Posted on 06/29/2016 4:03:52 PM PDT by NYer
Chapter 11 of the Acts of the Apostles says that Antioch was the city in which, for the first time, the disciples of Jesus were called “Christians.” Tradition has enthroned Peter as the founder of the Church of Antioch, following the narration of the very same Book of Acts, which tells not only of the arrival of Peter and Barnabas to the Turkish city, but also of their preaching.
Moreover, this very same tradition claims that it was in the Knisset Mar Semaan Kefa (“Grotto of St. Peter” in Aramaic) where Peter would celebrate the Eucharist for this community. That is to say, this little cave could be the first place of worship of the ancient Church of Antioch.
Located in one of the slopes of Mount Starius, the cave has a depth of just thirteen meters and a height of seven, from floor to ceiling. The oldest parts of the building we see today, built around the original, simple cave dug in the mountain, are from the 4th and 5th centuries, and include a series of mosaic floors and a few frescoes which have been preserved on the right side of the altar.
Centuries ago, a series of small aqueducts brought water (considered miraculous) from nearby springs into a small designated area where baptisms were celebrated, but a series of relatively recent earthquakes rendered these channels useless.
When the Crusaders took Antioch during the First Crusade in 1098, a facade was added to the cave, which was rebuilt eight centuries later, in 1863, by Capuchin friars, by order of Pope Pius IX.
Today, the cave is only used as a museum, but, with permission, some religious ceremonies are held, especially on Feb. 21, the day on which Antioch celebrates the feast of their patron, Saint Peter.
Today, the cave is only used as a museum, but, with permission, some religious ceremonies are held, especially on Feb. 21, the day which celebrates the region San Pedro as their patron.
I agree there was one ekklesia....the church of Christian believers. But not the Roman Catholic Church as we see it today.
Like reading the Bible?
Or the many thousands of Catholic words about what the Bible REALLY means?
And just when did Rome decide that 'the Real Presence' was in the Holy Eucharist to begin with?
Read the Book your chosen religion assembled!!
Luke 14:23
And the master said to the servant, ‘Go out to the highways and hedges and compel people to come in, that my house may be filled.
Sure sounds like EVANGELISM to me!
But hey; I'm just a dumb Protty.
In the book of REVELATION, the one holy catholic apostolic church was MESSED up beyond belief!!
Way to go; Catholics!
And it penned THESE instructions:
Acts 15
The Council at Jerusalem
1 Certain people came down from Judea to Antioch and were teaching the believers: "Unless you are circumcised, according to the custom taught by Moses, you cannot be saved." 2 This brought Paul and Barnabas into sharp dispute and debate with them. So Paul and Barnabas were appointed, along with some other believers, to go up to Jerusalem to see the apostles and elders about this question. 3 The church sent them on their way, and as they traveled through Phoenicia and Samaria, they told how the Gentiles had been converted. This news made all the believers very glad. 4 When they came to Jerusalem, they were welcomed by the church and the apostles and elders, to whom they reported everything God had done through them.5 Then some of the believers who belonged to the party of the Pharisees stood up and said, "The Gentiles must be circumcised and required to keep the law of Moses."
6 The apostles and elders met to consider this question. 7 After much discussion, Peter got up and addressed them: "Brothers, you know that some time ago God made a choice among you that the Gentiles might hear from my lips the message of the gospel and believe. 8 God, who knows the heart, showed that he accepted them by giving the Holy Spirit to them, just as he did to us. 9 He did not discriminate between us and them, for he purified their hearts by faith. 10 Now then, why do you try to test God by putting on the necks of Gentiles a yoke that neither we nor our ancestors have been able to bear? 11 No! We believe it is through the grace of our Lord Jesus that we are saved, just as they are."
12 The whole assembly became silent as they listened to Barnabas and Paul telling about the signs and wonders God had done among the Gentiles through them. 13 When they finished, James spoke up. "Brothers," he said, "listen to me. 14 Simon has described to us how God first intervened to choose a people for his name from the Gentiles. 15 The words of the prophets are in agreement with this, as it is written:
16 "'After this I will return
and rebuild David's fallen tent.
Its ruins I will rebuild,
and I will restore it,
17 that the rest of mankind may seek the Lord,
even all the Gentiles who bear my name,
says the Lord, who does these things'
18 things known from long ago.19 "It is my judgment, therefore, that we should not make it difficult for the Gentiles who are turning to God. 20 Instead we should write to them, telling them to abstain from food polluted by idols, from sexual immorality, from the meat of strangled animals and from blood. 21 For the law of Moses has been preached in every city from the earliest times and is read in the synagogues on every Sabbath."
The Council's Letter to Gentile Believers
22 Then the apostles and elders, with the whole church, decided to choose some of their own men and send them to Antioch with Paul and Barnabas. They chose Judas (called Barsabbas) and Silas, men who were leaders among the believers. 23 With them they sent the following letter:The apostles and elders, your brothers,
To the Gentile believers in Antioch, Syria and Cilicia:
Greetings.
