Did the early Church even have a pope? w/ Joe Heschmeyer
ฝัง
- เผยแพร่เมื่อ 25 พ.ย. 2020
- This clip is taken from episode #229 of Pints With Aquinas live interview with Joe Heschmeyer, author of the new book, Pope Peter, about the papacy, papal infallibility, and the current crisis in the church. You can watch the full episode here: • What Does a Bad Pope M...
Did the early Church even have a pope? Where did this idea of the papacy come from?
Get Joe's book here: www.amazon.com/Pope-Peter-Def...
Joe's blog: shamelesspopery.com/
SPONSORS
EL Investments: www.elinvestments.net/pints
Exodus 90: exodus90.com/mattfradd/
Hallow: hallow.app/mattfradd
STRIVE: www.strive21.com/
GIVING
Patreon: / mattfradd
This show (and all the plans we have in store) wouldn't be possible without you. I can't thank those of you who support me enough. Seriously! Thanks for essentially being a co-producer coproducer of the show.
LINKS
Website: pintswithaquinas.com/
Merch: teespring.com/stores/matt-fradd
FREE 21 Day Detox From Porn Course: www.strive21.com/
SOCIAL
Facebook: / mattfradd
Twitter: / mattfradd
Instagram: / mattfradd
Website - mattfradd.com - บันเทิง
Thank you God for the innumerable witnesses to the faith. Forget two or three! We have many more than just two or three.
This argument, made by Joe, is powerful, when properly digested - properly appreciated, in light of knowledge of church history.
Thanks for this clip. It was very informative. Thank you Matt.
Thank you for this info for apologetics
First Pope was St Peter
Proof?
@@zen-sufi
Joe literally gave it in the video.
Never biblical, Peter said himself he was just another fellow presberter at a local congregation, never once did he exceed other apostles, Paul did to Peter what no bishop would do to the pope today. Pope is an abomination to God. Too many logical contradictions for catholicism to be true. Catholic church IS the apostate church, leading souls to hell for all their false, anti-biblical teachings. What are the qualifications of bishops/elders according to scriptures?????? MUST be married with obedient children because one who can't rule his own house can't rule the church of God!!!! That is contrary to catholicism!!!!! Anti biblical all the way. Catholicism is from Satan, lie, lie, lie
The first person who had authority over doctrine was Emperor Constans in AD342. 42 years later, the first person in history referred to himself as pope was St. Siricius.
"And call no man your father upon the earth: for one is your Father, which is in heaven." Jesus speaking in Matthew 23:9.
Pope, from the Greek word Pappas, meaning father.
It's sick how far the church strayed from its origins 😒
@@andyontheinternet5777 Do you remember Peter's response when someone called him "Pappas"?
@@soteriology400 I can't recall anyone calling Peter pappas at all
96 AD is NOT the best dating. 69AD is the best dating because Clement mentions the Temple and its sacrifices as if they were still happening.
Isn't that piece of art you used by an LDS artist? It appears in every "Book of Mormon." Probably not the best idea for Christians to use it for a Catholic site.
I misread "LDS" as "LSD."
Can you debate Kelly Powers??
Not just the Churches BUT Bishops and ALL the Priest..
Apostolic line... Each Priest!!
💝
Salvini ?
Get Peter Totleben, O.P. on your show Matt. He wrote an excellent paper discussing the faults of the orthodox positions from a Thomistic view and he would be of great help to many if he could reach them.
You may have already done it... How about what Jesus said about this... Peter the Rock and on this Rock I will build my Church and then go back to the Old Testament for the clarification.... Just thinking!!
Peace.
It took me a minute... I see what you're saying...
I was thinking about the process of a King giving his kingdom to the #1 charge and there is a foreshadowing of Peter picking up his rightful place....
Like yours too!! Very Cool!!
MaryClaire Dempsey
Jesus ask, "Who do you say that I am?"
The answer is, "You are the Christ, the son of God."
Jesus replied, "Upon this rock, I will build my church."
The church is built upon the confession, that Jesus is the son of God.
The church is not built upon Peter.
Church of Christ is built upon the Rock, the word is "Bolder" or "Large Stone".
The word Peter is "pebble", "small stone".
@Prasanth Thomas work, acoording with the saint father of the church, if you confess Jesus as The Son of God u r rock too
@@glencrsThis has been already addressed. In Aramaic there is no distinction between large and small rock, and even in Greek petros and petra are only a matter of grammatical gender. Peter is indeed the Rock on which Christ built His Church.
