The history of the church.

[Carbon]

Gregory the Great rejects the notion that anyone, the Roman bishop included, should ever be called "Universal Bishop":

"But not one of my predecessors has ever consented to use this so profane a title; since…if one Patriarch is called Universal, the name of Patriarch in the case of the rest is derogated. But far be this, far be it from the mind of a Christian, that any one should wish to seize for himself that whereby he might seem in the least degree to lessen the honour of his brethren. While, then, we are unwilling to receive this honour when offered to us, think how disgraceful it is for anyone to have wished to usurp it to himself perforce….Certainly Peter, the first of the apostles, himself a member of the holy and universal Church, Paul, Andrew, John,’ what were they but heads of particular communities?…Now I confidently say that whosoever calls himself, or desires to be called, Universal Pope, is in his elation the precursor of Antichrist, because he proudly puts himself above all others."

Hmm

 

[Arch Stanton]

Gregory the Great rejects the notion that anyone, the Roman bishop included, should ever be called "Universal Bishop":

Saint Gregory the Great believed in the universal jurisdiction and authority of the Bishop of Rome over the entire Church. However, he condemned the misuse of the title "universal bishop" when it implied that only the Bishop of Rome was a true bishop, with others merely acting as his deputies.

 

[Mr GLee]

Mystical union of God and His church!

Hi Don, What kind of mystical union?

Mystical union with the male and female gods of this world called today patron saints which tradition was passed from the Pharisees with Sadducees they also refused to hear sola scriptura all things written the law and prophets and followed I heard it through the legion of fathers grape vine empowered by a queen mother of heaven .

Jerimiah 44: 15-17 Then all the men which knew that their wives had burned incense unto other gods, and all the women that stood by, a great multitude, even all the people that dwelt in the land of Egypt, in Pathros, answered Jeremiah, saying,As for the word that thou hast spoken unto us in the name of the Lord, we will not hearken unto thee. But we will certainly do whatsoever thing goeth forth out of our own mouth, to burn incense unto the queen of heaven, and to pour out drink offerings unto her, as we have done, we, and our fathers, our kings, and our princes, in the cities of Judah, and in the streets of Jerusalem: for then had we plenty of victuals, and were well, and saw no evil.

Call no man one earth Holy Father, Holy See, Bishop of Rome, Our Holiness etc

 

[Alive]

Here is a small section on the discussion of Church Order from Kennedy's 'Torch of the Testimony'. Perhaps it will be of some help.
-----------------------
The churches in early days were not linked by any type of federal organization, although they were closely united by bonds of Christian fellowship. No one church had precedence over another, yet those assemblies which had been longer and more solidly grounded in the faith were naturally respected as sources of advice and spiritual counsel in time of need. In he pattern of evangelism which is outlined in the Acts, the Gospel was first preached in the strategic centres, and from there it penetrated into the surrounding areas. The church which had been used to initiate the spread of the truth in a particular district would naturally have a parental concern for the infant churches it had brought into being, and would in turn receive due spiritual recognition from the weaker groups, but that did not in any sense presume overlordship of one church upon another : it was simply an expression of the concern of fellowship through which all developed together in the things of the Spirit. The earliest quest for advice of which we read is when a delegation was sent from Antioch to consult with the apostles and elders at Jerusalem over the matter of the circumcision

[pg 69]

of Gentile converts, certain Judaistic teachers having insisted that this was necessary for salvation (Acts 15: 1-35). It is obvious from the account given by Luke that the brethren at Antioch were simply desirous of some mature counsel on a question that
was causing considerable perplexity. They also wished to prove he bona fides of the visiting teachers who apparently claimed the authority of the apostles at Jerusalem for what they said (Acts 15:1, 24). There is no indication that they were looking for some ex cathedra pronouncement from Jerusalem which should arbitrarily be accepted as divine law. Had the church
in Jerusalem felt it was their place to dictate on matters of doctrine, they would almost certainly have attempted earlier to formulate some opinion on such an important question as circumcision, for they could hardly have been unaware that circumcision was not practised among the believers at Antioch, while those in the church at Jerusalem had conformed to this Jewish rite. Yet when the matter is raised before the Jeru- salem elders, the ensuing discussion makes it perfectly clear that little if any previous attempt had been made to find the mind of the Spirit. The need for a thorough examination of the question had not hitherto arisen since it had caused no problem
in their own midst. There had been no previous considera- tion of examining the question in order to legislate for others.
In the resultant letter sent from Jerusalem, however, there is an unmistakable air of authority. This would have been perfectly in order as an apostolic pronouncement, the

