Posted on 05/15/2008 8:29:34 AM PDT by Manfred the Wonder Dawg
In the beginning of the church (first ten years) all the believers were Jews. The church began and was established in Jerusalem where Jesus did a good portion of his preaching and was crucified and raised.
The gospel went out from Jerusalem "you shall be witnesses to Me in Jerusalem, and in all Judea and Samaria, and to the end of the earth" Acts 1:8
Luke 24:47-48 that repentance and remission of sins should be preached in His name to all nations, beginning at Jerusalem. (see Acts 10:36-37)
It wasn’t until years later that the gospel went to the Gentiles Acts 8:1 “At that time a great persecution arose against the church which was at Jerusalem; and they were all scattered throughout the regions of Judea and Samaria, except the apostles.”
It was Saul who was given the commission who bought the gospel to the Gentile regions, even Rome., Paul tells his story to Agrippa Acts 26:19-20 "Therefore, King Agrippa, I was not disobedient to the heavenly vision, but declared first to those in Damascus and in Jerusalem, and throughout all the region of Judea , and then to the Gentiles."
The "Jerusalem Council" in Acts 15 shows us a number of things- first, Rome was not headquarters of the Church; Jerusalem was the focus (not the head) because the Jewish leadership had to decide on how to act with the Gentiles being saved in great numbers A serious doctrinal disagreement had arisen with the Gentiles beginning to be saved. Paul was present because he was the main apostle sent out to the gentiles with Barnabas. Then the Apostles and Elders met to consider the matter (15:6). If Peter had any special authority above all the other apostles, he would have called the Council together, officiated at the meeting, and given his final judgment in these matters by himself, but he did not. There was no Pope over the church then. James, who was the pastor of the Jerusalem church stood up and became the central figure in this council, and his appeal was in agreement with the other elders, it was to the Word of God and the Spirit (Acts 15:13-21) not to the church itself.
It was not until the early 300’s the church stopped hiding underground from persecution and became a legal entity that the power was shifted to pagan Rome, specifically under Constantine the conqueror. The Pope became like the Caesars before him in Rome, only now with a Christian veneer. First there was little influence, but the doors slowly swung open to allow the pagans to enter the church through water baptism instead of a confession of faith. The church mixed other teachings not found in the Bible and polluted itself to becoming religious and giving meaning to the outward rituals not understanding their spiritual intent.
There is no evidence to suggest Christianity was popular before Constantine. Even after Constantine the church still faced persecution as Augustine and other of the fathers write. In fact, Augustine talks about how people were so willing to die for Christianity that they went out of their way to be martyred. Augustine had to persuaded them they would be more useful here. It certainly wasn't popular until around 500 AD and like Manfred alluded to, Gnosticism slowly crept in-it wasn't quick as I accidentally implied.
I think there is significant evidence to suggest paganism entered the church after this time. Many of the Roman temples dedicated to Venus were converted to churches for Mary. It's not hard to go back and look at the history of these churches in Rome and the Catholics are rather up front about the matter. It was a small step from worshiping Venus to focusing on Mary. It all happened around the time of Constantine.
I thank you for an intelligent response. But I disagree. Look at his comments:
“This article is basically rubbish, Manfred.”
“This paragraph is just plain nutty”
Does he not, with his own comments, reveal a bias? A random look at any number of his posts will clearly reveal he is a proud advocate for the Roman Catholic Church - that’s his “RCC lens”! I didn’t attach it to him - he did and he’s proud of it.
I have every reason to believe your correspondent is indeed Catholic. But neither you nor I can read his mind, e.g. say that he is not being objective.
“Honestly, I would have surprised with any other answer.
For me, any doctrine that detracts from the Lord Jesus and puffs up any human in His place (such as in being Head of the church) is wrong - as nowhere in Scripture do we see such teaching explicitly; only pulled out in bits and pieces to become the traditions of this church or that.
Hold to what you will. The Bible tells us that only God is to be fully trusted - no group of men or individual can stand in His place.”
I was hoping you’d address my comments directly as it goes to the question you yourself posed in this thread, that you yourself began.
I do agree no man should be “puffed” up. I know you would not call Moses “puffed” up, nor Aaron, or Abraham, or Isaac, Daniel, John the Baptist, or any prophet; because God singled these men out throughout human history for a mission, leadership, Kingship, Chief Priest or whatever.
If Peter claimed this authority falsely, he would in fact be “puffed” up. But, we know the Lord himself addresses Peter in a singular fashion: ‘whatever you (singular) hold bound on earth, is bound in heaven; whatever you (singular) hold loosed on earth is loosed in heaven.’ Similarly, the Lord addressed Peter in singular “you” about confirming the brethren, after he prayed that Simon’s faith would not fail.
