the apostles of The Apostles

When I say something like, "Catholicism is the oldest Christian faith and the only Christian church who claims to have been started by Jesus himself," it seems to ruffle feathers. The comment that I often hear in response is, "That's such an arrogant statement." 

Well, I guess it would be an arrogant statement if it were merely my opinion.

It's true that the Bible does not say, "Then Jesus started the Catholic Church." But it does say in Matthew 16:16-18 that Jesus changed Simon's name to Peter (which means "Rock") and said he would build his church upon this rock. Pretty plain as day to me that Jesus appointed Peter as the leader of his church, unless you do a mental one-handed backwards somersault to explain this passage to mean something else.

Peter handed down his authority to Linus, who handed down his authority to Cletus, who handed his authority down to Clement...and it happened this way until we get to Francis. 

Peter was our first Pope. They didn't call him "Pope" at the time. "Pope" is a title that was coined later to indicate the head of the bishops. 

But can we know this is true? I mean, it's not in the Bible!

Catholics have a different understanding of what a bishop is compared to the average independent non-denominational local church in America (I say "America" because only in America do we have small churches who do what they want with no authority to submit to. Could be the product of the "me" mentality of America drifting into our churches, I dunno. We can chase that rabbit later...) How can we know whose interpretation of the role of a bishop is correct?

We can look back at what the early church writers had to say about bishops. These writers were the apostles of the apostles. And then the apostles of the apostles of the apostles. In most cases these were the men who either knew the apostles personally or knew someone who knew the apostles (as in the apostles were a sort of a spiritual great-grandfather to them). 

What did they write about bishops in the early church back then?

Ignatius of Antioch

Follow your bishop, every one of you, as obediently as Jesus Christ followed the Father. Obey your clergy too as you would the apostles; give your deacons the same reverence that you would to a command of God. Make sure that no step affecting the Church is ever taken by anyone without the bishop’s sanction. The sole Eucharist you should consider valid is one that is celebrated by the bishop himself, or by some person authorized by him. Where the bishop is to be seen, there let all his people be; just as, wherever Jesus Christ is present, there is the Catholic Church (Letter to the Smyrneans 8:2 [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 (Letter to the Trallians 3:1-2 [A. D. 110]). 

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]).
Since therefore we have such proofs, it is not necessary to seek the truth among others which it is easy to obtain from the Church; since the apostles, like a rich man [depositing his money] in a bank, lodged in her hands most copiously all things pertaining to the truth: so that every man, whosoever will, can draw from her the water of life. For she is the entrance to life; all others are thieves and robbers. On this account we are bound to avoid them, but to make choice of the things pertaining to the Church with the utmost diligence, and to lay hold of the tradition of the truth. For how stands the case? Suppose there should arise a dispute relative to some important question among us. Should we not have recourse to the most ancient churches with which the apostles held constant intercourse, and learn from them what is certain and clear in regard to the present question? For how should it be if the apostles themselves had not left us writings? Would it not be necessary [in that case] to follow the course of the tradition which they handed down to those to whom they did commit the churches? (ibid. 3:4).

Tertullian

Where was Marcion then, that shipmaster of Pontus, the zealous student of Stoicism? Where was Valentinus then, the disciple of Platonism? For it is evident that those men lived not so long ago – in the reign of Antoninus for the most part – and that they at first were believers in the doctrine of the Catholic Church, in the church of Rome under the episcopate of the blessed Eleutherus, until on account of their ever restless curiosity, with which they even infected the brethren, they were more than once expelled (On the Prescription Against Heretics 22,30 [A.D.200])

But if there be any (heresies) which are bold enough to plant themselves in the midst Of the apostolic age, that they may thereby seem to have been handed down by the apostles, because they existed in the time of the apostles, we can say: Let them produce the original records of their churches; let them unfold the roll of their bishops, running down in due succession from the beginning in such a manner that [that first bishop of theirs] bishop shall be able to show for his ordainer and predecessor some one of the apostles or of apostolic men,--a man, moreover, who continued stedfast with the apostles. For this is the manner in which the apostolic churches transmit their registers: as the church of Smyrna, which records that Polycarp was placed therein by John; as also the church of Rome, which makes Clement to have been ordained in like manner by Peter. (On the Prescription Against Heretics 22,30 [A.D.200])

Cyprian

The spouse of Christ cannot be defiled; she is uncorrupted and chaste. She knows one home . . . Does anyone believe that this unity which comes from divine strength, which is closely connected with the divine sacraments, can be broken asunder in the Church and be separated by the divisions of colliding wills? He who does not hold this unity, does not hold the law of God, does not hold the faith of the Father and the Son, does not hold life and salvation (On the Unity of the Catholic Church 6 [A.D. 251]).

