The church before the Bible

[RadicalReformer]

Who appointed Peter to be bishop of Rome?

We don't know who. All we know is that tradition holds him to have been the Roman bishop, where there he was also crucified. This was commonly known in the ancient world, and it is not only Catholic Christians who believe so.

What if "tradition" is wrong?

The Muslim faith has been around for a long time - perhaps it is closer to the Teachings of Christ?!? They have been around longer...

 

[Scott1]

So, Peter was not the first Pope.

In my opinion.... as it is defined today: NOPE

It's not an essential part of my faith.... my salvation does not depend on Peter being the "first Pope".

 

[francisdesales]

Who appointed Peter to be bishop of Rome?

We don't know who. All we know is that tradition holds him to have been the Roman bishop, where there he was also crucified. This was commonly known in the ancient world, and it is not only Catholic Christians who believe so.

What if "tradition" is wrong?

The Muslim faith has been around for a long time - perhaps it is closer to the Teachings of Christ?!? They have been around longer...

Yes, when if tradition is wrong and the canon of the New Testament is incomplete or incorrect? And perhaps the Koran better represents the Teachings of Christ better, too? This line of reasoning is tossing the baby out with the bathwater... If we accept the Bible's claim that Jesus is God, we must accept that Christ established a Church to pass down His teachings to men and would protect it for all time..

Regards

 

[francisdesales]

That does not mean we are one and equally in the Church and that every Christian community is equally part of the Church.

I never said we are.... suprised that you'd throw in a strawman.

I thought I responded to this, but apparently it didn't get posted...

My point is not a "strawman" because you said that you agreed with Radical Reformer's view on what the Body of Christ consists of. Yes, it is 2000 years old, but it does not consist of a vague and self-proclaimed idea of "believers". The Bible clearly points to the Church as a visible community identified by a particular organization, heirarchy, worship, beliefs, and so forth. Paul never considers schismatics or heretics as "believers". He writes to a particular community, and THOSE people are the Church... Radical Reformer believes in the idea of "invisible church", which the Catholic Church does NOT teach, as Popes of the 20th century have strived to point out. Thus, to say you agree with his definition of Church is not in line with Catholic teaching.

the children who are born into these Communities and who grow up believing in Christ cannot be accused of the sin involved in the separation, and the Catholic Church embraces upon them as brothers, with respect and affection. For men who believe in Christ and have been truly baptized are in communion with the Catholic Church even though this communion is imperfect.
Decree on Ecumenism UNITATIS REDINTEGRATIO #3

Note, communion is imperfect. Other documents say "defective". This discounts the idea of equality. I understand the desire to be ecumenical, but ecumenism is false if it waters down the faith. The truth is not to be watered down for the sake of false ecumencism.

Nor should we forget that anything wrought by the grace of the Holy Spirit in the hearts of our separated brethren can be a help to our own edification. Whatever is truly Christian is never contrary to what genuinely belongs to the faith; indeed, it can always bring a deeper realization of the mystery of Christ and the Church.
UR #4.

That is not under dispute. I posted that I agreed with the idea that the Spirit can and does operate in these separated communities in some manner. There are numerous separated brothers here who are no doubt "in Christ". And still, they are separated from full communion with the Body of Christ, the Church... Thus, the idea of "church" between our communities differs and this remains a point of disagreement between Catholicism and other communities of Christians.

If you still believe I have misunderstood you, please explain yourself so I can see what I am missing in your agreement with Radical Reformer.

Regards

 

[Scott1]

The Muslim faith has been around for a long time - perhaps it is closer to the Teachings of Christ?!? They have been around longer...

Islam has been around longer than Christianity?

 

[Scott1]

My point is not a "strawman" because you said that you agreed with Radical Reformer's view on what the Body of Christ consists of.

Sorry I was not clear on this... I don't agree with RR about the idea of "invisible church... or that we are "equal" in the strictest sense.... but there is communion, however imperfect.

Note, communion is imperfect. Other documents say "defective".

We are all "wounded" by the lack of unity.

That is not under dispute. I posted that I agreed with the idea that the Spirit can and does operate in these separated communities in some manner. There are numerous separated brothers here who are no doubt "in Christ". And still, they are separated from full communion with the Body of Christ, the Church... Thus, the idea of "church" between our communities differs and this remains a point of disagreement between Catholicism and other communities of Christians.

Great.... I just choose to focus on what we have in common.... you and other Catholics can continue to remind our separated bretheren how much they are lacking to achieve full communion with us, and I will continue to show them how much they are loved and appreciated as brothers and sisters of our Lord.... a little diversity can't hurt, right?

 

[RadicalReformer]

Francesdesales - I do not believe in an invisible church. Rather, it was Augustine (I believe) that taught of the invisible and visible church (Corpus Christendom).

 

[Scott1]

Rather, it was Augustine (I believe) that taught of the invisible and visible church (Corpus Christendom).

Just FYI ... it was not Augustine... and what did you mean by Corpus (Latin) Christendom (English)... ????

