Free Republic
Browse · Search
Religion
Topics · Post Article

To: whispering out loud
No instead the catholic church wasn't formed until the rule of Constantine, If people research history, they will find there is the beginning of the pope, bishops, rosary beads, and several other catholic sacraments. If catholicism or submission to the pope were necessary for salvation, then no one who died before the rule of Constantine can possibly get into heaven.

No, history supports the Catholic Church, actually. Ignatius of Antioch, who lived in the late First Century A.D., a convert to Christianity through John the Apostle, and bishop of Antioch, in a letter to the Christians of Smyrna (present-day Turkey) said:

See that ye all follow the bishop, even as Jesus Christ does the Father, and the presbytery as ye would the apostles; and reverence the deacons, as being the institution of God. Let no man do anything connected with the Church without the bishop. Let that be deemed a proper Eucharist, which is [administered] either by the bishop, or by one to whom he has entrusted it. Wherever the bishop shall appear, there let the multitude [of the people] also be; even as, wherever Jesus Christ is, there is the Catholic Church.

Also, there are ONLY seven Catholic sacraments: Baptism, Confession, Eucharist, Confirmation, Holy Orders, Marriage, and Sacrament of the Sick. The others are part of the Catholic church, but aren't sacraments.

13 posted on 02/04/2006 6:31:07 AM PST by Pyro7480 (Sancte Joseph, terror daemonum, ora pro nobis!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies ]


To: Pyro7480

pssst...the word "Catholic" simply means UNIVERSAL. So, where a bishop (or presbyter or elder...the NT uses those words interchangibly) appears, says St. Ignatius, the Church UNIVERSAL is--I have no problem with that, but I'm not about to join the body under the control of a Bishop of Rome.

I find it very sad that the word "catholic," the most universal, unifying, and (rightly) ecumenical word there is, is used by those with an odd loyalty to a particular capital city (which St. John and St. Peter too referred to as "Babylon"...not a great compliment to say the least) and her bishop.

I am a happy part of the Church catholic, but not under the authority (supposed proven by revisionist history and proof-texts) of Rome's bishop; Christ needs no vicar, and is quite able to lead the Church Himself.

Anyone interested really should read the New Testament book of Acts--as I just did. Although he is certainly a highly respected leader, there is no evidence of any kind of papal authority exercised by St. Peter. If anyone is the chief elder in the Church it is St. James (see Acts 15...about the first ecumenical council of the Church). Most of the book is about St. Paul as well....who at one time even publicly rebuked Peter, as an EQUAL, not as a papal subject.(Gal. 2:11-ff) Clearly the primitive church had a counciliar form of government, looking to Christ through the Holy Spirit to lead--using bishops and elders for sure, but NOT the kind of hierarchical structure of the Roman church today.


117 posted on 02/05/2006 1:57:33 PM PST by AnalogReigns ("by grace you have been saved, through faith—and this not from yourselves, it is the gift of God.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
Religion
Topics · Post Article


FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson