It's good that you agree the Romans and the Church were real sticklers for documents. Produce the historical document showing how Constantine “started” the Christian (Catholic) Church in the 4th century.
Apostolic Succession.
- Thread starter Origen
- Start date
-
Welcome to Christian Forums, a Christian Forum that recognizes that all Christians are a work in progress.
You will need to register to be able to join in fellowship with Christians all over the world.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon and God Bless!
It's good that you agree the Romans and the Church were real sticklers for documents. Produce the historical document showing how Constantine “started” the Christian (Catholic) Church in the 4th century.
Grailhunter
Well-Known Member
No, Apostles stopped being named. The Jewish-Christian sect died out by the end of the 1st century and no Jewish-Christian writings exist after that. The Gentile-Christians took the helm of the church. The Gentile-Christians were successors of Paul. No Jewish-Christians showed up at Nicaea. The sect died out, it was a succession with a dead end.
You said, "No one is a successor of Peter anymore than any Christian". When Jesus was on earth, He didn't make every new Christian an apostle, and give them all authority. Instead, He elected twelve men, He gave them authority, then they elected their successors and passed on the authority to them, and so on. Matthias was the first to be elected by the apostles to replace/succeed Judas (Ac. 1:20). That apostolic succession has continued to this day.
Grailhunter
Well-Known Member
Ya that is true....but we do not want to go through the history of that because it is worse than a horror flick. Let stick with the modern Catholic Church. Love the Catholics. But just like any denomination they have their problems. Part of the Catholic Church’s problem is its size and bureaucracy. Sure they have had centuries to come up with religious customs and ceremonies but the one thing that is killing them is the requirement for celibacy for the clergy….It is simply unnatural in the way that God intended. They live their lives denying all the sexual misconducts and loose money in the courts and reputations.
Grailhunter
Well-Known Member
I do not have to argue history. Nothing would have happened with out Emperor Constantine…..without him Christians would have continued to be food for the arenas until they were all killed.
Grailhunter
Well-Known Member
I agree…gets it name. The ecumenical counsels agreed with those that said that Christianity was universal, so then they called the church defined by the councils as “the” Catholic Church.
So, you can't produce a historical document showing how Constantine “started” the Christian (Catholic) Church in the 4th century?
Acts 9:31 talks about how the early Church grew throughout the region. The language used here describes the Catholic Church:
“Then the church throughout Judea, Galilee, and Samaria experienced peace and thus was strengthened. Living in the fear of the Lord and in the encouragement of the Holy Spirit, the church increased in numbers.”
Here is the phrase in Koine Greek: η μεν ουν εκκλησια καθ ολης της ιουδαιας
The Catholic Church gets its name from the Koine Greek for “according to the whole” and “universal” - εκκλησια καθ ολης, which is pronounced “katah-holos”.
Εκκλησια (ekklesia) - A gathering of citizens called out from their homes into some public place, an assembly; CHURCH
καθ (katah) - Through out, according to
ολης (holos) - All, whole, completely
"ekklesia Kata-holos" = CATHOLIC CHURCH.
The Church founded by Jesus Christ and established by the Apostles was called the “Catholic Church” by the end of the first century. We see this in the Letter to the Smyrnaeans by Ignatius of Antioch, which was already an established fact by the beginning of the second century. The Christian (Catholic) Church existed some 1400 years before the existence of “Protestants” (Christians that are not Catholic or Orthodox).
A "denomination" is "a recognized autonomous branch of the Christian Church". The Christian (Catholic) Church isn't a denomination because it existed some 1400 years before every single Christian belief system that came after and exists today, and thus we are the Christian (Catholic) Church that Jesus founded, and the latter are denominations.
Grailhunter
Well-Known Member
I do not have to....it is history. Ever heard of the Edict of Milian. Do you think Christians showed up at Nicaea on their own for a party?
Grailhunter
Well-Known Member
I have no problem with you having problems with the word denomination. But I still call it a denomination.
Where's the document to show it?
Again, Pagan Rome persecuted Christians until the reign of Constantine in the 4th century and the Edict of Milan, which gave protected legal status to Christianity. This doesn't mean that he made Christianity the "official religion" of Rome, but rather he made it legal to be a Christian, and thus put an end to the persecution. His mother, St. Helena, was a Christian.
I don't have a problem with the word "denomination" itself. I was merely explaining to you that a denomination is "a recognized autonomous branch of the Christian Church". The Christian (Catholic) Church isn't a denomination because no other Christian Church existed before it, and it existed some 1400 years before every single Christian belief system that came after and exists today.
Grailhunter
Well-Known Member
The whole official thing came later....Emperor Theodosius, in 380 CE, issued the Edict of Thessalonica, which made Christianity, especially Nicene Christianity, the official religion of the Roman Empire.
Grailhunter
Well-Known Member
Three hundred years of Christianity before the Catholic Church....denomination.....sect....belief not splitting hairs.
quietthinker
Well-Known Member
I doubt it. The whole reality of Jesus was anti hierarchy. This can be seen by how he treated and aligned women and children. It is also evident in the what he said to the religious authorities. His condescension to the lowest strata in society also reveals this.
I didn't say when the "official thing" came, but rather explaining to you that Pagan Rome persecuted Christians until the reign of Constantine in the 4th century and the Edict of Milan, which gave protected legal status to Christianity, which means he made it legal to be a Christian, and thus put an end to the persecution.
The first Christians were Catholics, and thus no other Christian Church existed before the Christian (Catholic) Church, and it existed some 1400 years before every single Christian belief system that came after and exists today. For this reason, it's not a denomination or sect.
