Featured Catholic tradition, not the Bible, teaches a change to Sundaykeeping.

Agreeing with what the scriptures were and how they came to be was the easy part of the early church. That is how churches all over the known world thrived, even under persecution. The different books were read and reread, and copied many times. The NT is the only book in history that has the most distinctly separate manuscript evidence in the thousands, bits and pieces from all over.

Eusebius was an historian who for some reason or another attempted to gather a lot of them up. He did not get all of them. He was also the one whose writings contained a lot of notes whereby we still have knowledge of early church fathers whose writings were all lost.

But even after Eusebius, the publishing and canon still went on. It cannot be said that the books of the NT were scarce, so we do see an universal application of Scripture in local churches, even after Rome tried to centralize. If Eastern Orthodox had not been strong enough to separate, Rome may have absorbed all differing beliefs. As it was, they had to matyr and persecute plenty of different groups to silence them. Not because Rome had the only truth, but because they wanted the church to have only their belief system. The truth remained in the NT text all over the world, because God would not let one single church, dictate over God's word their own interpretation.

Everyone knows and quotes, the no private interpretation part. It is not just one human running the show. One church cannot either. The one with the most theology and stacks of books outside of Scripture is going to be the most corrupt. That other unnecessary dogma is proof, that this one group within the church has the biggest private interpretation collection of them all.

Universalism does not mean one truth. It means how many different beliefs can we fit into the mix and still not be too contradictory. This way they have control over the most of humanity. Even Eusebius in his writings showed ecumenical attempts to correlate all beliefs even from other religions.

 

The Apostles practiced believers baptism, and non eof them knew of the Church of Rome with the papacy, Eucharist, infant baptismal regeneration m mary worship etc errors and heresies of the RCC!

 

Amen for Justin Matyr. LEGIT christian, not corrupted Defender of true christianity.
Believes in the REAL PRESENCE of Jesus Christ in the EUCHARIST.

I gotta find the line where he is dying to go to confession.


Turtullian? HE is going want me to demand from you apostolic succession.

"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 [their first] 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 steadfast with the apostles."

I've been pushing for that for years.


Justin Martyr

"This food we call the Eucharist, of which no one is allowed to partake except one who believes that the things we teach are true, and has received the washing for forgiveness of sins and for rebirth, and who lives as Christ handed down to us. For we do not receive these things as common bread or common drink; but as Jesus Christ our Savior being incarnate by God's Word took flesh and blood for our salvation, so also we have been taught that the food consecrated by the Word of prayer which comes from him, from which our flesh and blood are nourished by transformation, is the flesh and blood of that incarnate Jesus."

"First Apology", Ch. 66, inter A.D. 148-155.

"God has therefore announced in advance that all the sacrifices offered in His name, which Jesus Christ offered, that is, in the Eucharist of the Bread and of the Chalice, which are offered by us Christians in every part of the world, are pleasing to Him."

"Dialogue with Trypho", Ch. 117, circa 130-160 A.D.

Moreover, as I said before, concerning the sacrifices which you at that time offered, God speaks through Malachias, one of the twelve, as follows: 'I have no pleasure in you, says the Lord; and I will not accept your sacrifices from your hands; for from the rising of the sun until its setting, my name has been glorified among the gentiles; and in every place incense is offered to my name, and a clean offering: for great is my name among the gentiles, says the Lord; but you profane it.' It is of the sacrifices offered to Him in every place by us, the gentiles, that is, of the Bread of the Eucharist and likewise of the cup of the Eucharist, that He speaks at that time; and He says that we glorify His name, while you profane it."

-"Dialogue with Trypho", [41: 8-10]


Tertullian

“For though you think that heaven is still shut up, remember that the Lord left the keys of it to Peter here, and through him to the Church, which keys everyone will carry with him if he has been questioned and made a confession [of faith]” (Antidote Against the Scorpion 10 [A.D. 211]).

“[T]he Lord said to Peter, ‘On this rock I will build my Church, I have given you the keys of the kingdom of heaven [and] whatever you shall have bound or loosed on earth will be bound or loosed in heaven’ [Matt. 16:18–19]. . . . Upon you, he says, I will build my Church; and I will give to you the keys, not to the Church” (Modesty 21:9–10 [A.D. 220]).