Yes the had a Pope Saint Peter.
This is Catholicism 101- I don’t see why he is asking the question
@@rachelkingsley668, it may be for the Bible never indicates that Peter was a pope. Furthermore, the Bible never even puts Peter in Rome.
@@rachelkingsley668 Because Protestants ask the question.
@@glencrs matthew 16:18-20
You cannot be "in communion" with a pope who is not "in communion" with Scripture and Tradition...Francis has jettisoned both in favor of his own god of surprises...Open your eyes...the church of Rome has lost the faith
You ought to be in communion with the Holy See. Nobody told you to have the current pope as your personal spiritual guide and drink whatever he says, which does not affect in any way the eternal teachings of the Church (True, One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic, with no other church to be compared with)
@@aquarius9043 If by Holy See you mean those associated with the Pope in the government of the Roman Catholic Church at the Vatican, it is plain to see they do not hold the "One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic" faith. Further -they are attempting to change that faith and subvert it add to it by substituting a man-centered and worldly humanist version which is far beyond their mandate, and deliberately promoting modernist heretics and communistic and homosexualists and universalists up the chain....And so the only remedy for a Catholic, and their duty in fact, is to resist them, admonish and correct them at every opportunity, by witholding obedience, using Scripture and Tradition as your guide. Jesus gave us that right when He told us how to determine a false shepherd...It would be a false Unity ("One" -ness) to accept communion with the sons of Satan...for by your silence and aquiecence you would share in their sin...It is not simply about a "bad" Pope banging out illegitimate children in his private life...giving jobs to his nephews, or making a minor error in theology... but a very public and deliberate intent to incrementally cancel the Catholic faith...The "Oh we've had bad Popes before" argument is not only lame, but does not even apply in today's case.
@@mikepoulin3020 Cite the newly implemented doctrine of the Church that supports your argument.
@@aquarius9043
www.ncregister.com/blog/pope-francis-changes-catechism-to-say-death-penalty-inadmissible
In direct conflict with both the tradition understanding of the death penalty and more importantly Scripture, where Jesus says in Matt 18:6“If any of you put a stumbling block before one of these little ones who believe in me, it would be better for you if a great millstone were fastened around your neck and you were drowned in the depth of the sea.."
Here is another "official " attempt to change long held doctrine:
www.nationalreview.com/2017/12/pope-francis-divorce-remarriage-communion-guidelines-letter/
Which again is in conflict with both tradition and Sacred Scripture...
1 Cor 11 27 Whoever, therefore, eats the bread or drinks the cup of the Lord in an unworthy manner will be answerable for the body and blood of the Lord. 28 Examine yourselves, and only then eat of the bread and drink of the cup. 29 For all who eat and drink[h] without discerning the body,[i] eat and drink judgment against themselves.
And there are dozens of other little comments and speeches and homilies that undermine the ancient faith and which actively encourages dissent and promotes those who do the same...For example when he tells us that Jesus did not multiply loaves and fishes miraculously, but got people to share...This is a denial of the Divinity of Jesus and a denial of the truth Sacred Scripture....Or when he actively and publicaly meets with homosexual promoter James Martin, while refusing to meet people like Cardinal Zen, selling out the Catholic Church in China to the Communist atheists...He is a egomaniac who causes scandal and confusion so if you are providing covering fire for him then you are part of that too...
....
@@mikepoulin3020 Weak
Nope
With today's 'Pope' it is hard to defend the Papacy. It is even more difficult, these days, to defend Catholicism with the heterodoxy and the likes of Tobin, Cupich, McCarrick, Gregory, Stowe and of course, James Martin. How in the world can we convince a conservative evangelical that WE are the true Church?
My brother quit complaining and have faith. What do you think the faithful where doing when there were anti popes galore or when their were horrible and disgusting popes like Pope Benedict IX or Pope Stephen VI. We have a most powerful intercessor, the Blessed Mother. Do not stress about things that we have no control over. This is all God's plan.
The Church is NOT defined by the people in it, but by its teachings, doctrines and the sacraments. Its mission and the promises made to Her by Christ himself who promised that the gates of hell would not prevail against it. The office of the Pope is still important today as it was when it was first instituted by Christ through St. Peter. Never lose sight of that 🙏🏾
Matt, the fact that you had Erick Ybarra (not a mainstream Catholic apologist but someone with a reputation for engaging with the more substantial criticisms against Catholicism from the Orthodox) on your show makes me wonder - are you doing some soul searching right now? Do you possibly feel a pull towards Orthodoxy? Or perhaps some difficulties as a Catholic?