[pg 70]

position of the apostles being what it was at that particular period, but the church at Antioch had the word of the apostle Paul who had been with them when the question of circumcision was so acutely raised, and Paul was in no doubt as to the mind of the Spirit on the matter. The letter from Jerusalem, of course, was not an apostolic pronouncement; it was a letter from the
church (Acts 15:23) addressed and circulated to the brethren in Antioch, Syria and Cilicia, with ‘advice’ which was expected to be obeyed. And the ‘advice’ was obeyed for, after all, it was good advice. The whole background of the incident shows that the church at Jerusalem did not think it their position to act as an ecclesiastical authority for churches in other places, but when their counsel was sought it was given with the air that it ought to be accepted without question. And ‘advice’ which is always and inevitably obeyed is, of course, a command.

But more of this in the following chapter.

Even at a later period in the history of the church when a monarchical bishopric had been established, the independence of individual congregations was maintained. Churches may have consulted freely with one another on numerous matters, but once the consultations were over, there was no accepted rule that the pronouncement of one body should dominate over the rest. There were not infrequent instances of

[pg 71]

individuals trying to make their own judgment in some matter binding upon all, but that this attempt should be made at all proves
that the churches did not recognise any human pontiff or any ‘mother church’ as the mouthpiece of God. To quote but one exaniple from the post-apostolic era: in the year 231 Origen,
one of the most gifted and spiritually-minded teachers of any
age, was excommunicated by the jealous Demetrius, Bishop of Alexandria. Demetrius sought recognition for his action from
the whole Christian world in an attempt effectively to curtail Origen's influence, but the support he desired was generally denied, and Origen continued to earn the respect of those he taught until he died in the year 254.
here were many opportunities in the early years of the church's history for the believers to minister to one another in
practical matters. Right from the beginning a sense of mutual responsibility was developed. In the church at Jerusalem there was a voluntary pooling of resources from which the requirements of those in need could be met (Acts 2: 44-45), and some the first believers to be set apart for particular service were deacons whose job was to oversee the distribution of charity.

This common sense of obligation soon manifested itself out- side the local church, in the desire of one church to minister to
the needs of others. The churches in Jerusalem and Judaea seemed to be inflicted with a chronic poverty which made them

[pg 72]

the object of much assistance from others. Barnabas and Saul were deputed by the believers in Antioch to deliver a gift to Jerusalem to relieve the church during a time of severe famine (Acts 11: 29-30). Later, Paul organized a collection over a wide area for the Jerusalem saints, believers in many places
contributing generously in their concern (Rom. 15 : 25-26; I Cor. 16: 1-4). It does not seem that one of Paul’s main objects in organizing this collection was realised, namely, the forging of 34

CHURCH ORDER

more intimate bonds between the predominantly Gentile churches and the peculiarly class-conscious Jews of the church
at Jerusalem, but the gesture was, nevertheless, a mark of the sense of responsibility to one another which existed generally throughout the churches, and if the recipients were not blessed s much as they ought to have been, it was certainly a blessing and strength to those who gave.

As well as the settled administration of the local churches which was in the hands of elders there was, as we find from
New Testament, a ministry exercised by gifted brethren who moved widely among the various assemblies. Paul and some of the apostles, among others, were engaged in this type of ministry. The book of the Acts gives a clear idea of the

[pg 73]

function it served. In his epistle to the Ephesians Pau! enumerates the gifts which are used for the establishment and building up of the church. They are apostles and prophets, whose ministry is now embodied in the completed canon of Scripture (see page 30), and evangelists, pastors and teachers, whose ministries in all ages are exercised according to the enabling given by God to His servants (Eph. 4:11). These gifts had a local expression in the elders of each assembly, and an extra-local expression in the itinerant ministries of Paul and others who formed a spiritual link of great value between the people of God in the various churches. They were not officials of any ecclesiastical organization, but ministers of Christ who were accepted, and whose authority was recognised because the mark of the Spirit was upon them. The effectiveness of their ministry was dependent solely upon their spiritual worth. They occupied no legal position which could have afforded them a guarantee ot continued status should their devotion to God and their spiritual vitality wane.

 

[Arch Stanton]

Irenaeus​

But since it would be too long to enumerate in such a volume as this the succession of all the churches, we shall confound all those who, in whatever manner, whether through self-satisfaction or vainglory, or through blindness and wicked opinion, assemble other than where it is proper, by pointing out here the successions of the bishops of the greatest and most ancient church known to all, founded and organized at Rome by the two most glorious apostles. Peter and Paul, that church which has the tradition and the faith which comes down to us after having been announced to men by the apostles. With that church, because of its superior origin, all the churches must agree, that is, all the faithful in the whole world, and it is in her that the faithful everywhere have maintained the apostolic tradition (Against Heresies 3:3:2 [A.D. 189]).

