The Church - Ekklesia - Built On Peter.

[mulls]

the topic got off track due to some scornful remarks.

however i never did intend to contribute to this topic

i just wanted to comment about how everybody is getting soooo excited because a non-Catholic had not replied yet.

I asked whether it made a difference if somebody disproved it today or in the future.

[Aloysius]

I asked whether it made a difference if somebody disproved it today or in the future.

~mulls

disprove it today? not a chance.

disprove it in the future? impossible.

it's too true. no one has been able to disprove it for 2000 years, what makes u so confident?

i think someone made a quote about somethin, but i don't know who or the exact words, my friend Leah once told it to me

the jist of it is what's the point in makin all sorts of arguments n stuff? all of our ideas have already been thought before, granted our ideas arent on the scientific frontier, but then again, God at least has already come up with those ideas.

anyway, become Catholic mulls. That way, you don't have to take the burden of disproving something that hasn't been disproven for TWO THOUSAND YEARS!

"a day is as a thousand years for God" that's in the psalms somewhere right? so maybe u can take consulation in that. It hasn't been proven in 2 days

anyway, Pax Christi!

[mulls]

burden?

i don't feel burdened by anything. do you think i'm on some sort of crusade to disprove Catholocism? well, i'm not. i'm trying to learn about it. if y'all want to try and convert me, that's fine, i know it's being done out of compassion.

forget about what i said about disproving this thread. you misunderstood what i said (my fault) and i don't feel like explaining it over.

[littleflower+JMJ]

bump :D

[ironmonk]

Dust,

Is there a way to tell the last time nothing logged in, like there was with the old message board?

God Bless,

ironmonk

[ironmonk]

Bump for our new non-Catholic friends

God Bless, Love in Christ & Mary,

ironmonk

www.MoralTruth.com

A few resources for ya:

www.ScriptureCatholic.com

www.USCCB.org

www.Catholic.com

[Dave]

bump, bump, bump

[ironmonk]

bump.

[MC Just]

The Papacy is not something that Roman Catholics made up. Anyone who believes that is extremely ignorant. The Papacy existed in the Jewish Law. Jesus just took that authority and gave it to Peter. In the Old law they needed a Prime Minister, someone to hold the Authority of the King, in the Old Law it was the Scribes and Pharisees under the Prime Minister. It was an office, just like in the Christian Papacy. read Isaiah 22:19-25, this is the same as the Pope's office in Rome. Eliakim was called "FAther to the inhabitants of Jerusalem" Father, in Latin is "Papa" Thats were the word "Pope" comes from. The Pope is a "Father to the inhabitants of the New Jerusalem" When he opens no one shall shut, when he shuts noone shall open. This type of Authority does not exist in Protestantism because they deny it and believe it was created by the Roman Church. But if you read the Old Testament you'll learn that the Papacy existed back then and it was just fullfilled When Jesus created his Church.

[mustbenothing]

(Aloysius) all the non-Catholics now HAVE TO become Catholic.

(Me) Considering that my arguments on Communion, Justification, Election, and the Scripture's authority were not answered, should I conclude that all the Catholics now have to become non-Catholic?

(ironmonk) If the Catholic Church is not the one built by Christ, then which is?

No other Christian church has been around for 2000 years.

(Me) You're still committing that core fallacy of assuming that the fact that since the Roman Catholic Church of today has the same name as it did quite a while ago, and it shares a robust political connection with the true Church historically, that it must be equivalent to the Church that Christ built. However, if we say that the mark of a true Church is a place in which the Word and Sacrament are faithfully present, your entire argument falls.

(ironmonk) The Catholic Church gave us the Canon of the New Testament. If it wasn't for the Catholic Church, we would not have the NT.

"We are compelled to concede to the Papists that they have the Word of God, that we received it from them, and that without them we should have no knowledge of it at all."

