Mary the Queen of Heaven

[TER]

The Church of Constantinople existed before their was a city named such and dates back to the Apostle Andrew. It is the same Church since then and in time, due to the changing geopolitical landscape (namely the moving of the Capital from Rome to 'New Rome' (Aka Constantinople), the Church decided to elevate it in rank with equal footing with Old Rome. That was by a decision of the bishops in synod (including the Bishop of Rome) in the year 382 (a Ecumencial Council). It was not the Emperor who decided this, it was the Church adapting to a changing world, a change made by the decision of the people within the Church. It is the same reason any group would want to be located in the most important city in the world, for the advantageous capablilites in communications, organization, and to use the power inherent in the city to do more far reaching and efficacious work. In the case of the Church of Constantinople which had existed for three hundred years prior, it was to facilitate the Church's work in spreading the gospel and baptizing all nations in the name of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. It is natural for the city at the center of human politics and trade to also concentrate within it the leaders of religious communities. Go to NY and DC and you will find the heads of many faiths and communities there. For the Church, it facilitated the spreading of the gospel within this specific nexus and location in order to enlighten and influence the policy makers for the benefit of the faithful and the Church. And the presence and work of this Church in New Rome has done much to spread the faith in the history of Christianity, even against centuries being beset by barbarian invasions and Islamic expansionism. And not only from foreign powers but from the very Emperors of Rome and Byzantium and the political elite (well after Constantine died), many of which persecuted the Church and all Christians and tried to revive the pagan practices and worship of the State.

This Church has survived since the days of the Apostles even against all odds. For while it had a working relationship with the State, the Church did not become the State such as which tragically happened in Old Rome in the Middle Ages.

So much has the Ecumencial Patriarchate served the Christian world that it still retains this honor given to it by the Church in Ecumenical Council, even until today, centuries after the end of the Roman and Byzantine Empires. The Church adapts to the world around her, in order to pass down the doctrines of Christ and the traditions of the Apostles even though attacked from without and within by sinful men. But the world does not own her even though sinful men make efforts to destroy or co-opt her, and kings have been born and died, empires have come and gone, but the Church has endured and will forever endure by the power of God. And that is because the Church is not a mere human organism but in the image of Christ, His Body, of divine origin as well. The Holy Spirit kept the line of Israel from David until the birth of the Lord, and likewise keeps it alive until His glorious return. For there is One King and One Kingdom which is not of this world, even as we the Church militant do battle within it so that we might inheret the Kingdom of God.

 

[Kevin007]

Last time I checked--the title of Apostle was not limited to just the twelve and can apply to those sent by our Lord to teach and minister the word of God. And since the Apostle Paul called all saints to the ministry--it's not out of line to understand that there are many other Apostles of the Lord who do His will. How do we know? Because the ancient church history confirms it and reconciles with their teaching.

2 Corinthians 6:4

But in all things approving ourselves as the ministers of God, in much patience, in afflictions, in necessities, in distresses,

Acts 1:

23 And they appointed two, Joseph called Barsabas, who was surnamed Justus, and Matthias.

24 And they prayed, and said, Thou, Lord, which knowest the hearts of all men, shew whether of these two thou hast chosen,

25 That he may take part of this ministry and apostleship, from which Judas by transgression fell, that he might go to his own place.




Aren't there something like seventy other confirmed Apostles in the Gospel?




Strong's Concordance

apostolos: a messenger, one sent on a mission, an apostle
Original Word: ἀπόστολος, ου, ὁ
Part of Speech: Noun, Masculine
Transliteration: apostolos
Phonetic Spelling: (ap-os'-tol-os)
Short Definition: an apostle, a messenger, an envoy, a delegate
Definition: a messenger, envoy, delegate, one commissioned by another to represent him in some way, especially a man sent out by Jesus Christ Himself to preach the Gospel; an apostle.
HELPS Word-studies

Cognate: 652 apóstolos (from 649 /apostéllō, "to commission, send forth") – properly, someone sent (commissioned), focusing back on the authority (commissioning) of the sender (note the prefix, apo); apostle.

no. And ONLY an Apostle can write Scripture that is inspired by the Holy Spirit. That is just one of the reason Protestant's do not include Macabees and Tobit for example. Tobit also because of magic and witchcraft which is strictly forbidden.