Grailhunter
Well-Known Member
The first followers of Christ were Jewish…..a decade later the term Christian was coined then the Apostle Paul started to convert Pagans to Christianity…..called Gentiles in the scriptures.
Some time after the biblical era the term universal church was coined but never used as a title until after the Ecumenical Councils….no authority to use it as a title until after the Ecumenical Councils.
Those Jews became Christians (Catholics).
The Church founded by Jesus Christ and established by the Apostles was called the “Catholic Church” by the end of the first century–some 1400 years before the existence of “Protestants” (Christians that are not Catholic or Orthodox). We see this in the Letter to the Smyrnaeans by Ignatius of Antioch, which was already an established fact by the beginning of the second century:
"Follow your bishop, every one of you, as obediently as Jesus Christ followed the Father. Obey your clergy too as you would the apostles; give your deacons the same reverence that you would to a command of God. Make sure that no step affecting the Church is ever taken by anyone without the bishop’s sanction. The sole EUCHARIST you should consider valid is one that is celebrated by the bishop himself, or by some person authorized by him. Where the bishop is to be seen, there let all his people be; just as, wherever Jesus Christ is present, there is the CATHOLIC CHURCH" (Letter to the Smyrneans 8:2 [A.D. 107]).
In an organism a hierarchy is required, so that it may be really active and wholesome, that is, someone who commands, someone who transmits orders, and those who obey. That is what happens in the courts of kings, as well as in religions. From the Hebrew religion to the others, even if they are so impure, there is always a chief, his ministers, the servants of the ministers, and lastly the believers. A pontiff cannot act by himself. A king cannot act by himself. And their dispositions concern only human contingencies, or the formalism of rites...
Woe, when a religion dies, and from a real living power becomes a clamorous exterior pantomime, an empty thing behind a painted scenery, behind pompous garments, the movements of devices performing certain actions, just as a key activates a spring, but neither key nor spring is conscious of what they do. The fall of a planet is less frightening than the fall of religion. If the sky should be depopulated of its stars and planets, it would not be for peoples as bad a misfortune as if they remained without religion. God would provide with provident power for the needs of men, because God can do everything for those who, in a wise way, or in the way that their ignorance knows, seek and love the Divinity in a right spirit. But if the day should come when men no longer loved God, because the priests of every religion had made only an empty pantomime of it, as they were the first not to believe in their religion, woe betide the Earth!
Now, if I say so for those religions that are impure, as some have come through partial revelation to a wise person, some derive from the instinctive need of man to create a faith for himself to nourish his soul to love a god—as this need is the strongest incentive of man, the permanent state of research for Him Who is, and Who is wanted by the spirit even if the proud intellect refuses to pay homage to any god, even if man, unaware of the soul, is unable to give a name to such need that stirs within him—what shall I say for this religion that Jesus has given, for this one that bears His Name, for this one of which He has created the apostles pontiffs and priests, for this one that He ordered the apostles to propagate all over the world? For this religion Unique, True, Perfect, Immutable in the Doctrine taught by Him, the Master, completed by the continuous teaching of Him Who will come, the Holy Spirit, the Most Holy Guide for His pontiffs and for those who will help them, second chiefs in the various Churches created in the various regions where His Word has been asserted. These Churches, although various in number, aren't different in thought, but are one thing only with the Church, as with their individual parts they form the great building, greater and greater, the great new Temple, that with its pavilions reach all the corners of the earth. Not different in thought, nor contrasting with one another, but united, brotherly to one another, all subjected to the Head of the Church, to Peter, and to his successors until the end of time.
And those that for any reason should separate from His Mother Church, would be members cut off, no longer nourished with the mystic blood that is Grace coming from Jesus, the divine Head of the Church. Like prodigal sons, separated through their own will from the paternal house, in their short-lived wealth and constant and graver and graver misery, they would be blunting their spiritual intellects by means of too heavy foods and wines, and then they would languish eating the bitter acorns of unclean animals until they returned to the paternal house, saying with contrite hearts: "We have sinned. Father, forgive us and open the doors of your abode to us." Then, whether it is a member of a separated Church, or an entire Church—oh! if it were so, but where, when will so many imitators of Jesus arise, capable of redeeming these entire separated Churches, at the cost of their lives, to make, to remake only one Fold under only one shepherd, as He ardently wishes?—then whether it is only one person or an assembly that comes back, priests are to open the doors to them.
They are to be fatherly and to not be hard on those who repent. As Jesus received the apostles as soon as they, repentant, came to Him, their successors are to do the same themselves. They are to do everything Jesus did. That is Jesus's command. His successors know His deeds and His thoughts. Whenever they find themselves in front of a case to be decided, they are to look back and behave as He had behaved. They will never go wrong. He is the living perfect example of what they have to do.
And they are to akso remember that He did not refuse Himself even to Judas of Kerioth... A priest must try to save, by all possible means. And let love always prevail, among the means used to save. They also need to consider that Jesus was not unaware of Judas' horror... But, overcoming all disgust, He treated the wretch as He treated John. Jesus's current and future priests will often be spared the bitterness of knowing that nothing is of any use to save a beloved disciple... And they will therefore be able to work without the tiredness that affects one, when one knows that everything is useless....One must work even then...always...until everything is accomplished...
Last edited:
Grailhunter
Well-Known Member
Rockerduck
Well-Known Member
Peter had no authority to choose Mathias. Jesus plainly said He chose them, and only Jesus has the authority to Choose. Who is Peter to choose two men, then ask God which one? Peter had no right to do that. Jesus chose Paul. Mathias was never mentioned again.
Similar threads
