LOL...liars lie and your points are moot...and badgering does nothing to change that.
Catholics; Do You Believe This?
- Thread starter Christ4Me
- 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!
LOL...liars lie and your points are moot...and badgering does nothing to change that.
Earburner
Well-Known Member
No, I thank YOU, for pin pointing the scriptural base that the RCC uses to support their fantasy of purgatory.
Definition of purgatory
1: an intermediate state after death for expiatory purificationspecifically : a place or state of punishment wherein according to Roman Catholic doctrine the souls of those who die in God's grace may make satisfaction for past sins and so become fit for heaven
2: a place or state of temporary suffering or misery.
1 Cor. 3:1-15 describes nothing of what your religious belief proposes it to be.
Each and everyone of us who are converted to Christ, are either doing our OWN works FOR God (wood, hay, stubble), or we are allowing God to do HIS work THOUGH us (gold, silver, precious stones).
Rom.12
[1] I beseech you therefore, brethren, by the mercies of God, that ye present your bodies a living sacrifice, holy, acceptable unto God, which is your reasonable service.
Earburner
Well-Known Member
In regards to our own discipleship in Christ, and His use of us to reconcile the unsaved to God, there is no greater authority than the Holy Spirit, who permanently resides within us, to help them see their need for Christ.
1Cor.2[5] That your faith should not stand in the wisdom of men, but in the power [Holy Spirit] of God.
Earburner
Well-Known Member
In case you didn't hear the words of the Holy Spirit through Paul, here they are again:
"....Now if any man have not the Spirit of Christ, he is none of his." Romans 8:8-9.
Earburner
Well-Known Member
Every person who has received the Spirit of Christ, is born again, being that of the Holy Spirit of God, and quite literally are baptized BY Christ, and therefore ARE IN the Person of Christ as a New creature (creation).
John.3[6] That which is born of the flesh is flesh; and that which is born of the Spirit is spirit.[7] Marvel not that I said unto thee, Ye must be born again.
Illuminator
Well-Known Member
Individualism
The tendency to magnify individual liberty, as against external authority, and individual activity, as against associated activity. Under external authority are included not merely political and religious governments, but voluntary associations, and such forms of restraint as are found in general standards of conduct and belief.
Thus, the labourer who refuses on theoretical grounds to become a member of a trade union; the reformer who rejects social and political methods, and relies upon measures to be adopted by each individual acting independently; the writer who discards some of the recognized cannons of his art; the man who regards the pronouncements of his conscience as the only standard of right and wrong; and the freethinker -- are all as truly individualists as the Evangelical Protestant or the philosophical anarchist. Through all forms of individualism runs the note of emphasis upon the importance of self in opposition to either restraint or assistance from without. Individualism is scarcely a principle, for it exhibits too many degrees, and it is too general to be called a theory or a doctrine. Perhaps it is better described as a tendency or an attitude.
Individualism
Individualism is evident in Earburner's posts.
The tendency to magnify individual liberty, as against external authority, and individual activity, as against associated activity. Under external authority are included not merely political and religious governments, but voluntary associations, and such forms of restraint as are found in general standards of conduct and belief.
Thus, the labourer who refuses on theoretical grounds to become a member of a trade union; the reformer who rejects social and political methods, and relies upon measures to be adopted by each individual acting independently; the writer who discards some of the recognized cannons of his art; the man who regards the pronouncements of his conscience as the only standard of right and wrong; and the freethinker -- are all as truly individualists as the Evangelical Protestant or the philosophical anarchist. Through all forms of individualism runs the note of emphasis upon the importance of self in opposition to either restraint or assistance from without. Individualism is scarcely a principle, for it exhibits too many degrees, and it is too general to be called a theory or a doctrine. Perhaps it is better described as a tendency or an attitude.
Individualism
Individualism is evident in Earburner's posts.
Last edited:
Earburner
Well-Known Member
The concept of "Individualism" is a construct by
"the wisdom of men".
John.3[3] Jesus answered and said unto him, Verily, verily, I say unto thee, Except a man be born again, he cannot see [perceive] the kingdom of God.
Isaiah 55[8] For my thoughts are not your thoughts, neither are your ways my ways, saith the LORD.
Zech.4[6] Then he answered and spake unto me, saying, This is the word of the LORD unto Zerubbabel, saying,
Not by might [human effort],
nor by power [religious persuasion]
but by my spirit [the Holy Spirit],
saith the LORD of hosts.
