycarp, 16:2 (A.D. 155).


“…to be in honour however with the Catholic Church for the ordering of ecclesiastical discipline...one to the Laodicenes, another to the Alexandrians, both forged in Paul's name to suit the heresy of Marcion, and several others, which cannot be received into the Catholic Church; for it is not fitting that gall be mixed with honey. The Epistle of Jude no doubt, and the couple bearing the name of John, are accepted by the Catholic Church...But of Arsinous, called also Valentinus, or of Militiades we receive nothing at all.” The fragment of Muratori (A.D. 177).


"[N]or does it consist in this, that he should again falsely imagine, as being above this [fancied being], a Pleroma at one time supposed to contain thirty, and at another time an innumerable tribe of Aeons, as these teachers who are destitute of truly divine wisdom maintain; while the Catholic Church possesses one and the same faith throughout the whole world, as we have already said."Irenaeus, Against Heresies, 1:10,3 (A.D. 180).


“For it is evident that those men lived not so long ago,--in the reign of Antoninus for the most part,--and that they at first were believers in the doctrine of the Catholic Church, in the church of Rome under the episcopate of the blessed Eleutherus, until on account of their ever restless curiosity, with which they even infected the brethren, they were more than once expelled.”Tertullian, On the Prescription Against Heretics, 22,30 (A.D. 200).


”Whence you ought to know that the bishop is in the Church, and the Church in the bishop; and if any one be not with the bishop, that he is not in the Church, and that those flatter themselves in vain who creep in, not having peace with God's priests, and think that they communicate secretly with some; while the Church, which is Catholic and one, is not cut nor divided, but is indeed connected and bound together by the cement of priests who cohere with one another.” Cyprian, To Florentius, Epistle 66/67(A.D. 254).


“But for those who say, There was when He was not, and, Before being born He was not, and that He came into existence out of nothing, or who assert that the Son of God is of a different hypostasis or substance...these the Catholic and apostolic Church anathematizes.” Creed of Nicea (A.D. 325).


"Concerning those who call themselves Cathari, if they come over to the Catholic and Apostolic Church, the great and holy Synod decrees that they who are ordained shall continue as they are in the clergy. But it is before all things necessary that they should profess in writing that they will observe and follow the dogmas of the Catholic and Apostolic Church; in particular that they will communicate with persons who have been twice married, and with those who having lapsed in persecution have had a period [of penance] laid upon them, and a time [of restoration] fixed so that in all things they will follow the dogmas of the Catholic Church..."Council of Nicaea I (A.D. 325).
You might also like:

[silentwssj]

Hey there Bumperjack! Nice try on the article that tries to down play the letters written by the early Church fathers! As I said before Catholicism and the succession of the Bishop of Rome AKA "The Pope" is firmly grounded in history! Your version of Christianity has no basis in fact or history! Ignatious of Antioch's letter was written to the Corinthians by the Bishop of Rome. The Apostle John was alive then. He wrote with the Authority that the leader of the Church has! It did not matter that there was an Apostle still alive. It was recognized by all that the Bishop of Rome had the Authority! There are numerous other letters that speak of the Church as being "Catholic", "Apostolic", and speak of "the succession of Peter"! It cracks me up how he says the verse about the "Church being the pillar and foundation of truth" couldn't apply to the Catholic Church because it didn't exist for the first 300 years! Garbage Apologetics is what that is! It is an essay written full of lies and downplaying the truth! You are way off the mark on this one Brother! Bottom line as I said before, show some proof of your version of Christianity in the writings of the Church Fathers. You cant because it does not exist! How you can go on claiming the Catholic Church did not exist for the first 300 years is absurd! All the evidence is in the various articles that I have posted here! Anyhow, I guess you are set in your beliefs to the point of denying historical facts and even making up false histories and believing fallacies to try and prove a point! To each his own is all I can say! I guess it is time to move on to the next topic! I will start reading about Salvation next. This one may take a few weeks as I wont work on it after this weekend. I have to focus on what little time I will have with my Family during the Holidays! Anyways, no hard feelings Bumperjack! You know that I got L&R for you! You are the only soul brave enough to actually step up to the plate on all of this. Peace out and God bless! Silent!

[silentwssj]

A Response To A Humanist UP Professor Part II: The Foundation Of The Church




Vatican, the bulwark of Christianity and the See of Peter



[To unite the entire empire, Emp. Constantine fused three (3) major religions in Rome to form the Roman Catholicism - Mithraism, Sol Invictus and Christianity.]


The premise of this statement suggests that the origin of Catholicism is not Jesus Christ but rather the outcome of uniting three different religions and Catholicism is distinct from Christianity. Such a claim is not historically accurate, it fact it exposes the gross ignorance and lack of scholarship by the person who uttered this statement. It is impossible that Catholicism is an outcome of uniting three religions because 1. Catholicism and Christianity are one and the same, and 2. Catholicism already exists even before Constantine was born. John Schwarz a Protestant authors admits that Catholicism can trace its origin into the time of St. Peter and Paul;




The Church in Rome [Catholic Church] was by far the most important church in Christendom: it was situated in the ancient imperial capital of the empire; it had the largest congregation of Christians; and its roots went back to Peter and Paul, the two greatest saints of the Church.[1]




Common sense tells us that since the roots of Catholicism can be traced back into the time of St. Peter and Paul then the premise that Catholicism is a fusion of three distinct religions is wrong. How can Catholicism be a product of uniting three different religions if it already exists prior to the allege unification of Constantine? The statement also draws a distinction between Christianity and Catholicism, such a distinction do not exists because Christianity is Catholicism and Catholicism is Christianity, Roman Catholicism traces its history to Jesus Christ.[2] The cause of dichotomy between Catholicism and Christianity is a lack of scholarship and knowledge of history akin to all those who opposes Catholicism.


[321 AD: Emp. Constantine declared (1) Sunday, “the day of the Sun” as the day of worship, and (2) moved the birthday of Jesus Christ from January 6 to December 25, the “Natalis Invictus” on Winter Solstice.]


This is another ploy to convince the readers to believe that Constantine has an internal contribution in shaping Catholicism. In fact Constantine’s only contribution to Catholicism is the Edict of Milan which gave Christians a freedom to exercise their belief in public, made Christianity the state religion. However, Constantine made no contribution in its doctrine and practices. Sunday as the day of worship was universally accepted by Christians even before the birth of Constantine. Philip Schaff a noted historian wrote;




"Sunday… was adopted by the early Christians as a day of worship... Sunday was emphatically the weekly feast of the resurrection of Christ, as the Jewish Sabbath was the feast of creation. It was called the Lords day, and upon it the primitive church assembled to break bread. No regulations for its observance are laid down in the New Testament nor, indeed, [sic.] its observance even enjoined. Yet Christian feeling led to the universal adoption of the day, in imitation of the apostolic precedence. In the second century its observance was universal." Encyclopedia of religious knowledge 1891 Ed., vol.4, Schaff- Herzog




It is a baseless claim that it was Constantine who declared Sunday as the day of worship, how can he make such a declaration when Sunday was already universally accepted by Christians as the day of worship centuries prior to his allege declaration? Admittedly there is scarcity of information on how the Birth of Christ fall on December 25 there are a lot of theories surrounding this date, but one this is for sure Constantine has nothing to do with it. Biblical scholar Andrew McGowan stated that “The December 25 feast seems to have existed before 312—before Constantine and his conversion, at least.” The earliest record of mentioning Christ’s birth on December 25 is on a fourth century Roman almanac that lists the death dates of various Christian bishops and martyrs. The first date listed, December 25, is marked: natus Christus in Betleem Judeae: “Christ was born in Bethlehem of Judea.”[3] A close analysis of historical data will mostly debunk the accusations made by those who opposed the Catholic Church, they do not mind at all digging up the truth for them as long as it will put the Catholic Church in bad faith they will not hesitate to hurl it against the Catholic Church.


[325 AD: Emp Constantine convened the Council of Nicea Four (4) highlights: 1. Easter Sunday was established at the onset of spring 2. redefined the authority of the church, thus given more power 3. established the “Holy Trinity” as three (3) persons in one (1) god, and 4. voted Jesus Christ as god – an apotheosis.]


This is another attempt to discredit the Catholic Church by making the readers think that Constantine was responsible for the decrees and teachings of the Council of Nicea. But first we have to have a brief background about the Council and what is Constantine’s contribution in this great council of the Church. The council was convened due to the confusion that swept through the entire Christendom, a man named Arius started to teach that Jesus Christ is not God and his heretical teaching is spreading like a wild fire. So a council was necessary to settle the dispute and defend the orthodox Christian faith the Jesus Christ is fully God and fully man. The Council was attended by bishops from all over the world and since the pope was already old and ailing he sent a priest to represent him in the council. Against Arius it was St. Athanasius who defended the orthodoxy of the Christian faith arguing from the Scripture and history that Jesus Christ is God. So, what is the role of Constantine in this council? According to a Christian historial P.C Thomas he wrote that;




for the first few centuries the emperors played a prominent part in summoning and conducting the Councils. In those early years the bishops were poor and they needed the support of the emperor for their transportation and lodging. Furthermore, the emperor considered themselves protectors of the Church and took upon themselves the duty in bringing peace in the Church.[4]




This is the contribution of Constantine in the Council of Nicea to provide logistical support for the bishops. If we know our history we can easily debunk the allegations against the Church.

[silentwssj]

The first Christians had no doubts about how to determine which was the true Church and which doctrines the true teachings of Christ. The test was simple: Just trace the apostolic succession of the claimants.

Apostolic succession is the line of bishops stretching back to the apostles. All over the world, all Catholic bishops are part of a lineage that goes back to the time of the apostles, something that is impossible in Protestant denominations (most of which do not even claim to have bishops).

The role of apostolic succession in preserving true doctrine is illustrated in the Bible. To make sure that the apostles’ teachings would be passed down after the deaths of the apostles, Paul told Timothy, "[W]hat you have heard from me before many witnesses entrust to faithful men who will be able to teach others also" (2 Tim. 2:2). In this passage he refers to the first three generations of apostolic succession—his own generation, Timothy’s generation, and the generation Timothy will teach.

The Church Fathers, who were links in that chain of succession, regularly appealed to apostolic succession as a test for whether Catholics or heretics had correct doctrine. This was necessary because heretics simply put their own interpretations, even bizarre ones, on Scripture. Clearly, something other than Scripture had to be used as an ultimate test of doctrine in these cases.

Thus the early Church historian J. N. D. Kelly, a Protestant, writes, "[W]here in practice was [the] apostolic testimony or tradition to be found? . . . The most obvious answer was that the apostles had committed it orally to the Church, where it had been handed down from generation to generation. . . . Unlike the alleged secret tradition of the Gnostics, it was entirely public and open, having been entrusted by the apostles to their successors, and by these in turn to those who followed them, and was visible in the Church for all who cared to look for it" (Early Christian Doctrines, 37).

For the early Fathers, "the identity of the oral tradition with the original revelation is guaranteed by the unbroken succession of bishops in the great sees going back lineally to the apostles. . . . [A]n additional safeguard is supplied by the Holy Spirit, for the message committed was to the Church, and the Church is the home of the Spirit. Indeed, the Church’s bishops are . . . Spirit-endowed men who have been vouchsafed ‘an infallible charism of truth’" (ibid.).

Thus on the basis of experience the Fathers could be "profoundly convinced of the futility of arguing with heretics merely on the basis of Scripture. The skill and success with which they twisted its plain meaning made it impossible to reach any decisive conclusion in that field" (ibid., 41).



Pope Clement I



"Through countryside and city [the apostles] preached, and they appointed their earliest converts, testing them by the Spirit, to be the bishops and deacons of future believers. Nor was this a novelty, for bishops and deacons had been written about a long time earlier. . . . Our apostles knew through our Lord Jesus Christ that there would be strife for the office of bishop. For this reason, therefore, having received perfect foreknowledge, they appointed those who have already been mentioned and afterwards added the further provision that, if they should die, other approved men should succeed to their ministry" (Letter to the Corinthians 42:4–5, 44:1–3 [A.D. 80]).



Hegesippus



"When I had come to Rome, I [visited] Anicetus, whose deacon was Eleutherus. And after Anicetus [died], Soter succeeded, and after him Eleutherus. In each succession and in each city there is a continuance of that which is proclaimed by the law, the prophets, and the Lord" (Memoirs, cited in Eusebius, Ecclesiastical History 4:22 [A.D. 180]).



Irenaeus



"It is possible, then, for everyone in every church, who may wish to know the truth, to contemplate the tradition of the apostles which has been made known to us throughout the whole world. And we are in a position to enumerate those who were instituted bishops by the apostles and their successors down to our own times, men who neither knew nor taught anything like what these heretics rave about" (Against Heresies 3:3:1 [A.D. 189]).

"But since it would be too long to enumerate in such a volume as this the successions of all the churches, we shall confound all those who, in whatever manner, whether through self-satisfaction or vainglory, or through blindness and wicked opinion, assemble other than where it is proper, by pointing out here the successions of the bishops of the greatest and most ancient church known to all, founded and organized at Rome by the two most glorious apostles, Peter and Paul—that church which has the tradition and the faith with which comes down to us after having been announced to men by the apostles. For with this Church, because of its superior origin, all churches must agree, that is, all the faithful in the whole world. And it is in her that the faithful everywhere have maintained the apostolic tradition" (ibid., 3:3:2).

