Posted on 01/12/2014 5:53:46 AM PST by knarf
You don't need a priest, or sacraments, or a "church", or a denomination, or charismatic 'gifts' or baptism or hierarchal permission, sanction nor absolution ...
Although your pointing to the Jewish religion doesn’t have much meaning for the Early Christians, in fact Christians walk away from the Jewish religion, it is valid in and of itself for Jews.
It has struck me that all of the finer points or myths about Catholicism are fruitless at this point, because your castle point (authority) is made continually on nearly every point. So, let us discuss authority.
Jesus instituted His Church with a clear line of Apostolic succession. The Early Church was not a system of independent congregations, meeting and deciding Church doctrine and practice based on individual belief or democratic means. The Church was guided and ruled with authority by the bishops, elders and clergy who had a direct line of succession from the Apostles.
Clement of Rome, who had direct contact with the Apostles writes directly on succession in Letter to the Corinithians (80 A.D.)...
“Our apostles also knew, through our Lord Jesus Christ, that there would be strife on the question of the bishop’s office. For this reason, therefore, having received perfect knowledge, they appoint those who have already been mentioned, and afterwards added the further provision that, if they should die, other approved men should succeed to their ministry. As for these, then, who were appointed by them, or who afterwards appointed by other illustrious men with the consent of the whole Church, and who have ministered to the flock of Christ without blame, humbly... Our sin will not be small if we eject from the episcopate those who blamelessly and holily have offered its Sacrifices.”
Enjoy your old English”jesus,” I’ll stick to Yeshua, the only begotten son of Yehova.
>> “Although your pointing to the Jewish religion doesn’t have much meaning for the Early Christians, in fact Christians walk away from the Jewish religion...” <<
.
A nonsensical pipe dream for pagans pretending to worship Yeshua.
What you call “Jewish Religion” is the worship provided by Yehova for all of his elect for all time on Earth.
The early “Christians” (they definitely did not call themselves Christians) didn’t “walk away” from it, they held it dearly until Constantine’s persecution forced them ‘under ground.’
You describe the very reason that “few” will find the narrow gate; they do not even know what they should be looking for. It doesn’t have a sign above it saying “Christians Enter Here.”
Will I go to hell for using a different spelling?
It doesn't? It certainly does and thus the NT contains about 250 references to the OT and about 600 allusions by one count, as the NT is the fulfillment of what the the OT prefigured, and thus the book of Hebrews was written. In which we see not simply contrasts but transcendent principles, and which is what we are dealing with.
In particular the issue is how men and writings of God were recognized and assurance of Truth obtained. Your argument was that a perpetual infallible magisterium is required, and that history shows Rome to be the inheritor of Divine promises of God's presence preservation, and steward of Divine revelation, but the Scripture show that the church began in dissent from those whom it actually affirms held that position, but did not make them infallible, or the sure means of assurance.
Note that certainly the sanction of men like apostle Paul can be a means of providing assurance, but this is in the light of his degree of Scriptural substantiation, not on the basis of assured veracity. Likewise the more a teacher today examples veracity the more credibility he gains. However, Rome's premise is that according to her interpretation or decree, she is to be trusted, while the more RCs try to support her tradition with Scripture then the opposite occurs when faced with knowledgeable examination.
Jesus instituted His Church with a clear line of Apostolic succession.
He did? This is one of those arguments by assertion, while seeking to extrapolate the Roman Catholic papacy out bishops and regional magisteriums. We see apostles, but where you see any successors in Scripture for another apostle after Judas, and that by lot? And which was to maintain the original foundational 12 apostles, (Acts 1:15-26; Rv. 21:14) thus only one was chosen.
The apostle James was martyred, (Acts 12:2) but there is actually zero mention of any successor for him. (What a missed opportunity one might say for such a cardinal doctrine. Of course there is none for other things like PTDS . Thus the elevation of Tradition as equal with Scripture and the church as supreme incontrovertibly deciding what it says.)
Nor does the apostle Paul in his way to expected martyrdom, make any mention of another apostle taking his place, notice Peter. Instead, pastors, such as Timothy, were commissioned to carry on the work.
And even in Catholic historians such as Klaus Schatz [Jesuit Father theologian, professor] writes,
New Testament scholars agree..., The further question whether there was any notion of an enduring office beyond Peter’s lifetime, if posed in purely historical terms, should probably be answered in the negative.
