Posted on 10/10/2011 12:03:16 PM PDT by NYer
... the guidelines established for the Anglican ordinariate by Pope Benedict XVI's in his 2009 apostolic constitution, Anglicanorum coetibus his 2007 Apostolic Letter "Summorum Pontificum" is St. Luke’s, in Maryland:
“This truly is a historic moment,” said Cardinal Donald W. Wuerl, the archbishop of the Roman Catholic Archdiocese of Washington, who led Sunday’s conversion Mass, which he called “a joyful moment of completion.”
Fifty-eight of St. Luke’s roughly 100 parishioners were confirmed at the applause-filled Mass, during which they were anointed by Wuerl — one by one, old and young, white and black.
Osita Okafor, a 56-year-old Nigerian immigrant, found himself first in line before Wuerl for the rite of reception. His reaction? “Oh, my God, I must be blessed.” ...
The parish’s conversion made international headlines when it was announced in June. After all, St. Luke’s had been an Episcopal church for more than a century. But it wasn’t too much of a leap for the parish, which for years had been part of Anglo-Catholicism, a movement that embraces various Catholic practices and theology but still treasures aspects of Anglican ritual, such as kneeling to receive Communion.
At the basilica, before the archbishop, parishioners stood for Communion. But at St. Luke’s, they’ll be allowed to kneel under the guidelines laid out by the Vatican in 2009 when it announced plans to create a special body that would let American Anglicans keep some of their traditions, including their married priests.
Read the entire Washington Post article, "Episcopal parish in Bladensburg converts to Roman Catholic Church" (Oct. 9, 2011). for more about the ordinariate, see the book, Anglicans and the Roman Catholic Church: Reflections on Recent Developments (Ignatius Press, 2011), edited by Stephen Cavanaugh. Here is the Introduction:
Jesus established ONE Church. Your sect is a man-made one. It might date back to the 16th century at best. The Church on the other hand, can trace its roots back to Christ. No Protestant can claim that.
Simon Peter answered and said: Thou art Christ, the Son of the living God. And Jesus answering, said to him: Blessed art thou, Simon Bar-Jona: because flesh and blood hath not revealed it to thee, but my Father who is in heaven. And 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.The keys, as is shown in Is. 22, are the symbol of the Master of the Palace or the King's Vicar. An office is here bestowed upon Peter. Acts 1 also shows that the office of the apostles is not limited to the original twelve but is continued by their successors. The Bishop of Rome, i.e. the Pope, is the legitimate successor of St. Peter as the holder of the keys.
Matt. 16:16-19
If there is no free will then we believe what we do by the will of God and there can be nothing sad about it.
You have it backwards. The gospels show that our Lord gave authority to the apostles to lead the Church. Acts 1 shows that this authority is not personal to the original twelve but continues in their successors. St. Paul clearly describes a church lead by bishops, priests and deacons. History shows the continuation of that early church to the Catholic Church of today. So the proper question is when did Universal, i.e. Catholic, Church lead by its bishops as successors of the apostles cease to be the church founded by our Lord Jesus Christ?
"And I went up BY REVELATION [to Jerusalem] and communicated unto them THAT GOSPEL which I preach among the Gentiles, but privately to them WHICH WERE OF REPUTATION, lest by any means I should run, or had run, in vain."
And when JAMES, CEPHAS(PETER), and JOHN, who seemed to be PILLARS, PERCEIVED THE GRACE that was GIVEN TO ME, they gave to me and Barnabas THE RIGHT HANDS OF FELLOWSHIP; That WE SHOULD GO UNTO THE HEATHEN, and THEY UNTO THE CIRCUMCISION". Gal. 2:2,9.
Here by a solemn agreement they, who had originally been sent into "ALL THE WORLD" and to "EVERY CREATURE", now promised Paul to CONFINE THEIR MINISTRY TO ISRAEL while Paul went to the Gentiles.
Were these leaders of the twelve out of the will of God in making this agreement? Of COURSE not. Subsequent revelation PROVES that they were very MUCH IN the will of God, both in LOOSING THEMSELVES from their commission to EVANGELIZE THE WORLD and in agreeing that Paul should go to the Genitles, for Israel's rejection of Christ had brought about a change in the divine program for Israel and the Kingdom to be established on earth.