"Polycarp also was not only instructed by apostles, and conversed with many who had seen Christ, but was also, by apostles in Asia, appointed bishop of the church in Smyrna, whom I also saw in my early youth, for he tarried [on earth] a very long time, and, when a very old man, gloriously and most nobly suffering martyrdom, departed this life, having always taught the things which he had learned from the apostles, and which the Church has handed down, and which alone are true. To these things all the Asiatic churches testify, as do also those men who have succeeded Polycarp down to the present time" (ibid., 3:3:4).

"Since therefore we have such proofs, it is not necessary to seek the truth among others which it is easy to obtain from the Church; since the apostles, like a rich man [depositing his money] in a bank, lodged in her hands most copiously all things pertaining to the truth, so that every man, whosoever will, can draw from her the water of life. . . . For how stands the case? Suppose there arise a dispute relative to some important question among us, should we not have recourse to the most ancient churches with which the apostles held constant conversation, and learn from them what is certain and clear in regard to the present question?" (ibid., 3:4:1).

"t is incumbent to obey the presbyters who are in the Church—those who, as I have shown, possess the succession from the apostles; those who, together with the succession of the episcopate, have received the infallible charism of truth, according to the good pleasure of the Father. But [it is also incumbent] to hold in suspicion others who depart from the primitive succession, and assemble themselves together in any place whatsoever, either as heretics of perverse minds, or as schismatics puffed up and self-pleasing, or again as hypocrites, acting thus for the sake of lucre and vainglory. For all these have fallen from the truth" (ibid., 4:26:2).

"The true knowledge is the doctrine of the apostles, and the ancient organization of the Church throughout the whole world, and the manifestation of the body of Christ according to the succession of bishops, by which succession the bishops have handed down the Church which is found everywhere" (ibid., 4:33:8).



Tertullian



"[The apostles] founded churches in every city, from which all the other churches, one after another, derived the tradition of the faith, and the seeds of doctrine, and are every day deriving them, that they may become churches. Indeed, it is on this account only that they will be able to deem themselves apostolic, as being the offspring of apostolic churches. Every sort of thing must necessarily revert to its original for its classification. Therefore the churches, although they are so many and so great, comprise but the one primitive Church, [founded] by the apostles, from which they all [spring]. In this way, all are primitive, and all are apostolic, while they are all proved to be one in unity" (Demurrer Against the Heretics 20 [A.D. 200]).

"[W]hat it was which Christ revealed to them [the apostles] can, as I must here likewise prescribe, properly be proved in no other way than by those very churches which the apostles founded in person, by declaring the gospel to them directly themselves . . . If then these things are so, it is in the same degree manifest that all doctrine which agrees with the apostolic churches—those molds and original sources of the faith must be reckoned for truth, as undoubtedly containing that which the churches received from the apostles, the apostles from Christ, [and] Christ from God. Whereas all doctrine must be prejudged as false which savors of contrariety to the truth of the churches and apostles of Christ and God. It remains, then, that we demonstrate whether this doctrine of ours, of which we have now given the rule, has its origin in the tradition of the apostles, and whether all other doctrines do not ipso facto proceed from falsehood" (ibid., 21).

"But if there be any [heresies] which are bold enough to plant [their origin] in the midst of the apostolic age, that they may thereby seem to have been handed down by the apostles, because they existed in the time of the apostles, we can say: Let them produce the original records of their churches; let them unfold the roll of their bishops, running down in due succession from the beginning in such a manner that [their first] bishop shall be able to show for his ordainer and predecessor some one of the apostles or of apostolic men—a man, moreover, who continued steadfast with the apostles. For this is the manner in which the apostolic churches transmit their registers: as the church of Smyrna, which records that Polycarp was placed therein by John; as also the church of Rome, which makes Clement to have been ordained in like manner by Peter" (ibid., 32).

"But should they even effect the contrivance [of composing a succession list for themselves], they will not advance a step. For their very doctrine, after comparison with that of the apostles [as contained in other churches], will declare, by its own diversity and contrariety, that it had for its author neither an apostle nor an apostolic man; because, as the apostles would never have taught things which were self-contradictory" (ibid.).

"Then let all the heresies, when challenged to these two tests by our apostolic Church, offer their proof of how they deem themselves to be apostolic. But in truth they neither are so, nor are they able to prove themselves to be what they are not. Nor are they admitted to peaceful relations and communion by such churches as are in any way connected with apostles, inasmuch as they are in no sense themselves apostolic because of their diversity as to the mysteries of the faith" (ibid.).



Cyprian of Carthage



"[T]he Church is one, and as she is one, cannot be both within and without. For if she is with [the heretic] Novatian, she was not with [Pope] Cornelius. But if she was with Cornelius, who succeeded the bishop [of Rome], Fabian, by lawful ordination, and whom, beside the honor of the priesthood the Lord glorified also with martyrdom, Novatian is not in the Church; nor can he be reckoned as a bishop, who, succeeding to no one, and despising the evangelical and apostolic tradition, sprang from himself. For he who has not been ordained in the Church can neither have nor hold to the Church in any way" (Letters 69[75]:3 [A.D. 253]).



Jerome



"Far be it from me to speak adversely of any of these clergy who, in succession from the apostles, confect by their sacred word the Body of Christ and through whose efforts also it is that we are Christians" (Letters 14:8 [A.D. 396]).



Augustine



"[T]here are many other things which most properly can keep me in [the Catholic Church’s] bosom. The unanimity of peoples and nations keeps me here. Her authority, inaugurated in miracles, nourished by hope, augmented by love, and confirmed by her age, keeps me here. The succession of priests, from the very see of the apostle Peter, to whom the Lord, after his resurrection, gave the charge of feeding his sheep [John 21:15–17], up to the present episcopate, keeps me here. And last, the very name Catholic, which, not without reason, belongs to this Church alone, in the face of so many heretics, so much so that, although all heretics want to be called ‘Catholic,’ when a stranger inquires where the Catholic Church meets, none of the heretics would dare to point out his own basilica or house" (Against the Letter of Mani Called "The Foundation" 4:5 [A.D. 397]).

[bumperjack]

Silent,bottom line is the Respect thing Im a true Christian and there is alot of History out there and I will wait untill your next post ,as long as we can keep it civil as we are.I hold L&R for you and I cannot wrap my head around fallible men interceding in my relationship with Christ Because 2000 years ago some as yourself believe Apostlic Sucession and a true Church that has Authority on Earth with men like me and you thats just absurd History claims when Christianity took place in Rome brother if you claim its not in the History books show me ? Anyhow brother you have only bee on the planet 42 years me 54 So its really what you believe to be the truth facts lie in there history or Heresay is what we are looking at yes spend time with your family brother most important and have a Blessed X- Mas with your family my homie and brother in Christ no hard feelings here neither Silent the basic main things I do is read my bible pray and do my ministrys thats what is important Silent to me Happy New Years also.

[bumperjack]

the 1st century to the present.

Christianity emerged in the Levant (now Palestine and Israel) in the mid-1st century AD. Christianity spread initially from Jerusalem throughout the Near East, into places such as Syria, Assyria, Mesopotamia, Phoenicia, Asia Minor, Jordan and Egypt. In the 4th century it was successively adopted as the state religion by Armenia in 301, Georgia in 319,[1][2] the Aksumite Empire in 325,[3][4] and the Roman Empire in 380. After the Council of Ephesus in 431 the Nestorian Schism created the Church of the East. The Council of Chalcedon in 451 further divided Christianity into Oriental Orthodoxy and Chalcedonian Christianity. Chalcedonian Christianity divided into the Roman Catholic Church and Eastern Orthodox Church in the Great Schism of 1054. The Protestant Reformation created new Christian communities that separated from the Roman Catholic Church and have evolved into many different denominations.

Roman Catholic and Eastern Orthodox Christianity spread to all of Europe in the Middle Ages. Christianity expanded throughout the world during Europe's Age of Exploration from the Renaissance onwards, becoming the world's largest religion.[5] Today there are 2 billion Christians, one third of humanity.[6]These are original text history books on Chrisyianity brother these are facts silent not here say or opinions.peace be with you bumperjack

[silentwssj]

Hey there My brother Bumperjack! The bottom line is respect as I have always said! We are dialoguing much better these days and I like that! I have to run off to work once again in a few minutes, so with that let me leave you with this short video. I encourage all to listen to what they say and take into account the amount of research that they put into their journey towards Catholicism. I definitely wish and everyone a happy Holidays! I will be working right up to Christmas eve! I am only taking a four day weekend to go home to my family and then my wife and youngest will probably come to stay with me at work for a week or so! Take care and God Bless Brother! Silent!

[bumperjack]

Silent this is Facts in History which you claim Im wrong Christianity was not adopted in the Roman Empire untill 380 AD thats not my claim thats History,Im not pulling articles out of no where.Christianity was not adopted untill what the Facts State Christianity did not start in Rome untill much later them are the facts of History you cannot dispute cold hard truth.I got in fact alot of Love & Respect for you Silent remember I been to school also on this very subject si when the truth hits someone its sometime hard to except I will & can pull More factual History out of these History Books this is not me trying to distort the truth peace be with you .bumperjack.

[bumperjack]

Ok thank you My Brother Silent have a great day,I will check out the video L& R bumperjack

[bumperjack]

Silent good video,hey I been to many churches also. I fully understand were your coming from believe me.I have a hard time believing The Authority that was left with the one true church and Apostlic Succession today Be true.I have studied on the subject and have a post ready to post here to better understand my position,that's why I claim I'm a Christ following Christian not a protestant,but I guess a non Catholic to you is protestant? But that's ok I been studying for sometimes,but belief and trust in God's word is a must brother the Holy Spirit resides in me brother and you if you are a born again believer I'm a priest and Ambassador for Christ,therefore I need not absolution or foregiveness from a man who claims to have Authority on earth to forgive my sins,scripture states Silent we all fall short of God's glory on earth and He is no respector of people or persons on earth brother,or dialouge is getting good and better brother and our views should be either the way we interpreted something or based on facts in History.I dont want to sound Im infallible because Im not better than anyone I'm a student of Christianity as you are also with respect bumperjack.

[bumperjack]

Silent,I wont go against history& If i got some things crossed up or out of context my bad just proves my point men are fallible(ALL OF US) and as we do go back futher in history things surface brother and hey you got some legit claims brother and what i hope out of all this you can also just look not convert at my perspective and learn from what i been taught in the ,and we learn from one another in the process,Im honestly learning instead of aruging because once that starts happening you become closed to learning.

When you say "through church history, this doctrine [apostolic succession] seems to be strongly affirmed" you are correct because it certainly has been accepted and defended for a long time by the Roman Catholic Church. You are also correct in saying that "when the Reformation took place, this doctrine was not continued along with other doctrines." And your question is basically "Why is this so?"

The answer is that the Reformation recovered the pure teaching of the original apostles themselves. And they never taught any such doctrine. If you read your New Testament carefully, you will see that the apostles were marked by several distinctive features. Let me list a few of them.

(1) They were chosen by Christ himself in an immediate way, not through the instrumentality of others.

(2) They were able to truthfully say that they had seen Jesus after he rose from the dead. Paul said: "Then last of all He was seen by me also, as by one born out of due time" (1 Cor. 15:8). The fact that Paul was the last one who could say such a thing in the history of the world shows clearly that there can be no genuine apostolic succession.

(3) They were endowed with supernatural powers that other men did not (and do not) have. They even raised physically dead people to life. Paul said: "The signs of a true apostle were performed among you with utmost patience, with signs and wonders and mighty works" (2 Cor. 12:12).

(4) They were qualified to speak with absolute and infallible authority. Paul could say in truth: "If anyone thinks himself to be a prophet or spiritual, let him acknowledge that the things which I write to you are the commandments of the Lord." No other individuals, other than the inspired prophets and apostles, could make statements like that. That is why the things they said were by the plan and will of God preserved for us in the New Testament.

The theory behind apostolic succession is that God's authority, to be meaningful and effective, must be embodied in men today who have the same kind of authority. But if you will read carefully the following passage, you will see that this is not true at all.

In 1 Corinthians 5 Paul—who was not physically present in Corinth—wrote to them to tell them what to do with respect to a discipline case. He said (in 5:4-5): "In the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, when you are gathered together, along with my spirit, with the power of our Lord Jesus Christ, deliver such a one to Satan for the destruction of the flesh, that his spirit may be saved in the day of the Lord Jesus." So you see, Paul did not pass on his authority to another man so that he could be there in Corinth. No, Paul said, in effect, if you will do what I as an apostle now instruct you to do then I will be with you in spirit, and you will also have the power of our Lord Jesus with you, to deliver that man to Satan, etc.

So, to put it simply, the Reformers realized that there was no need for apostolic successors. No, the need was simply to have the apostles themselves with us through their inspired and inerrant teaching. And that is what we have in the New Testament.

The apostles never wrote anything that ever has needed or ever will need correction because they were inspired by God. Surely a person of average intelligence should be able to see that this has never been true of other men in history, no matter how strongly they may have believed themselves to be apostolic successors!

I hope this gets you to study this further. The more church history you get to know the more obvious the conclusion of the Reformers will appear.