John.16[13] Howbeit when he, the [Holy] Spirit of truth, is come [unto you], HE will guide you into ALL truth: for he shall not speak of himself; but whatsoever he shall hear, that shall he speak: and he will shew you things to come.
1 Corinthians 2:1-16
[5] That your faith should not stand in the wisdom of men, but [rather] in the power of God.
[15] But he that is spiritual judgeth all things, yet he himself is judged of no man.
[16] For who hath known the mind of the Lord, that he may instruct him? But we [who are born again] HAVE the mind of Christ.
Expressly FALSE.
Sure the “keys” represent authority.
God revealed HOW Peter received THAT authority.
Jesus reiterated HOW Peter received THAT authority.
“THAT” revealing authority to “bind and loose”, revealed first to Simon Barjona, Began, with the knowledge OF HOW, but did not end with Simon Barjona.
The HOW - the authority IS received.
Matt 16:
[17] And Jesus answered and said unto him, Blessed art thou, Simon Barjona: for
The WHAT - was revealed to Simon Barjona, By the Father in Heaven?
Jesus IS the Christ, the Son of the Living God.
WHAT was given
...same we should ALL EXPECT, as foretold...A NEW NAME.
KEY(S).
KEY(S), plural? Does Peter carry ALL the KEY(S) exclusively?
OR
Was Simon Barjona simply the FIRST of MANKIND, to receive exclusively the KNOWLEDGE FROM God...THAT:
Jesus IS the Christ, the Son of the Living God?
** ALL of the Apostles were gathered together with Jesus.
Jesus was questioning ALL of them....WHO JESUS IS.
** NONE, knew the ANSWER.
God GAVE Simon Barjona the ANSWER.
And THE MOMENT, Simon Barjona ANSWERED Jesus and SAID:
Jesus IS the Christ, the Son of the Living God...
Jesus immediately revealed, a man having that Knowledge IS BLESSED.
Immediately when Simon Barjona SPOKE the ANSWER...
ALL of the other APOSTLES, “THEN” also KNEW the ANSWER TO Jesus’ QUESTION.
Every Apostle, thereafter, HAD access TO the KEY(S).
Multiple men...knowing, believing;
Jesus IS the Christ, the Son of the Living God.
Multiple KEY(S) of Authority, TO Bind and Loose.
What is the POINT of teaching other men HOW TO obtain AUTHORITY to BIND and LOOSE....”IF” the THAT AUTHORITY and those MULTIPLE “KEY(S)” were exclusive to ONLY Simon Barjona?
Does your “Catholic Church” teach, MEN you call by the title PRIEST, have authority to BIND and LOOSE?
WHERE DID “THEY” get a KEY to do that, IF Peter is the Exclusive holder of the “KEYS”?
* God established the “rules”.
* The “KEYS” of Authority to bind and loose, IS VIA having the KNOWLEDGE...of “Jesus IS the Christ, the Son of the Living God”...
AND...Believing the KNOWLEDGE...that “Jesus IS the Christ, the Son of the Living God”.
* The KEYS of Authority to bind and loose, does NOT rest exclusively with Simon Barjona, or ANY other individual Apostle.
* The KEY(S) of Authority, to bind and loose, RESTS with EVERY individual WHOSE knowledge AND Belief IS;
Jesus IS the Christ, the Son of the Living God....
WHICH IS Christ, the ROCK foundation of Christ’s Church.
The CHURCH, (exclusively meaning) Christ’s Church, rests ON THE ROCK, which IS Christ.
Every man ADDED to Christ’s Church, are as little stones upon stones, building Christ’s Spiritual Church.
Every man ADDED to Christ’s Church, are ALL resting ON THE SAME ROCK foundation....Knowing, Believing, Committed via Baptism...
THAT:
Jesus IS the Christ, the Son of the Living God.
Priority! Order and Way.
God forms “relationships” with INDIVIDUALS!
INDIVIDUALS individually CHOOSE to form a “relationship” with God.
You are not “WITH” God because your “neighbor” individually chooses to have a relationship “WITH” God.
Nor is your “neighbor” in a relationship “WITH” God, Because you have individually chosen to have a relationship “WITH” God.
Context, Order, Way!
Sort of ODD...Catholic teach KEYS exclusive to Simon Barjona/Peter...