If this can be helpful Practicing Eastern Orthodox people see Catholics as heretics. Because of the old shism. They are always trying to bring us into their faith. There are many nice Eastern Orthodox people but they still have this grudge ,also they don't approve of Mary as being the second Eve and don't believe she received God's grace to be sinless. They see this as heresy. Of course some Eastern Orthodox people like Pope Francis as a man but they refuse Papal authority. They are very pushy with their faith . We should be cautious as Catholics to let ourselves be taken in . The grass is always greener on the other side . Is our faith about men or God ? Pope Francis never changed the Church teachings which were appointed by God, let's remember no Pope has the authority to do such ! Pope Francis was also very strict on this ! God bless.
@Prasanth Thomas Well I guess it's like us Catholics some don't know their religion. ..I spoke to many of them The Church was called a heretic by a few when I mentioned this ! Thanks for your knowledge ! God bless .
@Prasanth Thomas Unfortunately I just verified this and you are wrong ,they reject this Catholic teaching ! To them Mary was not sinless.
Not to be contentious here I am asking in good faith,But how do we go from the pope settling disputes in the early church to what Vatican 1 gave us namely immediate,absolute and supreme jurisdictional authority over all of the churches everywhere? The clip only seems to suggest that the pope had the prerogative of being some sort of moderator. I could be wrong but I think it was Cardinal Newman that said something like the papacy only makes sense when viewed as a prophecy. Paraphrasing of course, but thanks.
Beautiful question! One which every one eventually comes to if they take history and truth seriously. God bless you for looking into the matter and taking it to heart.
I’ll be as brief as I can. History shows us that the Roman episcopate intervened in Church disputes, with or without formal petition. It exercised actions which involved the whole church, not this see or that see. It was accepted as the source of ecclesial and priestly unity.
If this primacy it has is a divine institution, not simply canonical or customary, then it de facto has this authority to do all these things. A valid ministry to the whole church does not come without valid authority. And amidst those early first millennium disputes, the Pope was recognized as a pastor to all Christians.
How this prerogative is exercised is what changed - not the prerogative itself. If we look at from a governmental lens (accidental), sure - the Pope went from being a Supreme Court to a CEO - but if we look at from a familial lens (essential), the Pope has always been father to all Christians. And fatherhood carries an authority regardless of whether children are obedient or not.
The Corinthians wrote to Clement because they knew him as Paul’s coworker. Nothing to do with the Papacy per se.
Except they could have written to St. John who was much closer. Instead they sought Rome's authority, and it answered.
@@councilofflorence4896 they already knew Clement - that was the point. There was no concept of “Rome” ecclesiologically at this time.
@@councilofflorence4896 if I had a nickle for everytime I heard “but St. John was closer”. As if that had any pertinence
@@OldRomanTV There is no evidence of this either historically or in the letter of Clement.
@@tonyrandall8703 Actually it really does. St. John traditionally was very close to Ephesus, often visiting there etc.
Give us some patristic backing = throw some quotes at us
Quotes from the Patriarchs. Hahaha
Mystery Babylon
Please let's follow Christ and stop arguing about trifles
4 out of 5 patriarchs would disagree.
On 1 out of 5 patriachs Jesus built His Church
All sheep were given to St Peter not another
All bishops are successors of Peter. Yes, historically the Patriarch of Rome was at the head of the table but each bishop had complete stewardship over his diocese. There was no such thing as papal universal jurisdiction.
None of the canons of the first few ecumenical councils give Rome that much authority either. If this was so important I would imagine that at least one of the canons would mention it. But they don’t.
What I also find interesting was when the Nestorian and non-Chalcedon churches broke off from the one Church, there never was a mention or plea to remain in communion with the Bishop of Rome from anyone. Like I mentioned earlier, 4 out 5 patriarchs, plus the Nestorian and non-Chalcedon churches must’ve not got the memo that union with Rome was necessary.
@@AlexSaavy I'll ignore everything else because your post incrminates itself.
You said Rome had authority, since when are Christians justified to usurp power? If Rome was the head then it's the head forever nothing changes that.
Remember Saul when he fell out of favor but David knew Saul was still chosen by God so he can't kill him? Why did the other Patriarchs walk away?