Now this is how I look at it and yes we have to get scripture involved and to interpret scripture is through the Holy Spirit not teaching authority of a church and thats how I see things.

We were left with the Final Judge of Authority You say its the "Church" I say its God's infallible word! I will continue to post with long love and respect that is the way real Mo Fo's do it!!! Peace be with you Silent as always Bumperjack

[silentwssj]

Hey there my Brother Bumperjack! I am glad that we are making some progress and educating each other! I do agree with you that the Apostles were infallible. Whatever they said was as good as Gold! Where we differ is the topic of succession! The Catholic Church's Bishops literally are the direct descendants of the Apostles. There has been an unbroken chain of hands laid on each Bishop through the Sacrament of Holy orders leading directly back to the Apostles themselves. Read those letters written by the Church Fathers, they talk about appointing new men to take the place of those that have fallen asleep! In (Acts 1:15-26) the Apostles replace Jadas's place with Matthias! There is no record of dissention. To me this means the Apostles understood that the leadership of the Church was bigger than anyone of them as individuals! (2 Timothy 2:2) "And the things that you have heard me say in the presence of many witnesses entrust to reliable men who will also be qualified to teach others". Before all the Apostles died there was already a second generation of leaders with Authority in the Church. These leaders are called elders or "Bishops", they are always identified separately from the Apostles! Read (Acts 15:1-22) to see this! James is one of these leaders chosen by the Apostles, even though he not one of the Apostles (Acts 15:13) At the Council of Jerusalem, the Bishops met with the Apostles to determine whether the Mosaic Law was necessary for Salvation. It is interesting Bumperjack because what they were really saying was do the gentiles have to follow the Bible or not? At this time only the Old Testament was in existence. The Council did not refer to any word from Jesus nor was the Old Testament the basis for deliberations. In fact the issue was decided on the basis of the councils own Authority! Think about that the Bishops and the Apostles together deciding issues! They were not using the Bible instead they were being "Guided by the spirit of truth" (John 16:13). Even before the close of the Apostolic period Bishops were leading the Church! from AD 92-101 Clement 1 of Rome was acknowledged as the single Bishop of Rome "3rd in succession from Peter" and the Apostle John was still alive at this time! He wrote "Our Apostles gave instructions, that when these "Bishops" should fall asleep other approved men should succeed them in their ministry". (First epistle of Clement, 44) It does not get any clearer than that Bumperjack! This is evidence of Apostolic succession! This is also evidence of the Primacy of the Bishop of Rome! This was written during the Apostolic age, way before Constantine! The Bishops were given substantial powers as well! The 1st is the right to consecrate the Eucharist! No where in scripture is it implied that just any Christian can do this! The 2nd is power is the ability to pass their office! This is presupposed in what the Apostles did in Acts 1. The fact that there was no discussion of the matter so soon after Jesus had been teaching them lends credence to the Catholic position. Christ himself must have provided for succession when he taught the Apostles during the time between his Resurrection and Ascension! If not why was it not challenged? The 3rd power given to these leaders of the Church is in (John20:22-23) "With that he breathed on them and said, receive the Holy Spirit. If you forgive anyone his sins they are forgiven; if you do not forgive them, they are not forgiven". We are going to discuss this in far more depth in my next post Bumperjack. I do want to point out though that only God has the power to forgive sins, yet here he is delegating this Authority to the group of men who will be leading his Church! Notice that he gives them the power and they get to choose if the sins are forgiven or not. That can only happen in Confession! A more important point to bring up though is that he breathes on them and says "Receive the Holy Spirit"! This only happens in Scripture one other time, when God breathed into Adam at the creation of mankind making him a living soul! Jesus in (John 21-23) is also creating in the disciples a new creation-the leadership of his Church! They are specifically endowed with powers that up until this time have been reserved for God alone! This is also the historical beginnings of the Sacrament of Penance or Confession! More about that later though my Brother Bumperjack! I wish that I was not so busy with work right now! I think if I had more time I could really open your eyes to a lot more! I am not saying that you would believe it all, but I could definitely do a better job explaining all of this to you instead of just posting article after article! Anyways, having said that, I did stumble across this today. It lays out a lesson on Fallacies! I think that you will enjoy it my Brother! I also think that Rudog will as well. I remember taking a course in "Critical thinking and Argumentation" in College. This goes along with that subject and is applied to Constantine! Also, as I said before a lot of Atheists use this line of thinking to try and bash Christianity as a whole. That is why I was trying to warn you against it earlier in the week. Hopefully this gets you to think outside the box Bumperjack! Not all history is what it seems! Much L&R your brother in Christ! Silent!

Category: Full Q and A Articles Published on Wednesday, August 17, 2011 Hits: 1881


In the twentieth century, newer archaeology and more mature scholarship diminished the influence of the pagan influence fallacy. Yet there are still many committing it. In Protestant circles, numerous works have continued to popularize the claims of Alexander Hislop, most notably the comic books of Jack Chick and the book Babylon Mystery Religion, which was published in 1966 by a young Ralph Woodrow. (Later Woodrow realized its flaws and wrote The Babylon Connection? repudiating the fallacy and refuting Hislop.) Other Christian and quasi-Christian sects have continued to charge mainstream Christianity with paganism, and many atheists have continued to repeat unquestioned the charges of paganism leveled by their forebears.

The pagan influence fallacy holds that a particular religion, belief, or practice is of pagan origin or has been influenced by paganism and is therefore tainted or altogether corrupt. In this minimal form, the pagan influence fallacy is a sub-case of the genetic fallacy, which improperly judges a thing based on its history or origins rather than on its own merits; for instance, “No one should use this medicine because its inventor was a drunkard and an adulterer.” With the rise of neo-paganism, some neo-pagans have also committed a variant on the pagan influence fallacy, trying to legitimize their newly created religions on the pretense that “You Christians just copied from us, therefore you are inferior to us.”

When the pagan influence fallacy is encountered, it should be pointed out first of all that it is a fallacy. To help make this clear to a religious person committing it, it may be helpful to illustrate with cases where the pagan influence fallacy could be committed against his own position. For instance, circumcision was practiced in the ancient world by a number of peoples, including the Egyptians, but few Jews or Christians would say that its divinely authorized use in Israel was an example of “pagan corruption.”

To a secular person, one might point to a parallel case of the genetic fallacy involving his co-religionists—e.g., “Nobody should accept a particular scientific theory because it was developed by an atheist.” You might also point out examples of the associated fallacies, such as assuming a direct connection between things when no such connection can be supported (e.g., “There are pyramids in both Egypt and Meso-America, so there must have been an ancient, mysterious, global civilization responsible for both”).

Whenever one encounters a proposed example of pagan influence, one should demand that its existence be properly documented, not just asserted. The amount of misinformation in this area is great enough that it is advisable never to accept a reported parallel unless it can be demonstrated from primary source documents or through scholarly secondary sources. After receiving documentation supporting the claim of a pagan parallel, one should ask a number of questions:

1) Is there a parallel?
Frequently, there is not, especially when the documentation provided is based on an old or undisclosed source. For example: “The Egyptians had a Trinity. They worshiped Osiris, Isis, and Horus thousands of years before the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost were known” (R. Ingersoll, Why I Am an Agnostic). This is not true. The Egyptians had an Ennead—a pantheon of nine major gods and goddesses. Osiris, Isis, and Horus were simply three divinities in the pantheon who were closely related by marriage and blood (not surprising, since the Ennead itself was an extended family) and who figured in the same myth cycle. They did not represent the three persons of a single divine being, the Christian idea of a Trinity.

2) Is the parallel dependent or independent?
Even if there is a pagan parallel, that does not mean that there is a causal relationship involved. Two groups may develop similar beliefs and practices independently of each other. The idea that similar forms are always the result of diffusion from a common source has long been rejected by archaeology and anthropology and for good reason: Humans are similar to each other and live in similar (i.e., terrestrial) environments, leading them to have similar cultural artifacts and views.

For example, Fundamentalists have made much of the fact that Catholic art includes Madonna and Child images and that non-Christian art universally also includes mother and child images. There is nothing sinister in this. The fact is that, in every culture, there are mothers who hold their children. Such images do not need to be explained by a theory of diffusion from a common, pagan religious source, such as Hislop’s suggestion that such images stem from representations of Samiramis holding Tammuz.

3) Is the parallel antecedent or consequent?
Even if there is a pagan parallel that is causally related to a non-pagan counterpart, this does not establish which gave rise to the other. Frequently, the pagan sources we have are so late that they have been shaped in reaction to Jewish and Christian ideas. Sometimes it is possible to tell that pagans have been borrowing from non-pagans. Other times it cannot be discerned who is borrowing from whom (or, indeed, if anyone is borrowing at all).

For example, it has been fashionable in some circles to postulate that certain New Testament concepts were borrowed from Gnostics, who were hypothesized not to be a Christian heresy arising in the second and third century (as Church Fathers have stated) but as a pre-Christian religious movement. However, more recent appraisals of the evidence show that the case for the existence of pre-Christian Gnosticism rests on suppositions and sources that are demonstrably younger than the New Testament or that cannot be shown to be older (E. Yamauchi, Pre-Christian Gnositicism: A Survey of the Proposed Evidences). It appears that the Church Fathers were right: Gnosticism was a heresy splitting away (and borrowing) from Christianity. The borrowing did not go in the other direction.

4) Is the parallel treated positively, neutrally, or negatively?
Even if there is a pagan parallel to a non-pagan counterpart, that does not mean that the item or concept was enthusiastically or uncritically accepted by non-pagans. One must ask: Did they regard it as something positive, neutral, or negative?

For example, circumcision and the symbol of the cross might be termed “neutral” Jewish and Christian counterparts to pagan parallels. It is quite likely that the early Hebrews first encountered the idea of circumcision among neighboring non-Jewish peoples, but that does not mean that they regarded it as a religiously good thing for non-Jews to do. Circumcision was regarded as a religiously good thing only for Jews because for them it symbolized a special covenant with the one, true God (Gen. 17). The Hebrew scriptures are silent in a religious appraisal of non-Jewish circumcision; they seemed indifferent to the fact that some pagans circumcised.

Similarly, the early Christians who adopted the cross as a symbol did not do so because it was a pagan religious symbol. The pagan cultures that used it as a symbol—notably in East Asia and the Americas—had no influence on the early Christians. In fact, Christians despised the Roman cross as a brutal implement of execution, but they used it as a symbol because Christ sacrificed himself upon one for us.

Examples of negative parallels are often found in Genesis. For instance, Genesis 1 has similarities to a Babylonian creation account in the Enuma Elish, but to the extent Genesis reflects it, it is critical. The Enuma Elish portrays the elements of the world arising from a massive, primal conflict between pagan deities. Genesis 1 is a negative image of that, showing that creation was an orderly process by a single God. It wasn’t a conflict involving deicide and chaos monsters. Genesis thus provides a non-pagan rebuttal of pagan ideas.

5) Is the parallel divine, natural, or evil in origin?
Under questions (2) and (3) we alluded to the fact that a parallel between religions may arise by purely natural means. It is also possible, from a religious point of view, that the pagan element in the parallel might arise due to either divine or evil influence.

For example, it is demonstrable from Scripture that God chooses to bestow elements of his truth even on those in pagan religions (Ps. 19:1–4, John 1:9, Acts 17:22–29, Rom. 1:18–20). It is no surprise, then, that in the Old Testament we find non-Jewish priests and prophets of the true God, such as Melchizedek, Jethro, and Balaam (Gen. 14:18, Ex. 18:12, Num. 22:18). We find in the archaeological record that Canaanites worshiped El (J. Finnegan, Myth and Mystery) and that other peoples in the region may even have worshiped Yahweh (C. H. Gordon & G. A. Rendsburg, The Bible and the Ancient Near East), El and Yahweh being biblical names for God. Such “echoes of the truth” in pagan groups in no way stain the truth preserved in non-pagan groups.

By contrast, the forces of darkness may have generated the pagan element in a parallel. Doing so might serve their purposes in a number of ways. One might be adding an element of authentic religion to a false religious system as a way of camouflaging its true nature (on the principle “Always plant a lie next to a truth, to make it more believable”). Another way might be to woo people away from the true religion by providing an alternative that corresponds to some of the same in-built needs that the true religion fulfills. A third might be to discredit the true religion by producing a detectable counterfeit. Sometimes, a single parallel might fulfill all three goals (i.e., by attracting those who want to believe in the pagan religion but need it more intellectually or emotionally attractive, while simultaneously discrediting both the pagan and non-pagan religion for those who wish to believe in neither).

Often, it is impossible to tell how a particular parallel arose, which serves to show that one should not condemn an item because of its speculative origins. It must be judged based on its content, not its putative history.

However, judging by the content (not the history) of a parallel, it sometimes may be possible to detect the hand of evil in it. For example, there is a startling archetypal similarity between the biblical story of the Fall (Genesis 3) and the Prometheus-Pandora cycle in Greek mythology. In both cases, there is a specific thing (fruit from the tree of the knowledge of good and evil in one case, fire in the other) which God (Yahweh/Zeus) has not permitted man to have. The enemy of God (the Serpent/Prometheus) then brings this thing into man’s possession, resulting in a similarity between man and God (knowing good and evil/having the power of fire). God then punishes the enemy. In connection with all this, the perfect woman (Eve/Pandora) plays a role in unleashing evils into the world.