 

[donadams]

Hi Don, What kind of mystical union?

Mystical union with the male and female gods of this world called today patron saints which tradition was passed from the Pharisees with Sadducees they also refused to hear sola scriptura all things written the law and prophets and followed I heard it through the legion of fathers grape vine empowered by a queen mother of heaven .

Jerimiah 44: 15-17 Then all the men which knew that their wives had burned incense unto other gods, and all the women that stood by, a great multitude, even all the people that dwelt in the land of Egypt, in Pathros, answered Jeremiah, saying,As for the word that thou hast spoken unto us in the name of the Lord, we will not hearken unto thee. But we will certainly do whatsoever thing goeth forth out of our own mouth, to burn incense unto the queen of heaven, and to pour out drink offerings unto her, as we have done, we, and our fathers, our kings, and our princes, in the cities of Judah, and in the streets of Jerusalem: for then had we plenty of victuals, and were well, and saw no evil.

Call no man one earth Holy Father, Holy See, Bishop of Rome, Our Holiness etc

Whst do The spirit and the bride say?

 

[donadams]

There is no biblical record of that.

Lk 22:29

 

[donadams]

Cyprian of Carthage. Epistle XXVI

Just as the one Church of Christ is divided into many members throughout the world, so the one episcopate is expanded into a multiplicity of many bishops united in concord.

And again from the same saint:

Receive ye the Holy Spirit: if you forgive the sins of anyone, they will be forgiven him; if you retain the sins of anyone, they will be retained, yet that He might display unity, He established by His authority the origin of the same unity as beginning from one. Surely the rest of the Apostles also were that which Peter was, endowed with an equal partnership of office and of power...

They are all bishops with authority from Christ but peter is the first matt 10:2 and only peter did Christ identify with himself


Jn 21:17 Peter entrusted with the flock or church

Acts 15:7 God chose Peter

Only peter gets the keys of jurisdictional authority
Matt 16-19


Lk 22:32
Jesus prays for Peter alone, and instructed peter to minister to the other apostles

It is Jesus Christ who identifies peter with himself! Matt 17:27
(And allows peter to act as mediator with the Pharisees)

Why does Christ change Peter’s name, God changing a persons name like Abram to Abraham or Jacob to Israel always signifies a mission or ministry!

 

[Alive]

Another bit looking at the dynamics at work in the early church...John Kennedy
-----------------------

Finally, a word on what the early believers were called.

The church in apostolic times maintained a plea for namelessness which has been continued right up to the present day and which, in itself, would form a most interesting, historical study. Their desire has again and again been denied them, but there has never lackecdl someone to espouse the cause that the Lord’s name is sufficient to denote the Lord’s family. It has always seemed to be a losing battle, yet the battle still continues. The believers in the early churches used various names to describe themselves, but the most commonly used in the epistles are ‘saints’ and ‘brethren’, terms which denoted simply that they were people in whose hearts a divine work had been wrought, and that they were bound together in the family of God. A name that was foisted upon them in Hebrew society was ‘ Nazarenes’, no doubt from the fact that they were followers of Jesus of Nazareth. Luke, however, in the Acts, speaks of the ‘disciples’ and in Antioch they were first given the name ‘Christians’ (Acts 11:26). They spoke much of Jesus as the ‘Christ’, a term full of meaning to the Jews but strange- sounding and of little significance to the Gentiles. The Gentiles, therefore, called them ‘ Christianoi’, Christ's people. The name was peculiarly apt. What more would Christ’s people want to be called than simply that, Christians?