It is impossible to maintain that the RCC of today is a perpetuation of the organization our Lord established while on earth. There is a VAST difference between the kingdom of heaven, proclaimed by the twelve, and the body of Christ, revealed through Paul.
Thus, by the RCC's own argument there can be no apostolic succession, for by the authority given the twelve (and which Rome steadfastly insists they had) they LOOSED THEMSELVES from their OBLIGATION TO CARRY OUT THE "GREAT COMMISSION" TO ITS COMPLETION, and recognized Paul as the apostle of the new dispensation. Of grace. What they BOUND ON EARTH WAS BOUND IN HEAVEN, AND WHAT THE LOOSED ON EARTH WAS LOOSED IN HEAVEN. The kingdom message had given way to the grace message.
Paul was added to the apostles; he was not in opposition to them. Paul would later join Peter in Rome. There were not two churches in Rome, one lead by Peter and the other by Paul. There was one church lead by Peter with whom Paul worked to spread the Gospel.
When was Peter in Rome?
Jesus established His congregation, His assembly. Your crackpot organization made up the term Roman Catholic Church sometime around 300AD. But, that has not stopped the bizarre self-promotion to which Rome has now become addicted. Nevertheless, just as Lucifer was part of His plan, so is Rome. We will watch and wait to see what He does with it.
But, your claim about apostolic succession is one of those manufactured myths of epic proportion. The believers here hope that you are not pinning your hopes on this being true.
Rome, however, must survive on sacerdotalism, ceremony, ritual, incantations and other such cultish activities, since Jesus Christ, and Him crucified, is not enough. We should be grateful for Paul's dispelling this nonsense about anything but Christ. Let Rome have their pointy helmets and bathrobes; we'll take Jesus.
Once again you prove my point about how ignorant Protestants are about history. You wrote:
“Jesus established His congregation, His assembly.”
Yes, His Church.
” Your crackpot organization made up the term Roman Catholic Church sometime around 300AD.”
Nope. The term “Roman Catholic Church” is actually a Protestant creation. Anyone can check the OED to see this for themselves. Or just check here: http://socrates58.blogspot.com/2006/11/roman-catholic-vs-catholic-proper.html
or http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/13121a.htm
“But, that has not stopped the bizarre self-promotion to which Rome has now become addicted.”
Anti-Catholics, being wrong in thread after thread have not stopped being wrong now in promoting themselves as if they knew what they were talking about when in reality they are filled with ignorance (as you just helped prove).
“Nevertheless, just as Lucifer was part of His plan, so is Rome. We will watch and wait to see what He does with it.”
What will happen is this: you will die and go before the Lord. The Church will outlive you and will continue to serve the Gospel - the true Gospel you despise - until the end of time.
Yep. But never let it be said that they let the truth get in the way of deceiving the multitudes. The answers are there, in God’s Word. IF one is willing to read for themselves. And not give their salvation over to a religious organization to handle for them.
And what happened to the church established by our Lord and governed by the apostles and the bishops as their successors as described by St. Paul? From the letter of St. Clement, Bishop of Rome, around the year 80:
The Church of God which sojourns in Rome to the Church of God which sojourns in Corinth, to those who are called and sanctified by the will of God through our Lord Jesus Christ. Grace and peace from almighty God be multiplied unto you through Jesus Christ. Owing to the sudden and repeated calamities and misfortunes which have befallen us, we must acknowledge that we have been somewhat tardy in turning our attention to the matters in dispute among you, beloved; and especially that abominable and unholy sedition, alien and foreign to the elect of God, which a few rash and self-willed persons have inflamed to such madness that your venerable and illustrious name, worthy to be loved by all men, has been greatly defamed. …St. Ignatius, the third bishop of Antioch writes around the year 110:The Apostles received the gospel for us from the Lord Jesus Christ; and Jesus Christ was sent from God. Christ, therefore, is from God, and the Apostles are from Christ. Both of these orderly arrangements, then, are by God's will. Receiving their instruction and being full of confidence on account of the resurrection of our Lord Jesus Christ, and confirmed in faith by the word of God, they went forth in the complete assurance of the Holy Spirit, preaching the good news that the Kingdom of God is coming. Through countryside and city they preached; and they appointed their earliest converts, testing them by the spirit, to be the bishops and deacons of future believers. Nor was this a novelty: for bishops and deacons had been written about a long time earlier. Indeed, Scripture somewhere says: "I will set up their bishops in righteousness and their deacons in faith."
