Posted on 05/18/2015 6:05:47 PM PDT by Old Yeller
For years, growing up as a Roman Catholic, we were taught that we were members of the one true church. It was impressed upon us regularly by the parish priest during Mass while giving his homily; by the nuns all throughout my Catholic parochial school years of second through seventh grade.
It was impressed upon us during our preparation to receive for the first time the sacraments of Penance, Communion and Confirmation. And while attending CCD classes all the way through high school. (CCD is the Confraternity of Christian Doctrine, an association established at Rome in 1562 for the purpose of giving religious education, normally designed for children.)
It was an established fact that we understood and we never questioned the validity of it. And to be honest, it was a matter of pride, that we were privileged enough to be members of the correct church, while all others had belonged to something else that didn’t quite measure up to the status of the Roman Catholic Church.
After all, how could it be possible that Roman Catholicism is not the one true church?
Look at what Rome has to offer: It has the priests, the nuns; the bishops; the cardinals; and of course, the Pope. They have the Sacraments; the statues; the holy water; the incense; the Stations of the Cross; the Eucharist - in which Chris supposedly physically manifests Himself into the wafer after the consecration by the priest during the Mass; the Marian apparitions—which appear mainly to Roman Catholics.
And they have the Vatican, where the Vicar of Christ (who they believe is Christ’s representative on earth), governs the faithful and makes infallible proclamations and doctrine. How can this not be the one true church? No other organization on the face of the earth comes close to offering to its flock what Rome provides for its faithful.
But, of course, to be true, one must adhere to what has been established as truth and not teach or practice what is contrary to the truth. We read in Scripture a few passages that declare what is truth and what is not. Jesus proclaimed in John 14:6:
“I am the way, the truth, and the life: no man comes to the Father, but by me.”
1. Rome affirming the canonical texts in AD 382 (which depends upon the Decretum Gelasianum, the authority of which is disputed (among RC's themselves), based upon evidence that it was pseudepigraphical, being a sixth century compilation put together in northern Italy or southern France at the beginning of the 6th cent. In addition the Council of Rome found many opponents in Africa.” More: http://www.tertullian.org/articles/burkitt_gelasianum.htm) meant the canon was indisputably settled - which it definitely was not until after the death of Luther- or that being the steward of Scripture as the historical magisterium means such must be the infallible authority on what it consists of and means. Which is manifestly false. Argue to the contrary if you want.
That what a pope is alleged to have done or did somehow means that such is the successor of Peter, while the fact is that the NT never recorded or taught any apostolic successors (like for James: Acts 12:1,2) after Judas who was to maintain the original 12: Rv. 21:14) or elected any apostolic successors by voting, versus casting lots (no politics). (Acts 1:15ff)
For example in Matthew 18: 20 “For where two or three are gathered together unto my name, there am I in the midst of them.”
Which utterly fails to teach the novel and unScriptural premise of ensured perpetual magisterial infallibility (EPMI) which is what must be proved, as the preceding judgment actually had to do with settling personal disputes, though in principle it can extend to corporate issues, and which flows from the OT magisterium which had such authority that dissent was a capital offense. (Dt. 17:8-13)
The fact is that EPMI was never essential for the discernment and preservation of Truth, and in fact the NT church began upon Scriptural substantiation in word and in power, not the premise of ensured perpetual magisterial infallibility. In principal the church of imperial Rome is built upon the Scribes and Pharisees, which like Rome, excluded the validity of any itinerant preachers, while the church began upon the foundation of the apostles and prophets, both of which much opposed the magisterium which sat in authority of Israel, the stewards of Scripture, and recipient of the promises, etc. (Mt. 23:2; Rm. 3:2; 9:4,5)
The term “in my name: has royal meaning. It is understood as meaning “in all what I teach.”
Scripturally (look it up) it means to do or say something as representing the Lord, whether falsely (including Rome and other false teachers) or true, and was valid even though one was not part of the company of the apostles.
But Jesus said, Forbid him not: for there is no man which shall do a miracle in my name, that can lightly speak evil of me. (Mark 9:39)
For while the judicial judgment of Mt. 18:15-18 applies to the church as a formal judiciary, the spiritual power of binding and loosing is provided for all righteous believers. Thus while interceding for sick members principally applies to the presbuteros (not hiereus=priests), the general exhortation is to "Confess your faults one to another, and pray one for another, that ye may be healed. The effectual fervent prayer of a righteous man availeth much," (James 5:16) which applies to all righteous believers of faith. Thus the example of Elijah, who was not part of the OT magisterium, and bound the heavens for 3.5 years, and loosed them afterwards .