I agree with you, only the Lord can be fully trusted. Yet there is no contradiction in knowing, as we do, that when an all powerful God could have done it all Himself in human history without any human agencies involved, God - incredibly - chose to involve men in executing His will in time; and that God expect men to accept them as his servants.
To me then, it does not contradict scripture, faith or reason to see that the Lord institued his Church with an earthly organization that included Peter, as chief of the apostles (and his successors) and the apostles (and their successors, the bishops) for the purpose of insuring the orderly transmission, propagation, handing down and interpretation of the faith in history.
As Peter and all the other Apostles did, and as documented IN THE BIBLE (Peter with the VERY FIRST GENTILES, and Philip with the Ethiopian eunuch). The old hoo-ha about "only Paul ministered to the Gentiles" gets old after a while.
Was Paul a Jew?
Yes, St. Paul was a Jew.
I thought that he was born in modern day Turkey and was a Roman citizen. That’s all I know. In what sense was he a Jew or when did he become one?
So then we should not see any kind of universal authority being exercized by the Bishop of Rome prior to the early 300s, is that correct?
And there should not be any Christian writer in, say, the 100s or 200s asserting any kind of special honor or power or privilege of the Bishop of Rome? That only happened after Constantine....is that the position you are staking out?
The fact that he lived in Tarsus and was a Roman citizen do not detract from the fact that he was a Jew. There was already a Diaspora at that point.
A very very important point Miles, and worth repeating ad nauseam. Those that place a high premium on the Bible as the sole rule of faith need to understand that John 1:42 states flatly and unequivocally that Greek "Petros" is a translation of Aramaic "Cephas".
I think that puts a dagger in the heart of the whole Petros/petra theory myself. It simply cannot be supported without contradicting the Bible.
While I agree with the article (which is why I posted it), I did not write it - so it’s not “my position” that the article stakes out.
I’m reading a couple books that examine this issue. What I am convinced of is that what emerged as the RCC did not exist until the 4th century. I am convinced that nowhere dos the Scripture tell us to have a central Earthly authority over His people who are scattered around the globe. A study of the churches as described in the new Testament shows each of them (with one bad exception) led by a group of elders (not a priest in the lot), and not subject to an elder from another church - connected but not subjected.
The basic structure and practice of the RCC simply flies in the face of what I see revealed in Scripture.
Would that pass muster ? I like the metaphor.What if that were modified to "viewed through the RCC lens"
Matthew. 16:18 And I tell you that you are Peter, and on this Rock I will build my church,shalom b'SHEM Yah'shua HaMashiach Adonai
Jesus said unto Peter; “You are Peter, and on this rock I will build my Church”
One method of Hermeneutical understanding of Matthew 16:18
is to do a word study of all the scriptures which were then known
as the Holy Word of G-d when Yah'shua spoke these words.
This will allow one to understand that all of the Holy Word of G-d
was inspired by YHvH; the whole counsel of G-d.
The only conclusion that one can come to unless you are
predisposed to believe in man's tradition over the Holy Word of G-d
is that Yah'shua was speaking of himself as the "Rock "
e.g.
Peter himself refers to Yah'shua as the "rock" in
Genesis 49:24 But his bow remained steady, his strong arms stayed
[Or archers will attack...will shoot...will remain...will stay] supple,
because of the hand of the Mighty One of Jacob,
because of the Shepherd, the Rock of Israel,
Deuteronomy 32:3 I will proclaim the name of the LORD. Oh, praise the greatness of our God!
Deuteronomy 32:4 He is the Rock , his works are perfect, and all his ways are
just. A faithful God who does no wrong, upright and just is he.
Deuteronomy 32:15 ..... He abandoned the God who made him and rejected the Rock his Saviour.
Deuteronomy 32:30 How could one man chase a thousand, or two put ten
thousand to flight, unless their Rock had sold them, unless
the LORD had given them up?
Deuteronomy 32:31 For their rock is not like our Rock , as even our enemies concede
Deuteronomy 32:32 Their vine comes from the vine of Sodom and from the fields of Gomorrah.
Their grapes are filled with poison, and their clusters with bitterness.
1 Samuel 2:2 "There is no-one holy [Or no Holy One] like the LORD;
there is no-one besides you; there is no Rock like our God.
2 Samuel 22:2 He said: "The LORD is my Rock , my fortress and my deliverer;
2 Samuel 22:3 my God is my Rock , in whom I take refuge, my shield and the
horn [Horn here symbolises strength.] of my salvation.