~ Martin Luther, Commentary on St. John

(Me) Yes, and we also received many of our Old Testament manuscripts through non-Christian Jews, and we also have atheistic archaelogists who dig up manuscripts. The fact that we got the Bible through the Roman Catholic Church does not mean that the Roman Catholic Church is identical to the Church that Christ built!

(ironmonk) St. Matt 16:18 "And so I say to you, you are Peter (Kephas), and upon this rock (Kephas) I will build my church(Ekklesia), and the gates of the netherworld shall not prevail against it."

19 I will give you the keys to the kingdom of heaven. Whatever you bind on earth shall be bound in heaven; and whatever you loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven."

Those who say that the Church lost it's way are wrong. They say that the "Church" is the people within it... that is one definition, but not in this verse.

Peter was the first Head Bishop (aka Pope). The Church was built on Peter by Christ. It will never be overcome. The Church of the New Covenant parallels the Church of the Old Covenant. A leading body of men are guided by God to teach men in Truth (1 Tim 3:15, St. Matt 18:17, St. John 14:16-18, St. Matt 5:13-15, St. Matt 28:18-20, St. Luke 10:16, Eph 4:1-6)

The Church in St. Matt 16:18 is clearly in context to what was built on Peter... The hierarchy of the Church was built on Peter... Peter's successor carried Peter's authority... and does so today... Pope John Paul II, successor of Peter...

The so called prot reformers left the Church to start their own churches based on their own personal beliefs.

The Church was never overcome, and the Church that is spoken of in St. Matt. 16:18 is the Catholic Church.

The Church built by Christ was not of lay people on Peter's shoulders, but it was the teaching authority that we have today... The Catholic Church; Pope; Bishops; Priests; Deacons.... The first bishops being the Apostles who were lead by Peter, just as Jesus told Peter to in St. John 21:15-17.

Anyone who says otherwise is wrong. The writings of the Early Church Fathers and history prove it.

To say that the Church spoken of in St. Matt 16:!8 was the sheep and the "real" Church left, is a strawman that will blow away in the wind of Truth. For Ekklesia (Church) was clearly the teaching authority. As we see Jesus point out...

(Me) You repeatedly seem to think that if there is ever a grave error within the Church at any point in time, that the gates of Hell have prevailed against her. The gates of Hell only prevailed if she is defeated -- not if she is injured or suffers. Other than that (which is an argument with which I have dealt on this forum at least 20 times), I see no argument above.

I'm also fairly confused about many of the comments about the Church. Do you mean to say that you are not a member of the Church? If not, I really have no idea how the comments there ("The Church built by Christ was not of lay people on Peter's shoulders") are at all relevant to Protestantism.

(ironmonk) St Matt 18:17 (Jesus said) If he refuses to listen to them, tell the church. If he refuses to listen even to the church(Ekklesia), then treat him as you would a Gentile or a tax collector.

It's obvious that Jesus is not talking about bringing the worldwide Church of sheep together to settle an argument... Jesus is clearly speaking of the teaching authority that He gave to the Catholic Church.

To say that the Catholic Church was the Church built by Christ and lost it's way is to say Jesus was wrong.

The Church was built on Peter... but for the Church to be built on Peter, and have authority, it cannot be all Christian believers. The Catholic Church is that which is lead by the successor of Peter.

(Me) It seems more to be talking about church discipline regarding sin than teaching authority, but you are certainly right that this passage refers to the Church having authority. Again, I must ask: how does this mean that the Church has the infallible teaching authority the Catholic Church claims?

Matthew 18:15-20

15 "If your brother sins against you, go and tell him his fault, between you and him alone. If he listens to you, you have gained your brother.

16 But if he does not listen, take one or two others along with you, that every charge may be established by the evidence of two or three witnesses.

17 If he refuses to listen to them, tell it to the church. And if he refuses to listen even to the church, let him be to you as a Gentile and a tax collector.

