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 was only 3 weeks, but I will NEVER forget it!
Shalom to You Too!
On the other hand, one can historically make the claim that all the Protestant denominations, and all their derivative streams were "invented" in the 16th, 17th, 18th, 19th, and 20th Centuries, with more "inventing" to follow. That leaves only the Orthodox (Catholic) churches going back to the beginning.
And what, precisely, happened in that timeframe? That was during the persecution of the church under the Caesars; Constantine didn't come on the scene until 313.
Basically, your argument is that calling what the Apostles did "Mass" gets in the way of your history, which is -- to be frank -- a made-up convenient fiction to legitimize your own theological position.
You can't point to any substantive difference between what the Apostles did and the Mass, because there isn't any.
To draw your focus to truth, I ask you to answer the following: does the resurrection body Jesus now has IN HEAVEN use blood to maintain the LIFE of His body? ... We are told that the Life of the creature is in the blood. The blood is not the life, the Life is in the blood. That is, on the creature / carnal level.
You asserted, “You can’t point to any substantive difference between what the Apostles did and the Mass, because there isn’t any.” And with that blatant exhibit of Magic Thinking we see how Catholic Tradition was given equal authority with The Bible ... in 1545AD !
Magic Thinking is strong with you, Wyrd.
The substantive difference here is that "Mass" didn't exist then... So, by definition, there is NO similarity -- none. Mass is a man-made hokum that claims to re-sacrifice Christ over and over again while denying his scriptural once and for all sacrifice on the cross.
There is nothing fictional about that. However, if you want to bring up theological fiction, we can do so by simply bringing up CCC 841 as promulgated by Roman Catholicism. The CCC is a teaching document. It teaches, in CCC 841, that Catholics and Muslims worship the same "God."
And as we all know, Chistians and Muslims do NOT worship the same God; Christians worship the One, True, Living God; Muslims worship Satan, The Father of Lies.
So...before Catholics start spouting things about fictions and attempts to legitimize theological fictions, they'd be better served determining if their denomination is teaching them to worship Satan by answering this question: is CCC 841 truth (agreeing with Rome), or is it false (denying Rome and agreeing with God).
Hoss
*apostolic tradition* is not God breathed, Holy spirit inspired TRUTH.
Believe tradition at your own risk.
Lots of people take communion.
That doesn’t equate to *celebrating mass* as Catholics claim they did.
Can you prove that what they did in their worship services then is the same thing that happens in Catholic mass today, 2,000 years later?
Which then means the Roman rite is not the one true church to which one must belong and pledge fidelity in order to be saved.
So which is the one true Catholic church?
The Didache has many false teachings. It's why it is not included in the canon of the NT>
Roman catholicism teaches the "mass" is a re-sacrifice of Christ over and over again whereby the priest calls Christ down from Heaven and Christ obeys.
Christianity recognizes the Lord's Supper or Communion is a remembrance of His one time sacrifice on the cross for our sins. Hence, "do this in remembrance of Me".
No. Of course they did it just like the First Methodist do now.
AMEN TIO THIS!!!
Yes he did. The meme about the Catholic Church being “invented” hundreds of years after the fact just doesn’t hold water when held up against reality. The Mass can be traced through Scripture and other documents, and Peter did worship as all early Christians did — through the Mass.
Absolutely wrong in the light of Scripture!!! There is not even one instance in the life of the NT church of an apostle or pastor being distinctively called a priest, or engaging in a unique sacerdotal function, let alone even officiating at the Lord's supper and offering up the elements as a sacrifice for sins, nor are they ever charged with doing so in the life of the NT church. For instead the primary charge and active function of pastors is that of preaching the word. (Acts 6:4; 2Tim. 4:2; Col. 1:28) And which, unlike the Lord's supper, we are told in Acts and onward (which is interpretive of the gospels), is said to be spiritual "milk," (1Co. 3:22; 1Pt. 1:22) and "meat," (Heb. 5:12-14) and to nourish souls, (1Tim. 4:6) and build them up. (Acts 20:32)
Nor is there is any theological discourse on what Catholicism erroneously believes the gospels teach, that of transubstantiation, which certainly Paul (for one) would have majored on as a salvific doctrine. Instead Paul only reiterates the simply words of Christ, "take eat.." which Catholicism construes into a form of endocannibalism, but Paul explains this meal by which they remember/"show/proclaim" the Lord's death for the church by their charitable inclusive sharing of food in this communal meal, treating each other as blood-bought members of the body of Christ, which some were hypocritically not doing by eating independently, even to the full, while ignoring others. (1Co. 11:17-34)
Moreover, rather than being the "source and summit of the Christian faith," "in which our redemption is accomplished," as the central sacrament around which all else in church life revolved, the Lord's supper is only manifestly described in just one epistle to the church (besides the "feast of charity" in Jude 1:12), that of 1 Corinthians. And in which it is the church as the body of Christ that is the focus, not the nature of the elements, and thus they are censored for not actually coming together to eat the Lord's supper, as they failed to effectually recognize other believers as members of the blood-bought body of Christ, by eating independently in what was to be a communal feast and ignoring others, even to the full and to the shame of them that have not. As explained here by the grace of God.