He is my stronghold, my refuge and my saviour — from violent men you save me.
2 Samuel 22:32 For who is God besides the LORD? And who is the Rock except our God?
2 Samuel 22:47 "The LORD lives! Praise be to my Rock ! Exalted be God, the Rock , my Saviour!
2 Samuel 23:3 The God of Israel spoke, the Rock of Israel said to me:
'When one rules over men in righteousness, when he rules in the fear of God,
Psalm 18:31 For who is God besides the LORD? And who is the Rock except our God?
Psalm 18:46 The LORD lives! Praise be to my Rock ! Exalted be God my Saviour!
Psalm 19:14 May the words of my mouth and the meditation of my heart
be pleasing in your sight, O LORD, my Rock and my Redeemer.
Psalm 42:9 I say to God my Rock , "Why have you forgotten me? Why must I go about mourning, oppressed by the enemy?"
Psalm 78:35 They remembered that God was their Rock , that God Most High was their Redeemer.
Psalm 89:26 He will call out to me, `You are my Father, my God, the Rock my Saviour.'
Psalm 92:15 ..... "YHvH is upright; he is my Rock , and there is no wickedness in him."
Psalm 95:1 Come, let us sing for joy to the LORD; let us shout aloud to the Rock of our salvation.
Psalm 144:1 Praise be to the LORD my Rock , who trains my hands for war, my fingers for battle.
Habakkuk 1:12 O LORD, are you not from everlasting? My God, my Holy
One, we will not die. O LORD, you have appointed them to
execute judgment; O Rock , you have ordained them to punish.
1 Peter 2:1-10NAsbU 1 Peter 2:
1 Therefore, putting aside all malice and all deceit and hypocrisy and envy and all slander,
2 like newborn babies, long for the pure milk of the word, so that by it you may grow in respect to salvation,
3 if you have tasted the kindness of the Lord.
4 And coming to Him as to a living stone which has been rejected by men, but is choice and precious in the sight of God,
5 you also, as living stones, are being built up as a spiritual house for a holy priesthood, to offer up spiritual sacrifices
acceptable to God through Jesus Christ.
6 For this is contained in Scripture: "BEHOLD, I LAY IN ZION A CHOICE STONE, A PRECIOUS CORNER stone,
AND HE WHO BELIEVES IN HIM WILL NOT BE DISAPPOINTED."
7 This precious value, then, is for you who believe; but for those who disbelieve, "THE STONE WHICH THE BUILDERS REJECTED,
THIS BECAME THE VERY CORNER stone,"
8 and, "A STONE OF STUMBLING AND A ROCK OF OFFENSE"; for they stumble because they are disobedient to the word,
and to this doom they were also appointed.
9 But you are A CHOSEN RACE, A royal PRIESTHOOD, A HOLY NATION, A PEOPLE FOR God's OWN POSSESSION,
so that you may proclaim the excellencies of Him who has called you out of darkness into His marvelous light;
10 for you once were NOT A PEOPLE, but now you are THE PEOPLE OF GOD; you had NOT RECEIVED MERCY,
but now you have RECEIVED MERCY.
Manfred, I’m less interesting in what you think of Rome in general than what you think of a specific historical charge that is made in the article. Maybe the Catholic Church is wrong on a million things. Okay. But is it wrong on this—that’s the question.
The charge is made in that article that the Bishop of Rome exercized no “papal” authority in the years before Constantine “paganized” things. If that were true, we would not see that kind of authority reflected in the Christian writers of the 1st, 2nd, and third centuries, right?
And yes, I am baiting a hook here. :)
But you are trying to sow division where there need not be any. Christ is a Rock, the primary Rock, we can all agree that. But because God is our Father, can we not have lesser fathers? Because Christ is our teacher, can we not have lesser teachers? Are we forbidden ever to say to a loved one who stands by us “you are a rock”??
This whole passage is about the bestowal (the shocking bestowal) of divine prerogatives to this fisherman: You are Rock, and upon this Rock....I will give you the keys of the kingdom of heaven...what you bind on earth will be bound in heaven.
It would be in keeping with the whole meaning of this passage that Christ share, as it were, a little bit of his Rock-hood with Peter. But your exegesis doesn’t do that. Your exegesis wants us to believe that Christ shared all these divine prerogatives with Peter (keys, binding and loosing), except for this notion of being the “Rock”, which He for some reason kept entirely to Himself.
No, Christ is the Rock, and Christ made Peter a rock as well. That’s the only way this passage makes any sense.