Christ taught ONE truth and established ONE Church for ALL times, and it has ONE Credo.
Indeed, basically speaking, and evangelicals have historically been foremost contenders for basic Scriptural Truths we both assent to, and against those who deny them, which typically effectively operate according to the Roman model for the veracity of Truth claims.
But to which core truths the credo of Rome adds extraScriptural and unScriptural teachings to, while her unity is actually quite limited and largely on paper,
We don’t need 30,000 variations of Protestantism instructing different interpretations.
Indeed, and besides the specious number , it is amazing how RCs on one hand will argue against Protestantism as a monolithic institution when arguing against what they say they believe, while on the other hand have such a broad definition of Protestant that is so wide you can drive a Unitarian Scientology Swedenborgian Unification 747 thru it.
And as such it is basically meaningless, as it includes those who deny even the most fundamental aspect of the Reformation, that of holding to the supreme authority of Scripture as the wholly inspired and accurate word of God, and such believers testify to far greater unity in Biblical,conservative core beliefs than the overall fruit of Rome.
And indeed, besides basically separating herself from the NT due to her fundamental basis for the veracity of Truth claims, and subsequent teachings , Catholicism exists in schisms and sects, with different brands of Catholicism, even btwn popes and councils. (And infallible teachings are a minority part of RC doctrine, and see interpretation.) Thus if RCs were formally divided according such then you would have thousands of Catholic churches, However, while various sects of Catholicism are implicitly sanctioned, yet as one cannot formally separate in fellowship from Rome without being in schism, then RCs must remain as brethren with even proabortion.sodomite/Muslim RCs and prelates.
Thus RCs are guilty of not obeying the Scriptural command to separate from such, and from false doctrine, unlike evangelicals can and have done in obedience to God:
Be ye not unequally yoked together with unbelievers: for what fellowship hath righteousness with unrighteousness? and what communion hath light with darkness?. And what concord hath Christ with Belial? or what part hath he that believeth with an infidel? And what agreement hath the temple of God with idols? for ye are the temple of the living God; as God hath said, I will dwell in them, and walk in them; and I will be their God, and they shall be my people. (2 Corinthians 6:14-16)
Division because of Truths which evangelicals overall concur on, is better than unity in error, which RCs overall concur on.
This is captured very well by Dr. A. David Anders, who was born, raised and educated, as an Evangelical Protestant and studied Wheaton College.
This is captured very well by Norman Geisler (Ph.D. in philosophy from Loyola University): So, while we are losing a few intellectual egg-heads out the top of evangelicalism to Rome, we are gaining tens of thousands of converts out the bottom from Catholicism. The trade-off highly favors evangelicalism. - http://ephesians4-15.blogspot.com/2011/01/why-roman-catholics-are-leaving-church.html
Scripturally, it was the common people who heard Jesus gladly, while the learned overall rejected Him. Elitist Rome which attracted this deceived fool, manifests an attitude toward those who dissent from her like that of the proud elitist Pharisees:
Then answered them the Pharisees, Are ye also deceived? Have any of the rulers or of the Pharisees believed on him? But this people who knoweth not the law are cursed. (John 7:47-49)
Seest thou a man wise in his own conceit? there is more hope of a fool than of him. (Proverbs 26:12)
Not only was Protestant doctrine untrue, it bred contention, and could not even remain unchanged.
Welcome to Catholicism, which not only changes on the papal and conciliar level, and thus the SSPX and SSPV type groups who substantively charge this, but abounds in divisions beneath the veneer of unity. And in error.
And just what "proof" is there for that? After all, they can believe wine is "really" blood to be offered as a sacrifice for sins and drunk to obtain spiritual life. Institutional inebriation.
The One True Church consists of all those who believe that Jesus Christ is Savior and Lord, Son of the Father, died for our sins and was resurrected.
“For God so loved the world, He gave His only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in Him should not perish, but have everlasting life.” — John 3:16
God looks upon the heart, not upon the form of ritual.
Well excuse my ungodly outburst, I have to feed the rattler and the copperhead for Sunday services now, Don't want those fellows too frisky!
Wait one, did you say you was, "Episcopalian and Southern Baptist?" Ain't there a law in your state against that?
Jesus said unto him, “Thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy mind. This is the first and great commandment. And the second is like unto it, Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself. On these two commandments hang all the law and the prophets.”