That is, if we ask whether the historical Jesus, in commissioning Peter, expected him to have successors, or whether the authority of the Gospel of Matthew, writing after Peter’s death, was aware that Peter and his commission survived in the leaders of the Roman community who succeeded him, the answer in both cases is probably 'no...”
If we ask in addition whether the primitive church was aware, after Peter’s death, that his authority had passed to the next bishop of Rome, or in other words that the head of the community at Rome was now the successor of Peter, the Church’s rock and hence the subject of the promise in Matthew 16:18-19, the question, put in those terms, must certainly be given a negative answer.”
[Schatz goes on to express that he does not doubt Peter was martyred in Rome, and that Christians in the 2nd century were convinced that Vatican Hill had something to do with Peter's grave.]
Nevertheless, concrete claims of a primacy over the whole church cannot be inferred from this conviction. If one had asked a Christian in the year 100, 200, or even 300 whether the bishop of Rome was the head of all Christians, or whether there was a supreme bishop over all the other bishops and having the last word in questions affecting the whole Church, he or she would certainly have said no." - “Papal Primacy , pp. 1- -4
To which much more from Catholic scholarship and others can be added.
The Early Church was not a system of independent congregations, meeting and deciding Church doctrine and practice based on individual belief or democratic means.
Neither do many denominations, such as Calvary chapel, though I do wish churches such as the Southern Baptists would allow less autonomy. And while you have a paper unity, yet surveys of RC priests reveal significant variations of interpretation of Roman Catholic doctrine, and which rarely see any discipline that would manifests they are wrong, which evidences what Rome really believes. For faith is shown by works.
The Church was guided and ruled with authority by the bishops, elders and clergy
If so, then it quickly deviated from the scriptural model of bishops/elders (after apostles) which were the clergy, in addition to deacons
who had a direct line of succession from the Apostles.
A direct line does not constitute validity, for as said to them who also invoked this, God can raise up upon children of Abraham (and men like Peter from) stones. (Mt. 3:9) Moreover, your unbroken succession is rather problematic with its up to 3 year breaks and competing and confusing lists. But of course, what Rome says must be the Truth.
Clement of Rome, who had direct contact with the Apostles writes directly on succession in Letter to the Corinithians (80 A.D.).
And upon such is the attempt to extrapolate the hierarchical system of Rome and an assuredly infallible perpetual line of popes and magisterium. And while as said, the viability and necessity of the pastoral and teaching office is not in dispute, nor is replacing men of faith, but the error of Rome is not only the manner of magisterium that developed, but is supposing historical dissent means perpetual magisterial veracity, which was the boast of the Jews.
Meanwhile in preserving truth God often raised up men from without it, in order to reprove it. Thus the church began in dissent, upon the foundation of the apostles and prophets, whose basis for for validity was not historical dissent, but scriptural attestation. And as White argues ,
Clement knows only of elders and deacons in the church at Corinth. A quick scan of the relevant Greek data in the Thesaurus Lingaue Graece demonstrates that Clement's normal usage when referring to those who filled the office is plural. The singular uses of episkope are made in reference to the episcopate as a whole. There is not a shred of evidence that Clement differentiated between the office of bishop and presbyter within the text itself.
Thus the basis for RC assurance of doctrine is not Scriptural, nor does the evidence offered in seeking to induce us to submit to it support it, nor many things such as i listed before that contrast Rome with the NT church, making it overall essentially different.
Its not a different spelling, its a different name, in the case of the translators that created it, done deliberately to keep the people from gaining the power of his true name.
IOW, you’re being had, but apparently don’t know it.
Maybe you’d better type it in Aramaic text font as well, just to be extra safe?
Its the sound that has the power, and ‘jesus’ is not the sound of his name.
Use any font you choose.
So, my uncle’s thick southern accent might interfere with the Name “sounding” right? And Jesus won’t realize who my uncles is trying to address?
Sounds don’t have an accent.
But people do — generally when they are vocalizing and making sounds.
No, accents are made up of sounds.
Yeshua sounds the same in Texas as it does in Seattle, or Toronto, or the gettos of south Africa.
No, it really doesn't.
Yes, it really does.
I’ve heard it in Charlotte, Atlanta, Dallas, Santa Fe, Oakland, Seattle, Wolf Creek, and Victoria, and it has always been the same in every place.
Remarkable. Regional accents just plain old disappear when saying the name Yeshua?
Que?
Some remind me of the people back in the 80s, who insisted on pronouncing Nicaragua in such a manner that it appeared they were having a stroke.