There are 66 books.

 

[erowe1]

St. Ignatius humbly acknowledges he is not one of the Twelve.

He humbly acknowledges that he is not an apostle at all, and specifically disclaims being one of the same category of, not only the 12, but also Paul, whom he names explicitly, saying he's not an apostle like Paul.

 

[erowe1]

Last time I checked--the title of Apostle was not limited to just the twelve and can apply to those sent by our Lord to teach and minister the word of God.

Not only that. But the word apostolos can apply to any sent one, not just teaching the Word of God, but anyone who's sent by anyone to carry any message.

If you read our discussion you'll see that that point has already been covered.

In addition to that general definition, there is also a technical use of the term apostolos that was used to signify a special and very limited group of leaders in the first generation of the Church whose role it was to found the Church. This included the 12 and Paul. It's possible that it included even others beyond that. I don't exclude that possibility.

While it's true that someone can be a sent one in that general sense, it's not possible for anyone today to belong to that group that was signified by that technical use of the term apostolos in the first generation of the Church.

 

[erowe1]

There was no cessation of the Twelve, and neither their special place in the story of our salvation. For even now they pray for the Church. Neither are their gifts gone, for the same Holy Spirit which gifted them also gifts St. Ignatius and all the saints.

Please stop being so slippery. These points are not at all related to what I said. Nothing I said contradicts any of this.

There are many spiritual gifts, and the Holy Spirit gives different gifts to different people, appointing them to different roles within the Body of Christ. The Holy Spirit appoints each believer in Jesus to a special and particular role. One of these roles was a role occupied by Paul and the 12 to found the Church. The New Testament refers to this particular gift as "apostolos." Ignatius did not perform this same function. He himself said so. Neither has anyone else ever since the first generation of Christianity.

 

[robert68]

....

You can spin and spin with propaganda (it's what you do); but in addition to facts like the Ecumenical Councils were all arranged by Emperors, churches in the Byzantine Empire were built with state treasure, and the clergy were exempt from paying taxes, I haven't come across a single Byzantine Emperor who was excommunicated. That speaks volumes. Furthermore, the following speaks for itself, wrt to the E.P’s church:

Hagia Sophia:

First Church

The first church on the site was known as the Μεγάλη Ἐκκλησία (Megálē Ekklēsíā, "Great Church"), or in Latin "Magna Ecclesia",[11][12] because of its larger dimensions in comparison to the contemporary churches in the City.[3] Inaugurated on 15 February 360 (during the reign of Constantius II) by the Arian bishop Eudoxius of Antioch,[13] it was built next to the area where the imperial palace was being developed. The nearby Hagia Eirene ("Holy Peace") church was completed earlier and served as cathedral until the Great Church was completed. Both churches acted together as the principal churches of the Byzantine Empire

Writing in 440, Socrates of Constantinople claimed that the church was built by Constantius II, who was working on it in 346.[13] A tradition which is not older than the 7th – 8th century, reports that the edifice was built by Constantine the Great.[13] Zonaras reconciles the two opinions, writing that Constantius had repaired the edifice consecrated by Eusebius of Nicomedia, after it had collapsed.[13] Since Eusebius was bishop of Constantinople from 339 to 341, and Constantine died in 337, it seems possible that the first church was erected by the latter.[13]...

Second Church
A second church was ordered by Theodosius II, who inaugurated it on 10 October 415. The basilica with a wooden roof was built by architect Rufinus. A fire started during the tumult of the Nika Revolt and burned the second Hagia Sophia to the ground on 13–14 January 532...