CHAPTER FOUR

SIGNS OF DECLENSION

HuMaN nature being what it is, and this world being what it is, it cannot be expected that the work of God will remain un- contested. The child of God and the church are born into a
life of continuous, spiritual battle, and whatever God establishes man ultimately wants to prune and shape to his own liking. The New Testament adequately reveals the constant drag of the world upon the church to pull down what is of heaven to the level of the earth, and the strength and insistence of its efforts. Long before the apostles had completed their ministry there were destructive forces assiduously working upon the church from within. ‘The faithful record of Scripture has left for our profit a warning, applicable to every age, of the subtleties which would sap the spiritual energies of the church till it is reduced from the divine to something that is purely human. The pro- blems encountered in the churches of the apostolic era are set down for our examination in the epistles. They are typical of the heedlessness to divine principle which, down through history, has been at the root of the ultimate decay and declension of practically every movement of the Spirit of God. It is, un- fortunately, almost impossible to trace the exact course of the life of the churches in the years immediately following New Testament times. From the point to which Luke conducts us in his history of the Acts till the latter part of the second century there is a conspicuous lack of historical information on the development of the assemblies. When we emerge from this period of uncertainty, we find a church in many respects quite different from the churches of the New Testament. Wide and far-reaching changes have taken place, and there is an unmistakable move in the direction of the institutionalism of later years. This crystallization of Christianity is, in turn, the prime reason for the emergence of fresh expressions of the life of the Gospel. Where the vitality of spiritual life could not be conained within the increasingly restricted limits of a humanly imposed organization and rule, it burst the bounds and found its fuller expression in an atmosphere of direct and free communion with God.
One of the most instructive accounts recorded for us in Scripture is that of the development of the church at Jerusalem, its relative place in the early Christian picture, and its relationship to the other churches which were the eventual result of the spread of the Gospel. The Jerusalem assembly as the ‘mother’ church occupied a unique position. It had the pri- vilege of being most intimately in touch with those who had personally known the Lord, and naturally contained a greater wealth of mature, spiritual experience than existed in many of ewer congregations. The advice of the Jerusalem brethren on difficult questions was valued by others as we have seen. Yet gradually, but unmistakably, we find the focus of God’s work moving from Jerusalem to Antioch, an assembly with a preominantly Gentile background. Antioch, above all others, was the assembly that gave impetus to the great missionary endeavours in which Paul was a prominent figure, and Antioch stood firmly behind the work of the Lord in prayer and fellowship. More and more the church at Jerusalem occupies the position of a spectator of the great advances of the Gospel, a very interested spectator no doubt, and one who feels a particular right to have a hand in what is taking place, but there is little active spiritual involvement in the spread of the truth outside Jerusalem or Judaea. If any church should have been actively concerned in the great missionary journeys of Paul which were so signally fulfilling the Lord’s command to preach the Gospel to every creature, surely the church at Jerusalem should have been so concerned. But there are other concerns which seem to have taken first place. Why is it that, with the Jerusalem church's unique privileges and potential, her basic significance to the expanding work of the Gospel should be so evidently on the decline? It hardly seems satisfactory to put this down simply to an arbitrary choice on the part of God. There are other and much more probable explanations. Christ was the fulfilment of all God’s dealings with Israel, and it was to Israel, through the institution of the synagogue, we have already seen, that the Gospel was first presented. Many of the early believers did not recognise, as did Stephen and Paul, the radical cleavage that was inevitable between church and the synagogue. They considered the church to be little more than a new party within the Jewish community, and as long as they maintained their allegiance to the ceremonial law they were accepted by the Jews, with whatever reservations. We have noted how Paul’s insight into the nature and implications of the Gospel and the church led him to pursue a policy which resulted in a clear and final break with Judaism. In Jerusalem we find the opposite tendency, a continual working for conciliation. This gave rise to the peculiar contradiction which existed in the life of the Jerusalem assembly. On the one hand, they could not deny the working of the Spirit of God among the Gentiles, in fact it had been foretold in the Scriptures, but on the other, they could not rid themselves of a sense that it was obligatory upon Jewish believers to observe circumcision and other parts of the ceremonial law, although they admitted that these things were not necessary for salvation. There are a number of indications that the Jerusalem church's anxiety to hold intact a tolerant relationship with the Jewish community was carried to such an extent that it blunted the edge of its witness and its lasting spiritual effectiveness.

 

[Alive]

Jumping forward in time a bit to a guy named....From John Kennedy's 'Torch of the Testimony'
--------------------------------
Priscillian