Both of these may well be derived from a common source, but there is one enormous archetypal difference between the two. The Genesis account portrays God (Yahweh) as a faithful and righteous God who gave man paradise but tested him to see if he would prove faithful and righteous also. By contrast, the Greek story has been shaped so that God (Zeus) is portrayed as an unjust miser who makes man’s life hard by depriving him of fire, and the enemy of God (Prometheus) is a genuine benefactor of mankind. The Greek story is religiously subversive. Genesis puts God and man on the same side, with the Serpent as their enemy; the Greek version puts man and Prometheus on the same side, with a god as their enemy. It is, one might say, the story of the Fall told from the Serpent’s point of view.

From a religious perspective, one may attribute this shaping of the Greek story to an evil spiritual influence.

[silentwssj]

Apostles Can Become Bishops (Apostolic Succession)




I had the following exchange with an Orthodox member of my e-mail discussion list.

* * *


The office of Apostle was unique. Apostles did not become bishops

Wrong. I need only bring Eusebius to the stand to refute this assertion:
All that time most of the apostles and disciples, including James himself, the first Bishop of Jerusalem, known as the Lord's brother, were still alive . . .
(History of the Church, 7:19, tr. G.A. Williamson, Baltimore: Penguin Books, 1965, p. 118)
James is called an Apostle by St. Paul in Gal 1:19 and 1 Cor 15:7. That James was the sole, "monarchical" bishop of Jerusalem is fairly apparent from Scripture also (Acts 12:17, 15:13,19, 21:18, Galatians 1:19, 2:12).
-- they appointed them to oversee the churches they had established. The episcopate is not an 'apostolic college'. 'Apostolic succession' is not a perpetuation of the Apostles. The Apostolic Age ended with the death of the Apostle and Evangelist Saint John the Theologian.

Of course we agree with this.

'Apostolic succession' refers to the overseers -- episkopos -- the office established by the Apostles to be their successors (but not their equals!) thereby ensuring the preservation of the Holy Catholic and Orthodox Faith -- 'the faith which was once delivered unto the saints' [Jude 1:3].

Well, as shown, bishops since the Apostles are obviously not Apostles, but on the other hand, Apostles may become bishops, as James and Peter did.

Since there is no perpetuation of the Apostles, 'the role of Peter' is not 'a part of the succeeding "college"'.

It is Church government by analogy. Jesus set His Church up a certain way, and we have a clear record of that. St. Peter was at the very least foremost of the disciples, or held a primacy of honor. Do Orthodox not want to follow the biblical model (not to mention that of the historical early Church)? Many Orthodox accept Petrine primacy (not supremacy, of course). Assuming that, who, then, is the analogous "foremost among equals" amongst Orthodox today? Or is that a matter of competing opinion also?

In the Septuagint (the Greek translation of the Old Testament), episkopos is used for overseer in various senses, for example: officers (Judges 9:28, Isaiah 60:17), supervisors of funds (2 Chronicles 34:12,17), overseers of priests and Levites (Nehemiah 11:9, 2 Kings 11:18), and of temple and tabernacle functions (Numbers 4:16). God is called episkopos at Job 20:29, referring to His role as Judge, and Christ is an episkopos in 1 Peter 2:25 (RSV: Shepherd and Guardian of your souls).


The Council of Jerusalem (Acts 15:1-29) bears witness to a definite hierarchical, episcopal structure of government in the early Church. St. Peter, the chief elder (the office of pope) of the entire Church (1 Peter 5:1; cf. John 21:15-17), presided and issued the authoritative pronouncement (15:7-11). Then James, bishop of Jerusalem (kind of like the host-mayor of a conference) gives a concurring (Acts 15:14), concluding statement (15:13-29) . . .

Much historical and patristic evidence also exists for the bishopric of St. Peter at Rome. No one disputes the fact that St. Clement (d.c.101) was the sole bishop of Rome a little later, or that St. Ignatius (d.c.110) was the bishop at Antioch, starting around 69 A.D. Thus, the "monarchical" bishop is both a biblical concept and an unarguable fact of the early Church. By the time we get to the mid-second century, virtually all historians hold that single bishops led each Christian community. This was to be the case in all Christendom, east and west, until Luther transferred this power to the secular princes in the 16th century, and the Anabaptist tradition eschewed ecclesiastical office either altogether or in large part. Today many denominations have no bishops whatsoever.

One may concede all the foregoing as true, yet deny apostolic succession, whereby these offices are passed down, or handed down, through the generations and centuries, much like Sacred Tradition. But this belief of the Catholic Church (along with Eastern Orthodoxy and Anglicanism) is also grounded in Scripture: St. Paul teaches us (Ephesians 2:20) that the Church is built on the foundation of the apostles, whom Christ Himself chose (John 6:70, Acts 1:2,13; cf. Matthew 16:18). In Mark 6:30 the twelve original disciples of Jesus are called apostles, and Matthew 10:1-5 and Revelation 21:14 speak of the twelve apostles. After Judas defected, the remaining eleven Apostles appointed his successor, Matthias (Acts 1:20-26). Since Judas is called a bishop (episkopos) in this passage (1:20), then by logical extension all the Apostles can be considered bishops (albeit of an extraordinary sort).


If the Apostles are bishops, and one of them was replaced by another, after the death, Resurrection, and Ascension of Christ, then we have an explicit example of apostolic succession in the Bible, taking place before 35 A.D. In like fashion, St. Paul appears to be passing on his office to Timothy (2 Timothy 4:1-6), shortly before his death, around 65 A.D. This succession shows an authoritative equivalency between Apostles and bishops, who are the successors of the Apostles. As a corollary, we are also informed in Scripture that the Church itself is perpetual, infallible, and indefectible (Matthew 16:18, John 14:26, 16:18). Why should the early Church be set up in one form and the later Church in another? All of this biblical data is harmonious with the ecclesiological views of the Catholic Church. There has been some development over the centuries, but in all essentials, the biblical Church and clergy and the Catholic Church and clergy are one and the same.

[bumperjack]

The truth of the matter is there are no apostles on earth and havent been for 2,000 years,Silent to believe in the Catholic faith you have to believe the Authority was handed down through succession by bishops? There is nobody on earth to this day fallible men there are leaders of churchs but they have No Authority to act in my saviors place and there is no righteous or holy men on earth that can truthfully claim that role in my eyes brother.thats reality,If you truthfully believe that I'm not going to convince you otherwise but everybody falls short of the glory of God even your Holiness the pope a fallible man,Jesus gave the Apostles that authority but I don't believe it was passed down any further brother,we all are at liberty by free will to believe what is true and it's all good brother,Every since Jesus paid our debt there hasn't been any need for some mediator between God and man except our Savior Jesus Christ I'm the way the truth and the life and the only way to the father is through me Silent He did not say that priest I gave the Authority to on earth go through Him in my absence see we serve a living God so He is not absent in spirit only in flesh He is absent.thats my outlook brother and my understanding.From interpretation of that Scripture we need the Holy Spirit which I guess Catholics don't possess,only priests and bishops have that Authority,When we are born again my friend,we are then going threw a transformation of a renewing I of our minds. a new heart and . The same spirit that rose our Savior from the dead comes alive within us we do not need a teaching . Authority to interpret scripture.

[bumperjack]

Silent this is your belief that the 12 apostles passed on their authority to successors, who then passed that apostolic authority on to their successors, continuing on throughout the centuries, even to today. Whilst this might be a fascinating and intriguing concept, is it truly biblical? This is an article with comments and arguments on apostlic succession silent,There is no biblical proof& I Believe that there was never no succession that ever took place alot of pro.s and con's for sure.

The great thing about the New Testament is that it clearly establishes the major doctrines of the Church. One may find vital doctrines such as the atonement, resurrection and justification by faith alone, clearly outlined with many scriptural references (one may wish to check out this page). One is left in no doubt on the pivotal doctrines of the Church, neither is one left in any doubt regarding the specific content of the Gospel message (Acts 16: 30-31; Acts 26:1-23; Romans 4: 24-25; Romans 10: 9-10; 1 Corinthians 2: 1-2; 1 Cor. 15:1-4). In the face of such clarity, it might seem amazing how so many have managed to successfully teach extraneous, non-biblical messages but this they have certainly done.

One has to say that 'apostolic succession' is conspicuous by it's absence within the New Testament. The basic idea is that Peter the Apostle was the first pope, or chief leader (based on Matthew 16:18), and that this somewhat grandiose conception of 'chief church leader' should then be passed on through the entirely biblical principle of the 'laying on of hands,' and this certainly does seem to be a New Testament principle of conferring authority. Roman Catholicism believes that Peter later became the first bishop of Rome, and that the Roman bishops that followed him were accepted by the early church as overall leaders. However, there are huge problems with this belief. Here are some of them:

1. Apart from the principle of governing elders, the New Testament is pretty much silent on any required church governing schema, or office. For sure, a range of possible church offices are listed in 1 Cor. 12:28 and Eph. 4:11 and one might expect to find some Christians having the necessary gifts to fulfill certain such offices (but not all), possibly depending on the size and scope of the area of responsibility, but the only required office appears to be that of Elder. See Titus 1:5. Also, one might note that neither 1 Cor. 12:28 nor Eph. 4:11 suggest any system or principle of 'apostolic succession' - but wouldn't these have been the ideal places to mention it?? After all, both Eph. 4:11 and 1 Cor. 12:28 do refer to the office of 'apostle,' however, that does not imply, of course, that that particular office would be continually repeated throughout the church age. 'Bishops' are pretty much essential to the concept of apostolic succession, but even Bishop Lightfoot, one of the greatest New Testament scholars of all time, freely admitted that 'bishop' (the office which he himself eventually inherited within Anglicanism), was not truly a New Testament office. The word is based on 'overseer,' but biblically, it appears that it was certain of the elders who were to be overseers, but with no indications of a separate 'overseer' office. The fact that the office of 'bishop' has no New Testament authority or precedent already seriously weakens the 'apostolic succession' argument.

2. Peter might well have been, in a somewhat loose sense, overall apostolic leader in the New Testament, but if he was, it was a very, very loose sense. For example, on one occasion, Paul the Apostle quite strongly challenges and disagrees with him in public (Galatians 2:11-14). Peter's New Testament epistles are not, perhaps, major epistles, as the Pauline ones are, indeed, they are somewhat short and not high on doctrinal content. Later, he appears to disappear altogether from any New Testament consideration with scarcely a mention anywhere. Peter may well have been the overall leader for taking the gospel to the Jews (as Paul was with respect to the Gentiles), yet the epistle of James (James almost certainly being the Senior Elder at Jerusalem), does not even mention him once! Moreover, there is no evidence that Peter ever became 'bishop' of Rome as Roman Catholicism - even now - continues to (erroneously, in my opinion) teach.
Surely all of this would be utterly inconceivable if Peter had understood Jesus' comment to him in Matthew 16:18 to mean that he should adopt a grandiose and pope-like style of leadership! If he was a leader at all (which seems quite debatable), it was possibly only with regard to the work among the Jewish people.

3. In the New Testament, no 'bishop' (overseer) had jurisdiction over the bishops or presbyters of other churches (carefully check out Ignatius of Antioch, in his Letter to Polycarp); rather, that function was reserved for the apostles, which was obviously a foundational office of the Church (Eph. 2:20; 4:11; 1 Cor. 12:28; 2 Cor. 11:28). But today the office of Apostle is obviously closed.

4. The Roman Catholic Church itself has not maintained it's own concept of apostolic succession through the laying on of hands upon holy men. In fact, 'Simony' (that is, the buying of the office of 'pope' or 'bishop' for money, or favours) was an absolute disgrace when the Church of Rome was at it's peak, which it no longer is. Unless I am misunderstanding something here, appointing a corrupt bishop or pope just once would destroy the whole structure and principle of 'apostolic succession' for all time. Frankly, I think that most studied RCs know this which could be why they tend to play down the teaching on 'apostolic succession.'

MORE AT

Link

TOPICS: Apologetics; General Discusssion; Theology
KEYWORDS: calvinismisdead; history; papacy; priesthood; scripture
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-50, 51-100, 101-150, 151-200 ... 251-292 next last
I thought maybe protestants might like to be part of the apostolic succession discussion
1 posted on 1/2/2012, 9:00:28 PM by RnMomof7
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]
To: 1000 silverlings; metmom; boatbums; Quix; Gamecock; Alex Murphy; Dr. Eckleburg; HarleyD; ...
PING


2 posted on 1/2/2012, 9:02:27 PM by RnMomof7
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]
To: RnMomof7
I’m a Messianic Jew. Do I count? I mean Yashua being Jewish and all. Rome took over and look what happened. I’ve read the history of the popes. And that church history. But then, there was Luther.


3 posted on 1/2/2012, 9:05:13 PM by SkyDancer ("If You Want To Learn To Love Better, You Should Start With A Friend Who You Hate")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]
To: RnMomof7
There is no church but the local church, and there are no pastors but local church pastors.


4 posted on 1/2/2012, 9:06:47 PM by Yashcheritsiy
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]
To: RnMomof7
What did the Apostles do to replace Judas after he hanged himself?

They met amongst each other and elevated one of those who had seen the risen Lord.

And thus it has been ever since.