Nowhere is the Lord's supper set forth as a supreme source of spiritual nourishment versus simply communal fellowship with Christ and each others, like as pagans do with their dedicatory feast have fellowship with devils, but which was not by consuming their flesh and blood. (1Co. 10:15-21)
If the mere mention of breaking of bread in Acts is speaking about the Lord's supper then it is simply "breaking bread from house to house, did eat their meat with gladness and singleness of heart," (Acts 2:46) with no priests or even focus on pastoral ritual. Of course, this is only one aspect of Catholicism that is not seen in the life of the NT church in Scripture.
+1
You mean like the Assumption? SOME things are just not historical, even though Rome makes them so.
Certainly not. See post 55. Peter was not even distinctively ordained as a priest and is never said even administer the Lord's supper (nor described or looked to as the first of a line of infallible popes reigning supreme, let alone in Rome), as instead he is descrbed as one who feeds the flock with the word of God, which he calls food.(1Pt. 2:2) And the Holy Spirit characteristically describes notable unique aspects of persons (from the number of toes to sinlessness) as well as basic functions of offices.
Acts 1: Peter is simply part of the upper room prayer group.
Acts 2: Peter preaches the prophesied Christ as crucified and risen, and regeneration/salvation by effectual faith in the risen Lord Jesus, with no mention of the Lord's supper as salvific. And he is part of the apostolic teachers, but breaking bread is not described as a formal ritual led by apostles, or as being a sacrificial sin offering.
Acts 3: Peter preaches healing and salvation by repentant faith in the prophesied and risen Lord Jesus.
Acts 4: Peter leads the dissent from leadership to preach prophesied and risen Lord Jesus.
Acts 5: Peter, like Paul, disciplines hypocritical deceivers while being an instrument of grace for healing, and in the face of official censor asserts "We ought to obey God rather than men" (Acts 5:29) and preaches regeneration by obedient faith in the crucified and risen Lord Christ.
Acts 6: Facing the need of physically feeding the flock, Peter is one of the apostles who states that, "It is not reason that we should leave the word of God, and serve tables. Wherefore, brethren, look ye out among you seven men of honest report, full of the Holy Ghost and wisdom, whom we may appoint over this business. (Acts 6:2-3)
Acts 7: Peter is not mentioned.
Acts 8: Peter along with John is sent by the other apostles to Samaria, who convey the Holy Spirit to new baptized believers. And he reproves Simon for unholy motives and heart.
Acts 9: Peter, like Paul, is an instrument of healing, but never via the Lord's supper.
Acts 10: Peter, using the keys to the kingdom, preaches justification by faith to the Gentiles, that "To him [the prophesied crucified and risen Lord Jesus] give all the prophets witness, that through his name whosoever believeth in him shall receive remission of sins, (Acts 10:43) and baptizes them, and remains with them a few days.
Acts 11: Peter defends being with Gentiles and preaching to them.
Acts 12: Peter is imprisoned and is prayed out.
Acts 13: Peter is not mentioned
Acts 4: Peter is not mentioned
Acts 15: Peter gives his testimony of salvation by grace thru faith, "purifying their hearts by faith" before baptism, and exhorts the Gentiles be not placed under the Law, which grace gospel to the Gentiles Paul and Barnabas testify to, while James provides the judgement as to what shall be done, confirmatory of Peter Paul and Barnabas.
Acts 16-28: Peter is never mentioned again, as the Spirit describes the labor of love for Paul for the church and the lost in the remaining 12 chapters of Acts.