About the time of the birth of Augustine in 354, a remarkable move to return to sole dependence upon the Word of God was taking place in Spain and was to spread into France and Portugal. An outstanding man associated with this move was a wealthy Spaniard of great learning and eloquence named Priscillian. Priscillian had abandoned the old, pagan beliefs, yet felt no attraction for Christianity, and sought spiritual rest and satisfaction in some of the other philosophies prevalent in his day. His search, however, brought him back to the Christ whom he had previously rejected, and he entered upon a new life of ardent devotion to the Lord. He became a great student and teacher of the Scriptures. Many people were attracted to gatherings where the sincerity of his preaching and the practical nature of his expositions were used, in the hands of God, to make new life in Christ a reality to many. Priscillian was a layman, but his ability was noted by the Church, and he was appointed Bishop of Avila. His saintliness of life, his teaching and his popularity, however, drew a strong reaction from the Spanish clergy, and in 380 an accusation of Manichaeism was brought against him. This, of course, was a favourite charge with which the Catholic Church condemned those who refused to acknowledge its absolute supremacy.
The charge, however, was not found proven, but the attack was renewed in 384 at the Synod of Bordeaux when Priscillian’s adversaries, joined by the evil Bishop Ithacus, accused him and his followers not only of heresy, but also of immorality and sorcery. Appeal was made to the Emperor Maximus, but he, being desirous for political ends of ingratiating himself with the Spanish clergy, ratified the sentence of execution. Priscillian and six other ‘ Priscillianists ’, as they were called (although they themselves took only the name of ‘ Christians"), were beheaded, and Priscillian’s voluminous writings were assiduously sought out and destroyed. ; This outrage was not perpetrated without protest. Two of the most noted Churchmen of the day, Martin of Tours and the fearless Bishop Ambrose of Milan, strongly protested against such wickedness and refused to have fellowship with those Bishops who had been party to the persecution. Popular feeling among those who had known Priscillian was roused, and when the Emperor Maximus was overthrown, the Bishop Ithacus who had connived at Priscillian’s execution was deposed. Roman Church, however, years later, gave official sanction to Priscillian’s execution and handed down to posterity the patent falsehood that he and those who were his companions in faith had been punished for their heresy and wickedness. The real cause of the execution was simply the desire of the Catholic party to suppress all that diverged from the tradition of Rome. The discovery in 1886 of some of the writings of Priscillian has thrown a great deal of light upon his character, his teaching, and those who were associated with him. It is unfortunate that much of the information we have concerning groups of Chris- tians down through history who deviated from the institutional
Church comes from their enemies and must, therefore, be suspected of bias. When Rome persecuted separate moveinents of Christian believers, she sought also to destroy any records which
might make them appear in a favourable light to subsequent generations, so it is very probable that, in the centuries of Rome's religious dominance, there were many more gatherings of spiritual folk living out their lives of testimony in simple dependence upon Christ than those of which we have present knowledge. Some of the facets of Priscillian’s teaching are most illuminating, and reveal a man of saintly character with a very clear insight into the meaning of Scripture, in a day when so much of spiritual truth was beclouded by tradition and human perversion. Priscillian based what he taught squarely upon the Word of God which he accepted as the sole rule in matters of doctrine and of daily living. Christians are called to a holy life which is the outcome of communion with Christ. This communion is catered into, not through sacraments, but through living faith. Priscillian recognised no spiritual distinction between laity and clergy. All believers alike are partakers of the Spirit who instructs them through the Word, and the ministry of the Word is, therefore, Ope to all according to the Spirit’ s pleasure. It is not hard to see the divergence of these views from the accepted teaching of the Church, and to understand how the preaching of Priscillian and the holy lives of those who were associated with him cut at the very roots of clerical domination, the doctrine of apostolic succession, and sacramentalism. That the Catholic Church should deny them was inevitable, for Priscillian’s Scripture-based concept of the church was diametrically opposed to that of Rome. The death of Priscillian and his companions did not bring to an end the work which he had done, and the popular revulsion at the shameful inassacre of godly people served for a time to temper the wave of persecution. Later it was renewed with increased ferocity, but the companies of believers known to themselves as ‘ Christians’ and by others as ‘ Priscillianists ' continued for some two centuries.

 

[Arch Stanton]

Irenaeus​

The Catholic Church possesses one and the same faith throughout the whole world, as we have already said (Against Heresies 1:10 [A.D. 189]).

 

[Carbon]

Lk 22:29

 

[donadams]

Clarifies it!

Dogma / De Fide or “thee faith” (found 31 times in the New Testament) eph 4:5 Jude 1:3

Truths revealed by Christ, taught by His apostolic church! (Matt 28:19)
(The rule of faith)

The faith that binds all Christians! Matt 16:18-19 & 18:18

Christ and His church are one and teach one truth faith! Acts 9:4 eph 5:32 / Jn 8:12 - Matt 5:14
Matt 17:5 - acts 3:22 Matt 18:18
Truth: Jn 14:6 - 1 Tim 3:15

(Most people who oppose catholic dogma actually believe most dogma’s Example: #12 there is only one God)