 

[Devekut]

[quote:3b7db]So, Peter was not the first Pope.

In my opinion.... as it is defined today: NOPE

It's not an essential part of my faith.... my salvation does not depend on Peter being the "first Pope".[/quote:3b7db]

When we say Peter was the first pope we simply mean that he was the bishop of Rome, a fact which the entire ancient Christian world agreed upon. The Gospel of John predicts his death, and early tradition attests that this took place where he was bishop; Rome.

Certainly, the prestige of Rome increased over time, but even those who disagreed with the Papcy's claims gave it "primacy of place".

 

[Scott1]

When we say Peter was the first pope we simply mean that he was the bishop of Rome, a fact which the entire ancient Christian world agreed upon.

I'm glad you agree... too many Catholics believe that from the time of Peter the Papacy exisited as it does today... which is not the case.

Certainly, the prestige of Rome increased over time, but even those who disagreed with the Papcy's claims gave it "primacy of place".

Yep.... but that means something different to the Orthodox than it does to us... but I know what you mean.

 

[Devekut]

Oh, for certain the Orthodox mean something different by primacy. That is another argument all together, which is worth discussing with Rad if he were Orthodox. In regard's to his objections, it is most important to emphasize the fact that Peter as the Roman bishop was well known, and that Rome even long before the Papacy in its modern form, enjoyed a certain prestige among the early Christians.

I personally believe that, in due time, the real meaning of Peter being entrusted with the keys of heaven and being called the "rock" came to full light according the needs of the Church as they arose.

 

[Scott1]

In regard's to his objections, it is most important to emphasize the fact that Peter as the Roman bishop was well known, and that Rome even long before the Papacy in its modern form, enjoyed a certain prestige among the early Christians.

Very true... I have a great work on this subject by (then) Cardinal Ratizinger talking about what "Primacy of Love" really means.... awesome stuff... shows the need for an instrument of unity (the Papacy) in the Christian church. I'll send it to you if I can find it.

 

[Devekut]

That would be wonderful. I'm an avid Ratzinger fan, wonderful theologian. Thanks be to God for his election, because it will truly expose the world to his many deeply insightful works.

 

[francisdesales]

Sorry I was not clear on this... I don't agree with RR about the idea of "invisible church... or that we are "equal" in the strictest sense.... but there is communion, however imperfect.

OK, thanks for that explanation.

We are all "wounded" by the lack of unity.

The Body is wounded by the imperfect unity. Agreed. Not sure about the "we", since one must be validly baptized to be a member of the Body, ordinarily. Some self-proclaimed "Christians" have not been validly baptized, and are thus not part of the Body in the sense laid out by Lumen Gentium. For this reason, we must be careful. The Church does not re-baptize. Even heretical (yet valid) baptisms are sufficient to enter the Body, the Catholic Church. But they must be valid baptisms.

I just choose to focus on what we have in common.... you and other Catholics can continue to remind our separated bretheren how much they are lacking to achieve full communion with us, and I will continue to show them how much they are loved and appreciated as brothers and sisters of our Lord.... a little diversity can't hurt, right?

No, but you are quick to judge other Catholics here. It is virtually certain that you have not read all of our posts. I am certain that some of our separated brothers can speak for Devekut and myself, and every one of our posts are not disruptive and meant to divide. We try to put forth the Catholic teachings without belittling the other person.

The points where we disagree on are naturally going to be more obvious, as both parties go back and forth, posting a number of times, sometimes becoming emotionally involved, using big and colorful letters. On points we agree on, there is generally less conversation and fewer posts. Thus, it may appear to the new person here that all we do is argue, because there are more posts dedicated to disagreement. That is the nature of these forums. Also, because of the nature of the sub-forum set aside for us Catholics, it is inevitable that we WILL disagree. Look at the topics, Scott...

And finally, one should be careful that one is TRULY in agreement. False ecumenism is never condoned by the Church.

Regards

 

[francisdesales]

Francesdesales - I do not believe in an invisible church. Rather, it was Augustine (I believe) that taught of the invisible and visible church (Corpus Christendom).

First, St. Augustine was speaking of the Church at the end time and comparing it with the Church which remains, tares and all... We are not speaking of that right now. That "invisible" Church is the pure and unblemished Bride that will be presented to Christ only at the parousia.

The idea of "invisible church" today means that the Church is made up of all 'true' believers in Jesus Christ, the sheep whom Christ knows as His own and who are truly saved. In other words, ecclesiastical heirarchies, ceremonies, sacraments, and so forth are man-made structures which are merely convenient to carry out particular functions, not something established by God.

The idea of a "visible church" is one that has visible ceremonies, officials, heirarchies, and a condition for membership (baptism). One that can be pointed to in the world. A Church, to be fully considered as such, must have preserved a valid Episcopate and the Eucharist. Otherwise, they are considered an ecclesiastical community.

However heretical any ecclesiastical community has become, if they have preserved some of the visible signs above, they are part of that one Church, the Catholic Church. While they may be called "imperfect" or "defective", the individuals are part of the Body to the degree that they are united to that one Church, the Catholic Church.