Yet “somehow” “their Catholic PRIESTS” have access to the SAME KEYS, but others, DO NOT...hummm??
Their conundrum for which I see no explanation from their (Catholic) perspective.??
Earburner
Well-Known Member
Spiritually speaking,
"Keys" lock [bind] and unlock [loose] a door, who in this case is Jesus.
John.10[7] Then said Jesus unto them again, Verily, verily, I say unto you, I am the door OF the sheep.
[9] I am the door: by me if any man enter in, he shall be saved, and shall go in and out, and find pasture.
It is the Holy Spirit who has the power of the "keys".
Therefore, if "the keys to the kingdom" is given to a man, then it is simply meaning that they have received God's Holy Spirit by Jesus Himself, baptizing them with the Authority of God's Holy Spirit, so that the Holy Spirit within them can convince and convict others to come to the door [Jesus] so that they may ALSO open the door to Jesus.
Rev.3[20] Behold, I stand at the door, and knock: if any man hear my voice, and open the door, I will come in to him, and will sup with him, and he with me [have a personal relationship with].
In the following painting/picture, have you ever noticed what's missing on the door from Jesus' side??
Google Image Result for https://assets.ldscdn.org/11/8c/118c97b17368d36de142e856069195cbb2cb660b/jesus_at_the_door.jpeg
I'm not Roman Catholic (anymore), but let me take a shot at this "keys of the kingdom" stuff:
John 20:22-23 tells us that all of the apostles -- not just Peter -- were given the power to "forgive" sins (or, more probably, to declare when God's forgiveness would or would not be obtained). To the 99 per cent of readers on this site who will immediately object that forgiveness of sin comes solely from faith in Christ without the need for any human being to declare it or withhold a declaration of it, let's just put aside the question of why, then, John 20:22-23 was even penned (you can worry about that later) -- and focus solely on the issue of successorship to that power to "forgive" sins.
No recorded words of Christ discuss successorship to whatever power was conferred on the apostles in John 20:22-23 -- or for that matter, on Peter in Matt. 16:18. There is a smattering of discussion in Acts and in the epistles of commissioning, laying on of hands and that sort of thing, but no discussion of what, if any, special power that might transfer to the recipient. Yet the writings of the early Church Fathers attest to a class of bishops and presbyters and deacons, a class which arose quite quickly (late First Century), and endured. Church leaders got appointed (in Matthias' case, elected), and the episcopate as we now know it got its roots.
The preeminence of Peter among the apostles is not something I need to quibble with. Protestant challenges to the standard Catholic interpretation of Jesus’ words recounted in Matthew’s gospel, declaring Peter to be the “rock” upon which his Church will be built, have never been entirely persuasive to me. In their zeal to decry papal authority, they interpret the passage in myriad alternative ways – most popularly that the “rock” is Peter’s confession about Jesus as the Son of God rather than Peter himself – but they rarely look at the broader context. Peter’s special role in the early Church is well attested in the New Testament and elsewhere.
But the Pope's successorship to Peter? That I WILL quibble with.
As noted, the gospel passages which reference Peter’s special role are silent on handing off that leadership role to any single successor. Not to a surviving member of the Twelve. Not to someone otherwise close to Jesus (James’ leadership of the Church in Jerusalem even while Peter himself was active there is a special case, and a subject for another day). Not to a replacement chosen by lot. Not to the next bishop of wherever Peter ended up at the end of his life (presumably Rome). Not to anyone.
Through Irenaeus’s Against Heresies (Book III, Chapter 3) we can trace the succession of Roman bishops, but not any argument for Roman primacy over the Church at large, i.e., beyond the See of Rome. He calls it “a matter of necessity that every Church should agree with this (Roman) Church, on account of its preeminent authority,” but offers no reason why this should be so. Absent any early mention of such a transfer of worldwide leadership authority, we might look for some written record showing that in the first several centuries of Christianity believers throughout the rest of the Mediterranean world recognized the Bishop of Rome as having primacy over other bishops. And I have looked. Here is what I find:
First, the one most pointed to is the Epistle of Clement of Rome to the Church at Corinth, toward the end of the First Century, urging the Corinthians not to depose their own leaders. I find this equivocal at best. Some have argued that because it responds to a matter on which the Corinthians had apparently consulted Rome, these Corinthians must have recognized Rome’s hegemony. But read its tenor, and one thing jumps out: this is not the writing of a man who thought he could impose his will in Greece. (Indeed, in chapter 56 he suggests to the dissenting Corinthians that “they should submit themselves, I do not say unto us, but unto the will of God.”)