500,000 denominations under one roof.
Only is she’s younger than twelve and her dad has no shotgun.
Well and truly stated. Brevity is the soul of wisdom and understanding.
That false teachers would come in almost immediately?
In order to have a valid mass the Church deeded to have valid priests and bishops to continue the work of the apostles. Here Clement of Rome lays out exactly that no later than 100 AD. Do you suppose all of this just sprung into being in 99 AD or is he describing a Church that is well established and faithfully doing as the Lord instructed since His Ascension. Thus the Roman Church continued the work of the apostles. BTW, all of the quotes, notes and comments are from the protestant Christian Classics Ethereal Library. www.ccel.org
CLEMENT OF ROME
Introductory Note to the First Epistle of Clement to the Corinthians
[a.d. 30–100.] Clement was probably a Gentile and a Roman. He seems to have been at Philippi with St. Paul (a.d. 57)... A co-presbyter with Linus and Cletus, he succeeded them in the government of the Roman Church...Clement fell asleep, probably soon after he dispatched his letter. Few details are known about Clement’s life. According to Tertullian, Clement was consecrated by Saint Peter,[2] and he is known to have been a leading member of the church in Rome in the late 1st century. Early church lists place him as the second or third[1][3] bishop of Rome after Saint Peter...he was executed by being tied to an anchor and thrown into the sea.[1]
Chapter XLII.—The order of ministers in the Church.
The apostles have preached the Gospel to us from178 the Lord Jesus Christ; Jesus Christ [has done so] from179 God. Christ therefore was sent forth by God, and the apostles by Christ. Both these appointments,180 then, were made in an orderly way, according to the will of God. Having therefore received their orders, and being fully assured by the resurrection of our Lord Jesus Christ, and established181 in the word of God, with full assurance of the Holy Ghost, they went forth proclaiming that the kingdom of God was at hand. And thus preaching through countries and cities, they appointed the first-fruits [of their labours], having first proved them by the Spirit,182 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 bishops183 in righteousness, and their deacons184 in faith.”185
Chapter XLIII.—Moses of old stilled the contention which arose concerning the priestly dignity.
And what wonder is it if those in Christ who were entrusted with such a duty by God, appointed those [ministers] before mentioned, when the blessed Moses also, “a faithful servant in all his house,”186 noted down in the sacred books all the injunctions which were given him, and when the other prophets also followed him, bearing witness with one consent to the ordinances which he had appointed? For, when rivalry arose concerning the priesthood, and the tribes were contending among themselves as to which of them should be adorned with that glorious title, he commanded the twelve princes of the tribes to bring him their rods, each one being inscribed with the name187 of the tribe. And he took them and bound them [together], and sealed them with the rings of the princes of the tribes, and laid them up in the tabernacle of witness on the table of God. And having shut the doors of the tabernacle, he sealed the keys, as he had done the rods, and said to them, Men and brethren, the tribe whose rod shall blossom has God chosen to fulfil the office of the priesthood, and to minister unto Him. And when the morning was come, he assembled all Israel, six hundred thousand men, and showed the seals to the princes of the tribes, and opened the tabernacle of witness, and brought forth the rods. And the rod of Aaron was found not only to have blossomed, but to bear fruit upon it.188 What think ye, beloved? Did not Moses know beforehand that this would happen? Undoubtedly he knew; but he acted thus, that there might be no sedition in Israel, and that 17 the name of the true and only God might be glorified; to whom be glory for ever and ever. Amen.
Chapter XLIV.—The ordinances of the apostles, that there might be no contention respecting the priestly office.
Our apostles also knew, through our Lord Jesus Christ, and there would be strife on account of the office189 of the episcopate. For this reason, therefore, inasmuch as they had obtained a perfect fore-knowledge of this, they appointed those [ministers] already mentioned, and afterwards gave instructions,190 that when these should fall asleep, other approved men should succeed them in their ministry. We are of opinion, therefore, that those appointed by them,191 or afterwards by other eminent men, with the consent of the whole Church, and who have blamelessly served the flock of Christ in a humble, peaceable, and disinterested spirit, and have for a long time possessed the good opinion of all, cannot be justly dismissed from the ministry. For our sin will not be small, if we eject from the episcopate192 those who have blamelessly and holily fulfilled its duties.193 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. But we see that ye have removed some men of excellent behaviour from the ministry, which they fulfilled blamelessly and with honour.
AMDG
Are you reading Protestant history only?