18 Truly, I say to you, whatever you bind on earth shall be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven.

19 Again I say to you, if two of you agree on earth about anything they ask, it will be done for them by my Father in heaven.

20 For where two or three are gathered in my name, there am I among them."

[dUSt]

You're still committing that core fallacy of assuming that the fact that since the Roman Catholic Church of today has the same name as it did quite a while ago, and it shares a robust political connection with the true Church historically, that it must be equivalent to the Church that Christ built.  However, if we say that the mark of a true Church is a place in which the Word and Sacrament are faithfully present, your entire argument falls.

That's assuming that you believe that the Catholic Church doesn't present the Word and Sacraments faithfully. Despite all your claims of proving the Church wrong, I've yet to see an argument come from you that does that.

Yes, and we also received many of our Old Testament manuscripts through non-Christian Jews, and we also have atheistic archaelogists who dig up manuscripts.  The fact that we got the Bible through the Roman Catholic Church does not mean that the Roman Catholic Church is identical to the Church that Christ built!

Who's trying to prove the authenticity of the Church by stating the Bible came from it? You may have missed the point. The fact that the Bible came from the Church is a statement of the authenticity of the Bible.

Your other points regarding the inability to prove that the Catholic Church is the true Church are meaningless. How do you prove that the Presbyterian Church is the true Church? Apostolic succession is key here. The Catholic Church has it. Protestant churches do not. You can say "the true church is the one that presents the Word faithfully" all you want, but without a solid, physical, visible, and historical foundation, it comes down to your personal interpretation of what you believe "faithful presentation" to be.

God bless.

[ironmonk]

Just one thing, since dust answered you very well...

It seems more to be talking about church discipline regarding sin than teaching authority,

Ref: St. Matt. 18:17 If he refuses to listen to them, tell it to the church. And if he refuses to listen even to the church, let him be to you as a Gentile and a tax collector.

Stop and think about what "discipline" is... Who can give discipline unless they have Authority. It is only an Authority that can give discipline.

Stop thinking one dimensional. Christianity is multi-dimensional... it's deep; it's not shallow.

Try to see it this way.... The scriptures are like an archeological dig... once you find a fossil, you don't stop digging in that spot, but you dig deeper.

From the Early Church Fathers

(3rd Century)

Epistle LIV.

To Cornelius, Concerning Fortunatus and Felicissimus, or Against the Heretics.

Argument.—Cyprian Chiefly Warns Cornelius in This Letter Not to Hear the Calumnies of Felicissimus and Fortunatus Against Him, and Not to Be Frightened by Their Threats, But to Be of a Brave Spirit, as Becomes God’s Priests in Opposition to Heretics; Namely, Those Who, After the Custom Prevailing Among Heretics, Began Their Heresy and Schisms with the Contempt of One Bishop in the Church.

21....

And although I know that our brotherhood there, assuredly fortified by your foresight, and besides sufficiently cautious by their own vigilance, cannot be taken nor deceived by the poisons of heretics, and that the teachings and precepts of God prevail with them only in proportion as the fear of God is in them; yet, even although needlessly, either my solicitude or my love persuaded me to write these things to you, that no commerce should be entered into with such; that no banquets nor conferences be entertained with the wicked; but that we should be as much separated from them, as they are deserters from the Church; because it is written, “If he shall neglect to hear the Church, let him be unto thee as a heathen man and a publican.” And the blessed apostle not only warns, but also commands us to withdraw from such. “We command you,” he says, “in the name of Jesus Christ our Lord, that ye withdraw yourselves from every brother that walketh disorderly, and not after the tradition which he received of us.” There can be no fellowship between faith and I faithlessness. He who is not with Christ, who is an adversary of Christ, who is hostile to His unity and peace, cannot be associated with us. If they come with prayers and atonements, let them be heard; if they heap together curses and threats, let them be rejected. I bid you, dearest brother, ever heartily farewell.