Third church (current structure)
On 23 February 532, only a few weeks after the destruction of the second basilica, Emperor Justinian I decided to build a third and entirely different basilica, larger and more majestic than its predecessors.
Hagia Sophia was the seat of the Orthodox patriarch of Constantinople and a principal setting for Byzantine imperial ceremonies, such as coronations....

 

[TER]

I am not being slippery erowe. I am trying to open your eyes to the fact that there was one catholic Church at the end of the first century, spread across cities and nations, in divine communion with one another under the authority of bishops, priests and deacons, offices which were born from the first ministry of the Apostles in a grace filled succession of charismata, and fully developed by the work of the Holy Spirit within the life of the Church. Acts was never intended to record the complete history of the development if the Church through the Holy Spirit.

St. Paul exhorted his listeners to listen to their teachers and to become of one mind, in one faith and in the one body of Jesus Christ. And to those alone who lived in such unity of faith holding dear to the faith handed once down by the saints, they would partake of the Holy Eucharist. Otherwise they would be unworthy to partake and they should not commune. In fact, they should be casted out, something the Apostles were not shy about doing with those who spoke another gospel and threatened the unity of the Church. For not only would they be in danger if they did partake unworthily of the Body and Blood of Christ (for it is a fearful thing to fall into the hands of the living God), but their presence and scandals would disturb the unity and health of the Church. Neither St. Paul nor the other Apostles were afraid of excommunicating those who distorted the faith and message of Christ.

Thus, our greatest link to find the true Church and the original faith lies in the Holy Eucharist, for it is around this the very Body and Blood of Christ whereby we can find the succession of the truths according to the good will of God.

By the end of the first century, the Church had developed into separate churches, under the leadership of elders/bishops, of which St. Ignatius was one. Many churches though One Church, just as many members make up One Body. Their unity and adherence to the apostolic faith was demonstrated and ontologically realized in the Holy Eucharist.

The fact that St. Ignatius was in sacramental communion with the Bishops far and wide (naming them and worshiping with them on his road to martyrdom) underscores his witness as recorded in his letters as being both catholic (widespread and established) and orthodox (according to the teachings of the Apostles). For he was not excommunicated, nor denounced, nor corrected, but rather glorified and proclaimed a saint for having kept fast to the traditions given to him both by word and epistle and continuing the ministry started by the Apostles to shepherd and feed the flock and keep undefiled the teachings of our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ.

 

[heavenlyboy34]

no. And ONLY an Apostle can write Scripture that is inspired by the Holy Spirit. That is just one of the reason Protestant's do not include Macabees and Tobit for example. Tobit also because of magic and witchcraft which is strictly forbidden.

There are 66 books.

Okay, I can tell you haven't even read Tobit from this. You're just repeating what some anti-Catholic or anti-Orthodox person told you. Did you know Jon 3:16 is an allusion to Tobit?

There are 76 books. Period.

 

[Kevin007]

Okay, I can tell you haven't even read Tobit from this. You're just repeating what some anti-Catholic or anti-Orthodox person told you. Did you know Jon 3:16 is an allusion to Tobit?

There are 76 books. Period.

lol, no John 3:16 is not. Tobit 6:5-8- If the Devil, or an evil spirit troubles anyone, they can be driven away by making a smoke of the heart, liver, and gall of a fish...and the Devil will smell it, and flee away, and never come again anymore.

This is magic.

 

[Kevin007]

Okay, I can tell you haven't even read Tobit from this. You're just repeating what some anti-Catholic or anti-Orthodox person told you. Did you know Jon 3:16 is an allusion to Tobit?

There are 76 books. Period.

there are 66. Those 10 books are not included because they are not Scripture. None of them are inspired by the Holy Spirit and all have inaccuracies. The best thing they are good for is history.