@@koppite9600 with all due respect, please go read a history book. Preferably one that doesn’t lean Catholic. The Bishop Rome is and should be the visible representative of all Christians. There’s no beef there. The early church was always synodal. This is stated explicitly in the canons of Nicaea. Bishops are supposed to be appointed by other bishops in the same province. The ratification is left to the metropolitan bishop. Not the pope.
Canon 6 mentions jurisdictions. Again it’s very explicit. It mentions Rome having jurisdiction over its own provinces. The same with the bishop of Alexandria and Antioch. Universal jurisdiction is not mentioned. None of the canons mention it.
What I meant about reading a history book is that the papacy as you know it now was not known to the church of the first millennium. Like many things Catholic, it’s a theological evolution of the medieval western church. You start seeing the terms “universal” and “supreme” during the Carolingian period. Not before.
Pope St. Gregory the Great was scandalized when the bishop of Constantinople was given the title of “Ecumenical Patriarch” by the emperor. He thought that all bishops were “equal members under one head”. The head being Christ.
Again, the bishop of Rome is and should be the visible representative of the Church. This includes all Christians. But the claims of papal infallibility are not biblical and the ones of universal jurisdiction are not historical. Please don’t quote mine the Church Fathers either. I’ve pointed out what the council canons state and as far as I can see it’s Rome that hasn’t honored them.
"We praying asking him (Clement) for intercession." 40 seconds and there's already heresy... yikes!
Bro hasn't read 1 Timothy 2:1-6 lol
@@LonneElliott It's sad really. People lured away from the truth of the gospel by human tradition
@@andyontheinternet5777 It's not human tradition if Paul, an apostle, commands us to intercede for one another in prayer, and this is actually made possible because there is one God, and an one mediator of God and men, who is Jesus Christ
@@LonneElliottDid you read the verses you posted?
"For there is one God and one mediator between God and mankind, the man Christ Jesus."
This is the exact opposite of praying to a saint as an intercessor.
@andyontheinternet5777 brother, the passage I sent to you explains that you SHOULD intercede, this is in verses 1-3, and that is POSSIBLE because we have Jesus to mediate for us in verses 5-6.
If St Paul was against intercessionary prayers he would have not told us to pray for one another.
You have to apply the context to your argument brother. Peace be with you🙏🏽
According to Trent Horn, the papacy developed over the course of the first 3 or 4 centuries much like, for instance, the heresy of Monothelitism.
We-dont-need-,no-,Pope
We-got-,jesus-we-can-not
Served-,and-praaised-men
On-earth'thats-idolotry.
the pope is not meant to be worshipped and never was. The pope, put forward by Christ to St. Peter was to serve as the rock; The earthly leader to the church. A church must have a hierarchy much like a republic or democracy. Why do you think there are nearly 250,000 Protestant denominations? Because each time something of value needs to be disputed, they bifurcate and branch off to serve their own purpose. Do you not see?
Short answer: no. Not one like the pope today. The pope then was like the other patriarchs but with an honorary title that simply means “father” like “patriarch” means. Rome had a special honor for being founded by both Peter and Paul but the pope was able to be deposed or corrected by other bishops and Councils even and was not considered supreme and universal authority at least for the first millennium of the church. It just wasn’t the understanding of the early church fathers.
Yep. Pretty sure a Pope did get deposed by an ecumenical council as well
Do you have some sources I could read about that?
It was the understanding of the early Church Fathers, your own Eastern Orthodox saints even:
Saint Irenaeus - (Against Heresies 3:3:2 [A.D. 189]).
“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”
Pope Saint Gregory the Great - Book 3, Letter 30
Inasmuch as it is manifest that the Apostolic See is, *by the ordering of God, set over all Churches* , there is, among our manifold cares, special demand for our attention, when our decision is awaited with a view to the consecration of a bishop. [...] you are to cause him to be consecrated by his own bishops, as ancient usage requires, with the assent of our authority, and the help of the Lord; to the end that through the observance of such custom both the Apostolic See may retain the power belonging to it, and at the same time may not diminish the rights which it has conceded to others.
St. Maximus the Confessor (c. 650) - (Maximus, Letter to Peter, in Mansi x, 692).