5 posted on 1/2/2012, 9:08:16 PM by BenKenobi (Sky friend abase committal meets for Chemo)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]
To: RnMomof7
You have to have seen the risen Christ to be an Apostle.


6 posted on 1/2/2012, 9:10:12 PM by SVTCobra03 (You can never have enough friends, horsepower or ammunition.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]
To: SkyDancer; RnMomof7; 1000 silverlings; Alex Murphy; bkaycee; blue-duncan; boatbums; caww; ...
It’s an open thread, not a caucus designation.

Anybody is free to participate.

I see the concept as proposed by the Catholic church an attempt to put their claim to being the one and only true church started by Jesus beyond any possibility of refutation.


7 posted on 1/2/2012, 9:10:59 PM by metmom (For freedom Christ has set us free; stand firm therefore & do not submit again to a yoke of slavery)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]
To: BenKenobi; 1000 silverlings; Alex Murphy; bkaycee; blue-duncan; boatbums; caww; ...
They met amongst each other and elevated one of those who had seen the risen Lord. And thus it has been ever since.
Um..... really???

There is that little complication.

Are you saying that the leadership in the RCC are apostles?

Are you saying that seeing the risen Lord is a requirement to be a leader in the Catholic church?

If seeing the risen Lord is a requirement to be chosen in the process of apostolic succession, then apostolic succession died out when the last of the men who saw the risen Lord died.

oops.....

8 posted on 1/2/2012, 9:16:01 PM by metmom (For freedom Christ has set us free; stand firm therefore & do not submit again to a yoke of slavery)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]
To: SkyDancer
Yea you count ...LOL


9 posted on 1/2/2012, 9:16:49 PM by RnMomof7
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]
To: BenKenobi
The article says this
6. Roman Catholicism points to Matthias being chosen to replace Judas as the 12th apostle in Acts chapter 1 as an example of "apostolic succession," but it is nothing of the kind. While Matthias did indeed succeed Judas as an apostle, this is hardly an argument for apostolic succession. Rather, this just shows the divine determination to launch the New Testament Church with 12 Apostles (just as the Old Testament had had 12 tribes of Israel). Matthias being chosen to replace Judas is only an argument for the church being prepared to replace ungodly leaders (such as Judas), where necessary. The scant Acts 1 references to Matthias being appointed as apostle never say enough to establish an 'apostolic succession' argument upon. Neither, by the way, is this an argument that churches should only operate through 12 leaders, as a few now teach.

I would note that actually God had chosen a replacement for Judas.. permission for the apostles to replace him is not found anywhere in scripture... God had already chosen Paul.. A major author of the NT and teacher in the New testament church ...where as the selection of the apostles is never heard of in the scriptures again

10 posted on 1/2/2012, 9:22:24 PM by RnMomof7
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]
To: RnMomof7
1. I see no references to Act. Read there. It discusses how the Church chose to appoint the replacement of Judas. The understanding being that the positions did not die with the Apostles, but that they could select their own.

“2. Peter might well have been, in a somewhat loose sense, overall apostolic leader in the New Testament, but if he was, it was a very, very loose sense.”

Nonsense. He was universally acknowledged as the first among the Apostles, including Paul, who says that he was the least of them and unworthy to be called an Apostle.

Christ gave Peter the Keys to the Kingdom of heaven and the authority to bind and loose, in forgiving sins. Peter, not any of the other Apostles was given the authority by Christ over the Church. “Feed my sheep”, three times Christ admonished Peter.

“For example, on one occasion, Paul the Apostle quite strongly challenges and disagrees with him in public”

Yet, Paul considered himself to be the least among the Apostles. So clearly, he did not believe that the disagreement changed his position.

“Peter’s New Testament epistles are not, perhaps, major epistles, as the Pauline ones are, indeed, they are somewhat short and not high on doctrinal content.”

How is that relevant to the point? Again the relevant texts show that Peter was considered by the Apostles to be first among them.

“Later, he appears to disappear altogether from any New Testament consideration with scarcely a mention anywhere.”

So does Christ... There’s no direct mention of him after the Gospels. Does that mean that Paul replaces Christ? Nonsense.

“Peter may well have been the overall leader for taking the gospel to the Jews (as Paul was with respect to the Gentiles), yet the epistle of James (James almost certainly being the Senior Elder at Jerusalem), does not even mention him once!”

This is an argument from silence. Absence of evidence is not evidence of Absence.

“Moreover, there is no evidence that Peter ever became ‘bishop’ of Rome”

The tables of Bishops list Peter as the first bishop of Rome. Eusebius, writing in the fourth century lists Peter as the bishop of Rome. So yes, there is historical evidence for Peter as the first bishop of Rome.

There are exactly zero lists of bishops that do not list Peter as first. In the absence of evidence that does not corroborate with the evidence that we do have, we are forced to conclude that Peter was beyond reasonable doubt, the first bishop of Rome.

“Surely all of this would be utterly inconceivable if Peter had understood Jesus’ comment to him in Matthew 16:18 to mean that he should adopt a grandiose and pope-like style of leadership!”

Finally, you mention Matt 16:18. You might want to also mention the end of John and after the Great Commission, where Christ speaks (again to Peter alone), and tells him to ‘feed his sheep’.

It’s clear to me that Peter was given the authority to lead the Church, from the beginning. And as Bishop of Rome, that establishes Petrine Primacy (which is what the doctrine is called), and the elevation of the Bishop of Rome.

Apostolic succession is something else altogether.

“If he was a leader at all (which seems quite debatable)”

Only among those who choose to deny scriptural evidence to the contrary.

“3. In the New Testament, no ‘bishop’ (overseer) had jurisdiction over the bishops or presbyters of other churches”

Again, MT says the opposite, and the Apostles considered Peter to be their leader. Paul himself says as much.

“(carefully check out Ignatius of Antioch, in his Letter to Polycarp)”

Oh, so patristic evidence is valid? Let’s see the full quote from Ignatius so we can verify whether he actually says this.

“4. The Roman Catholic Church itself has not maintained it’s own concept of apostolic succession through the laying on of hands upon holy men.”

Ok, this is a direct challenge of Apostolic succession.

“In fact, ‘Simony’ (that is, the buying of the office of ‘pope’ or ‘bishop’ for money, or favours) was an absolute disgrace”

Two things here.

1, the sacrament of ordination is not conditional on the sinfulness of the bishop. The consecration is valid so long as the bishop is in good standing with the church at the time of the consecration (ie, not excommunicated, etc).

If sacraments were in fact dependent, then they would never be efficacious, because men are sinful. Instead, they work from Christ through the priest, such that they still work, even if the priest is sinful.

Two, in order to establish a breach, you would have to show that all the current bishops can trace their lineage back to these priests.

Good luck with this, btw. Episcopal lineage is very sturdy. Say if 10 of 30 bishops were to fall away, and the remaining 20 ordained the next 30, then apostolic succession hasn’t been affected at all.

“Unless I am misunderstanding something here, appointing a corrupt bishop or pope just once would destroy the whole structure”

You’ve gravely misunderstood apostolic succession. In order for the succession to be broken, all of the bishops would have to fall away. Not just one.

“Frankly, I think that most studied RCs know this which could be why they tend to play down the teaching on ‘apostolic succession.”

Well, then. I think apostolic succession is absolutely crucial to the Church and one of her most important teachings. I’m happy to discuss it if you are.


11 posted on 1/2/2012, 9:25:51 PM by BenKenobi (Sky friend abase committal meets for Chemo)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]
To: metmom
There is that little complication.

“Are you saying that the leadership in the RCC are apostles?”

They have a direct link to the apostles in having been ordained by those who were ordained by those who were ordained going all the way back to the Apostles.

“Are you saying that seeing the risen Lord is a requirement to be a leader in the Catholic church?”

I’m saying that the selection process for replacements to the Apostles was well documented in scripture and this article fails to even mention Acts in this discussion. This is a grave oversight.

“If seeing the risen Lord is a requirement to be chosen in the process of apostolic succession, then apostolic succession died out when the last of the men who saw the risen Lord died.”

Never said it was. I’m saying that the Apostles had the authority to appoint their successors and that their successors also had the authority to do the same.


12 posted on 1/2/2012, 9:28:18 PM by BenKenobi (Sky friend abase committal meets for Chemo)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]
To: metmom
“I see the concept as proposed by the Catholic church an attempt to put their claim to being the one and only true church started by Jesus beyond any possibility of refutation.”

Indeed, I would argue it’s one of the most important teachings of the Catholic church.

The only time, I believe they have lost bishops was during the Great Schism. Which is why that schism has been such a loss.


13 posted on 1/2/2012, 9:32:21 PM by BenKenobi (Sky friend abase committal meets for Chemo)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]
To: RnMomof7
This link and article tells you what they thought or did. But does it show the original writings of the Real Early Church Father's writing like other scholars. Always very strange in these types of articles if missing. If you read a well balanced article it will always have early church father writings and quotes.
I have been reading them myself for years. I do not claim to be a scholar but I do read the early Church Fathers. I am a layman who reads. I can tell by what is missing if they are that genuine in their work.

When someone shows early church Fathers without verses is like arguing the bible without showing those verses. Strange indeed.

14 posted on 1/2/2012, 9:35:37 PM by johngrace (I am a 1 John 4! Christian- declared at every Sunday Mass ,Divine Mercy and Rosary prayers!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]
To: BenKenobi
But an apostle by definition of Scripture has to be one who has seen the Lord.
Acts 1:21-22 21 So one of the men who have accompanied us during all the time that the Lord Jesus went in and out among us, 22 beginning from the baptism of John until the day when he was taken up from us—one of these men must become with us a witness to his resurrection.”

Those were Peter's own words.

What men today have walked with Jesus and the apostles for those three years and have been a witness to he resurrection?

No men after that generation died out qualified for the post.

You can't have a succession of apostles if you don't have anyone qualified to be one. It just doesn't work.

15 posted on 1/2/2012, 9:38:12 PM by metmom (For freedom Christ has set us free; stand firm therefore & do not submit again to a yoke of slavery)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]
To: metmom
“Those were Peter’s own words.”

I am not arguing that.

“What men today have walked with Jesus and the apostles for those three years and have been a witness to he resurrection?”

That was not the argument either.

“No men after that generation died out qualified for the post.”

Once again, not the argument.

“You can’t have a succession of apostles if you don’t have anyone qualified to be one. It just doesn’t work.”

The Apostles were given the authority by Christ to appoint their successors, as they did after the death of Judas. This authority was passed on to their successors.

This is where the argument lies. I am not arguing that there exist Apostles in the narrow sense, that they exist today. I am arguing that the Apostles had the authority to appoint their successors and that their successors had the authority to do the same.


16 posted on 1/2/2012, 9:43:37 PM by BenKenobi (Sky friend abase committal meets for Chemo)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies]
To: RnMomof7
Ping - Apostolic Succession is NOT a Bible Doctrine nor is it defined in the Bible - God and the Resurrected Christ Jesus appointed the Apostle Paul for all future generations for the preaching of the grace of God, not by works of the 12 Jewish apostles and disciples; today we are ambassadors for Christ; not disciples; today we are believer-saints DECLARED by God in the Pauline epistles, not saints defined by man; today we fear God, not man or leaders who are mere infallible men like the one some many call their leader.
Galatians 1:8: But though we, or an angel from heaven, preach any other gospel unto you than that which we have preached unto you, let him be accursed.
Galatians 1:9: As we said before, so say I now again, If any man preach any other gospel unto you than that ye have received, let him be accursed.

Heed God's Words and warning on preaching any other gospel, God says that any such follower shall be accursed.

17 posted on 1/2/2012, 9:50:33 PM by bibletruth
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]
To: SkyDancer
Do I count?

To God - YES! To those who believe in God and to who proclaim Jesus is their Savior - YES! We are family.
18 posted on 1/2/2012, 10:28:22 PM by presently no screen name
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]
To: BenKenobi
Excellent and thorough rebuttal. Well done.

thanks.


19 posted on 1/2/2012, 10:53:02 PM by D-fendr (Deus non alligatur sacramentis sed nos alligamur.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]
To: BenKenobi
Show me where Christ told the apostles they could pass on the gifts He gave them ?
20 posted on 1/2/2012, 10:57:41 PM by RnMomof7
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]
To: RnMomof7
Very good question.

Isaiah 22 verse 15. Read it and ponder it.


21 posted on 1/2/2012, 11:09:21 PM by BenKenobi (You know, you really need to break free of that Catholic mindset - "an ex-catholic":)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 20 | View Replies]
To: BenKenobi; All
"Christ gave Peter the Keys to the Kingdom of heaven and the authority to bind and loose, in forgiving sins. Peter, not any of the other Apostles was given the authority by Christ over the Church. “Feed my sheep”, three times Christ admonished Peter."
"Never said it was. I’m saying that the Apostles had the authority to appoint their successors and that their successors also had the authority to do the same."

Which IS it ?

22 posted on 1/2/2012, 11:33:08 PM by knarf (I say things that are true ... I have no proof ... but they're true)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]
To: knarf
What is the question? I’m not sure I understand.

There’s two things going on here. 1, Petrine Primacy and 2, apostolic succession.

Petrine primacy comes from the fact that he chose Peter, and that he gave Peter the Keys to the kingdom of Heaven. This is why Peter became the head of the Apostles.