Our Apostles knew through our Lord Jesus Christ that there would be strife for the office of bishop. For this reason, therefore, having received perfect foreknowledge, they appointed 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.
Indeed, when you submit to the bishop as you would to Jesus Christ, it is clear to me that you are living not in the manner of men but as Jesus Christ, who died for us, that through faith in His death you might escape dying. It is necessary, therefore, —and such is your practice, —that you do nothing without your bishop, and that you be subject also to the presbytery [i.e. the priests], as to the Apostles of Jesus Christ our hope, in whom we shall be found, if we live in Him. It is necessary also that the deacons, the dispensers of the mysteries of Jesus Christ, be in every way pleasing to all men. For they are not the deacons of food and drink, but the servants of the Church of God. They must, therefore, guard against blame as against fire.Too bad history does not support your ideas. Jesus Christ established the Church upon the Apostles who appointed bishop to succeed them and which continues in an unbroken to this day in the Catholic Church. The idea that the Catholic Church was established by imperial fiat in the 4th cent. does not match the historical record and is pure fantasy.In like manner let everyone respect the deacons as they would respect Jesus Christ, and just as they respect the bishop as a type of the Father, and the presbyters [priests] as the council of God and college of the Apostles. Without these, it cannot be called a Church.
Letter to the TralliansIgnatius, also called Theophorus, to the Church that has found mercy in the greatness of the Most High Father and in Jesus Christ, His only Son; to the Church beloved and enlightened after the love of Jesus Christ, our God, by the will of Him that has willed everything which is; to the Church also which holds the presidency in the place of the country of the Romans, worthy of God, worthy of honor, worthy of blessing, worthy of praise, worthy of success, worthy of sanctification, and because you hold the presidency of love, named after Christ and named after the Father: her therefore do I salute in the spirit by every commandment of His, who are filled with the grace of God without wavering, and who are filtered clear of every foreign stain, I wish an unalloyed joy in Jesus Christ, our God. … Not as Peter and Paul did, do I command you.
Letter to the RomansYou must all follow the bishop as Jesus Christ follows the Father, and the presbytery as you would the Apostles. Reverence the deacons as you would the command of God. Let no one do anything of concern to the Church without the bishop. Let that be considered a valid Eucharist which is celebrated by the bishop, or by one whom he appoints. Wherever the bishop appears, let the people be there; just as wherever Jesus Christ is, THERE IS THE CATHOLIC CHURCH.
Letter to the Smyrnaeans
Yes, His Church.
You may wish to take up some elementary Greek and then reconsider your error.
And, there is no question that I will go before the Lord. At that time I trust I will, "... be found in Him, not having a righteousness of my own derived from the Law, but that which is through faith in Christ, the righteousness which comes from God on the basis of faith," You may be found standing in Rome with that funny hat on.
Too bad the Bible doesn't support your remanufactured history.
You wrote:
“You may wish to take up some elementary Greek and then reconsider your error.”
I made none. The word “Church” is used to denote the Lord’s assembly even though it is actually derived from kyriakos. You know that, right?
“You may be found standing in Rome with that funny hat on.”
When you die I might be very much alive on this earth. The point is that the Church was sent by God and you weren’t. The Church will survive you without notice. At your death, you will get your reward.
The history that I showed occurred after the Bible. What the Bible does show is that Jesus Christ appointed the Apostles and that they appointed bishops. All the unsupported denials in the world will not change this fact. The history after the Bible shows the Church continued to be lead by bishops in uninterrupted succession up to the present day and was called the Catholic Church by the beginning of the 2nd century. What happened to this bishop lead Catholic Church when the alleged 4th century church was created by the Roman emperor?
There is no such word as “Church” in the Scriptures. But, that is a problem for Rome. The word you are trying to mangle to fit your preconception is ekklesia, or “public gathering, an ordinary congegation of people”. But, Rome needs the trademark. I will leave it to them and whatever they face when this is over. God knows His own.
This old saw has been debunked with all of the other urban myths peddled by Rome....but you are welcome to try and keep the dream alive.
The official name of the Catholic Church is Ecclesia Catholica. "Church" is just the English translation of the Latin "ecclesia". As vladimir998 pointed out, it is derived, through the German, from the Greek word kyriake—"the Lord's [house]". All of the Romance languages use the term "ecclesia". Why English substituted a different word is a question of linguistics, not theology.
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.