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.
Nice snark, but fail. Try again.
Hoss
Hoss
This is the core issue in your argument. I am persuaded otherwise.
Again, it’s a tough fit for the relatively recent innovation of Evangelicalism, 1700 years is a big gap.
But if you can make history fit this requirement, no doubt you can erase the Holy Eucharist as well. It takes a lot of effort, but if the motivation is there...
So, again, you’re welcome to your opinion. I’ll let you have the last word on this if you wish to.
May God bless you and yours...
That statement is categorically false and slanderous.
The Mass is not a "re-sacrifice," nor is it a "new sacrifice," nor does it sacrifice Christ "over and over again". It is a participation in the one single sacrifice of Calvary and makes that sacrifice, which is eternal because it is present in the heavenly Holy of Holies (read Hebrews) present to us in our time.
Learn to express yourself concisely.
That statement is categorically false and slanderous.
The Mass is not a "re-sacrifice," nor is it a "new sacrifice," nor does it sacrifice Christ "over and over again". It is a participation in the one single sacrifice of Calvary and makes that sacrifice, which is eternal because it is present in the heavenly Holy of Holies (read Hebrews) present to us in our time.
When the priest pronounces the tremendous words of consecration, he reaches up into the heavens, brings Christ down from His throne, and places Him upon our altar to be offered up again as the Victim for the sins of man.
John O'Brien, The Faith of Millions, p256
The book is stamped Nihil obstat: Rev Lawrence Gollner, Censor Librorum; Imprimatur: Leo A Pursley, Bishop of Ft Wayne-South Bend, March 16, 1974
360. Why is the Mass the same sacrifice as the sacrifice of the cross?
The Mass is the same sacrifice as the sacrifice of the cross because in the Mass the victim is the same, and the principal priest is the same, Jesus Christ.
Baltimore Catechism
“Again, it’s a tough fit for the relatively recent innovation of Evangelicalism, 1700 years is a big gap.”
The nation of Israel was missing for nearly 2000 years, but it still came back. Evangelistic Christianity has always been around whether you like it or not.
“But if you can make history fit this requirement, no doubt you can erase the Holy Eucharist as well. It takes a lot of effort, but if the motivation is there...”
It’s funny how all you rc’s centerpiece the “Holy Eucharist”, but yet you don’t even know what it’s about! Christianity’s centerpiece is the Cross, the Blood that Jesus shed upon it once and for all. The Last Supper Communion points to Christ’s Sacrifice upon that Cross which brought us the Glorious New Covenant. Forgiveness of sin doesn’t come by the Eucharist, but by the shedding of blood.
RC’s always want to use tradition as the excuse for not following the Bible, but yet Christianity is built around Jewish tradition NOT rcc tradition. You always say that RC came from Peter, but Peter was a Jew and the tradition was Jewish like it or not. The Jewish wedding tradition points to why and how Communion was commissioned by Christ. Sorry RC’s, but you didn’t invent the tradition of Communion nor do you understand it.
Thanks for your reply:
>>>”Evangelistic Christianity has always been around
Denying the Real Presence in the Holy Eucharist began in Protestantism with Zwingli 1500 years after Christ. Not a good teaching. St.Paul cautions against this error in First Corinthians.
You’re welcome to your innovative tradition. I’ll keep my Old Time Religion - in Holy Scripture and in the history of the Church.
Sir Thomas More referred to William Tyndale as an evangelical in the early 16th century. Tyndale himself used the term descriptively of himself as well.
Just for openers, Tyndale was 16th century.
Rather, trying to make Catholic history (in such things as her wafer god) conform to Scriptural history is an insurmountable effort, though many vainly try. There is a reason why it is asserted,
"the one duty of the multitude is to allow themselves to be led, and, like a docile flock, to follow the Pastors." Encyclical of Pope Pius X promulgated on February 11, 1906
in all cases the immediate motive in the mind of a Catholic for his reception of them [the dogmas of the Church] is, not that they are proved to him by Reason or by History, but because Revelation has declared them by means of that high ecclesiastical Magisterium which is their legitimate exponent.” — John Henry Newman, “A Letter Addressed to the Duke of Norfolk on Occasion of Mr. Gladstone's Recent Expostulation.” 8.