The church

137. The Church was founded by the God-Man Jesus Christ.
138. Our Redeemer Himself conserves with divine power the society founded by Him, the
Church.
139. Christ is the Divine Redeemer of His Body, the Church.
140. Christ founded the Church in order to continue His work of redemption for all time.
141. Christ gave His Church a hierarchical constitution.
142. The powers bestowed on the Apostles have descended to the bishops.
143. Christ appointed the Apostle Peter to be the first of all the Apostles and to be the visible head
of the whole Church, by appointing him immediately and personally to the primacy of jurisdiction.
144. According to Christ’s ordinance, Peter is to have successors in his Primacy over the whole
Church and for all time.
145. The successors of Peter in the Primacy are the bishops of Rome.
146. The Pope possesses full and supreme power of jurisdiction over the whole Church, not
merely in matters of faith and morals, but also in Church discipline and in the government of
the Church.
147. The Pope is infallible when he speaks ex cathedra.
148. By virtue of Divine Right the bishops possess an ordinary power of government over their
dioceses.
149. Christ is the Head of the Church.
150. In the final decision on doctrines concerning faith and morals the Church is infallible.
151. The primary object of the Infallibility is the formally revealed truths of Christian Doctrine
concerning faith and morals.
152. The totality of the Bishops is infallible, when they, either assembled in general council or
scattered over the earth, propose a teaching of faith or morals as one to be held by all the
faithful.
153. The Church founded by Christ is unique and one.
154. The Church founded by Christ is holy.
155. The Church founded by Christ is catholic.
156. The Church founded by Christ is apostolic.
157. Membership of the Church is necessary for all men for salvation.

Moreover there is no
Succession of Christ and the apostles in the Protestant sects or even a valid priest even the Anglican’s lost holy orders when they changed them and are declared null and void the supreme roman pontiff Leo XIII

Thks

 

[donadams]

Decrees of the First Vatican Council​

​

Council Fathers - 1868 A.D.

SESSION 4 : 18 July 1870​

1. The eternal shepherd and guardian of our souls [37] ,
   • in order to render permanent the saving work of redemption,
   • determined to build a church
   • in which,
     • as in the house of the living God,
   • all the faithful should be linked by the bond of one
     • faith and
     • charity.
2. Therefore, before he was glorified,
   • he besought his Father,
     • not for the apostles only,
     • but also for those who were to believe in him through their word,
     • that they all might be one as the Son himself and the Father are one [38] .
       
3. So then,
   • just as he sent apostles, whom he chose out of the world [39] ,
   • even as he had been sent by the Father [40],
   • in like manner it was his will that in his church there should be shepherds and teachers until the end of time.
4. In order, then, that
   • the episcopal office should be one and undivided and that,
   • by the union of the clergy,
   • the whole multitude of believers should be held together in the unityof
     • faith and
     • communion,
   • he set blessed Peter over the rest of the apostles and
   • instituted in him the permanent principle of both unities and
   • their visible foundation.
5. Upon the strength of this foundation was to be built the eternal temple, and the church whose topmost part reaches heaven was to rise upon the firmness of this foundation [41] .
6. And since the gates of hell trying, if they can, to overthrow the church, make their assault with a hatred that increases day by day against its divinely laid foundation,
   • we judge it necessary,
     • with the approbation of the sacred council, and
     • for the protection, defence and growth of the catholic flock,
   • to propound the doctrine concerning the
     1. institution,
     2. permanence and
     3. nature
   • of the sacred and apostolic primacy,
   • upon which the strength and coherence of the whole church depends.
7. This doctrine is to be believed and held by all the faithful in accordance with the ancient and unchanging faith of the whole church.
8. Furthermore, we shall proscribe and condemn the contrary errors which are so harmful to the Lord’s flock.

Return to Table of Contents

Chapter 1 On the institution of the apostolic primacy in blessed Peter

1. We teach and declarethat,
   • according to the gospel evidence,
   • a primacy of jurisdiction over the whole church of God
   • was immediately and directly
     • promised to the blessed apostle Peter and
     • conferred on him by Christ the lord.
   • [PROMISED]
     
2. It was to Simon alone,
   • to whom he had already said
     • You shall be called Cephas [42] ,
   • that the Lord,
     
   • after his confession, You are the Christ, the son of the living God,
   • spoke these words:
     
   • Blessed are you, Simon Bar-Jona. For flesh and blood has not revealed this to you, but my Father who is in heaven.
   • And I tell you, you are Peter, and on this rock I will build my church, and the gates of the underworld shall not prevail against it. I will give you the keys of the kingdom of heaven, and whatever you bind on earth shall be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven [43] .
   • [CONFERRED]
     
