It may seem as though I am “picking” on the Catholic Church. That is not my intent at all. I loved my Catholic church that I was raised up in, the last thing I wanted to hear was that there was something unbiblical going on in it. Even though I wasn't all that into the Bible at the time (mostly looking at the beautiful photos in the large Family bible on the coffee table), I still knew enough to know that the teachings coming from my church were proclaimed as being of God and therefore Biblical since the Bible IS the Word of God. But it just wasn't so.
The problem is that from the time of Ignatius of Antioch in the late first century and early second century (I do believe though that he held persuasive power over the church at the time) , the Christian church that was founded by the Apostles and Paul began to evolve into what was beginning, by the time of Ignatius and Polycarp, to be commonly known as the “catholic” Church (the C was not capitalized until the time of Constantine most likely, as that is also the time during which the great cathedrals began to be erected right on top of all the places pertaining to Jesus in Israel). So during the time period that this study is dealing with, the "catholic" church was all the Christian church there was. In reviewing biblical error then, those errors have to be laid at the feet of the only church there was: the “catholic” Church. However, that is not to say that error exists today only in the Catholic Church. Not true at all. As you read this posting, you’ll see quite easily, I believe, the things that have entered in to today’s non-Catholic churches as well, including my own.
Wikipedia has a vast amount of historical (not biblical) information that lends itself to this study. I don’t think I need to expound on the error for you; I think you’ll be able to spot it yourself.
Regarding Bishops:
“The office of bishop was already quite distinct from that of priest in the writings of Ignatius of Antioch, and by the middle of the second century all the chief centers of Christianity were headed by bishops, a form of organization that remained universal until the Protestant Reformation.”
“Various Christian communities would have had a group of presbyter-bishops functioning as leaders of the local church. Eventually this evolved into a monarchical episcopacy in certain cities. The monarchical episcopacy probably developed in other churches in Christianity before it took shape in Rome. For example, it has been conjectured that Antioch may have been one of the first Christian communities to have adopted such a structure [JAS Note: Told you Ignatius of Antioch had persuasive powers]. The emergence of a single bishop in Rome probably did not arise until the middle of the second century. Linus, Cletus and Clement were probably prominent presbyter-bishops but not necessarily monarchical bishops. Eventually, Rome followed the example of other Christian communities and structured itself after the model of the [Roman] empire with one presbyter bishop in charge. The organizational structure subsequently evolved into the present form of one bishop supported by a college of presbyters.”
“The bishops in the 2nd century are defined also as the only clergy to whom the ordination to priesthood (presbyterate) and diaconate is entrusted: "a priest (presbyter) lays on hands, but does not ordain."
“At the beginning of the 3rd century, Hippolytus of Rome describes another feature of the ministry of a bishop, which is that of the "Spiritum primatus sacerdotii habere potestatem dimittere peccata": the primate of sacrificial priesthood and the power to forgive sins.”
“The efficient organization of the Roman Empire became the template for the organisation of the church in the fourth century, particularly after Constantine's Edict of Milan. As the church moved from the shadows of privacy into the public forum it acquired land for churches, burials and clergy.”
Regarding Apostolic Succession:
“Apostolic succession is the doctrine in some Christian theology asserting that the chosen successors of the Twelve Apostles, from the first century to the present day, have the same authority, power, and responsibility as was conferred upon the apostles by Jesus.” (JAS Note: “chosen successors” is another factor in the division of the clergy from the laity.)
“Orthodox, Roman Catholic, and Anglican churches are the predominant proponents of this doctrine. To them, present-day bishops, as the successor of previous bishops, going back to the apostles, have power by this unbroken chain; this link with the apostles guarantees for them their authority in matters of faith, morals, and the valid administration of sacraments.”
“Essential to maintaining the apostolic succession is the proper consecration of bishops. Apostolic succession is to be distinguished from the Petrine supremacy (see papacy).”