What we see in Acts 1, is when Judas commits suicide, Peter says that his seat must be replaced by another. Rather than the 12 becoming 11, the 12 remain 12.

This is the point that I am trying to drive home. Peter had the authority to appoint a replacement for Judas, and the Apostles had the authority to ordain priests.

Apostolic succession talks about the succession, from Peter and the Apostles, all the way down to today. Each of the sees had their own ministry and Peter was the head of all of them. Peter could appoint men to replace a see, and the bishops could appoint their priests.


23 posted on 1/2/2012, 11:45:17 PM by BenKenobi (You know, you really need to break free of that Catholic mindset - "an ex-catholic":)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 22 | View Replies]
To: BenKenobi
Who then, are the present day twelve ?


24 posted on 1/2/2012, 11:47:59 PM by knarf (I say things that are true ... I have no proof ... but they're true)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 23 | View Replies]
To: knarf
Well, I don’t mean to frighten you, but just one remains.

The other 11 have been devastated.

From what I understand, now I don’t know enough myself to answer this question properly, is that in the time of Eusebius, there were 5.

Rome, Antioch, Alexandria, Constantinople and Jerusalem.

Jerusalem had been re-established after it’s devastation in Bar-Kochba, and Constantinople, to my understanding was elevated.

So there were just three in existence from the very beginning some 1600 years ago.

Antioch, as you well known, was devastated in the Seige when it fell to the Turks in the 11th century.

Alexandria fell to the Arabs, much earlier. Rome is the only one that remains.

I don’t know enough about the structure of the very early church to know what happened to the other 7. Perhaps someone else here knows. But it is to my understanding that Rome is the only one left.


25 posted on 1/2/2012, 11:57:30 PM by BenKenobi (You know, you really need to break free of that Catholic mindset - "an ex-catholic":)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 24 | View Replies]
To: RnMomof7
It would be helpful if you pointed out that the Oriental Orthodox, Eastern Orthodox and Coptic Churches also believe in Apostolic Succession.


26 posted on 1/3/2012, 12:21:32 AM by lastchance ("Nisi credideritis, non intelligetis" St. Augustine)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]
To: BenKenobi
Why would a Protestant sect care about the validity of Apostolic Succession. Does that question have anything to do with the 5 Solas? Does it in any way threaten to obscure the doctrinal differences between Catholics and Protestants.


27 posted on 1/3/2012, 12:27:48 AM by lastchance ("Nisi credideritis, non intelligetis" St. Augustine)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]
To: knarf
We don’t even know with certainty the bishoprics of all the 12.

From what I can see:
Bishop of Rome - St. Peter (+Antioch)
Bishop of Byzantium - St. Andrew
Bishop of Parthia - St. Matthew
Bishop of Jerusalem - St. James the Less
Bishop of Spain - St. James the Greater (Compostela)
Bishop of India - St. Thomas
Bishop of Phyrygea - St. Philip
Bishop of Armenia - St. Bartholemew
Bishop of Ephesus - St. John
Bishop of Alexandria - St. Mark
Bishop of Babylon - St. Simon
Bishop of Persia - St. Jude.

But most of this is speculation. We just don’t have that much information on the apostles.


28 posted on 1/3/2012, 12:49:37 AM by BenKenobi (You know, you really need to break free of that Catholic mindset - "an ex-catholic":)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 24 | View Replies]
To: RnMomof7
Except that there is no apostolic succession described nor is any authority given in the Scriptures to pick successors.

If there is then it must asked who replaced the apostles as they died? and who has formed this body over time?


29 posted on 1/3/2012, 12:50:15 AM by count-your-change (You don't have to be brilliant, not being stupid is enough.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]
To: lastchance
It’s central to the claim that the Catholic church was founded by Christ.


30 posted on 1/3/2012, 12:51:16 AM by BenKenobi (You know, you really need to break free of that Catholic mindset - "an ex-catholic":)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 27 | View Replies]
To: count-your-change
“If there is then it must asked who replaced the apostles as they died? and who has formed this body over time?”

Acts 1 - St. Peter. After that, his successors.


31 posted on 1/3/2012, 12:52:37 AM by BenKenobi (You know, you really need to break free of that Catholic mindset - "an ex-catholic":)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 29 | View Replies]
To: BenKenobi
Matthias was chosen by lot, not by Peter and there are no successors named. none.


32 posted on 1/3/2012, 1:03:01 AM by count-your-change (You don't have to be brilliant, not being stupid is enough.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 31 | View Replies]
To: BenKenobi; All
The choosing of Matthias happened before the coming of the Holy Spirit at Pentecost by casting lots.

There is no other reference to them taking a vote on anything after they where baptized by the Holy Spirit.

This is the same way they choose the Pope, they cast lots. So much for being led by the spirit.

May God lead us to His truth, BVB


33 posted on 1/3/2012, 1:15:16 AM by Bobsvainbabblings
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]
To: count-your-change
Peter, and this is the important point, decided that a replacement must be selected.

Not the other apostles, Peter.

This is why succession is biblical. He could have said, no, the 12 are now 11. Why did Peter insist that another be appointed?


34 posted on 1/3/2012, 1:20:35 AM by BenKenobi (You know, you really need to break free of that Catholic mindset - "an ex-catholic":)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 32 | View Replies]
To: RnMomof7
The authority of the Church comes from Christ, not from the Bible.

The Church used that Christ-given authority to write the New Testament and to ratify the works that we now call the Old Testament.

If the Apostles didn’t have the authority even to establish their own heirs then why would we trust the Bible they wrote?


35 posted on 1/3/2012, 1:20:42 AM by agere_contra ("Debt is the foundation of destruction" : Sarah Palin.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]
To: Bobsvainbabblings
So you don’t see the connection between them selecting the Pope through casting of lots among worthy successors and what’s going on in Acts 1?

You don’t think maybe that’s the reason they do things that way?

Peter narrowed down the candidates and insisted that a replacement be appointed. Therefore we can conclude that succession is what is taught as the appropriate method of passing on the authority from one generation to the next.


36 posted on 1/3/2012, 1:23:01 AM by BenKenobi (You know, you really need to break free of that Catholic mindset - "an ex-catholic":)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 33 | View Replies]
To: BenKenobi
Great, nay terrific posts from you this thread.


37 posted on 1/3/2012, 1:34:57 AM by agere_contra ("Debt is the foundation of destruction" : Sarah Palin.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 36 | View Replies]
To: BenKenobi
You are the one who doesn’t understand. They took the vote before they were filled with the Spirit.

Are you happy with them choosing your Pope using that as an example.?

May God lead us all to His truth, BVB


38 posted on 1/3/2012, 1:38:37 AM by Bobsvainbabblings
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 36 | View Replies]
To: metmom
Peter wanted a man for the successor of Judas that had been with Jesus from the beginning of His public ministry. That is reasonable, since they had such men at that time. Peter did not set the same conditions for future successors.

The Early Father held themselves to be Apostolic successor-bishops and they in turn ordained successors. Do you know better than the Early Fathers?

There is really no doubt on the question among secular historians. Perhaps you should debate with them.


39 posted on 1/3/2012, 1:40:31 AM by mas cerveza por favor
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies]
To: Bobsvainbabblings
I’m not quite sure how you arrived at that conclusion.


40 posted on 1/3/2012, 2:47:41 AM by BenKenobi (You know, you really need to break free of that Catholic mindset - "an ex-catholic":)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 38 | View Replies]
To: RnMomof7
I love what Peter himself wrote:
“Wherefore laying aside all malice, and all guile, and hypocrises, and envies, and all evil speakings, As newborn babes, desire the sincere milk of the word, that ye may grow thereby: If so be ye have tasted that the Lord is gracious. To who coming, as unto a living stone, diallowed indeed of men, but chosen of God, and precious, Ye also as lively stones, are built up a spiritual house, an holy priesthood, to offer up spiritual sacrifices, acceptable to God by Jesus Christ. Wherefore also it is contained in the Scripture, Behold I lay in Sion a chief cornerstone, elect, precious: and he that believeth on Him shall not be confounded. Unto you therefore which believe He is precious: but unto them which be disobedient, the stone which the builders disallowed, the same is made the head of the corner. And a stone of stumbling, and a rock of offence, even to them which stumble at the word, being disobedient: whereunto also they were appointed.” (1 Peter 2:1-8)

In 2 Peter 3:18 Peter exorts us to:
“But grow in grace, and in the knowledge of our Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ. To Him be glory both now and forever. Amen.”


41 posted on 1/3/2012, 2:59:28 AM by LetMarch (If a man knows the right way to live, and does not live it, there is no greater coward. (Anonymous)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]
To: johngrace
I like you reference to 1 John chapter 4: It teaches us (believers) about the family(God’s family) and the world.
We as children are warned against false teachers, and
those that confess Jesus Christ; and those that confess not.

Verse 4 says: “Ye are of God, little children, and have overcome them: because greater is He that is in you, than he that is in the world.”

Yes 1 John is a great chapter clearly written us who belong to the heavenly Father.


42 posted on 1/3/2012, 3:14:32 AM by LetMarch (If a man knows the right way to live, and does not live it, there is no greater coward. (Anonymous)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies]
To: BenKenobi
I am arguing that the Apostles had the authority to appoint their successors and that their successors had the authority to do the same.
For evidence, just look at the great number of books in the Canon written by Matthias. (Doh!!!!)

Doesn't God make all of His great decisions by drawing lots? /s

43 posted on 1/3/2012, 3:18:31 AM by Cvengr (Adversity in life and death is inevitable. Thru faith in Christ, stress is optional.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 16 | View Replies]
To: Cvengr
Yeah, just like he selected Paul too.

Real loser decision there. Least of the apostles.


44 posted on 1/3/2012, 3:23:28 AM by BenKenobi (You know, you really need to break free of that Catholic mindset - "an ex-catholic":)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 43 | View Replies]
To: BenKenobi
He didn’t select Paul by lots.


45 posted on 1/3/2012, 3:42:25 AM by Cvengr (Adversity in life and death is inevitable. Thru faith in Christ, stress is optional.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 44 | View Replies]
To: Cvengr
If he had he would have had a better apostle.

Do they get ranked by the word?


46 posted on 1/3/2012, 3:47:48 AM by BenKenobi (You know, you really need to break free of that Catholic mindset - "an ex-catholic":)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 45 | View Replies]
To: RnMomof7
IIRC Acts has a very good example of what happens when men choose who is to take the place of an apostle. I think his name was Mathias. Never heard from again. Pray to God never to be chosen by men!


47 posted on 1/3/2012, 3:48:49 AM by wastoute (Government cannot redistribute wealth. Government can only redistribute poverty.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]
To: BenKenobi; RnMomof7
Even then in the appointment process they couldn’t discern God’s choice so after praying;they “cast lots and the lot fell to Matthias”. In the end they left it to God!(Acts chapter 1)

I find this “casting of lots” story in the discussion of apostolic succession a kind of 800 pound gorilla no one talks about! (like it was some type of evil “gambling” or something)

It might solve a lot of church conflicts if both sides of a situation pray and fast then cast lots over the issue...then abide by the results!


48 posted on 1/3/2012, 3:55:01 AM by mdmathis6 (Christ came not to make man into God but to restore fellowship of the Godhead with man.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 36 | View Replies]
To: Bobsvainbabblings
I disagree, when there is no clear consensus and both sides have prayed and fasted, the casting of lots leaves room for God to move; that is where there is strong agreement and faith on all sides to abide with the results of the lots cast.


49 posted on 1/3/2012, 4:06:12 AM by mdmathis6 (Christ came not to make man into God but to restore fellowship of the Godhead with man.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 33 | View Replies]
To: RnMomof7
The doctrine of apostolic succession appears to have begun primarily with Irenaeus in the late second century A.D. It was begun, not as a means of establishing a line of authoritative fellowship, but as illustrating a line of authoritative orthodoxy. It was begun as an argument against Gnosticism in Irenaeus’ classic work Against Heresies. Indeed, it proved to be the fatal blow against Gnosticism. Irenaeus’ argument, which the Gnostics could not counter, went thusly: We know of several congregations that were established by apostles, and we know who the bishops (or elders) of those congregations were from their time until now. None of those men ever taught the doctrines of Gnosticism. Therefore, Gnosticism is not an apostolic doctrine.

This line of thinking was later expanded by others in the third century, particularly Cyprian, to contend that those who were outside of this unbroken line of fellowship from the first century were not to be accepted as Christians even if they were orthodox in belief and practice.

Side notes: Irenaeus refers at times to a succession of bishops, and at other times to a succession of elders (or presbyters). At the time of Irenaeus there was a gradual change taking place in which the twofold offices of the New Testament period—bishops (also known as elders) and deacons—began to transition into the threefold offices of later times: bishops, elders, and deacons.