Second, in the middle of the third century, Pope Stephen’s view regarding the efficacy of baptism by heretics was rejected by 87 bishops at a Council of Carthage, at which Cyprian stated: “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.” CHURCH FATHERS: On the Baptism of Heretics (Council of Carthage)
Third, there is evidence of various sees (Rome, Antioch, Alexandria) having authority over neighboring provinces or otherwise associated bishoprics, but with complete autonomy in their own spheres, i.e., Alexandria and Antioch gave no deference to Rome. In 325 the Council of Nicaea produced, aside from its famous Creed, about twenty canons, the sixth of which suggests if not confirms the equal standing of these three sees. www.fourthcentury.com/nicaea-325-canons/
I conclude that in mid- Fourth Century and earlier, Rome had no jurisdiction over eastern bishoprics. Afterwards the notion started to gain traction. The schism that eventually split Eastern Orthodoxy and the Western Church proves that it never gained complete support. But my point is that the primacy of the Bishops of Rome (beyond Peter) cannot be traced back to the traditions of the early Church.
John 20:22-23 tells us that all of the apostles -- not just Peter -- were given the power to "forgive" sins (or, more probably, to declare when God's forgiveness would or would not be obtained). To the 99 per cent of readers on this site who will immediately object that forgiveness of sin comes solely from faith in Christ without the need for any human being to declare it or withhold a declaration of it, let's just put aside the question of why, then, John 20:22-23 was even penned (you can worry about that later) -- and focus solely on the issue of successorship to that power to "forgive" sins.
No recorded words of Christ discuss successorship to whatever power was conferred on the apostles in John 20:22-23 -- or for that matter, on Peter in Matt. 16:18. There is a smattering of discussion in Acts and in the epistles of commissioning, laying on of hands and that sort of thing, but no discussion of what, if any, special power that might transfer to the recipient. Yet the writings of the early Church Fathers attest to a class of bishops and presbyters and deacons, a class which arose quite quickly (late First Century), and endured. Church leaders got appointed (in Matthias' case, elected), and the episcopate as we now know it got its roots.
The preeminence of Peter among the apostles is not something I need to quibble with. Protestant challenges to the standard Catholic interpretation of Jesus’ words recounted in Matthew’s gospel, declaring Peter to be the “rock” upon which his Church will be built, have never been entirely persuasive to me. In their zeal to decry papal authority, they interpret the passage in myriad alternative ways – most popularly that the “rock” is Peter’s confession about Jesus as the Son of God rather than Peter himself – but they rarely look at the broader context. Peter’s special role in the early Church is well attested in the New Testament and elsewhere.
But the Pope's successorship to Peter? That I WILL quibble with.
As noted, the gospel passages which reference Peter’s special role are silent on handing off that leadership role to any single successor. Not to a surviving member of the Twelve. Not to someone otherwise close to Jesus (James’ leadership of the Church in Jerusalem even while Peter himself was active there is a special case, and a subject for another day). Not to a replacement chosen by lot. Not to the next bishop of wherever Peter ended up at the end of his life (presumably Rome). Not to anyone.
Through Irenaeus’s Against Heresies (Book III, Chapter 3) we can trace the succession of Roman bishops, but not any argument for Roman primacy over the Church at large, i.e., beyond the See of Rome. He calls it “a matter of necessity that every Church should agree with this (Roman) Church, on account of its preeminent authority,” but offers no reason why this should be so. Absent any early mention of such a transfer of worldwide leadership authority, we might look for some written record showing that in the first several centuries of Christianity believers throughout the rest of the Mediterranean world recognized the Bishop of Rome as having primacy over other bishops. And I have looked. Here is what I find:
First, the one most pointed to is the Epistle of Clement of Rome to the Church at Corinth, toward the end of the First Century, urging the Corinthians not to depose their own leaders. I find this equivocal at best. Some have argued that because it responds to a matter on which the Corinthians had apparently consulted Rome, these Corinthians must have recognized Rome’s hegemony. But read its tenor, and one thing jumps out: this is not the writing of a man who thought he could impose his will in Greece. (Indeed, in chapter 56 he suggests to the dissenting Corinthians that “they should submit themselves, I do not say unto us, but unto the will of God.”)