With these clarifications of my point of view, what is your view on who is of the Body?

Regards

 

[BFSmith764]

Can anyone here tell me they don't believe that the church came BEFORE the bible? And what Scripture line and verse backs this up?

The Church, did not come about before the Bible....the early New Testament Church of course did not have the New Testament Bible as we have. The early Church used the Old Testament as their Bible. The New Testament is basically letters that were written to the Church.

For example, to prove that the Bible came before the Church, when Paul was writting to Thimothy and said what he said in 2 Timothy 3:16-17,the scriptures he was talking about was the Old Testament.

2 Timothy 3:16-17 (ASV)
16 Every scripture inspired of God is also profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, for instruction which is in righteousness.
17 That the man of God may be complete, furnished completely unto every good work.

Question...how many of us believe as did Paul and others that the Old Testament scriptures are also for our Teaching, Correction, Reproof, and Instruction?

I dear say that many if not most do not see the Old Testament this way, which would explain why so many professing Christian lack a lot of understanding in many things pertaining to God and what He is doing.

 

[Scott1]

The Church, did not come about before the Bible....the early New Testament Church of course did not have the New Testament Bible as we have. The early Church used the Old Testament as their Bible. The New Testament is basically letters that were written to the Church.

You seem to be missing the point.... the early Church used the Septuagint version of the OT (Protestants today do not)..... and the NT only came about because the Church decided which books were part of the Christian faith and which were not..... that it was the Church that decided the canon that became the "modern" bible is what is meant by the Church came before the Bible.

Question...how many of us believe as did Paul and others that the Old Testament scriptures are also for our Teaching, Correction, Reproof, and Instruction?

Catholics..... Orthodox...... to name two.

How many of you out there decided to follow the JEWISH canon of scripture and remove books from your bible? I do remember a warning against doing that. :o

Peace in Christ,
S

 

[Imagican]

BF,

the WORD Bible did NOT exist Until well AFTER the formation of The Church. But FIRST we MUST come to an agreement of WHAT we are speaking OF when we refer to The Church.

The Church is NOTHING other than the Body of Christ. Christ as it's HEAD and those tha follow Him in Word and DEED as the BODY. It has NOTHING to DO with a 'physical temple' per se. It is a Spiritual entity. REGARDLESS of WHERE one IS 'physically', they are STILL ABLE to BE a 'part of the Body'. That man has altered the MEANING of the word 'church' to describe a PARTICULAR building or denomination doesn't ALTER the TRUTH of WHAT the Church IS.

But The Church was began by Christ BEFORE the Bible was EVER DREAMED of by man. That there WERE OT scriptures goes without arguement. But these were NEVER compiled in what WE KNOW as 'a Bible'. Torah were scrolls.

The PIECES that were compiled into the NT weren't even a 'Bible until only a few hundred years ago. The ancient Church had NO such compilation of scripture. They were LED MOSTLY by The Spirit. Their lives, SO MUCH MORE than now, were conformed to the Word to the point that they really NEEDED no Bible. The apostles wrote letters to the different groups when they SAW that there were problems with understanding. These now are PART of what WE CALL The Bible.

So, which came first? The written Word or the Chruch? That's a NO brainer. For the written Word came FROM The Church, or Body of Christ.

MEC

 

[BFSmith764]

So, which came first? The written Word or the Chruch? That's a NO brainer. For the written Word came FROM The Church, or Body of Christ.

MEC

So you're excluding the Old Testament? There were no Church when the Old Testament was being written; though the children of Israel was a type of the Church to come.

 

[Imagican]

So, which came first? The written Word or the Chruch? That's a NO brainer. For the written Word came FROM The Church, or Body of Christ.

MEC

So you're excluding the Old Testament? There were no Church when the Old Testament was being written; though the children of Israel was a type of the Church to come.

There WAS NO Body of Christ PREVIOUS to His BEING revealed. The traditional or orthodox Jews STILL don't accept Christ AS the Messiah.

They were a PEOPLE 'set apart' so far as their relationship with God but there WAS no Spiritual Temple durring the First covenant. EVERYTHING was physical, determined by LAW.

Upon the advent of the SECOND covenant, (the one we live under NOW), the TEMPLE was REPLACED by The Church, (and I DON'T mean simply what we CALL a 'place to gather' PHYSICALLY). The Church BEING the Body of Christ, (those that follow Christ in word and deed). The 'temple' is NOW within the hearts of those that accept Christ and follow His commandments.

Basically the heart is a figurative name of that which is able to hold and distribute LOVE. That our PHYSICAL hearts are MOVED by LOVE is MOST likely where this sybolic reference came from. For WHEN we FEEL that which is LOVE, HATE, ANY EMOTIONS in their EXTREME, we DO get a physical sensation in the REGION of our CHEST in which our heart is located. Actual physical CHANGES take place IN THE HEART, (organ), and therefore it is sybolically the LOCATION of OUR LOVE.

MEC