"Catholic doctrine, as authoritatively proposed by the Church, should be held as the supreme law," (Providentissimus Deus) under the vain premise that "the same God is the author both of the Sacred Books and of the doctrine committed to the Church," (and likewise being the author of both is contradicted by her theologians).
Rome has presumed to infallibly declare she is and will be perpetually infallible whenever she speaks in accordance with her infallibly defined (scope and subject-based) formula, which renders her declaration that she is infallible, to be infallible, as well as all else she accordingly declares.
Therefore the basis for assurance of the veracity of Catholic teaching (and for the specious claim that it conforms to Scripture) is the the novel and unScriptural premise of ensured perpetual magisterial infallibility, which is unseen and unnecessary in Scripture.
Regardless, the essential distinctives of evangelicalism are that of a shared conversion resulting in profound changes in heart and life, and thus proactive evangelism by all, and holding to Scripture as the supreme standard as the wholly inspired and accurate word of God, not the magisterial office (which yet has authority)and contention for core truths thereby by laity as well as pastors.
And as is abundantly evidenced, that as written, Scripture became the transcendent supreme standard for obedience and testing and establishing truth claims. And that the church actually began in dissent from those who sat in the seat of Moses over Israel, (Mt. 23:2) who were the historical instruments and stewards of Scripture, "because that unto them were committed the oracles of God," (Rm. 3:2) to whom pertaineth" the adoption, and the glory, and the covenants, and the giving of the law, and the service of God, and the promises" (Rm. 9:4) of Divine guidance, presence and perpetuation as they believed, (Gn. 12:2,3; 17:4,7,8; Ex. 19:5; Lv. 10:11; Dt. 4:31; 17:8-13; Ps, 11:4,9; Is. 41:10, Ps. 89:33,34; Jer. 7:23)
And instead they followed a officially rejected itinerant Preacher who and established His Truth claims upon scriptural substantiation in word and in power, as did the early church as it began upon this basis. (Mt. 22:23-45; Lk. 24:27,44; Jn. 5:36,39; Acts 2:14-35; 4:33; 5:12; 15:6-21;17:2,11; 18:28; 28:23; Rm. 15:19; 2Cor. 12:12, etc.)
And which as laity are exhorted to "earnestly contend for the faith which was once delivered unto the saints," (Jude 1:3) and "they that were scattered abroad went every where preaching the word." (Acts 8:4)
In contrast, few RCs (whom Rome counts and treats as members) have a testimony of profound conversion, and hardly can be said to be characterized by evangelical commitment, and (as shown) Scripture is not the supreme standard for obedience and testing and establishing truth claims for RCs (though they also engage in interpretation of their supreme authority, the Roman magisterium). And in the past have even been prohibited by papal and conciliar decree from contending in public debate (as here) for basic doctrines.
Instead, Catholics overall are quite liberal, including significant percentage of pastors, in stark contrast to evangelicals, even though today that term is watered down.
So you would say this if the content was in support of Marian adulation vs. testimony even from Catholics against her historical propaganda?
The devil is in the (theological) details.
You reinforce my point. William Tyndale was ordained as a Catholic priest in 1521.
The movement gained great momentum in the 18th and 19th centuries with the Great Awakenings in the United Kingdom and North America. The origins of Evangelicalism are usually traced back to English Methodism, the Moravian Church (in particular the theology of its bishop Nicolaus Zinzendorf), and German Lutheran Pietism.
Actually, it goes back a bit further....
On the next day we left and came to Caesarea, and entering the house of Philip the evangelist, who was one of the seven, we stayed with him. Acts 21:8
But you, be sober in all things, endure hardship, do the work of an evangelist, fulfill your ministry. 2 Timothy 4:5
In the book of Acts, there was one holy catholic apostolic church.
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.