Second, in the middle of the third century, Pope Stephen’s view regarding the efficacy of baptism by heretics was rejected by 87 bishops at a Council of Carthage, at which Cyprian stated: “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.” CHURCH FATHERS: On the Baptism of Heretics (Council of Carthage)
Third, there is evidence of various sees (Rome, Antioch, Alexandria) having authority over neighboring provinces or otherwise associated bishoprics, but with complete autonomy in their own spheres, i.e., Alexandria and Antioch gave no deference to Rome. In 325 the Council of Nicaea produced, aside from its famous Creed, about twenty canons, the sixth of which suggests if not confirms the equal standing of these three sees. www.fourthcentury.com/nicaea-325-canons/
I conclude that in mid- Fourth Century and earlier, Rome had no jurisdiction over eastern bishoprics. Afterwards the notion started to gain traction. The schism that eventually split Eastern Orthodoxy and the Western Church proves that it never gained complete support. But my point is that the primacy of the Bishops of Rome (beyond Peter) cannot be traced back to the traditions of the early Church.
Illuminator
Well-Known Member
Call it whatever you like. All big words are constructs. Your obvious Individualism, as described in post #147, fits you to a "T", which you casually dismissed with a catch phrase.
Last edited:
BreadOfLife
Well-Known Member
- Jan 2, 2017
- 20,960
- 3,408
- 113
- Faith
- Christian
- Country
- United States
Funny how the Jews believed in this same "fantasy" . . .
In 2 Macc. 42-46, we see that Judas Maccabeus prays for the men of his army, killed in battle.
Verse 44 says, “… for if he were not expecting the fallen to rise again, it would have been useless and foolish to pray for them in death.”
Matt. 5:25-26 tells us that unless we have settled our matters, we will be “handed over to the prison guard and will not be released until we have paid the last penny.”
And as I already showed you - 1 Cor. 3:15 states firmly -
that one will suffer loss; the person will be saved, but only as through fire.”
- This can't be Heaven - because there is NO suffering in Heaven.
- This can't be Hell - because the person is eventually SAVED.
- This is describing a THIRD state - that of Final Purification before entering into Heaven.
This is the very defintion of Purgatory.
Finally, Matt. 12:32 states, “whoever speaks against the Holy Spirit will not be forgiven, either in this age or in the age to come”, which indicates that there is purification after death for some. Matt. 18:32-35 and Luke 12:58-59 are additional verses that support this doctrine.
Now - give me a SCRIPTURAL refutation of this SCRIPTURAL argument that I have presented.
Leave your personal opinions at the door . . .
BreadOfLife
Well-Known Member
- Jan 2, 2017
- 20,960
- 3,408
- 113
- Faith
- Christian
- Country
- United States
EVERY ONE of these verses is a warning to converted, bopen again Christians who have been indwelt with the Holy Spirit - NOT to fall nack into darkness, lest they LOSE their secure position:
Romans 11:22
“See, then, the kindness and severity of God: severity toward those who fell, but God's kindness to you, provided you REMAIN in his kindness; otherwise you to will be cut off.”
Paul is warning the faithful to REMAIN in God’s favor or they will lose their salvation. How can they lose what they never had?
Hebrews 10:26-27
“If we sin deliberately AFTER receiving KNOWLEDGE of the truth, there no longer remains sacrifice for sins but a fearful prospect of judgment and a flaming fire that is going to consume the adversaries.”
This is a clear warning that falling away from God will result in the loss of our salvation. The Greek ford for “knowledge” used here is NOT the usual word (oida). This is talking about a full, experiential knowledge (epignosei). This verse is about CHRISTIANS who had an EPIGNOSIS of Christ and who can fall back into darkness and LOSE their salvation by their own doing.
2 Peter 2:20-22
For if they, having escaped the defilements of the world through the KNOWLEDGE of our Lord and savior Jesus Christ, again become entangled and overcome by them, their last condition is worse than their first.
For it would have been better for them not to have KNOWN the way of righteousness than after knowing it to turn back from the holy commandment handed down to them.
Here, Peter illustrates that those who had a full, experiential knowledge (epignosei) of Christ – CHRISTIANS – who can fall back into darkness and LOSE their salvation by their own doing.