“While many of the more ancient Churches within the historical episcopate state that Holy Orders are valid only through apostolic succession, most of the various Protestant denominations would deny the need of maintaining episcopal continuity with the early Church. Such Protestants generally hold that one important qualification of the Apostles was that they were chosen directly by Jesus and that they witnessed the resurrected Christ. According to this understanding, the work of the twelve (and the Apostle Paul), together with the prophets of the twelve tribes of Israel, provide the doctrinal foundation for the whole church of subsequent history through the Scriptures of the Bible. To share with the apostles the same faith, to believe their word as found in the Scriptures, to receive the same Holy Spirit, is to them the only meaningful "continuity" with what such Protestants hold the early Christians to have believed, because it is in this sense only that men have fellowship with God in the truth (an extension of the new Reformation-era doctrines of sola fide and sola scriptura). The most meaningful apostolic succession for most Protestants, then, is a "faithful succession" of apostolic teaching.”
The Pope:
The pope (from Latin: papa; from Greek: πάππας (pappas), an affectionate word for father) is the Bishop of Rome and, as such, is leader of the worldwide Catholic Church (that is, both the Latin Rite and the Eastern Catholic Churches in full communion with the Roman Pontiff). The current office-holder is Pope Benedict XVI, who was elected in papal conclave on 19 April 2005.
Catholics recognize the Pope as a successor to Saint Peter, whom, according to the bible, Jesus named as the “shepherd” and “rock” of the church. Peter never bore the title of “pope”, which came into use much later, but Catholics recognize him as the first Pope. The study of the New Testament offers no uncontested proof that Jesus established the papacy nor even that he established Peter as the first bishop of Rome. The Catholic Church teaches that Jesus personally appointed Peter as leader of the Church and in its dogmatic constitution “Lumen Gentium” makes a clear distinction between apostles and bishops, presenting the latter as successors of the former, with the Pope as successor of Peter in that he is head of the bishops as Peter was head of the apostles.
For centuries, the forged “Donation of Constantine” also provided the basis for the papacy's claim of political supremacy over the entire former Western Roman Empire.
Gradually forced to give up secular power, popes now focus almost exclusively on spiritual matters. Over the centuries, popes' claims of spiritual authority have been ever more clearly expressed, culminating in the proclamation of the dogma of papal infallibility for rare occasions when the pope speaks “ex cathedra” (literally "from the chair (of Peter)") to issue a solemn definition of faith or morals. The first (after the proclamation) and so far the last such occasion was in 1950, with the definition of the dogma of the Assumption of Mary. [JAS Note: There are four official dogmas of Mary at this time.]
I’ll end this posting with the thinking of two additional men: Tertullian, a Christian apologist (160-220 A.D.), and Ray Simpson, a modern day Anglican priest:
1) Tertullian basically figured out that since Paul changed the law of Moses, they (the early church fathers) then had the right by ongoing revelation of the Holy Spirit to change the teachings of Paul, so that now anything that they said should be considered inspired of God.
2) In 1988, Anglican church priest Ray Simpson, when asked how he could remain in the Anglican church with the issues of homosexuals being ordained in the church, said this: “I can justify staying in the church of England [Anglican Church] because it is committed to the teachings of the Bible AND the Early Church Fathers.”
Dogma = compromise.
Compromise = unbiblical.
How important is it for us to be aware of and able to recognize “dogma” that sets itself up as “biblical”, as painful or difficult as it is to us seeing it even in our own churches? But we must be aware, and we must speak against it, being light even in our own churches. Jesus, I have discovered through all of this study and research, told his disciples to follow the "dogma" of the scribes, as He Himself did also, while He exposed the unbibicalness of it by teaching the truth. The key, I think, is to not cause divide by rebellious actions, but by speaking the truth the evil that has entered into our churches is exposed. But we must be prepared to be persecuted, even within our own churches sometimes, as Jesus was by his own religious leaders. Many Priests and Pastors do not care as much for the truth as they do for their positions of power, same as with the Pharisees of Jesus' time.
What are your thoughts on how to proceed concerning dogma in our churches? I'd like to hear them.
No comments:
Post a Comment