3. And it was to Peter alone that Jesus,
   • after his resurrection,
   • confided the jurisdiction of supreme pastor and ruler of his whole fold, saying:
     
   • Feed my lambs, feed my sheep [44] .
4. To this absolutely manifest teaching of the sacred scriptures, as it has always been understood by the catholic church, are clearly opposed the distorted opinions of those who misrepresent the form of government which Christ the lord established in his church and deny that Peter, in preference to the rest of the apostles, taken singly or collectively, was endowed by Christ with a true and proper primacy of jurisdiction.
5. The same may be said of those who assert that this primacy was not conferred immediately and directly on blessed Peter himself, but rather on the church, and that it was through the church that it was transmitted to him in his capacity as her minister.
6. Therefore,
   • if anyone says that
     • blessed Peter the apostle was not appointed by Christ the lord as prince of all the apostles and visible head of the whole church militant; or that
     • it was a primacy of honour only and not one of true and proper jurisdiction that he directly and immediately received from our lord Jesus Christ himself:
     • let him be anathema.
       

• 37 1 Pt 2,25
• 38 Jn 17, 20-21
• 39 Jn 15, 19
• 40 Jn 20, 21
• 41 Leo 1, Serm. (Sermons), 4 (elsewhere 3), ch. 2 for the day of his birth (PL 54, 150).
• 42 Jn 1, 42.
• 43 Mt 16, 16 19
• 44 Jn 21, 15-17

Thks

 

[donadams]

Chapter 2. On the permanence of the primacy of blessed Peter in the Roman pontiffs

1. That which our lord Jesus Christ, the prince of shepherds and great shepherd of the sheep, established in the blessed apostle Peter, for the continual salvation and permanent benefit of the church, must of necessity remain for ever, by Christ’s authority, in the church which, founded as it is upon a rock, will stand firm until the end of time [45] .
2. For no one can be in doubt, indeed it was known in every age that the holy and most blessed Peter, prince and head of the apostles, the pillar of faith and the foundation of the catholic church, received the keys of the kingdom from our lord Jesus Christ, the saviour and redeemer of the human race, and that to this day and for ever he lives and presides and exercises judgment in his successors the bishops of the holy Roman see, which he founded and consecrated with his blood [46] .
3. Therefore whoever succeeds to the chair of Peter obtains by the institution of Christ himself, the primacy of Peter over the whole church. So what the truth has ordained stands firm, and blessed Peter perseveres in the rock-like strength he was granted, and does not abandon that guidance of the church which he once received [47] .
4. For this reason it has always been necessary for every church–that is to say the faithful throughout the world–to be in agreement with the Roman church because of its more effective leadership. In consequence of being joined, as members to head, with that see, from which the rights of sacred communion flow to all, they will grow together into the structure of a single body [48] .
5. Therefore,
   • if anyone says that
     • it is not by the institution of Christ the lord himself (that is to say, by divine law) that blessed Peter should have perpetual successors in the primacy over the whole church; or that
     • the Roman pontiff is not the successor of blessed Peter in this primacy:
       let him be anathema.

 

[donadams]

So the fathers of the fourth council of Constantinople, following the footsteps of their predecessors, published this solemn profession of faith:

• The first condition of salvation is to maintain the rule of the true faith. And since that saying of our lord Jesus Christ, You are Peter, and upon this rock I will build my church [55] , cannot fail of its effect, the words spoken are confirmed by their consequences. For in the apostolic see the catholic religion has always been preserved unblemished, and sacred doctrine been held in honour. Since it is our earnest desire to be in no way separated from this faith and doctrine, we hope that we may deserve to remain in that one communion which the apostolic see preaches, for in it is the whole and true strength of the christian religion [56] .

What is more, with the approval of the second council of Lyons, the Greeks made the following profession:

• “The holy Roman church possesses the supreme and full primacy and principality over the whole catholic church. She truly and humbly acknowledges that she received this from the Lord himself in blessed Peter, the prince and chief of the apostles, whose successor the Roman pontiff is, together with the fullness of power. And since before all others she has the duty of defending the truth of the faith, so if any questions arise concerning the faith, it is by her judgment that they must be settled.” [57]

Then there is the definition of the council of Florence:

• “The Roman pontiff is the true vicar of Christ, the head of the whole church and the father and teacher of all Christians; and to him was committed in blessed Peter, by our lord Jesus Christ, the full power of tending, ruling and governing the whole church.” [58]

The decree on papal infallibility!

we teach and define as a divinely revealed dogma that

• • when the Roman pontiff speaks EX CATHEDRA,
    • that is, when,
    • in the exercise of his office as shepherd and teacher of all Christians,
    • in virtue of his supreme apostolic authority,
    • he defines a doctrine concerning faith or morals to be held by the whole church,
  • he possesses,
    • by the divine assistance promised to him in blessed Peter,
  • that infallibility which the divine Redeemer willed his church to enjoy in defining doctrine concerning faith or morals.
  • Therefore, such definitions of the Roman pontiff are of themselves, and not by the consent of the church, irreformable.