Peter speaks there, on whom the Church was to be built, teaching and showing in the name of the Church, that although a rebellious and arrogant multitude of those who will not hear or obey may depart, yet the Church does not depart from Christ; and they are the Church who are a people united to the priest, and the flock which adheres to its pastor. Whence you ought to know that the bishop is in the Church, and the Church in the bishop; and if any one be not with the bishop, that he is not in the Church, and that those flatter themselves in vain who creep in, not having peace with God’s priests, and think that they communicate secretly with some; while the Church which is Catholic and one, is not cut nor divided, but is indeed connected and bound together by the cement of priests who cohere with one another (Letters 66 [A.D. 253]).

I love reading this stuff. History is fascinating to me, and I can get lost to the world when I read this stuff. You can read more for yourself at Early Christian Writings. The writings are listed by the approximate date they were written, and there is a rating for each as to the reliability of the dating of each. Some writings are "more sturdy" than others. Some of the important writings in church history are from Polycarp, Tertullian, Irenaeus, Origen, Ignatius of Antioch. The entire collection of writings are at this website, not just bits and pieces and quotes. 

These writings cover a multitude of topics, not just about bishops. And please do not misunderstand me - I do not equate these writings with the Bible. The Bible is the inerrant Word of God. These writings are merely historical information.

Peace and love to you,
kristy

who built your church?

There are at least 8,000 Protestant denominations. Many estimate the number to be more like 20,000 to 30,000. It is hard to tell since there are so many break-away factions from the mainstream Protestant denominations a.k.a. "non-denominational" churches.

This drove me nuts when I was a Protestant. I had been in enough different churches to have known men and women who were truly in love with Jesus and very sincere about their love and faith. But if there is one God, why are there so many divisions among His people?

Jesus prayed for all believers to be one (John 17:20-23). Denominations seemed so contrary to the will of Jesus.

I was left with the question, "Which one is right? Which one contains the fullness of what God has for the world?" It took me about a year and a half of prayer and digging and listening to God.

My question to all Protestants is this - who built your church? Who was responsible for its formation? Was it John Smyth (Baptists), Charles Mason (Church of God in Christ), Martin Luther (Lutherans), John Calvin (Presbyterians), John Wesley (United Methodists), or someone more recent in history as in the case of each small non-denominational church throughout the world? 

The Catholic Church is the only Christian church who claims to have been created by Jesus. They trace their history all the way back to Jesus! This is incredible and AT LEAST worth looking into to see if it is true. I don't know John Smyth, Charles Mason, Martin Luther, John Calvin or John Wesley. But I know Jesus, and I want the Church HE formed! If you look at the evidence and disagree, fine. At a minimum you will have more knowledge of church history.

Imagine how strong we could be against Satan if we were united as one?!



kristy

How the Eucharist brought me to the Catholic Church

I was very poorly catechized as a child.  I left the Catholic Church when I was 15 and started attending a Baptist church with my friend, and I didn't even know that the Catholic Church believed that communion they received every day was truly the body, blood, soul and divinity of Jesus.  So when I started watching "The Journey Home" on EWTN over 15 years after leaving the CC and heard guests talking about the Eucharist and what it is and one guy even talking about longing for the Eucharist, I was shaken.  And come to find out, this truth they talked about is in the very Bible I wholeheartedly professed to believe in!  

In John 6 Jesus says, "Very truly I tell you, unless you eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink his blood, you have no life in you. Whoever eats my flesh and drinks my blood has eternal life, and I will raise them up at the last day.  For my flesh is real food and my blood is real drink." (John 6:53-55).  Obviously this was not a favorite verse of my Evangelical pastors over the years, because I never. heard. this. verse. before.  