You are trying to put words in my mouth.It does nothing of the kind.
b'SHEM Yah'shua
I apologize if I’ve misunderstood, but that’s what I gleaned from your post. I thought you were saying that because Christ is the Rock elsewhere in Scripture, Peter cannot be the rock in that verse.
So let me ask you directly...do you think it is possible here that Christ is somehow granting a little bit of his own divine prerogative as the Rock with Peter? Or do you think “upon this Rock” refers to Christ and Christ alone without any relation to Peter whatsoever?
You can believe otherwise,If you believe the Holy Word of Elohim,
shalom b'SHEM Yah'shua HaMashiach Adonai
it always refers to YHvH as the rock.
It can not be made any more plain.
but not based on the Holy Word of Elohim.
Manfred the Wonder Dawg and others
What the Council of Jerusalem shows in the Acts of the Apostles (15: 7-11) is the Early Church using a Council to resolve a doctrinal dispute, as the New Testament (NT) had not yet been written (ie. First NT writing is ST. Paul’s 1 Thess, in AD 49) and the last books that eventually would be part of the NT Canon were not written until ca 90 AD (e.g., Gospel of John)-—The NT canon itself is a development, guided by the Holy Spirit, that would not be finally resolved until the late 4th century at the Councils of Hippo and Carthage, in 393 and 397 AD, respectively.
So, Christ did indeed found a Church (c.f. Mt 16:18-19), which states:
Matthew 16:18-19: “And I tell you, you are Peter, and on this rock I will build my church; and the powers of death shall not prevail against it.” I will give you the keys of the kingdom of heaven . .. whatever you bind on earth shall be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven.”
Christ is indeed the founder of the Church and is the good shepherd (c.f. John 10:110, but he gives the Church other shepherds to guide his Church (c.f. Eph 4:11-12). Sacred Scripture is full of passages that recognize St. Peter as first among the Apostles. Christ prays for Peter so that his “faith may not fail” (cf. Lk 23:32) so he can strengthen his brethren and Christ commands St. Peter to be a shepherd like he is as he tells Peter to “Feed his lambs…feed his sheep” (cf. John 21:15-17). Further, St. Peters name is first on every list of the apostles (Mt 10:2; Mk 3:16, Lk 6:14) and St. Mattew’s Gospel clearly calls St. Peter “first” (cf. Mt 10:2).
So, Christ did find a Church, and the Church is described as the Bride of Christ (c.f. Eph 5:26-27), “people of God (c.f.1 Pet 2:9-10), and as a body “Church has many members, but of one body, so it is with Christ” (c.f. 1 Cor 12:12-14). So, the Church is both visible and invisible, just as Christ had a Divine and human nature. A body that is not visible is not a Body. The Church, with Christ as the Head of the Church, has four marks, it is “One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic”. The Church here in the world continues to be guided by the Apostles, just as the 1st century Church was guided by the Apostles, by the Bishop of Rome and the Bishops in communion with him, with of course the power of the Holy Spirit.
So at the end of the Apostolic age, while Jerusalem may have been the center of the Church in the first few years (c.f. Acts 15:), by the end of the 1st century, the Church of Rome had now become the center of the Church and would have a Primacy among the Bishops. These is demonstrated by St. Clement of Rome’s, 3rd successor to St. Peter, letter to the Eastern Church in Corinth (AD 95). Pope Benedict, in a catechetical address on 3/7/2007, cites the Patristic Sources in the early Church on the importance of this letter. Pope Benedict writes that the most important testimony concerning his life comes from St Irenaeus, Bishop of Lyons until 202. He attests that Clement “had seen the blessed Apostles”, “had been conversant with them”, and “might be said to have the preaching of the apostles still echoing [in his ears], and their traditions before his eyes” (Adversus Haer. 3, 3, 3 ca 175 AD).
Since he was the Bishop of Rome, letters he wrote took on importance, but only 1 is acknowledged as being his (e.g., the One sent to Corinith). Pope Benedict (3/7/07) notes that Eusebius of Caesarea, the great “archivist” of Christian beginnings, presents it in these terms: “There is extant an Epistle of this Clement which is acknowledged to be genuine and is of considerable length and of remarkable merit. He wrote it in the name of the Church of Rome to the Church of Corinth, when a sedition had arisen in the latter Church. We know that this Epistle also has been publicly used in a great many Churches both in former times and in our own” (Hist. Eccl. 3, 16).