If the Roman See recognizes Pyrrhus to be not only a reprobate but a heretic, it is certainly plain that everyone who anathematizes those who have rejected Pyrrhus also anathematizes the See of Rome, that is, he anathematizes the Catholic Church. I need hardly add that he excommunicates himself also, if indeed he is in communion with the Roman See and the Catholic Church of God ...Let him hasten before all things to satisfy the Roman See, for if it is satisfied, all will agree in calling him pious and orthodox. For he only speaks in vain who thinks he ought to persuade or entrap persons like myself, and does not satisfy and implore the blessed Pope of the most holy Catholic Church of the Romans, that is, the Apostolic See, which is from the incarnate of the Son of God Himself, and also all the holy synods, according to the holy canons and definitions *has received universal and supreme dominion, authority, and power of binding and loosing over all the holy churches of God throughout the whole world.*
@@aahlstrom93 As someone who has been inclined toward orthodoxy, this is indeed challenging and compelling.
@@colmwhateveryoulike3240 Yeah, many of us have been fooled by the Roman Catholic quote mining in the past. If you look closer, however, you'll see that nothing claimed matches with Vatican I, there are often mistranslations, and many of these quotes are misrepresented and out of context. You might want to look up the Orthodox response to many of them before you decide.
For the first quote listed, for example, St. Iranaeus says that Rome is special because it was founded on Peter and Paul....but wait, why mention Paul if Peter was the supreme infallible head of the Church and the pope is his successor? Did Paul also have such a charism? Why mention him as part of the reason Rome has primacy?
It's quite ironic, for example, to post a quote by Pope St. Gregory the Great as support for a Vatican I style papacy because he also has an entire letter where he says that any bishop claiming the title "universal bishop" is the anti-Christ. He doesn't exempt himself or make any claim in his letter about the Bishops of Rome being exempt.
The Roman Catholics who post these quote mines generally have no other knowledge of Church history or the Church fathers other than the quote mines they found in some Roman Catholic apologetics book. Orthodoxy encourages you to read these as primary texts so that you can get the full picture.
1- Peter never claimed to be the supreme leader (pope) of the entire church.
2- The apostles never claimed he was the supreme leader (pope) of the church.
3- The papacy (supreme bishop leader of the entire church) is never mentioned as a church office in any of the offices of the church described in the New Testament. See I Corinthians 12:28-29; Ephesians 2:20-21, 3:11; I Timothy 3:1-13 and Titus 1:5-9
4- ..."Was there a Bishop of Rome in the First Century?"...the available evidence indicates that the church in Rome was led by a college of presbyters, rather than by a single bishop, for at least several decades of the second century (Sullivan F.A. From Apostles to Bishops: the development of the episcopacy in the early church. Newman Press, Mahwah (NJ), 2001, p. 80,221-222). -Catholic scholar.
Just because truths are not fully fleshed out, does not mean they aren’t true. Don’t forget that it took hundreds of years to formulate the doctrine of the Holy Trinity
@@bansheebrethren797 The claims of Rome about its papacy must be seen in the NT. If its not in the NT, then its not apostolic. This is why the claim that Peter was a pope of some kind is easily refuted in the NT.
@@Justas399 the claims of Protestants about the Sola Scriptura must be seen in the NT, if it's not in the New Testament, then it's not Apostolic. 😂✌️
@@Justas399 There were a lot of things that happened back then that didn’t get written down. If the early church believed it so close to the source, I’m going to believe them, not humans so far removed. Turns out, they tend to agree with catholics. I’m a former Protestant. We need to get the church back together. Not argue endlessly over semantics. We need to love one another and show the world what being United under Christ really looks like.
@@calson814 Sola Scriptura is apostolic. The Lord Christ and His apostles certainly believed that the Scriptures alone are the inspired inerrant Word of God and are the ultimate authority for Christians.
Of course not, because the original church was not catholic. The “first church” is the church that is recorded in the New Testament, especially in the Book of Acts and the Epistles of Paul. The New Testament church is the “original church” and the “one true church.” We can know this because it is described, in great detail, in Scripture. The church, as recorded in the New Testament, is God’s pattern and foundation for His church. On this basis, let’s examine the Roman Catholic claim that it is the “first church.” Nowhere in the New Testament will you find the “one true church” doing any of the following: praying to Mary, praying to the saints, venerating Mary, submitting to a pope, having a select priesthood, baptizing an infant, observing the ordinances of baptism and the Lord’s Supper as sacraments, or passing on apostolic authority to successors of the apostles. All of these are core elements of the Roman Catholic faith. If most of the core elements of the Roman Catholic Church were not practiced by the New Testament Church (the first church and one true church), how then can the Roman Catholic Church be the first church? A study of the New Testament will clearly reveal that the Roman Catholic Church is not the same church as the church that is described in the New Testament.