Well, surely there was some misunderstanding.  Surely this couldn't be true.  I had to find out.  Then I heard guests on "The Journey Home" talk about the "early church fathers" and claimed that the writings of these early Christians was further evidence to back up the Catholic belief of the real presence of Christ in the Eucharist.  I had never in my years of being in Evangelical churches heard anyone mention anything about writings from the early Christians.  I had been in churches who claimed to be as true to what the early church was like as any church could be, but they never mentioned any historical writings or evidence to back up their interpretation of what the early church was like.  

For the first time I heard people mentioned such as Ignatius, Justin Martyr, Clement of Rome, Eusebius, Iraneus, Tertullian, and Polycarp.  I had never heard these names before, and I had to use the DVR to pause and replay over and over and try to write these names down as best I could.  I did my best to decipher how their names must have been spelled so that I could look up this information.  Then I wanted to make sure to look these people up from non-Catholic websites, because I wasn't very convinced that I could trust what Catholics would say about these so-called "people", if they really did exist.  

Wikipedia became my new best friend.  I then came across what these early church fathers had to say about the Eucharist in the early years of the church, some during the age of the Apostles.

Ignatius of Antioch, Epistle to the Smyrnaeans, Chapter 6, 110 A.D.:Take note of those who hold heterodox opinions on the grace of Jesus Christ which has come to us, and see how contrary their opinions are to the mind of God ... They abstain from the Eucharist and from prayer because they do not confess that the Eucharist is the flesh of our Savior Jesus Christ, flesh which suffered for our sins and which that Father, in his goodness, raised up again. They who deny the gift of God are perishing in their disputes.

 St. Ignatius of Antioch, Epistle to the Romans, 7, 110 A.D.:
I desire the Bread of God, the heavenly Bread, the Bread of Life, which is the flesh of Jesus Christ, the Son of God, who became afterwards of the seed of David and Abraham; I wish the drink of God, namely His blood, which is incorruptible love and eternal life.

 Justin Martyr, Apology, I.66-67, 2nd century:Communion in the Body and Blood of ChristIt is allowed to no one else to participate in that food which we call Eucharist except the one who believes that the things taught by us are true, who has been cleansed in the washing unto rebirth and the forgiveness of sins and who is living according to the way Christ handed on to us. For we do not take these things as ordinary bread or ordinary drink. Just as our Savior Jesus Christ was made flesh by the word of God and took on flesh and blood for our salvation, so also were we taught that the food, for which thanksgiving has been made through the word of prayer instituted by him, and from which our blood and flesh are nourished after the change, is the flesh of that Jesus who was made flesh. Indeed, the Apostles, in the records left by them which are called gospels, handed on that it was commanded to them in this manner: Jesus, having taken bread and given thanks said, ``Do this in memory of me, this is my body.'' Likewise, having taken the cup and given thanks, he said, ``This is my blood'', and he gave it to them alone.

Tertullian's The Resurrection of the Dead [8,2] A.D. 208-212:The flesh, then, is washed, so that the soul may be made clean. The flesh is anointed, so that the soul may be dedicated to holiness. The flesh is signed, so that the soul too may be fortified. The flesh is shaded with the imposition of hands, so that the soul too may be illuminated by the Spirit. The flesh feeds on the Body and Blood of Christ, so that the soul too may fatten on God. They cannot, then, be separated in their reward, when they are united in their works.

There are many other writings to back up the belief that Jesus is truly present in the Eucharist.  Pay particular attention to the dates.  I always gave more credence to the earliest writings, because in my mind these had the highest probability of being true since they were the closest to the date of when Christ lived (and therefore had the lowest probability of being tainted by false doctrines).

And once I had settled it in my mind that the evidence proved what the Catholic Church taught about the Eucharist, I let my guard down and let my heart soak it in.  Then I, too, began to long for the Eucharist.  It became a longing that I couldn't escape.  I loved Jesus, and I wanted all that He had to offer. 

kristy