24 We have heard that some went out from us without our authorization and disturbed you, troubling your minds by what they said. 25 So we all agreed to choose some men and send them to you with our dear friends Barnabas and Paul— 26 men who have risked their lives for the name of our Lord Jesus Christ. 27 Therefore we are sending Judas and Silas to confirm by word of mouth what we are writing. 28 It seemed good to the Holy Spirit and to us not to burden you with anything beyond the following requirements: 29 You are to abstain from food sacrificed to idols, from blood, from the meat of strangled animals and from sexual immorality. You will do well to avoid these things.
Farewell.
30 So the men were sent off and went down to Antioch, where they gathered the church together and delivered the letter. 31 The people read it and were glad for its encouraging message. 32 Judas and Silas, who themselves were prophets, said much to encourage and strengthen the believers. 33 After spending some time there, they were sent off by the believers with the blessing of peace to return to those who had sent them. [34] 35 But Paul and Barnabas remained in Antioch, where they and many others taught and preached the word of the Lord.
Disagreement Between Paul and Barnabas
36 Some time later Paul said to Barnabas, "Let us go back and visit the believers in all the towns where we preached the word of the Lord and see how they are doing." 37 Barnabas wanted to take John, also called Mark, with them, 38 but Paul did not think it wise to take him, because he had deserted them in Pamphylia and had not continued with them in the work. 39 They had such a sharp disagreement that they parted company. Barnabas took Mark and sailed for Cyprus, 40 but Paul chose Silas and left, commended by the believers to the grace of the Lord. 41 He went through Syria and Cilicia, strengthening the churches.
I pointed that out in the reply to which you responded.
You mean like the latest almost 44,000 word papal encyclical?
In which (or anywhere in the rest of the NT):
ZERO prayers to anyone else in Heaven but the Lord, despite a host of angels and ascended saints in Heaven.
ZERO mention of Mary after Acts 1.
ZERO manifestation of the church looking to Peter as the first of a line of exalted supreme infallible heads, and providing the final judgments in major matters (including in Acts 15).
ZERO NT pastors distinctive called "priests" because their primary distinctive active function was that of offering the elements of the Lords supper as a sacrifice for sin, to be consumed in order to obtain spiritual life.
ZERO manifestation/description of the church engaging in such. (See post 55) by God's grace.
ZERO distinction btwn the office of presbuteros (senior/elder) and episkopos (superintendent/overseer). Same office; Titus 1:5-7: Acts 20:17,28)
ZERO manifestation/description of a normative celibate clergy.
ZERO examples of apostolic succession (though James was martyred: Acts 12:1,2), except for Judas which was in order to maintain the foundational number of apostles (cf. Rv. 21:14) and which was by the non-political Scriptural means of casting lots. (cf. Prov. 16:33) Only presbuteros/episkopos - not priests - are shown and taught as supplying leadership by continual ordination of them.
ZERO description of actual apostolic successors being chosen by means of voting, versus the non-political Scriptural means of casting lots. (cf. Prov. 16:33)
>ZERO description of pastors being given such grand titles as "Most Reverend Eminence," “Very Reverend,” “Most Illustrious and Most Reverend Lord,” “His Eminence Cardinal,” “The Most Reverend the Archbishop,” etc.), or who made themselves distinct by their ostentatious pompous garb. (Matthew 23:5-7
ZERO description (not by conjecture) of infant sprinkling or any baptism without repentant personal faith, that being the stated requirement for baptism. (Acts 2:38; 8:36-38)
ZERO preaching of a gospel message salvation which begins with becoming good enough inside to be with God (due to removal of "original sin" and "infused" charity) effected by the act of sprinkling (RC "baptism") in recognition of proxy faith. And which thus usually ends with becoming good enough again to enter Heaven via suffering in purgatory, commencing at death.
ZERO separate class of believers distinctively called “saints.”
ZERO manifestation/description of a normative celibate clergy.
ZERO restriction of personal reading of Scripture by laity.
ZERO teaching in which the experience of some/most believers immediately after this life will be in Purgatory in order to atone for sins and become perfect in character, versus all believers forever being with the Lord after death or His return. (Lk. 23:43 [cf. 2Cor. 12:4; Rv. 2:7]; Phil 1:23; 2Cor. 5:8 ["we"]; 1Cor. 15:51ff'; 1Thess. 4:17
ZERO teaching that the deity Muslims worship (who is not as an "unknown god") is the same as theirs.
In short, ZERO manifestation/descriptions of the Roman Catholic distinctives. Trying to read them into Acts and the NT examples how RCs abuse Scripture as their servant.
>>>And just when did Rome decide that ‘the Real Presence’ was in the Holy Eucharist to begin with?
Tweren’t Rome that decided to begin with. That would be Christ, c.33-34, re-iterated by St. Paul in his epistles and in other early Church documents, and officially in councils from the then up to the present.