 

[Kevin007]

[SIZE=+2]Why the Apocrypha Isn't in the Bible.[/SIZE]

1. Not one of the apocryphal books is written in the Hebrew language (the Old Testament was written in Hebrew). All Apocryphal books are in Greek, except one which is extant only in Latin.
2. None of the apocryphal writers laid claim to inspiration.
3. The apocryphal books were never acknowledged as sacred scriptures by the Jews, custodians of the Hebrew scriptures (the apocrypha was written prior to the New Testament). In fact, the Jewish people rejected and destroyed the apocrypha after the overthow of Jerusalem in 70 A.D.
4. The apocryphal books were not permitted among the sacred books during the first four centuries of the real Christian church (I'm certainly not talking about the Catholic religion. The Roman Catholic "Church" is not Christian).
5. The Apocrypha contains fabulous statements which not only contradict the "canonical" scriptures but themselves. For example, in the two Books of Maccabees, Antiochus Epiphanes is made to die three different deaths in three different places.
6. The Apocrypha includes doctrines in variance with the Bible, such as prayers for the dead and sinless perfection. The following verses are taken from the Apocrypha translation by Ronald Knox dated 1954:

http://www.jesus-is-lord.com/apocryph.htm

 

[Ronin Truth]

[SIZE=+2]Why the Apocrypha Isn't in the Bible.[/SIZE]

1. Not one of the apocryphal books is written in the Hebrew language (the Old Testament was written in Hebrew). All Apocryphal books are in Greek, except one which is extant only in Latin.
2. None of the apocryphal writers laid claim to inspiration.
3. The apocryphal books were never acknowledged as sacred scriptures by the Jews, custodians of the Hebrew scriptures (the apocrypha was written prior to the New Testament). In fact, the Jewish people rejected and destroyed the apocrypha after the overthow of Jerusalem in 70 A.D.
4. The apocryphal books were not permitted among the sacred books during the first four centuries of the real Christian church (I'm certainly not talking about the Catholic religion. http://www.jesus-is-lord.com/cath.htm"]The Roman Catholic "Church" is not Christian[/URL]).
5. The Apocrypha contains fabulous statements which not only contradict the "canonical" scriptures but themselves. For example, in the two Books of Maccabees, Antiochus Epiphanes is made to die three different deaths in three different places.
6. The Apocrypha includes doctrines in variance with the Bible, such as prayers for the dead and sinless perfection. The following verses are taken from the Apocrypha translation by Ronald Knox dated 1954:

http://www.jesus-is-lord.com/apocryph.htm

Interesting. Especially #4. Thanks!

"By their fruits, ye shall know them."​

 

[Terry1]

[SIZE=+2]Why the Apocrypha Isn't in the Bible.[/SIZE]

1. Not one of the apocryphal books is written in the Hebrew language (the Old Testament was written in Hebrew). All Apocryphal books are in Greek, except one which is extant only in Latin.
2. None of the apocryphal writers laid claim to inspiration.
3. The apocryphal books were never acknowledged as sacred scriptures by the Jews, custodians of the Hebrew scriptures (the apocrypha was written prior to the New Testament). In fact, the Jewish people rejected and destroyed the apocrypha after the overthow of Jerusalem in 70 A.D.
4. The apocryphal books were not permitted among the sacred books during the first four centuries of the real Christian church (I'm certainly not talking about the Catholic religion. The Roman Catholic "Church" is not Christian).
5. The Apocrypha contains fabulous statements which not only contradict the "canonical" scriptures but themselves. For example, in the two Books of Maccabees, Antiochus Epiphanes is made to die three different deaths in three different places.
6. The Apocrypha includes doctrines in variance with the Bible, such as prayers for the dead and sinless perfection. The following verses are taken from the Apocrypha translation by Ronald Knox dated 1954:

http://www.jesus-is-lord.com/apocryph.htm

Kevin--that link you provided written by someone named "Tracy" is just wrong on so many levels that it's almost impossible to know where to start explaining why. I'm not saying this person doesn't love the Lord or that they're not a Christian, but intellectually speaking regarding the knowledge of scripture--"Tracy" is sorely lacking wisdom and good judgment.

You need to be very careful reading some of these sites simply because they may agree with what you believe, because IMO--you are also very confused scripturally.