The New Testament records the history of the church from approximately A.D. 30 to approximately A.D. 90. In the 2nd, 3rd, and 4th centuries, history records several Roman Catholic doctrines and practices among early Christians. Is it not logical that the earliest Christians would be more likely to understand what the Apostles truly meant? Yes, it is logical, but there is one problem. Christians in the 2nd, 3rd, and 4th centuries were not the earliest Christians. Again, the New Testament records the doctrine and practice of the earliest Christians…and, the New Testament does not teach Roman Catholicism. What is the explanation for why the 2nd, 3rd, and 4th century church began to exhibit signs of Roman Catholicism?
The answer is simple - the 2nd, 3rd, and 4th century (and following) church did not have the complete New Testament. Churches had portions of the New Testament, but the New Testament (and the full Bible) were not commonly available until after the invention of the printing press in A.D. 1440. The early church did its best in passing on the teachings of the apostles through oral tradition, and through extremely limited availability to the Word in written form. At the same time, it is easy to see how false doctrine could creep into a church that only had access to the Book of Galatians, for example. It is very interesting to note that the Protestant Reformation followed very closely after the invention of the printing press and the translation of the Bible into the common languages of the people. Once people began to study the Bible for themselves, it became very clear how far the Roman Catholic Church had departed from the church that is described in the New Testament.
Scripture never mentions using "which church came first" as the basis for determining which is the "true" church. What it does teach is that one is to use Scripture as the determining factor as to which church is preaching the truth and thus is true to the first church. It is especially important to compare Scripture with a church’s teaching on such core issues as the full deity and humanity of Christ, the atonement for sin through His blood on Calvary, salvation from sin by grace through faith, and the infallibility of the Scriptures. The “first church” and “one true church” is recorded in the New Testament. That is the church that all churches are to follow, emulate, and model themselves after.
Even if what you said were true (it is not), then explain this:
Where was the true Church between the 2nd and 16th centuries? Did Christ break His promises in Matthew 16 and 28?
@@berwynsigns4115 You apparently don't understand what the church really is according to scripture. The church is the body of Christ-all the people who accept Christ’s gift of salvation and follow Christ’s teachings. It is much more than a building. In the Bible, “church” never refers to a building. It always refers to people-the people who follow Jesus Christ.
Being part of the body of Christ means we are called to be continually shaped to be more and more like Christ. This happens by letting the Word of God, the Bible, guide our faith and our lives, by worshiping God and celebrating the sacraments that Jesus gave us, and by living in community with each other.
Becoming a member of the church means that you belong to Jesus Christ and that you belong to the people of God. The church is also called “the bride of Christ,” emphasizing that the church is joined in a deep and intimate relationship with Jesus, and is bound to him by a covenant similar to the covenant of marriage.
The presence of Christ is the key to the life of the church. It is in and through the church that Christ encounters, calls, transforms, equips, and sends his people into the world. God uses the church to introduce salvation to those who don’t know him, and to nurture the faith of believers. The church is God’s instrument for expressing his compassion and concern for the world. The church is indispensable for Christian believers.
In the church, Christians are inseparably bound to each other. The picture of an individual Christian alone with God is alien to the New Testament. Christians are taught to call God “our Father”-not just “my Father.” The importance of community in the Bible can’t be overemphasized. The church as one body implies that Christians not only belong to Jesus Christ, but also to one another. Fellowship with Christ and with each other makes believers a single family united in love.
In the church, each individual is needed and important. 1 Corinthians 12 describes the church as a body, with each part (or person) playing an important role. Each person’s gifts enrich the church and enable it to carry on its work in the world.
And within the church we’re all held accountable to each other. We take care of each other, support each other in developing better relationships with Christ, and gently ensure-through love and patience and understanding-that we remain true to our beliefs, even when we may be severely tempted by the sins present in the world.