There was NO OTHER CHURCH until Luther did his thing. Everything was Catholic!
Christ founded his Church on the apostles and they carried on his mission.
Have you ever read the story of Pentecost where 3000 were added that day to The Way (what they called the Church then.)
**in God’s eyes. **
Are you now God and can see his will?
Some people just can’t take a joke or laugh at themselves. Democrats are guilty of that also.
There was NO OTHER CHURCH until Luther did his thing. Everything was Catholic!
Ut oh! Houston we have a problem. The Apostles were all Jews! They kept the Sabbath. They didn't worship Mary, didn't pray to dead people, no statues in the synagogue, no selling of indulgences and no word on Peter having primacy over the other Apostles.
Christ founded his Church on the Apostles and they carried on his mission.
ut oh! That isn't the Catholic party line. You're not straying from the catechisms, are you? What about Peter, the Supreme Apostle???
A bold but disputed declaration.
St. Jerome tells us that in his time "most of the Latins" held that Clement was the immediate successor of the Apostle (Illustrious Men 15). St. Jerome himself in several other places follows this opinion, but here he correctly states that Clement was the fourth pope. The early evidence shows great variety. - http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/04012c.htm
Few details are known about Clement's life... Clement's only genuine extant writing is his letter to the church at Corinth. (1 Clement)
The Liber Pontificalis [an "unofficial instrument of pontifical propaganda," of biographies of popes from Saint Peter until the 15th century] , which documents the reigns of popes, states that Clement had known Saint Peter. It also states that he wrote two letters (though the second letter, 2 Clement, is no longer ascribed to him) and that he died in Greece in the third year of Emperor Trajan's reign, or 101 AD. - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pope_Clement_I
And thus preaching through countries and cities, they appointed the first-fruits [of their labours], having first proved them by the Spirit,182 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.
Which is a Biblical practice, but what is not and missing here, is that of ordaining a separate sacerdotal class of believers distinctively titled "priests" (hierus) which the Holy Spirit never titles NT clergy, and which only pertains to Jewish and pagan priests, while all believers make up the only sacerdotal priesthood in the NT church.
Distinctively titling NT presbuteros/episkopos priests was a later development, due to imposed functional equivalence supposing NT presbyteros engaged in a unique sacrificial ministry as a primary function.
See here before engaging in the usual etymological fallacy and vain defense of the the Cath practice.
Chapter XLIV.—The ordinances of the apostles, that there might be no contention respecting the priestly office.
The title does not correspond to the letter, as nowhere do i see any ordained priests as in Catholicism. Instead, presbyters have replaced the separate class of priests, while all believers are the only priests and all are called to sacrifice.
Moreover, what is missing here, and as shown elsewhere, and which even Cath scholarship provides testimony against, is that of a monarchical episcopate, with all the church looking to Peter as the first of a line of infallible popes reigning in Rome.
Which is simply a RC fantasy, absent from Scripture despite RC extrapolative eisegesis.
Why is there no tomb of Mary? Why are there no relics of her body? Why are these never even mentioned in history?
We have relics from all the apostles. We have relics of tens of thousands of Christian saints and martyrs. And there have been many, many cases of FAKE relics.
Why the total absence of any relics of Mary from history?
Why didn’t anyone ever even claim FALSELY to have relics of Mary?
Because ALL Christians have ALWAYS believed that Mary was assumed into heaven, body and soul. Even all the potential CROOKS or FRAUDSTERS knew that no one would believe they had relics of Mary, so no one ever made such a claim.
So if this is to have any real polemical value, it presupposes that we cannot be sure which writings are of God (or their meaning) without an infallible authority to tell us so, and that being the historical steward of Scripture means Rome is that infallible authority.
Is that the argument?
Matthew 16:19 “And I will give to thee the keys of the kingdom of the heavens; and whatsoever thou mayest bind upon the earth shall be bound in the heavens; and whatsoever thou mayest loose on the earth shall be loosed in the heavens.”
And what is the basis for your assurance that this refers to Peter being that Rock, versus Christ?
What would move you to think one Apostle had greater authority/power than any other?
I said if any one did, I don`t think any one did as Jesus told them it was not to be that way.
If is the biggest word in the dictionary.
My comment was to encourage some one to bring out scriptures from Peter concerning the eating of the body and blood of Jesus.
If they get their authority handed down from Peter they should be able to show where Peter gave them that ordinance.
Well if it was only a joke, I apologize.
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.