Matt. 5:13
You are the salt of the earth. But if salt loses its taste, with what can it be seasoned? It is no longer good for anything but to be thrown out and trampled underfoot.
This one is self-explanatory . . .
1 Cor. 9:27
"I pummel my body and subdue it, lest after preaching to others I myself should be disqualified."
Paul is saying that he wrestles with his own fleshly desires so that he might not fall back into sin.
2 Peter 3:17
Therefore, dear friends, since you already know this, be on your guard so that you may not be carried away by the error of lawless men and fall from your secure position.
Peter is warning the faithful not to fall back into sin and lawlessness.
1 John 2:24
See that what you have heard from the beginning remains in you. IF it does, you also will REMAIN in the Son and in the Father.
This is an admonition to try to remain faithful.
Rev. 3:5
He who overcomes will, like them, be dressed in white. I will never blot out his name from the book of life, but will acknowledge his name before my Father and his angels.
God cannot blot out a name that was never there in the first place. He is talking about CHRISTIANS who are already saved and how they can LOSE their salvation.
Rev. 22:19
And if anyone takes words away from this book of prophecy, God will take away from him his share in the tree of life and in the holy city, which are described in this book.
God cannot “take away” somebody’s “share” of heaven if they never had it to begin with? This is about CHRISTIANS who may or may NOT make it into Heaven.
BreadOfLife
Well-Known Member
- Jan 2, 2017
- 20,960
- 3,408
- 113
- Faith
- Christian
- Country
- United States
Explain why Paul differentiates between the clergy and the Laity with in those verses with the words, "I", "WE", "US" and "YOU".
So WE are ambassadors for Christ, as if God were appealing through US. WE implore YOU on behalf of Christ, be reconciled to God.”
"For indeed what I have forgiven, if I have forgiven anything, has been for YOU in the presence of Christ.”
I'll waith right here for your answer . . .
Illuminator
Well-Known Member
The keys were given to Peter first, as an individual, then given to the Apostles collectively. This is a clear indication of Peter's primacy. The power to forgive sins did not die out with the death of the last Apostle.
Jesus never intended a monarchical papacy in the corrupt sense of the Pope being an absolute worldly monarch, but the church leadership Jesus intended was ‘monarchical’ in the sense that it was based on his authority as King of Kings...
...We find no evidence of a network of independent, local churches ruled democratically by individual congregations. Instead, from the beginning we find the churches ruled by elders (bishops) So in the New Testament we find the apostles appointing elders in the churches. (Acts 14:23; Titus 1:5) The elders kept in touch with the apostles and with the elders of the other churches through travel and communication by epistle. (I Pt.1:1; 5:1) Anne Rice, the author of the Christ the Lord series of novels, points out how excellent and rapid the lines of communication and travel were in the Roman Empire.
In the early church we do not find independent congregations meeting on their own and determining their own affairs by reading the Bible. We have to remember that in the first two centuries there was no Bible as such for the canon of the New Testament had not yet been decided. Instead, from the earliest time we find churches ruled by the bishops and clergy whose authenticity is validated by their succession from the apostles. So Clement of Rome writes, “Our apostles also knew, through our Lord Jesus Christ, that there would be strife on the question of the bishop’s office. Therefore for this reason… they appointed the aforesaid persons and later made further provision that if they should fall asleep other tested men should succeed to their ministry.” Ignatius of Antioch in Syria writes letters to six different churches and instructs the Romans, “be submissive to the bishop and to one another as Jesus Christ was to the Father and the Apostles to Christ…that there may be unity.”
This apostolic ministry was present in each city, but centralized in Rome. The idea of a church being independent, local and congregational is rejected. Thus, by the late second century Irenaeus writes, “Those who wish to see the truth can observe in every church the tradition of the Apostles made manifest in the whole world…therefore we refute those who hold unauthorized assemblies…by pointing to the greatest and oldest church, a church known to all men, which was founded and established at Rome by the most renowned Apostles Peter and Paul…for this Church has the position of leadership and authority, and therefore every church, that is, the faithful everywhere must needs agree with the church at Rome for in her the apostolic tradition has ever been preserved by the faithful from all parts of the world.”