Romans: Peter is never mentioned to the church RCs assert he founded, even among the over 30 souls Paul greets or mentions in cp. 16.
1 Corinthians: Peter (Cephas) is mentioned by name as one whom believers are not to follow as unique, (1Co. 1:12; 3:22) and as being married. (1Co. 9:3)
2 Corinthians: Peter is never mentioned
Galatians: Peter is specifically mentioned as one whom Paul stayed with for 15 days, 3 years after Paul began preaching. (1:18) And as one of those who appeared to be pillars, these being James, Peter and John in the order Paul gives, whom Paul chose to see as the Lord revealed to him, who affirmation was needed in the light of attacks impugning the validity of Paul's apostleship, while Paul stated that he "was not a whit behind the very chiefest apostles." (2 Corinthians 11:5) And was the only one to publicly reprove another apostle, that being Peter for his duplicity. (2:1-14)
2 Corinthians thru Revelation" Peter is never mentioned again, except in his own two pastoral epistles, and in which he simply describes himself as "a servant," "an apostles," and "an elder." But nowhere is he described as administering the Lord's supper, or as part of a distinctive priesthood, for the only priesthood is that which Peter describes, that of all believers. (1Pt. 2:9)
Nor is either Peter or the Lord's supper mentioned in the Lord's critique of the representative churches in Rv. 2+3, either as regards a commendation for faithfulness or exhortation for their problems. Thus the idea of Peter celebrating Mass is without evidence, in clear contrast to that of feeding the flock by preaching, which is the primary active function of NT pastors, which are called presbuteros (senior/elder) or episkopos, referring to those in one office, and who are never called "priests. See here on that by the grace of God.
Though rather than a definitive or total break, this was a matter of progressive deformation, with a gradual accretion of traditions of men and other errors. Thus placing a date is difficult. Moreover, since the teachings of Catholicism, true or false, are subject to different interpretations to varying degrees, then we not only have deformation from the NT church but even deformation from the deformed medieval Roman Catholic church. Post apostolic, falsely-called church fathers themselves were guilty of such, yet as Ratzinger himself admits, that even "the Fathers were not Roman Catholics as the thirteenth or nineteenth century world would have understood the term," though he believes that they were Catholic nonetheless. (Joseph Cardinal Ratzinger, Principles of Catholic Theology: Building Stones for a Fundamental Theology, trans. Sister Mary Frances McCarthy, Theolgische Prinzipienlehre ]San Francisco: Ignatius Press, 1987], p. 141.) And he also did for Teddy K. type RCs.
However, the increasing manifest contrast btwn the propaganda that the RC faith was that "faith which has been believed everywhere, always, by all believed always by everyone, everywhere," from the 5th-century exhortation by Vincent of Lérins in his Commonitory, Newman was forced to admit,
It does not seem possible, then, to avoid the conclusion that, whatever be the proper key for harmonizing the records and documents of the early and later Church, and true as the dictum of Vincentius [what the Church taught was believed always by everyone], must be considered in the abstract, and possible as its application might be in his own age, when he might almost ask the primitive centuries for their testimony, it is hardly available now, or effective of any satisfactory result. The solution it offers is as difficult as the original problem. — John Henry Newman, An Essay on the Development of Christian Doctrine (New York: Longmans, Green and Co., reprinted 1927), p. 27.
For in contrast to even RC papal propaganda, even Caths researchers, among others provide testimony against such, including Newman in explaining how the Peter of Scripture, the non-assertive, street-level initial leader among the 11, for whom no successors are promised, and to whom the NT church did not look to as the first of a line of exalted infallible heads reigning supreme in Rome, much less by RC voting, was become the Roman pope:
While Apostles were on earth, there was the display neither of Bishop nor Pope; their power had no prominence, as being exercised by Apostles. In course of time, first the power of the Bishop displayed itself, and then the power of the Pope. . . . St. Peter’s prerogative would remain a mere letter, till the complication of ecclesiastical matters became the cause of ascertaining it. . . . When the Church, then, was thrown upon her own resources, first local disturbances gave exercise to Bishops, and next ecumenical disturbances gave exercise to Popes; and whether communion with the Pope was necessary for Catholicity would not and could not be debated till a suspension of that communion had actually occurred… (John Henry Newman, Essay on the Development of Doctrine, Notre Dame edition, pp. 165-67).
Avery Dulles considers the development of the Papacy to be an historical accident:
“The strong centralization in modern Catholicism is due to historical accident. It has been shaped in part by the homogeneous culture of medieval Europe and by the dominance of Rome, with its rich heritage of classical culture and legal organization” (Models of the Church by Avery Dulles, p. 200)
Klaus Schatz [Jesuit Father theologian, professor of church history at the St. George’s Philosophical and Theological School in Frankfurt] in his work, “Papal Primacy ,” pp. 1-4, finds:
“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 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." (page 3, top)
Catholic theologian and a Jesuit priest Francis Sullivan, in his work From Apostles to Bishops (New York: The Newman Press), examines possible mentions of “succession” from the first three centuries, and concludes from that study that,
“the episcopate [development of bishops] is a the fruit of a post New Testament development,” “...the evidence both from the New Testament and from such writings as I Clement, the Letter of Polycarp to the Philippians and The Shepherd of Hennas favors the view that initially the presbyters in each church, as a college, possessed all the powers needed for effective ministry. This would mean that the apostles handed on what was transmissible of their mandate as an undifferentiated whole, in which the powers that would eventually be seen as episcopal were not yet distinguished from the rest. Hence, the development of the episcopate would have meant the differentiation of ministerial powers that had previously existed in an undifferentiated state and the consequent reservation to the bishop of certain of the powers previously held collegially by the presbyters.
• Catholic theologian and a Jesuit priest Francis Sullivan, in his work From Apostles to Bishops (New York: The Newman Press), examines possible mentions of “succession” from the first three centuries, and concludes from that study that,
“the episcopate [development of bishops] is a the fruit of a post New Testament development,” and cannot concur with those [interacting with Jones] who see little reason to doubt the notion that there was a single bishop in Rome through the middle of the second century:
Hence I stand with the majority of scholars who agree that one does not find evidence in the New Testament to support the theory that the apostles or their coworkers left [just] one person as “bishop” in charge of each local church... — Francis Sullivan, in his work From Apostles to Bishops , pp. 221,222,224
Paul Johnson, educated at the Jesuit independent school Stonyhurst College, and at Magdalen College, Oxford, author of over 40 books and a conservative historian, finds,
The Church was now a great and numerous force in the empire, attracting men of wealth and high education, inevitably, then, there occurred a change of emphasis from purely practical development in response to need, to the deliberate thinking out of policy. This expressed itself in two ways: the attempt to turn Christianity into a philosophical and political system, and the development of controlling devices to prevent this intellectualization of the faith from destroying it....
Cyprian [c. 200 – September 14, 258] came from a wealthy family with a tradition of public service to the empire; within two years of his conversion he was made a bishop. He had to face the practical problems of persecution, survival and defence against attack. His solution was to gather together the developing threads of ecclesiastical order and authority and weave them into a tight system of absolute control...the confession of faith, even the Bible itself lost their meaning if used outside the Church...
With Bishop Cyprian, the analogy with secular government came to seem very close. But of course it lacked one element: the ‘emperor figure’ or supreme priest... [Peter, according to Cyprian, was] the beneficiary of the famous ‘rock and keys’ text in Matthew. There is no evidence that Rome exploited this text to assert its primacy before about 250 - and then...Paul was eliminated from any connection with the Rome episcopate and the office was firmly attached to Peter alone... ...There was in consequence a loss of spirituality or, as Paul would have put it, of freedom... -(A History of Christianity, by Paul Johnson, pp. 51 -61,63. transcribed using OCR software)
Eamon Duffy (Former president of Magdalene College and member of Pontifical Historical Commission, and current Professor of the History of Christianity at the University of Cambridge) and provides more on the Roman church becoming more like the empire in which it was found as a result of state adoption of (an already deformed) Christianity:
The conversion of Constantine had propelled the Bishops of Rome into the heart of the Roman establishment...They [bishops of Rome] set about [creating a Christian Rome] by building churches, converting the modest tituli (community church centres) into something grander, and creating new and more public foundations, though to begin with nothing that rivaled the great basilicas at the Lateran and St. Peter’s...
