Featured Changes of Roman Catholic Doctrine

And yet the eastern church NEVER deferred to Bishop of Rome, and almost all theology decided was per their side, not western side of Rome!

 

Read what I posted and stop this!




Here again is the Eastern Church "deferring" to the Bishop of Rome, the Patriarch of the West:


First Council of Constantinople, Canon 3, 381 A.D. ---> “Because it is new Rome, the bishop of Constantinople is to enjoy the privileges of honour after the bishop of Rome.”


Council of Ephesus, Session 3, 431 A.D. ---> "There is no doubt, and in fact it has been known in all ages, that the holy and most blessed Peter, prince and head of the Apostles, pillar of the faith and foundation of the Catholic Church, received the Keys of the Kingdom from our Lord Jesus Christ, the Savior and Redeemer of the human race, and to him was given the power of loosing and binding sins; who down even to this day and forever both lives and judges in his successors."


Council of Chalcedon, Session 3, 451 A.D. ---> "Wherefore the most holy and blessed Leo, archbishop of the great and elder Rome, through us, and through this present most holy synod together with the thrice-blessed and all-glorious Peter the Apostle, who is the Rock and foundation of the Catholic Church, and the foundation of the orthodox faith, hath stripped him [Dioscorus, bishop of Alexandria] of his episcopate, and hath alienated from him all hieratic worthiness."


Chalcedon Fathers to Pope Leo the Great, Epistle 98 ---> “You [Pope Leo] are set as an interpreter to all of the voice of blessed Peter, and to all you impart the blessings of that Faith.”


Ibid ---> “Knowing that every success of the children rebounds to the parents, we therefore beg you to honor our decision by your assent, and as we have yielded agreement to the Head in noble things, so may the Head also fulfill what is fitting for the children.”

 

It looks like some of these are not doctrines at all but are practices adopted out of habit or convenience. For example, making the sign of the cross and mass as a daily celebration are not doctrinal any more than a Baptist church's decision to have communion once a month or once a quarter.

Other instances falsely represent Catholic practices. For example, it is not Catholic doctrine to worship the cross, images and relics.

At least a couple of other instances are mutually contradictory. For example, it says the doctrine of the Seven Sacraments was confirmed in 1439. Then it says the Seven Sacraments were confirmed at the Council of Trent in 1545. It can’t be both.

Aside from the specific problems stated above, it looks like most of these “doctrines” are beliefs that have existed since very early times (patristic fathers or earlier). They are a part of ancient Catholic Tradition and were only declared as dogma at such time as they may have been challenged or questioned.

 

That was the first time in history, and there was the definitive break later on. correct?

 

The Holy Catholic church was founded by Apostles of Christ, but was NOT the Church of Rome until much later on!

 

I have heard that ever since I was old enough to care about church history, but no one has ever identified that point in history where the Roman church broke off from what you characterize as the “Holy Catholic Church” that was founded by the apostles. I am aware of only two great schisms—the schism of 1054 where the Eastern and Western churches parted ways and the schism of the Reformation under Martin Luther.

 

There was no formal Rome Church as with papacy and its doctrines until centuries after NT!

 

Because there is no point in history that can be pinpointed as the junction of the "Catholic" or "Roman Catholic" Churches - it was always one and the same. The "Roman" part was a pejorative added by the renegades and after awhile it just stuck.

The Church remained steadfast in its orthodoxy i.e. the seven sacraments etc. The original name for the Roman Catholic Church where the Bishop of Rome was in charge was the Western, or Latin Rite of Christianity.

 

Without any question, the Christian church was founded by Jesus, not the apostles, and first manifested at Jerusalem. Following the conversion of Paul, the center of gravity of the faith gradually shifted to Antioch. From there it shifted to Rome when the two most prominent apostles, Peter and Paul, spent their last years in Rome and were martyred for their faith in Rome. Following that time, it was undisputed that Rome rose to preeminence among the churches in the Christian world. This early history was related by Irenaeus, Bishop of Lyons, about 175 A.D. in a writing called “Against Heresies” (Book III, Chapter 3).

To be sure, there were heresies that broke off from time to time such as Gnosticism and Arianism, but the church at Rome remained steadfast from the First Century on down through the ages. The first real schism didn’t occur until 1054 when the East and West parted ways. There is simply no evidence for the rise of the Roman Catholic Church hundreds of years after the apostles.

 

CRICKETS!!!

 

Bingo! Great post.


St. Luke is the only one who wrote a sequel to a Gospel with his account of the early Church in his book of Acts. The book of Acts details the Church's growth from Pentecost and concludes with the arrival of the faith in the city of Rome, from whence it would go out to all the world. Of the Church in Rome, St. Paul makes this exclusive claim...

"First, I thank my God through Jesus Christ for all of you, because your faith is proclaimed in all the world." (Romans 1:8)


By virtue of Sts. Peter and Paul, Rome became the standard for true and authentic Apostolic doctrine. (Protestants assert Apostolic succession to be nothing more than the transmission of Apostolic doctrine.) The early Church used the Roman Church as the litmus test for what was true and authentic doctrine. St. Irenaeus, as you referenced, in his defense of orthodoxy against the “pneumatological / invisible church” proponents of his time – the Gnostics - famously wrote all Churches must be in agreement with that of the Church of Rome. This is because Rome was the standard for authentic tradition and doctrine of the Christian faith. Even the first Christian historian, Eusebius, records his history of Apostolic succession beginning not in Jerusalem, but rather from Rome. Thus in the Church’s infancy, we see the Roman see as the place from whence pure doctrine is safeguarded and transmitted. It should also be noted that this acknowledgement of the primacy of the Church of Rome actually precedes the canon of the New Testament. In other words, the early Christians knew what see protected the doctrine of the faith before they knew what books were to be considered inspired Scripture.

 

There was no papacy no 7 Sacraments in the churches of Acts , as they held to Baptist doctrines and practices!

 

There is no record of official RCC doctrines in history of early Church, no Papacy recognized until much later on!

 

The true church of Christ did not agree with papacy, nor 7 sacraments, indulgences, Purgetory etc, as that was not brought in until centuries later on!

 

Well... that's just a whole bunch of worthlessness by those council's.
I am always stunned by the early heresy in the church and your quotes reveal such early abomination.
Yet... tradition is your stronghold while scripture is secondary.

 

paul and Jude and peter warned against heresies even back in their time, and came full bloom in RCC!

 

Please post writings from your church's leaders during the 5th century testifying against and combating these "abominations" by the Catholic bishops at Ephesus and Chalcedon.

Thanks in advance.

 

You do knew Bishops in early Church were elders and pastors as baptists see it, correct?

 

Please name one of your bishops / elders / pastors and his or her writings in the 5th century who stood up and opposed the "abominations" of the Catholic bishops at Ephesus and Chalcedon.

One name will suffice.

Thanks in advance.

 

Did they hold to papacy, 7 sacraments, Mary worship, water baptismal regeneration , purgetory etc?