I believe it is accurate to say most Christians today, including non-Catholics, believe in the Real Presence.
The belief in the Real Presence is near ubiquitous throughout the history of Christianity - until Zwingli, who parted from his fellow Protestants on this issue. Most Protestants didn’t follow him in this new doctrine.
When did you or your denomination decide against the Real Presence? Does it go back to Zwingli or is it a latter offshoot?
There were many local churches, many of them named in the books of the Bible that was assembled, and they were one holy catholic apostolic church. There has been a continual historical testimony of the Messiah from the Apostles to this day.
I agree there were many churches. But no pope. No Mary worship. No priests offering sacrifices, no indulgences, no infant baptism, no praying to dead saints, no “saints” in the rcc view, etc, etc.
Would you agree that there was a hierarchy and authority?
Accurate needs a bit more than 'belief' to back it up.
Jesus; actually WEARING the flesh He was born with; says, "THIS is my body" about a piece of bread He was holding.
And some folks think this statement was NOT metaphorical???
That's some powerful 'teaching' right there!
Then it should be EASY for you to explain the ERROR in the 'church' found in Revelation.
I am persuaded the one holy catholic apostolic church present in the first century did not fail but has been historically present through all the centuries from the first century unto this day. I am not interested in human attempts to re-form or recreate something that was not passed on through each century from generation to generation.
Which, as already shown, is a blatant fallacy. The absence of which is more proof that Rome did not write or change Scripture. Imagine how easy it would have been to provide just one note of a priest offering the Eucharist as a sacrifice for sin, to be consumed to obtain spiritual life.
"Till I come, give attendance to reading, to exhortation, to doctrine," (1 Timothy 4:13) "and to your priestly duty of feeding the flock with that sacrificial bread, the body and blood of the Lord, whereby sins may be expiated and the spiritual life obtained."
Instead of anything even resembling the first part of that addition, in the life of the church pastors are never even shown or charged with feeding the flock by officiating at the Lord's supper, nor are they ever called "priests," let alone that this was a sacrifice for sins. Nor is there any manifestation of the Lord's supper being the supreme exalted sacrament (as in Catholicism) by which the flock obtains spiritual life in them. At best the Lord's supper is only described as breaking of bread (Acts), and a "feast of charity," (Jude) while in the solitary epistle in which there is some actual description besides those, it is not the nature of the elements nor any pastoral function that is the focus, nor consuming such in order to obtain spiritual life, but the nature of the body of Christ as the church, showing the Lord's death for the body by unselfishly, lovingly taking part in that communal feast of charity (versus me and my wafer-god).
And rather than feeding the flock via the Lord's supper, the constant charge to pastors is that of preaching the word of God, which is what is said to "nourish" souls, (1Tim. 4:6) and build them up, (Acts 20:32) feeding the flock thereby.
None of which should need to be repeated, except that RCs here continue to provocatively post such bombast that Paul in his epistles (plural no less) taught that ‘the Real Presence’ was in the Holy Eucharist (as per Catholic understanding).
I believe it is accurate to say most Christians today, including non-Catholics, believe in the Real Presence.
Nonsense. Close to half of Catholics do not believe in the Catholic RP according to some surveys. If you want to define the RP contrary to that of Catholicism, then you may have a case, esp. since "Real Presence" appears to originally been an Anglican term (http://www.patheos.com/blogs/standingonmyhead/what-do-we-mean-by-the-real-presence), and is critically different then that of Catholicism.
When did you or your denomination decide against the Real Presence? Does it go back to Zwingli or is it a latter offshoot?
Rather, when did you or your denomination decide that "breaking of bread," and "fest of charity" the only manifest description of the Lord's supper in the life of the church was that of NT "priests" transubstantiating bread and wine into the body and blood of Christ, and offering it as a sacrifice for sins as their primary active function, and to be consumed in order to obtain spiritual life, with this being the central supreme priestly sacrament of the church around which all else revolved?
Which is only one of many things not found in the life of the NT church. Truly the church of Rome was the original "invisible" church.
>>Accurate needs a bit more than ‘belief’ to back it up.
Catholics, Orthodox, Lutherans, Anglicans and others...
You add ‘em up. I’m betting it’s a majority..
>> some folks think this statement was NOT metaphorical???
Yeppers, it’s a hard teaching. Many of Christ’s followers left him over it. St. Paul reiterates the same teaching. Been there since the beginning.
Still waiting for your answer on this one: “When did you or your denomination decide against the Real Presence? Does it go back to Zwingli or is it a latter offshoot?”
The Church doesn’t decide teaching on the basis of surveys.
The Real Presence couldn’t be more obvious in Holy Scripture, nor in the history of Christianity - up until the 16th century.
You disagree, and have your own opinion. That’s fine for you, I don’t put much credence in your authority; nothing personal.
Great numbers of folks 'believe' in UFOs.
Must be true then.
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.