 

[erowe1]

Okay, I can tell you haven't even read Tobit from this. You're just repeating what some anti-Catholic or anti-Orthodox person told you. Did you know Jon 3:16 is an allusion to Tobit?

I doubt that John 3:16 is an allusion to Tobit. But if it is, so what? Jesus and the apostles alluded to lots of books, not just books that they appealed to as inspired Scripture. We have no record of them ever appealing to Tobit, or any other books of the Apocrypha, as inspired Scripture.

There are 76 books. Period.

Why do you say this? And why do you say "Period." at the end, as though this has been objectively and finally decided somewhere?

 

[Terry1]

no. And ONLY an Apostle can write Scripture that is inspired by the Holy Spirit. That is just one of the reason Protestant's do not include Macabees and Tobit for example. Tobit also because of magic and witchcraft which is strictly forbidden.

There are 66 books.

You simply can't say that being the fact that you believe in and follow John Calvin's doctrinal teachings that are so far off from being biblical they should be in the Hall of Shame. And if you choose to believe a 15th century blood thirsty murderous reformer who's done more harm to the body of Christ than any other over the most ancient Church of Christ--then that's your choice, but don't expect everyone to believe this who knows much better.

 

[erowe1]

I am not being slippery erowe.

You are. It is obvious. And it is obvious that it is deliberate.

The question is: Did Ignatius (or anyone else after the first generation of Christians) fill the role that is connoted by the precise technical application of the label "apostle" as it was applied to the 12 and Paul, who were eye-witnesses of the risen Christ that provided the foundation for the Church?

The question is not:
- Did Ignatius (or anyone else) have gifts of the Holy Spirit, of which the gift of apostleship given to the 12 and Paul was one?
- Did Ignatius (or anyone else) carry on the apostolic ministry?
- Did Ignatius (or anyone else) fill another kind of role in the Church that could rightly be called an "apostle" but in some more general and less technical sense?
- Did Ignatius have authority in his day that somehow resembled the authority the apostles had in theirs?

Sometimes you say something that looks like you answer the actual question at hand by agreeing with me, that there have been no apostles in that technical sense since the first generation. But you never say so in a simple yes or no way. And then you divert the discussion to all those other questions which only muddle the issue.

 

[erowe1]

you believe in and follow John Calvin's doctrinal teachings

Can you please provide your quote from Kevin showing that this accusation is true?

If you can't, you owe him an apology.

 

[Ronin Truth]

You simply can't say that being the fact that you believe in and follow John Calvin's doctrinal teachings that are so far off from being biblical they should be in the Hall of Shame. And if you choose to believe a 15th century blood thirsty murderous reformer who's done more harm to the body of Christ than any other over the most ancient Church of Christ--then that's your choice, but don't expect everyone to believe this who knows much better.

Speaking of blood thirsty and murderous, do you happen to have, at the very least, an as strong indictment against the bloody history of the RCC?

Just curious and looking for some consistency.

 

[Terry1]

The Church of Constantinople existed before their was a city named such and dates back to the Apostle Andrew. It is the same Church since then and in time, due to the changing geopolitical landscape (namely the moving of the Capital from Rome to 'New Rome' (Aka Constantinople), the Church decided to elevate it in rank with equal footing with Old Rome. That was by a decision of the bishops in synod (including the Bishop of Rome) in the year 382 (a Ecumencial Council). It was not the Emperor who decided this, it was the Church adapting to a changing world, a change made by the decision of the people within the Church. It is the same reason any group would want to be located in the most important city in the world, for the advantageous capablilites in communications, organization, and to use the power inherent in the city to do more far reaching and efficacious work. In the case of the Church of Constantinople which had existed for three hundred years prior, it was to facilitate the Church's work in spreading the gospel and baptizing all nations in the name of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. It is natural for the city at the center of human politics and trade to also concentrate within it the leaders of religious communities. Go to NY and DC and you will find the heads of many faiths and communities there. For the Church, it facilitated the spreading of the gospel within this specific nexus and location in order to enlighten and influence the policy makers for the benefit of the faithful and the Church. And the presence and work of this Church in New Rome has done much to spread the faith in the history of Christianity, even against centuries being beset by barbarian invasions and Islamic expansionism. And not only from foreign powers but from the very Emperors of Rome and Byzantium and the political elite (well after Constantine died), many of which persecuted the Church and all Christians and tried to revive the pagan practices and worship of the State.