Cyprian (mid third century), although he argued for restricting fellowship to those within the line of succession, and was a proponent of the elevation of the office of bishop above that of elder, still did not ascribe to the later, more expanded versions of church government in which archbishops exercised authority over bishops beneath them, nor of a “universal bishop”. On one occassion he said:

“For neither does any of us set himself up as a bishop of bishops, nor by tyrannical terror does any compel his colleague to the necessity of obedience; since every bishop, according to the allowance of his liberty and power, has his own proper right of judgment, and can no more be judged by another than he himself can judge another. But let us all wait for the judgment of our Lord Jesus Christ, who is the only one that has the power both of preferring us in the government of His Church, and of judging us in our conduct there.” (Cyprian, in the Seventh Council of Carthage)

For a survey of the development of church government in the first and century centuries, see my posts on the following thread, especially post #23:

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/relig ... ts?page=21


50 posted on 1/3/2012, 5:03:30 AM by Engraved-on-His-hands
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-50, 51-100, 101-150, 151-200 ... 251-292 next last
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search Religion
Topics · Post Article
FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008

[bumperjack]

Silent I believe if we both Stay open is the key,just like when we get upset you lose your focus,and thats the last thing I want to do is lose sight of our topics and this not be anything but a waste of our efforts and time as I know you put in a lot of time with these posts brother and believe me I respect you for that truly.

To agree and disagree is debate to learn others views of there belief. IM READY FOR YOU TO TAKE IT TO SALVATION WHEN YOUR TIME PERMITS.I CAN TRULY SAY I HAVE ACTUALLY BEEN LEARNING AND THAT IS MY INTENSION NOT TO BEAT DOWN ANYONES FAITH IT WOULD BE A WASTE OF TIME TO DO THAT.

[MMRbkaRudog]

LOL and this is why I don't bother much with these debates. I came to the conclusion well before that we can agree to disagree. The fact is that bumper is going to believe some of those things Protestants or other "non Catholic Christians" say and push his agenda regardless.

[silentwssj]

Hey there Bumperjack! Real quick! It is obvious that we are going to simply agree to disagree! As Rudog said we are going to have our own set of beliefs and nothing is going to change that I guess! It is crazy to me because it is so clear in my mind but I guess we are all different! What it really comes down to is I believe that God established a Church. This Church is alive and functioning from the time of Jesus up to the Present. The Bishops are the Successors of the Apostles. We believe in the original deposit of Faith AKA Tradition! The Bible is to be wholly believed as well but it is to be read in light of Tradition and it is not to be taken out of context or have verses cherry picked out of it! You will really see what I mean when we get to the next post! Protestants definitely take one set of verses and disregard all others in an attempt to prove their beliefs. I think that I have done a good job of proving that Tradition is just as valid as Scripture! It is absolutely Biblical! I think that I have also done a good job of proving that the Bible did not even exist in its present form for roughly the first 400 years of Christianity. When it finally did come into being it was under the Authority of the Catholic Church to decide what was and was not to be included into the Canon! As far the historical Catholic church goes I have without a shadow of doubt proved that at the very least it existed as early as 110 AD! As evidenced by Ireneous's letter! I have demonstrated that the office of the Bishop of Rome was considered to be the final authority for the Church. It even had authority during Apostolic times as evidenced by the writings of the early Church Fathers! They also attest to the fact that they descend directly from the Apostles themselves. This is all in those letters and written well before the time of Constantine! As far as Papal infallibility goes, it only applies to the Pope acting in union with the College of Bishops and only when speaking on matters of Faith and Morals! There have been many bad Popes as people! We can all agree with that! The bottom line is that when one examines history none of them have ever taught heresy from the seat of Peter! If this is not proof of divine protection especially considering how many of them were corrupt, then I don't what is! Another thing is "The Gates of hell will not prevail" in Matthew! The Church has withstood all of this for 2000 years! It is still going strong! It is a promise by God himself that his Church will never be defeated. Only Catholics can claim this as they were the only ones there in the beginning and still present today! I still have yet to any writings of any Church Fathers that would back up any claim made by any Protestant Church? Where are they if they were around during that time? That is why I keep hammering away on this subject! The Protestant view point is simply absent and non existent in history! Anyhow I simply wanted to lay the foundation of Church, Tradition, and Bible before we move on to other subjects! I think that I have laid a good foundation for all of that. I may at some point do a post on Doctrine and councils and how it all becomes Dogma! Not everything was clearly defined at first, if you want an example just look at the Trinity! I think as we move on though you will see that all Catholic beliefs are either clearly spelled out in scripture or at the very least implicitly alluded to in it. You cant say that everything that needed to be said is in the Bible as evidenced by the Trinity doctrine. It should at least be alluded to and it ill be as we move forward. Bottom line, The Church is the pillar and Foundation of Truth and Tradition precedes and is to be respected alongside Scripture! I will stick by that as it is absolutely Biblical! Salvation is up next! I am going to spend my day off reading and watching some football! I work through Wednesday and then I am going home! I will probably not post anything for 2 weeks after that as my wife and youngest are coming with me for some time together at my work location after I spend the weekend at home. If I don't answer any posts after Wednesday you know why! Anyhow, Peaceout and God bless! Silent!

[silentwssj]

Check out the first Chapter of Titus! Living proof of the succession of Bishops! Only the Catholic Church has it! Same thing with the four marks!

Four Marks of the Church

by Kenneth D. Whitehead

We can show how the Church of the apostles resembles in all essentials the Church of today by showing how the early Church already bore the marks, or "notes," of the true Church of Christ which are still professed today in the Nicene Creed. The Nicene Creed declares the Church to be One, Holy, Catholic, and Apostolic.

Thus, the Church of the apostles was definitely one: "There is one body and one spirit," Paul wrote, "just as you were called to the one hope that belongs to your call, one Lord, one faith, one baptism, one God and Father of us all" (Eph. 4:4-5). Paul linked this primitive unity to the Church's common Eucharistic bread: "Because there is one bread, we who are many are one body, for we all partake of one bread" (1 Cor. 10:17). Jesus had promised at the outset that "there would be one flock, one shepherd" (John 10:16).

Similarly, the Church of the apostles was holy. When we say that, we mean among other things that it had the all-holy God himself as author. We do not mean that all of its members have ceased to be sinners and have themselves become all-holy. On the contrary, the Church from the beginning, on her human side, has been composed of sinners: "Christ Jesus came into the world to save sinners" (1 Tim. 1:15). The Church was founded for no other reason than to continue Christ's redemptive and sanctifying work with them in the world.

One of the things implicit in the appellation "holy" as applied to the Church, then, is that the Church from the beginning has been endowed with the sacramental means to help make holy the sinners who are found in her ranks. The Church has been given the sacraments along with the word precisely in order to be able to help make sinners holy.

It was in this sense that Paul was able to write, "Christ loved the Church and gave himself up for her, that he might sanctify her, having cleansed her by the washing of water with the word, that he might present the Church to himself in splendor, without spot or wrinkle or any such thing, that she might be holy and without blemish" (Eph. 5:25-27). The holiness of the Church, of which the creed properly speaks, has always had reference to her divine Founder and to what the Church was founded by him with the power and authority to do, not with the condition of her members.

The third great historic mark or note of the one true Church was that this Church was Catholic. "Catholic" means "universal." It refers as much to the fullness of the faith which it possesses as it does to the undeniable extension in both time and space which has characterized it virtually from the beginning. At the very beginning, of course, it was no doubt difficult to see how the "little flock" (Luke 12:32) of which the Church then consisted could by any stretch of the imagination qualify as "universal." Still, just as the embryo contains in germ the whole human being, so the Church already contained the universality that would quickly begin to manifest itself.

It is not without significance that the Holy Spirit came down upon the Church at Pentecost at a time when "there were dwelling in Jerusalem Jews, devout men from every nation under heaven" (Acts 2:5). It was to them that the Holy Spirit temporarily enabled the apostles to speak in the languages of all these various nations--a powerful sign that the Church was destined for all men everywhere, represented at that first Pentecost in Jerusalem by those of many nations who had come there from afar. Many accepted the faith then and there and presumably began forthwith carrying "the Catholic Church" back to the four corners of the earth.

The Catholicity of the Church in any case resides as much in the fact that the Church is for everybody at all times as it does in the fact that it was indeed destined to spread everywhere throughout the whole world. Within a few years of the foundation of the Church, Paul was writing that "the word of truth . . . in the whole world . . . is bearing fruit and growing" (Col. 1:5-6).

Finally, the Church that issued from the commission of Christ to the apostles was necessarily apostolic. Christ founded the Church upon the apostles and in no other way: "Did I not choose you, the twelve?" he asked them (John 6:70). The apostles of all people understood perfectly well that they did not set themselves up in their own little community, as we sometimes today see "gospel churches" set up in store fronts or in the suburbs. The New Testament teaches, "One does not take the honor upon himself" (Heb. 5:4).

Nothing is clearer, then, that the Church started out as "apostolic." The question is whether the apostles had the power and authority to pass on to others what they had received from Christ. We have already seen that they very definitely did have this power and authority; the New Testament evidence is clear about that. The subsequent historical evidence is equally clear that they did pass it on to successors (the bishops). Indeed there are already references in the New Testament itself to the appointment of bishops by the apostles, as well as to the appointment of further bishops by them (Titus 1:5-9).

When we ask where, if anywhere, is to be found the same Church which the New Testament tells us Christ founded, we have to reformulate the question to ask: What Church, if any, descends in an unbroken line from the apostles of Jesus Christ (and also, not incidentally, possesses the other essential notes of the true Church of which the creed speaks)?

Further, to introduce a point we have not dwelt upon at all up to now, What Church, if any, is headed by a single recognized designated leader, just as the apostles of Jesus plainly functioned, on the evidence of the New Testament, under the headship of Peter?

To ask these questions is to answer them: Any entity or body claiming to be the Church of Christ would have to be able to demonstrate its apostolicity by demonstrating an organic link with the original apostles on whom Christ manifestly established his Church. Nothing less than this could qualify as the "apostolic" Church which Jesus founded.

As much for our instruction as for the assurance he intended to give to the apostles to whom he was actually speaking, Jesus said, "He who hears you, hears me" (Luke 10:16). Do we take these words seriously today? Do we listen to the teachings of the successors of the apostles of Jesus, the bishops, in union with and under the successor of the apostle Peter, the pope, as if these teachings were the words of Christ himself?

If we do, we are properly members of the Church which Jesus Christ founded on the apostles and which has come down to us from them. If we do not, how can we pretend that we take anything seriously that Christ said and taught?

He said nothing more solemnly and categorically than these words, in which he declared that the apostles and their successors would speak for him in the serious business of gathering in and sanctifying his people and leading them toward the salvation he offers. Jesus intended that the fullness of his grace should come to his people in a Church that, from the beginning, was what the creed still calls it today: One, Holy, Catholic, and Apostolic.

[silentwssj]

The Hierarchical Constitution of the Church

by Pedro Rodriguez

The following words of Pope Paul VI can serve as a short synthesis of the will of Christ for the constitution and makeup of his Church:


'Christ promised and sent two elements to constitute his work, to extend in time and over all the world the kingdom founded by him and to make of redeemed mankind his Church, his mystical body, in expectation of his second and triumphal return at the end of the world. These elements are the apostolic college and the Spirit. The apostolic college works externally and objectively. It forms, one might say, the material body of the Church and gives her a visible and social structure. The Spirit works internally, within each person and within the community as a whole animating, vivifying and sanctifying. These two agents, namely the apostolic college whose successor is the sacred hierarchy, and the spirit of Christ, which makes the Church Christ's ordinary instrument in the ministry of the word and the sacraments, work together. On Pentecost morning they are seen in a marvelous harmony at the beginning of Christ's great work.'[6]

For the remainder of this article we will be concerned with the first of these two elements.

The Catholic Church teaches as a doctrine of faith that Christ gave the Church, in his apostles, a hierarchical structure of an episcopal nature and that within the hierarchy and the Church he established a primacy of authority in the successor of St. Peter.