@@jamespope6795 Looks mostly right, but that doesn't mean that excludes that Christ willed there to be a hierarchy. The Church can be more than one thing at a time. Also you missed my point, I never said anything about a building. I'm referring to the visible Body of Christ on Earth that is structured with bishops, priests, and deacons. St. Ignatius of Antioch, a disciple of the Apostle John, wrote:
“Now, therefore, it has been my privilege to see you in the person of your God-inspired bishop, Damas; and in the persons of your worthy presbyters, Bassus and Apollonius; and my fellow-servant, the deacon, Zotion. What a delight is his company! For he is subject to the bishop as to the grace of God, and to the presbytery as to the law of Jesus Christ” (Letter to the Magnesians 2 [A.D. 110]).
“Take care to do all things in harmony with God, with the bishop presiding in the place of God, and with the presbyters in the place of the council of the apostles, and with the deacons, who are most dear to me, entrusted with the business of Jesus Christ, who was with the Father from the beginning and is at last made manifest” (ibid., 6:1).
“Take care, therefore, to be confirmed in the decrees of the Lord and of the apostles, in order that in everything you do, you may prosper in body and in soul, in faith and in love, in Son and in Father and in Spirit, in beginning and in end, together with your most reverend bishop; and with that fittingly woven spiritual crown, the presbytery; and with the deacons, men of God. Be subject to the bishop and to one another as Jesus Christ was subject to the Father, and the apostles were subject to Christ and to the Father; so that there may be unity in both body and spirit” (ibid., 13:1-2).
“Indeed, when you submit to the bishop as you would to Jesus Christ, it is clear to me that you are living not in the manner of men but as Jesus Christ, who died for us, that through faith in his death you might escape dying. It is necessary, therefore-and such is your practice that you do nothing without the bishop, and that you be subject also to the presbytery, as to the apostles of Jesus Christ our hope, in whom we shall be found, if we live in him. It is necessary also that the deacons, the dispensers of the mysteries [sacraments] of Jesus Christ, be in every way pleasing to all men. For they are not the deacons of food and drink, but servants of the Church of God. They must therefore guard against blame as against fire” (Letter to the Trallians 2:1-3 [A.D. 110]).
“In like manner let everyone respect the deacons as they would respect Jesus Christ, and just as they respect the bishop as a type of the Father, and the presbyters as the council of God and college of the apostles. Without these, it cannot be called a church. I am confident that you accept this, for I have received the exemplar of your love and have it with me in the person of your bishop. His very demeanor is a great lesson and his meekness is his strength. I believe that even the godless do respect him” (ibid., 3:1-2).
“He that is within the sanctuary is pure; but he that is outside the sanctuary is not pure. In other words, anyone who acts without the bishop and the presbytery and the deacons does not have a clear conscience” (ibid., 7:2).
“I cried out while I was in your midst, I spoke with a loud voice, the voice of God: ‘Give heed to the bishop and the presbytery and the deacons.’ Some suspect me of saying this because I had previous knowledge of the division certain persons had caused; but he for whom I am in chains is my witness that I had no knowledge of this from any man. It was the Spirit who kept preaching these words, ‘Do nothing without the bishop, keep your body as the temple of God, love unity, flee from divisions, be imitators of Jesus Christ, as he was imitator of the Father’” (Letter to the Philadelphians 7:1-2 [A.D. 110]).
And he wasn't the only one writing making it clear the early Church was Catholic. For more go to churchfathers . org or read Jimmy Akin's book The Fathers Know Best.
@@jamespope6795 If the New Testament Church is the one all churches are to model themselves after, where did it itself go? Where is the actual New Testament Church today?
History clearly shows it is one and the same as the Catholic (and Orthodox) Church.
@@berwynsigns4115 Unless it is shown in scripture, it is man made and not inerrant. You cannot trust anything created by fallen/sinful man “nobody is righteous, not even one”. Sola Scriptura (scripture alone) is the only thing that should be followed, and it makes no difference what any pastor, preacher, or Pope says to the contrary. Anything but scripture alone is marred by sinful man and cannot be trusted. Scripture only… ALWAYS!
Since Peter was never a pope, we can see this is going downhill fast. Add on the fact that neither Christ nor the apostles said mass and they are praying to idols (Clemons) I saved myself 4 minutes not watching the rest of this.
Peter was the first pope and the early Christian did say mass wrong on both fronts
@@andrewnietfeld7213 Peter was Christian not Catholic as the Catholic will not exist for a few more hundred years.
Christians don't do mass, it is a Catholic thing and neither Christ nor the apostles said mass.
The papacy didn’t exist until the 11th century.
th-cam.com/video/SVH_j22lkrA/w-d-xo.html completely debunks that beyond all doubt.
Can you debate Kelly Powers??