Pope Benedict states further: Clement’s intervention - we are still in the first century - was prompted by the serious problems besetting the Church in Corinth: the elders of the community, in fact, had been deposed by some young contestants. The sorrowful event was recalled once again by St Irenaeus who wrote: “In the time of this Clement, no small dissension having occurred among the brethren in Corinth, the Church in Rome dispatched a most powerful Letter to the Corinthians exhorting them to peace, renewing their faith and declaring the tradition which it had lately received from the Apostles” (Adv. Haer. 3, 3, 3).
Thus, we could say that this Letter was a first exercise of the Roman primacy after St Peter’s death.
Other 2nd century Church Fathers who attest to the Primacy of the Church of Rome, due to St. Peter being first among the apostles, include St. Ignatius of Antioch who based on both St. Peter and Paul being in Rome states that it (Church of Rome) “Presides in Charity”.
St. Ireneaus of Lyons writing (ca 175 AD) against Gnostics ( such as Marcion, who was excommunicated in Rome in 144 AD and forced church to begin addressing the Canon of Scripture) tells the orthodox Christians that these Gnostics do not have “Apostolic Tradition”. He uses the Church of Rome to prove his point, since it would be tedious to do all the successions. He writes:
“Since, however, it would be very tedious, in such a volume as this, to reckon up the succession of all the Churches, we do put to confusion all those who, in whatever manner, whether by an evil self-pleasing, by vainglory, or by blindness and perverse opinion, assemble in unauthorized meetings; (we do this, I say), 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 by pointing out that the faith preached to men, which comes down to our times by means of the succession of Bishops. For it is a matter of necessity that every Church should agree with this Church, on account of its preeminent authority-—that is the faithful everywhere inasmuch as the Apostolic Tradition has been preserved continuously by those who are everywhere.”
No Church Father ever rejected the Primacy of the Church of Rome, not did they reject that St. Peter was the first among the Apostles, which was what the Primacy of the Church of Rome was linked to. I would also like to point out both Canon 6 and 7 (source Catholic site: newadvent.org) of the Council of Nicea (325 AD), the council that rejected the Christological heresy of Arianism.
Canon 6:
Let the ancient customs in Egypt, Libya and Pentapolis prevail, that the Bishop of Alexandria have jurisdiction in all these, since the like is customary for the Bishop of Rome also. Likewise in Antioch and the other provinces, let the Churches retain their privileges. And this is to be universally understood, that if any one be made bishop without the consent of the Metropolitan, the great Synod has declared that such a man ought not to be a bishop. If, however, two or three bishops shall from natural love of contradiction, oppose the common suffrage of the rest, it being reasonable and in accordance with the ecclesiastical law, then let the choice of the majority prevail.
Canon 7:
Since custom and ancient tradition have prevailed that the Bishop of Ælia [i.e., Jerusalem] should be honoured, let him, saving its due dignity to the Metropolis, have the next place of honour.
Note that both the Church’s at Alexandria and Antioch are being given primacies that are already at Rome. Further, the Church of Jerusalem is given “the next place of honor”. Thus, the interpretation as to how canons 6 and 7 relate to the Primacy among the Churches clearly states that the Church of Jerusalem has a place of honor, after Rome, Antioch, and Alexandria. Now, how do we interpret the relationship among Rome, Antioch and Alexandria. Well, it is clear that the Patristic evidence, when linked to the place of St. Peter among the Apostles, sees the Church of Rome as having the Primacy among the Churches. Of course, the nature of that primacy still needs to be developed and understood in the instance of a re-united Catholic and Orthodox Church.
If you go to Canon 7 from the Council of Constantinople (381 AD), you will see that it gives the Church of Constantinople, after Rome. However, please note that nothing was said about Constantinople’s primacy in relation to both Antioch and Alexandria. At the Council of Chalcedon in 451 AD, Canon 28 the Primacy as 1) Rome, 2) Constantinople, 3 and 4 Antioch and Alexandria, and 5) Jerusalem. Now, Pope Leo and the Catholic Church did not accept Canon 28 as Alexandria and Antioch both existed before Constantinople, and thus it had not right to ahead of those two Bishops. Still, while Rome rejected Canon 28, I think the quote from Bishop Paschasinus clearly states how the the Councils viewed the Church of Rome:
Paschasinus, the most reverend bishop and representative, read: “Canon Six of the 318 holy fathers, The Roman Church has always had the primacy.” (source newadvent.org)
So, in summary, the Church of Rome did in fact have a Primacy which is supported by the orthodox Apostolic Tradition, both Sacred Scripture and Tradition as expressed by the Church Fathers and the great Early Councils that defended and defined core Christological Doctrines.
Have a nice day
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.