HIERARCHICAL CONSTITUTION OF THE CHURCH

'All the faithful, from the Pope to the child who has just been baptized share in one and the same grace.'[7] Nonetheless, when it is affirmed that the Church is a hierarchical society we are in substance saying that in spite of the 'radical or fundamental equality' which is to be found among the People of God, the Church has structures, features and differentiations by virtue of which she is a society in which there is a 'functional inequality.'[8] That is to say: not all the faithful have the same function or mission. For this reason Pope St. Pius X could say that 'the Church is essentially an unequal society, that is, a society composed of two types of people: shepherds and sheep.'[9]

This hierarchical structure is not the result of socio-political influences but stems from the will of Christ. This has been stated solemnly by both the Council of Trent and Vatican I,[10] but it is Vatican II which has given a detailed summary: 'The Lord Jesus, having prayed at length to the Father, called to himself those whom he willed and appointed twelve to be with him, whom he might send to preach the kingdom of God (cf. Mark 3:13-19; Matthew 10:1-42). These apostles (cf. Luke 6:13) he constituted in the form of a college or permanent assembly, at the head of which he placed Peter, chosen from amongst them (cf. John 21:15-17). He sent them first of all to the children of Israel and then to all peoples (cf. Romans 1:16), so that, sharing in his power, they might make all peoples his disciples and sanctify and govern them (cf. Matthew 28:16-20; Mark 16:15; Luke 24:45-48; John 20:21-23) and thus spread the Church and, administering it under the guidance of the Lord, shepherd it all days until the end of the world (cf. Matthew 28:20).[11]

Here we have the hierarchical principle of the Church established in the persons of the apostles. The Council goes on to say that this structure, which is of divine origin, is a constitutive part of the Church for all time, not just for the beginnings of the Church but for today as well. This is so, she says, by virtue of the principle of apostolic succession. 'That divine mission, which was committed by Christ to the apostles, is destined to last until the end of the world (cf. Matthew 28:20), since the gospel, which they are charged to hand on, is, for the Church, the principle of all its life for all time. For that very reason the apostles were careful to appoint successors in this hierarchically constituted society.'[12] The Council then explains in great detail and attentive to historical reality, to factual history in the words of Pope Leo XIII, how this transmission of authority and ministry was made 'to the bishops and their helpers, the priests and deacons.' This whole procedure, we are told, must be related to the will of Christ: 'He willed that the successors (of the apostles), the bishops namely, should be the shepherds in his Church until the end of the world.'[13] And finally, the Council solemnly declares: 'The sacred synod consequently teaches that the bishops have by divine institution taken the place of the apostles as pastors of the Church, in such wise that whoever despises them despises Christ and him who sent Christ (Luke 10:16).[14]

'This divinely instituted hierarchy, which is composed of bishops, priests and ministers'[15] received the mission which Christ had entrusted to his apostles. 'With priests and deacons as helpers, the bishops received the charge of the community, presiding in God's stead over the flock of which they are the shepherds, in that they are teachers of doctrine, ministers of sacred worship and holders of office in government.'[16]

The sacrament of order is the way established by Christ for perpetuating in his Church this essential hierarchy[17] to which he has given the power of mission with its threefold office of teaching, sanctifying and ruling the faithful. 'The holders of office, who are invested with the sacred power, are, in fact, dedicated to promoting the interests of their brethren so that all who belong to the People of God, and are consequently endowed with true Christian dignity, may, through their free and well-ordered efforts towards a common goal, attain salvation.'[18]

[silentwssj]

How Did the Catholic Church Get Her Name?

by Kenneth D. Whitehead

The Creed which we recite on Sundays and holy days speaks of one, holy, catholic and apostolic Church. As everybody knows, however, the Church referred to in this Creed is more commonly called just the Catholic Church. It is not, by the way, properly called the Roman Catholic Church, but simply the Catholic Church.

The term Roman Catholic is not used by the Church herself; it is a relatively modern term, and one, moreover, that is confined largely to the English language. The English-speaking bishops at the First Vatican Council in 1870, in fact, conducted a vigorous and successful campaign to insure that the term Roman Catholic was nowhere included in any of the Council's official documents about the Church herself, and the term was not included.

Similarly, nowhere in the 16 documents of the Second Vatican Council will you find the term Roman Catholic. Pope Paul VI signed all the documents of the Second Vatican Council as "I, Paul. Bishop of the Catholic Church." Simply that -- Catholic Church. There are references to the Roman curia, the Roman missal, the Roman rite, etc., but when the adjective Roman is applied to the Church herself, it refers to the Diocese of Rome!

Cardinals, for example, are called cardinals of the Holy Roman Church, but that designation means that when they are named to be cardinals they have thereby become honorary clergy of the Holy Father's home diocese, the Diocese of Rome. Each cardinal is given a titular church in Rome, and when the cardinals participate in the election of a new pope. they are participating in a process that in ancient times was carried out by the clergy of the Diocese of Rome.

Although the Diocese of Rome is central to the Catholic Church, this does not mean that the Roman rite, or, as is sometimes said, the Latin rite, is co-terminus with the Church as a whole; that would mean neglecting the Byzantine, Chaldean, Maronite or other Oriental rites which are all very much part of the Catholic Church today, as in the past.

In our day, much greater emphasis has been given to these "non-Roman" rites of the Catholic Church. The Second Vatican Council devoted a special document, Orientalium Ecclesiarum (Decree on Eastern Catholic Churches), to the Eastern rites which belong to the Catholic Church, and the new Catechism of the Catholic Church similarly gives considerable attention to the distinctive traditions and spirituality of these Eastern rites.

So the proper name for the universal Church is not the Roman Catholic Church. Far from it. That term caught on mostly in English-speaking countries; it was promoted mostly by Anglicans, supporters of the "branch theory" of the Church, namely, that the one, holy, catholic and apostolic Church of the creed was supposed to consist of three major branches, the Anglican, the Orthodox and the so-called Roman Catholic. It was to avoid that kind of interpretation that the English-speaking bishops at Vatican I succeeded in warning the Church away from ever using the term officially herself: It too easily could be misunderstood.

Today in an era of widespread dissent in the Church, and of equally widespread confusion regarding what authentic Catholic identity is supposed to consist of, many loyal Catholics have recently taken to using the term Roman Catholic in order to affirm their understanding that the Catholic Church of the Sunday creed is the same Church that is united with the Vicar of Christ in Rome, the Pope. This understanding of theirs is correct, but such Catholics should nevertheless beware of using the term, not only because of its dubious origins in Anglican circles intending to suggest that there just might be some other Catholic Church around somewhere besides the Roman one: but also because it often still is used today to suggest that the Roman Catholic Church is something other and lesser than the Catholic Church of the creed. It is commonly used by some dissenting theologians, for example, who appear to be attempting to categorize the Roman Catholic Church as just another contemporary "Christian denomination"--not the body that is identical with the one, holy, catholic and apostolic Church of the creed.

The proper name of the Church, then, is the Catholic Church. It is not ever called "the Christian Church," either. Although the prestigious Oxford University Press currently publishes a learned and rather useful reference book called "The Oxford Book of the Christian Church," the fact is that there has never been a major entity in history called by that name; the Oxford University Press has adopted a misnomer, for the Church of Christ has never been called the Christian Church.

There is, of course, a Protestant denomination in the United States which does call itself by that name, but that particular denomination is hardly what the Oxford University Press had in mind when assigning to its reference book the title that it did. The assignment of the title in question appears to have been one more method, of which there have been so many down through history, of declining to admit that there is, in fact, one--and only one--entity existing in the world today to which the designation "the Catholic Church" in the Creed might possibly apply.

The entity in question, of course, is just that: the very visible, worldwide Catholic Church, in which the 263rd successor of the Apostle Peter, Pope John Paul II, teaches, governs and sanctifies, along with some 3,000 other bishops around the world, who are successors of the apostles of Jesus Christ.

As mentioned in the Acts of the Apostles, it is true that the followers of Christ early became known as "Christians" (cf. Acts 11:26). The name Christian, however, was never commonly applied to the Church herself. In the New Testament itself, the Church is simply called "the Church." There was only one. In that early time there were not yet any break-away bodies substantial enough to be rival claimants of the name and from which the Church might ever have to distinguish herself.

Very early in post-apostolic times, however. the Church did acquire a proper name--and precisely in order to distinguish herself from rival bodies which by then were already beginning to form. The name that the Church acquired when it became necessary for her to have a proper name was the name by which she has been known ever since-the Catholic Church.

The name appears in Christian literature for the first time around the end of the first century. By the time it was written down, it had certainly already been in use, for the indications are that everybody understood exactly what was meant by the name when it was written.

Around the year A.D. 107, a bishop, St. Ignatius of Antioch in the Near East, was arrested, brought to Rome by armed guards and eventually martyred there in the arena. In a farewell letter which this early bishop and martyr wrote to his fellow Christians in Smyrna (today Izmir in modern Turkey), he made the first written mention in history of "the Catholic Church." He wrote, "Where the bishop is present, there is the Catholic Church" (To the Smyrnaeans 8:2). Thus, the second century of Christianity had scarcely begun when the name of the Catholic Church was already in use.

Thereafter, mention of the name became more and more frequent in the written record. It appears in the oldest written account we possess outside the New Testament of the martyrdom of a Christian for his faith, the "Martyrdom of St. Polycarp," bishop of the same Church of Smyrna to which St. Ignatius of Antioch had written. St. Polycarp was martyred around 155, and the account of his sufferings dates back to that time. The narrator informs us that in his final prayers before giving up his life for Christ, St. Polycarp "remembered all who had met with him at any time, both small and great, both those with and those without renown, and the whole Catholic Church throughout the world."

We know that St. Polycarp, at the time of his death in 155, had been a Christian for 86 years. He could not, therefore, have been born much later than 69 or 70. Yet it appears to have been a normal part of the vocabulary of a man of this era to be able to speak of "the whole Catholic Church throughout the world."

The name had caught on, and no doubt for good reasons.

The term "catholic" simply means "universal," and when employing it in those early days, St. Ignatius of Antioch and St. Polycarp of Smyrna were referring to the Church that was already "everywhere," as distinguished from whatever sects, schisms or splinter groups might have grown up here and there, in opposition to the Catholic Church.

The term was already understood even then to be an especially fitting name because the Catholic Church was for everyone, not just for adepts, enthusiasts or the specially initiated who might have been attracted to her.

Again, it was already understood that the Church was "catholic" because -- to adopt a modern expression -- she possessed the fullness of the means of salvation. She also was destined to be "universal" in time as well as in space, and it was to her that applied the promise of Christ to Peter and the other apostles that "the powers of death shall not prevail" against her (Mt 16:18).

The Catechism of the Catholic Church in our own day has concisely summed up all the reasons why the name of the Church of Christ has been the Catholic Church: "The Church is catholic," the Catechism teaches, "[because] she proclaims the fullness of the faith. She bears in herself and administers the totality of the means of salvation. She is sent out to all peoples. She speaks to all men. She encompasses all times. She is 'missionary of her very nature'" (no. 868).

So the name became attached to her for good. By the time of the first ecumenical council of the Church, held at Nicaea in Asia Minor in the year 325 A.D., the bishops of that council were legislating quite naturally in the name of the universal body they called in the Council of Nicaea's official documents "the Catholic Church." As most people know, it was that same council which formulated the basic Creed in which the term "catholic" was retained as one of the four marks of the true Church of Christ. And it is the same name which is to be found in all 16 documents of the twenty-first ecumenical council of the Church, Vatican Council II.

It was still back in the fourth century that St. Cyril of Jerusalem aptly wrote, "Inquire not simply where the Lord's house is, for the sects of the profane also make an attempt to call their own dens the houses of the Lord; nor inquire merely where the church is, but where the Catholic Church is. For this is the peculiar name of this Holy Body, the Mother of all, which is the Spouse of Our Lord Jesus Christ" (Catecheses, xviii, 26).

The same inquiry needs to be made in exactly the same way today, for the name of the true Church of Christ has in no way been changed. It was inevitable that the Catechism of the Catholic Church would adopt the same name today that the Church has had throughout the whole of her very long history.

[silentwssj]

How Old Is Your Church?

If you are a Lutheran, your religion was founded by Martin Luther, an ex- monk of the Catholic Church, in the year 1517.

If you belong to the Church of England, your religion was founded by King Henry VIII in the year 1534 because the Pope would not grant him a divorce with the right to remarry.

If you are a Presbyterian, your religion was founded by John Knox in Scotland in the year 1560.

If you are a Protestant Episcopalian, your religion was an offshoot of the Church of England founded by Samuel Seabury in the American colonies in the 17th century.

If you are a Congregationalist, your religion was originated by Robert Brown in Holland in 1582.

If you are a Methodist, your religion was launched by John and Charles Wesley in England in 1744.

If you are a Unitarian, Theophilus Lindley founded your church in London in 1774.

If you are a Mormon (Latter Day Saints), Joseph Smith started your religion in Palmyra, N.Y., in 1829.

If you are a Baptist, you owe the tenets of your religion to John Smyth, who launched it in Amsterdam in 1605.

If you are of the Dutch Reformed church, you recognize Michaelis Jones as founder, because he originated your religion in New York in 1628.

If you worship with the Salvation Army, your sect began with William Booth in London in 1865.

If you are a Christian Scientist, you look to 1879 as the year in which your religion was born and to Mrs. Mary Baker Eddy as its founder.

If you belong to one of the religious organizations known as 'Church of the Nazarene," "Pentecostal Gospel." "Holiness Church," "Pilgrim Holiness Church," "Jehovah's Witnesses," your religion is one of the hundreds of new sects founded by men within the past century.

If you are Catholic, you know that your religion was founded in the year 33 by Jesus Christ the Son of God, and it is still the same Church.

[bumperjack]

Silent,The church I guess is important to you?Apostlic Succession is not a Biblical Doctrine,we,all are Ambassadors for Christ,Jesus Christ paid our sin debt on the cross,I guess having a church that goes back to the days of Jesus makes your faith infallilbe as your popes and priests? Right it doesn't,We I believe do not need a church to be saved Apostles had that authority in them days,there was no special Authority that was passed . Down that is a belief you own brother & I do not own that is why wwe will agree to disagree I dont need a priest to forgive my sins I have my Savior Jesus Christ it is not about a church in my eyes that is important It's a relationship with our Heavenly father brother thats important the Church dictates your faith by there rules Silent is what you truly believe and thats your right freedom to choose to follow what ever Religion you care to,My agenda Rudog is my beliefs it's a right we all have basically your following men who have doctrines made up by man not apostles or Jesus Christ Silent I can't fully understand that either but its . Your choice again yes You claim your church was started back then.? History has other accounts! and you or me my brother don't have to become college educated to figure it out,Silent it's a very controversial subject and I pray for spiritual wisdom man made wisdom will only take you so far you are well read in Catholicism but I believe mislead by men of your faith to believe they have the Authority to forgive sins.Brother with all respects bumperjack