- Roberts, Alexander and Donaldson, James, Ante-Nicene Fathers: Volume V, (Oak Harbor, WA: Logos Research Systems, Inc.) 1997.

http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/0506.htm

APOSTOLIC TEACHING AND CONSTITUTIONS (400 AD)

http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/ - Under the miscellaneous section near the bottom.

————————————

Apostolic Teaching and Constitutions

————————————

The Lord’s Teaching Through the Twelve Apostles to the Nations.

Roberts, Alexander and Donaldson, James, Ante-Nicene Fathers: Volume VII, (Oak Harbor, WA: Logos Research Systems, Inc.) 1997.

Chapter XV. —Bishops and Deacons; Christian Reproof.

1. Appoint, therefore, for yourselves, bishops and deacons worthy of the Lord, men meek, and not lovers of money, and truthful and proved; for they also render to you the service of prophets and teachers. 2. Despise them not therefore, for they are your honoured ones, together with the prophets and teachers. 3. And reprove one another, not in anger, but in peace, as ye have it in the Gospel; but to every one that acts amiss against another, let no one speak, nor let him hear aught from you until he repent. 4. But your prayers and alms and all your deeds so do, as ye have it in the Gospel of our Lord.

- Roberts, Alexander and Donaldson, James, Ante-Nicene Fathers: Volume VII, (Oak Harbor, WA: Logos Research Systems, Inc.) 1997.

That Sinners are Privately to Be Reproved, and the Penitent to Be Received, According to the Constitution of Our Lord.

XXXVIII. If, therefore, he be persuaded by the mouth of you three, it is well. But if any one hardens himself, “tell it to the Church: but if he neglects to hear the Church, let him be to thee as an heathen man and a publican; ” and receive him no longer into the Church as a Christian, but reject him as an heathen. But if he be willing to repent, receive him. For the Church does not receive an heathen or a publican to communion, before they every one repent of their former impieties; for our Lord Jesus, the Christ of God, has appointed place for the acceptance of men upon their repentance.

Roberts, Alexander and Donaldson, James, Ante-Nicene Fathers: Volume VII, (Oak Harbor, WA: Logos Research Systems, Inc.) 1997.

THE EPISTLES OF CLEMENT (~80 AD)

http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/1010.htm

Chapter XLVI.—Let Us Cleave to the Righteous: Your Strife is Pernicious.

Such examples, therefore, brethren, it is right that we should follow; since it is written, “Cleave to the holy, for those that cleave to them shall [themselves] be made holy.” And again, in another place, [the Scripture] saith, “With a harmless man thou shalt prove thyself harmless, and with an elect man thou shalt be elect, and with a perverse man thou shalt show thyself perverse.” Let us cleave, therefore, to the innocent and righteous, since these are the elect of God. Why are there strifes, and tumults, and divisions, and schisms, and wars among you? Have we not [all] one God and one Christ? Is there not one Spirit of grace poured out upon us? And have we not one calling in Christ? Why do we divide and tear in pieces the members of Christ, and raise up strife against our own body, and have reached such a height of madness as to forget that “we are members one of another? ” Remember the words of our Lord Jesus Christ, how He said, “Woe to that man [by whom offences come]! It were better for him that he had never been born, than that he should cast a stumbling-block before one of my elect. Yea, it were better for him that a millstone should be hung about [his neck], and he should be sunk in the depths of the sea, than that he should cast a stumbling-block before one of my little ones.” Your schism has subverted [the faith of] many, has discouraged many, has given rise to doubt in many, and has caused grief to us all. And still your sedition continueth.

Roberts, Alexander and Donaldson, James, Ante-Nicene Fathers: Volume X, (Oak Harbor, WA: Logos Research Systems, Inc.) 1997.

Ad Majorem Dei Gloriam,

ironmonk

Edited August 30, 2003 by ironmonk

[ironmonk]

bump

[ironmonk]

bump

[Dave]

yet another bump