The current version of that is now Qatar.
“It doesn’t? It certainly does and thus the NT contains about 250 references to the OT and about 600 allusions by one count”
It certainly does not, in the context that you previously applied. Obviously the Early Christians had the Old Testament and a culture to share. But that was not your point. Your point was that the Early Christian Catholic Church had to assent to the Jewish elders but dissented and thus they somehow in a twist of failed logic are thus not Chirst’s Church.
Your premise is disconnected to your conclusion as it fails to state the full facts of that situation into your original premise. Your omission is that the Jewish religion and the Christian, though connected, are two distinct religions with two completely different sets of beliefs. There is no logical connection, under those full set of facts that would allow your conclusion.
LOL. Yeah Qatar has a “Q” and all the middle east “experts” try so hard to ignore the “Q”. If we don’t pronounce the “Q” why bother with writing it. Just rename the country in English “Cutter.” I have to say the letter Q gets little respect these days.
(Jesus instituted His Church with a clear line of Apostolic succession.)
“He did?”
Yes, He did. And the Church still stands after 2,000 years, the original Universal Church of Christ.
“We see apostles, but where you see any successors in Scripture”
The error of Sola Scriptura is well known and is not to be found in even the Bible.
Saint John tells us in his gospel that Jesus said and did far more things than were actually written down in the Bible …John 21:25.
Nonetheless…
Jesus speaking to Peter... I say to thee: That thou art Peter; and upon this rock I will build my church, and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it. And I will give to thee the keys of the kingdom of heaven. And whatsoever thou shalt bind upon earth, it shall be bound also in heaven: and whatsoever thou shalt loose upon earth, it shall be loosed also in heaven. — Matthew 16:18-19
Jesus speaking to the apostles... Amen I say to you, whatsoever you shall bind upon earth, shall be bound also in heaven; and whatsoever you shall loose upon earth, shall be loosed also in heaven. Again I say to you, that if two of you shall consent upon earth, concerning any thing whatsoever they shall ask, it shall be done to them by my Father who is in heaven. For where there are two or three gathered together in my name, there am I in the midst of them. — Matthew 18:18-19
Jesus again speaking to the apostles... after he had sealed the New Covenant with his own blood... When he had said this, he breathed on them; and he said to them: Receive ye the Holy Ghost. Whose sins you shall forgive, they are forgiven them; and whose sins you shall retain, they are retained. — John 20:22-23
The apostles would lay hands upon those whom they chose to succeed them in apostolic authority. We see the first incident of this immediately after the resurrection and ascension of Jesus Christ...
“And they appointed two, Joseph, called Barsabas, who was surnamed Justus, and Matthias. And praying, they said: Thou, Lord, who knowest the hearts of all men, shew whether of these two thou hast chosen, To take the place of this ministry and apostleship, from which Judas hath by transgression fallen, that he might go to his own place. And they gave them lots, and the lot fell upon Matthias, and he was numbered with the eleven apostles.” — Acts 1:23-26
“The apostle James was martyred, (Acts 12:2) but there is actually zero mention of any successor for him. (What a missed opportunity one might say for such a cardinal doctrine”
Most of the writings on the Apostles were lost or not found. The fact that something is not mentioned in Scripture, does not make that “something” an untruth. What we do know is that succession itself existed by the laying on of hands. And in fact Jesus said it was so.
The first non-biblical Christian authors, such as St. Clement, St. Irenaeus and Tertullian, write specifically of succession, so we know it was completed.
And even in Catholic historians such as Klaus Schatz [Jesuit Father theologian, professor] writes...
Klaus Schatz may be a theologian, but his work here is purely historical development…………
” institutions of papal primacy and Roman infallibility do appear as a constant feature of the Roman church going back to the earliest information we possess.” Writing from the historical basis, we have partial information for various reason from which to properly assess from an historical perspective.
But I’d have to note that I don’t know this particular author or his inclinations. There are many within the Church who seek to do what they will to prop up their particular belief in what they perceive as unsound doctrine. I make no judgments as to what this author’s motivations were. However, I will point out that he is a Jesuit lol.
I think it is a good idea that you are reading Catholic Church history. I’m sure you will read those Catholic historians that study and write from both an historical and theological perspective. Seriously, I will have more to write about Klaus Schatz when I can get the time to read him. There are some obvious flaws in his conclusions, however, and I will write about them on Thursday.
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.