This Church has survived since the days of the Apostles even against all odds. For while it had a working relationship with the State, the Church did not become the State such as which tragically happened in Old Rome in the Middle Ages.

So much has the Ecumencial Patriarchate served the Christian world that it still retains this honor given to it by the Church in Ecumenical Council, even until today, centuries after the end of the Roman and Byzantine Empires. The Church adapts to the world around her, in order to pass down the doctrines of Christ and the traditions of the Apostles even though attacked from without and within by sinful men. But the world does not own her even though sinful men make efforts to destroy or co-opt her, and kings have been born and died, empires have come and gone, but the Church has endured and will forever endure by the power of God. And that is because the Church is not a mere human organism but in the image of Christ, His Body, of divine origin as well. The Holy Spirit kept the line of Israel from David until the birth of the Lord, and likewise keeps it alive until His glorious return. For there is One King and One Kingdom which is not of this world, even as we the Church militant do battle within it so that we might inheret the Kingdom of God.

Great post TER. And since the Church is the very physical image of Christ in this world--we worship Christ *through* the Church that contains the very body of believers in this world. I think this is where some of the Protestants are confusing the issue of "worship", thinking it's idolatry. I don't believe that they *get--that the worldly ancient church is our physical and tangible link to Christ Himself.

I know myself coming out of the Protestant churches that there is a wall that's been built between the Catholics and the Protestants that's very difficult to penetrate scripturally speaking. The reformers did so much damage in their quest to *reform* that they actually corrupted the true teachings of the Gospel of Christ to the point now it's been like a cancer that's spread through the centuries to what we have today. This is indeed a stronghold that I see that's not of God, but at the same time--God knows the hearts and minds of those who He can make stand regardless.

The most detrimental and dangerous teaching to the soul I can see today, is the teaching that "belief and faith" are synonymous and that "good works" are not needed, when Jesus our Lord tells us the exact opposite as well as every single apostle, prophet and teacher in the word of God.

I think that before we can convince the Protestants that veneration is not the same as worship with regard to Church traditions and practices, we first have to break down that wall of corruption leading them to believe that because Jesus finished the work on the cross, that we have nothing left to do. We know this isn't true because our faith, good works and ministry begin at the time of belief and confession--they don't end there. Through prayer and witness--somehow we must find a way to reveal to them where they err.

 

[Terry1]

Can you please provide your quote from Kevin showing that this accusation is true?

If you can't, you owe him an apology.

I certainly didn't mean to offend, but it's difficult to correct someone without telling them you believe they're wrong in the first place. Kevin believes in the perseverance of the saints doctrine Once Saved Always Saved. He doesn't believe that our "good works" are necessary, same you believe. He also provided links to CARM, which is pure Calvinism.

In the link he provided, asserts that the RCC are not Christians--this is wrong as well and should also be accompanied with an apology from Kevin, because I have never once accused Kevin of not being a Christian, but--by his own belief and practice--denotes such as well.

That link Kevin provided also makes the statement that the RCC is the "Harlot" mentioned in the Bible--this is not true either because I have provided scriptural proof that the "Harlot" mentioned in the Bible is Jerusalem--not the RCC. Scripture after scripture in the word of God refers only to Jerusalem as being the "Harlot" in the Old Testament and the New.

Like I said--I've never accused Kevin of not being a Christian, as he's done to many good faithful Catholics in here and I never would, but the *way* he believes is not consistent with the Gospel of Jesus Christ who most definitely told us that nothing but our good works done in faith can possibly glorify the Father in heaven.