These churches were a mark of the upbeat confidence of post-Constantinian Christianity in Rome. The popes were potentates, and began to behave like it. Damasus perfectly embodied this growing grandeur. An urbane career cleric like his predecessor Liberius, at home in the wealthy salons of the city, he was also a ruthless power-broker, and he did not he did not hesitate to mobilize both the city police and [a hired mob of gravediggers with pickaxes] to back up his rule…
Self-consciously, the popes began to model their actions and their style as Christian leaders on the procedures of the Roman state. — Eamon Duffy “Saints and Sinners”, p. 37,38
For the so-called successor to Peter, as Damasus 1 (366-384) began his reign by employing a gang of thugs in securing his chair, which carried out a three-day massacre of his rivals supporters. Yet true to form, Rome made him a "saint.
Damasus is much responsible for the further unscriptural development of the Roman primacy, frequently referring to Rome as ''the apostolic see'' and enjoying a His magnificent lifestyle and the favor of court and aristocracy, and leading to Theodosius 1 (379-95) declaring (February 27, 380) Christianity the state religion.
Moreover,
The Bishop of Rome assumed [circa sixth century] the position of Ponlifex Maximus, priest and temporal ruler in one, and the workings of this so-called spiritual kingdom, with bishops as senators, and priests as leaders of the army, followed on much the same lines as the empire. The analogy was more complete when monasteries were founded and provinces were won and governed by the Church. - Welbore St. Clair Baddeley, Lina Duff Gordon, “Rome and its story” p. 176
Eastern Orthodox scholarship (while maintaining her shared accretion of errors of "tradition" as the "one true church") also adds voice to this,
Roman Catholicism, unable to show a continuity of faith and in order to justify new doctrine, erected in the last century, a theory of "doctrinal development. Following the philosophical spirit of the time (and the lead of Cardinal Henry Newman)... "
All the stages are useful, all are resources; and the theologian may appeal to the Fathers, for example, but they may also be contradicted by something else, something higher or newer. On this basis, theories such as the dogmas of "papal infallibility" and "the immaculate conception" of the Virgin Mary (about which we will say more) are justifiably presented to the Faithful as necessary to their salvation. - http://www.ocf.org/OrthodoxPage/reading/ortho_cath.html
Other unscriptural developments included religious syncretism, as Newman confessed:
"In the course of the fourth century two movements or developments spread over the face of Christendom, with a rapidity characteristic of the Church; the one ascetic, the other ritual or ceremonial. We are told in various ways by Eusebius [Note 16], that Constantine, in order to recommend the new religion to the heathen, transferred into it the outward ornaments to which they had been accustomed in their own. It is not necessary to go into a subject which the diligence of Protestant writers has made familiar to most of us."
"The use of temples, and these dedicated to particular saints, and ornamented on occasions with branches of trees; incense, lamps, and candles; votive offerings on recovery from illness; holy water; asylums; holydays and seasons, use of calendars, processions, blessings on the fields; sacerdotal vestments, the tonsure, the ring in marriage, turning to the East, images at a later date, perhaps the ecclesiastical chant, and the Kyrie Eleison, are all of pagan origin, and sanctified by their adoption into the Church." (John Henry Newman, An Essay on the Development of Christian Doctrine, Chapter 8. Application of the Third Note of a True Development—Assimilative Power)
Falsified history of the Roman church was also instrumental in the development of her unScriptural papacy and power. RC historian Johann Joseph Ignaz von Döllinger:
In the middle of the ninth century—about 845—there arose the huge fabrication of the Isidorian decretals...About a hundred pretended decrees of the earliest Popes, together with certain spurious writings of other Church dignitaries and acts of Synods, were then fabricated in the west of Gaul, and eagerly seized upon Pope Nicholas I at Rome, to be used as genuine documents in support of the new claims put forward by himself and his successors.
That the pseudo–Isidorian principles eventually revolutionized the whole constitution of the Church, and introduced a new system in place of the old—on that point there can be no controversy among candid historians. - — Johann Joseph Ignaz von Döllinger, The Pope and the Council (Boston: Roberts, 1870) Then you have the unScriptural Development of the distinctive Catholic priesthood More by the grace of God.
Holy Euharist is Mass. The apostles and Christians after them celebrated Holy Eucharist. It’s in the Bible, it’s in the writings and history of early Christians as far back as we have and continuous to the present.
You believe otherwise; you’re welcome to your opinion.
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.