  ---

So then, should anyone, which God forbid, have the temerity to reject this definition of ours: let him be anathema.

Amen!

 

[Alive]

Philip Schaff from his history....
§ 8. THE PRIESTHOOD OF THE LAITY.

The Priesthood of the Laity

The social or ecclesiastical principle of Protestantism is the general priesthood of believers, in distinction from the special priesthood which stands mediating between Christ and the laity.

The Roman church is an exclusive hierarchy, and assigns to the laity the position of passive obedience. The bishops are the teaching and ruling church; they alone constitute a council or synod, and have the exclusive power of legislation and administration. Laymen have no voice in spiritual matters, they can not even read the Bible without the permission of the priest, who holds the keys of heaven and hell.

In the New Testament every believer is called a saint, a priest, and a king. “All Christians,” says Luther, “are truly of the spiritual estate, and there is no difference among them, save of office alone. As St. Paul says, we are all one body, though each member does its own work, to serve the others. This is because we have one baptism, alike; one gospel, one faith, and are all Christians for baptism, gospel and faith, these alone make spiritual and Christian people.” And again: “It is faith that makes men priests, faith that unites them to Christ, and gives them the indwelling of the Holy Spirit, whereby they become filled with all holy grace and heavenly power. The inward anointing — this oil, better than any that ever came from the horn of bishop or pope — gives them not the name only, but the nature, the purity, the power of priests; and this anointing have all they received who are believers in Christ.”

This principle, consistently carried out, raises the laity to active co-operation in the government and administration of the church; it gives them a voice and vote in the election of the pastor; it makes every member of the congregation useful, according to his peculiar gift, for the general good. This principle is the source of religious and civil liberty which flourishes most in Protestant countries. Religious liberty is the mother of civil liberty. The universal priesthood of Christians leads legitimately to the universal kingship of free, self-governing citizens, whether under a monarchy or under a republic.

The good effect of this principle showed itself in the spread of Bible knowledge among the laity, in popular hymnody and congregational singing, in the institution of lay-eldership, and in the pious zeal of the magistrates for moral reform and general education.

But it was also shamefully perverted and abused by the secular rulers who seized the control of religion, made themselves bishops and popes in their dominion, robbed the churches and convents, and often defied all discipline by their own immoral conduct. Philip of Hesse, and Henry VIII. of England, are conspicuous examples of Protestant popes who disgraced the cause of the Reformation. Erastianism and Territorialism whose motto is: cujus regio, ejus religio, are perversions rather than legitimate developments of lay-priesthood. The true development lies in the direction of general education, in congregational self-support and self-government, and in the intelligent co-operation of the laity with the ministry in all good works, at home and abroad. In this respect the Protestants of England, Scotland, and North America, are ahead of the Protestants on the Continent of Europe. The Roman church is a church of priests and has the grandest temples of worship; the Lutheran church is a church of theologians and has most learning and the finest hymns; the Reformed church is a church of the Christian people and has the best preachers and congregations.

 

[Arch Stanton]

In the Old Testament, there were THREE levels of Priests:
High Priest [Aaron]
Levitical Priesthood [Ex 30:30; Lev 5:5-6; Numbers 15:27-28]
General priesthood of the rest of the believers. [Ex 19:6]

In the New Testament, there are also three levels of Priests:
Jesus, our High Priest (1 Tim. 2:5, Heb. 7:22-25),
The Ministerial Priests (James 5:14-15; John 20:23; 2 Cor 2:10; 2 Cor 5:18)
The General Priesthood of all Christians (1 Peter 2:5-9).

@Alive @Carbon

 

[Mr GLee]

Whst do The spirit and the bride say?

Did you mean what does the Spirit of Father the invisible head say to His bride ?

He says plenty (sola scriptura) all things written




















the bride

 

[donadams]

Did you mean what does the Spirit of Father the invisible head say to His bride ?

He says plenty (sola scriptura) all things written




















the bride

You mean the bride is not dying?