As we have seen, the idea of a monarchical papacy was there from the beginning in Jesus’ identity as the Great scion of David the King with Peter as his steward. The steward, like the king he served, was to be the servant and shepherd of all, but he was also meant to rule as through the charism of individual leadership. This form of governance was hierarchical from the beginning for it is grounded in Jesus’ own concept of the Kingdom of God. A kingdom is hierarchical through and through, and the church, as Christ’s kingdom is hierarchical from its foundations. Furthermore, the leadership of the Jewish church (on which the Christian church was modeled) was hierarchical with it’s orders of rabbis, priests and elders.
Obedience to the bishop as the head of the church was crucial. So Ignatius of Antioch writes to the Christians at Smyrna and condemns individualistic congregationalism in terms that are clearly hierarchical: “All of you follow the bishop as Jesus Christ followed the Father, and the presbytery as the Apostles; respect the deacons as ordained by God. Let no one do anything that pertains to the church apart from the bishop. Let that be considered a valid Eucharist which is under the bishop or one who he has delegated….it is not permitted to baptize or hold a love feast independently of the bishop.”
The hierarchical nature of the church is confirmed and sealed through the apostolic succession. Church leaders are appointed by the successors of the apostles, and there is a clear chain of command which validates a church and it’s ministry. So Ireneaeus writes, “It is our duty to obey those presbyters who are in the Church who have their succession from the Apostles..the others who stand apart from the primitive succession and assemble in any place whatever we ought to regard with suspicion either as heretics and unsound in doctrine or as schismatics…all have fallen away from the truth.”
Throughout the New Testament and the writings of the Apostolic Fathers the church is portrayed as centralized, hierarchical and universal. The need for unity is stressed. Heresy and schism are anathema. Unity is guaranteed by allegiance to the clear hierarchical chain of command: God sent his Son Jesus. Jesus sent the Apostles. The Apostles appointed their successors. The Bishops are in charge. So Clement of Rome writes, “The Apostles received the gospel for us from the Lord Jesus Christ: Jesus the Christ was sent from God. Thus Christ is from God, the Apostles from Christ. in both cases the process was orderly and derived from the will of God.”
Authority of the First Popes - Fr. Dwight Longenecker
Redfan's false conclusion: "the primacy of the Bishops of Rome (beyond Peter) cannot be traced back to the traditions of the early Church", collapses in a heap.
Last edited:
Illuminator
Well-Known Member
Wrong. There was no problem of authority in the early Church. Everyone knew how doctrinal controversies could be definitively resolved. Even as early as the 2nd century we observe the strong authority of Pope Victor (r. 189-98) with regard to the Quartodecimen controversy (over the dating of Easter). St. Clement of Rome exercised much authority in the late 1st century.
In the 3rd century, Pope St. Stephen reverses the decision of St. Cyprian of Carthage and a council of African bishops regarding a question of baptism. St. Cyprian had appealed both to Popes Cornelius and Stephen to resolve this issue. Shortly thereafter, many appeals were made to popes for various reasons, which would lead one to believe that the pope had some special authority: at least primacy, if not supremacy:
1. St. Athanasius (4th century) appeals to Pope Julius I, from an unjust decision rendered against him by Oriental Bishops, and the pope reverses the sentence.
2. St. Basil the Great (4th century), Archbishop of Caesarea pleads for the protection of Pope Damasus.
3. St. John Chysostom, in the early 5th century, appeals to Pope Innocent I, for a redress of grievances inflicted upon him by several Eastern Prelates, and by Empress Eudoxia of Constantinople.
4. St. Cyril (5th century) appeals to Pope Celestine against Nestorius; Nestorius also does so, but the Pope favors Cyril.
5. Theodoret, Bishop of Cyrrhus, is condemned by the Robber-Council of 449, and appealed to Pope Leo the Great, who declared the deposition invalid; Theodoret was restored to his See.
6. John, Abbot of Constantinople (6th century) appeals from the decision of the Patriarch of that city to Pope St. Gregory the Great, who reverses the sentence.
This strikes me as a great deal of “authority.” All these people were from the East — many of the most revered figures, I might add. They knew where the authority resided; they knew how to settle conflicts authoritatively in favor of orthodoxy. Do Orthodox want to say that they were all deluded in this regard? That if they had been in their shoes, they wouldn’t have known where to go for redress against injustice or persecution? They wouldn’t have known who spoke for the Universal Church; the Catholic Church; or for orthodoxy?
https://www.patheos.com/blogs/davea...orthodoxy-councils-doctrinal-development.html
Last edited:
Similar threads