“[T]here is not a soul that can at all procure salvation, except it believe whilst it is in the flesh, so true is it that the flesh is the very condition on which salvation hinges. And since the soul is, in consequence of its salvation, chosen to the service of God, it is the flesh which actually renders it capable of such service. The flesh, indeed, is washed [in baptism], in order that the soul may be cleansed . . . the flesh is shadowed with the imposition of hands [in confirmation], that the soul also may be illuminated by the Spirit; the flesh feeds [in the Eucharist] on the body and blood of Christ, that the soul likewise may be filled with God” (The Resurrection of the Dead 8 [A.D. 210]).

“[The apostles] founded churches in every city, from which all the other churches, one after another, derived the tradition of the faith, and the seeds of doctrine, and are every day deriving them, that they may become churches. Indeed, it is on this account only that they will be able to deem themselves apostolic, as being the offspring of apostolic churches. Every sort of thing must necessarily revert to its original for its classification. Therefore the churches, although they are so many and so great, comprise but the one primitive Church, [founded] by the apostles, from which they all [spring]. In this way, all are primitive, and all are apostolic, while they are all proved to be one in unity” (Demurrer Against the Heretics 20 [A.D. 200]).

“[W]hat it was which Christ revealed to them [the apostles] can, as I must here likewise prescribe, properly be proved in no other way than by those very churches which the apostles founded in person, by declaring the gospel to them directly themselves . . . If then these things are so, it is in the same degree manifest that all doctrine which agrees with the apostolic churches—those molds and original sources of the faith must be reckoned for truth, as undoubtedly containing that which the churches received from the apostles, the apostles from Christ, [and] Christ from God. Whereas all doctrine must be prejudged as false which savors of contrariety to the truth of the churches and apostles of Christ and God. It remains, then, that we demonstrate whether this doctrine of ours, of which we have now given the rule, has its origin in the tradition of the apostles, and whether all other doctrines do not ipso facto proceed from falsehood” (ibid., 21).

“But if there be any [heresies] which are bold enough to plant [their origin] 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 [their first] 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 steadfast 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” (ibid., 32).

“But should they even effect the contrivance [of composing a succession list for themselves], they will not advance a step. For their very doctrine, after comparison with that of the apostles [as contained in other churches], will declare, by its own diversity and contrariety, that it had for its author neither an apostle nor an apostolic man; because, as the apostles would never have taught things which were self-contradictory” (ibid.).

“Then let all the heresies, when challenged to these two tests by our apostolic Church, offer their proof of how they deem themselves to be apostolic. But in truth they neither are so, nor are they able to prove themselves to be what they are not. Nor are they admitted to peaceful relations and communion by such churches as are in any way connected with apostles, inasmuch as they are in no sense themselves apostolic because of their diversity as to the mysteries of the faith” (ibid.).

 

You inadvertently made my point. When St. Matthew calls Peter the protos, it cannot be a statement of chronology in terms of time and order of selection. For as you righty point out, Peter was not the first Apostle called. Hence when he is called the protos in St. Matthew’s list of Apostles, it is a description of his rank, role and honor. Andrew is never named the first in any listing of the Apostles...

—-> Matthew 10:2
—-> Mark 3:16-19
—-> Luke 6:13-16


Interestingly, not only was Andrew the first called to be an Apostle, but he, along with Nathaniel, were the first to make the proclamation that Jesus is the Messiah and the Son of God...

"... Andrew, the brother of Simon Peter. He, first of all, found his own brother Simon, and told him, 'We have discovered the Messias, which means, the Christ'". (John 1:40-41)

"Then Nathaniel answered him, 'Thou, Master, art the Son of God.'" (John 1:49)


Jesus does name either of them the rock upon hearing their confession. Instead, he gives this name to Peter after his confession. (cf. Mt. 16:18)

The Apostles attended the Temple regularly...

---> Acts 2:46
---> Acts 3

St. Paul and Barnabas attend the synagogue regularly on the Sabbath as well...

---> Acts 13:13-15, 42-44

The assertion again was that the Apostles officially changed the day of worship to Sunday. That's the Scripture verse and fact I'm looking for, which has yet to be provided. Otherwise, if you worship on Sunday, you are doing so based on nothing but your own sect's tradition.

Or maybe Peter just got along better with Thomas, Thaddeus, Aggai and Mari?

This must explain why Babylon became one of the early Petrine Sees of Christianity. (Sarcasm)

 

They gathered in the temple as there was not yet that creak break with Judaism, as paul went to temples in order to preach to the Jews first about Jesus, but once break came, Sunday authorized as day of worship!

 

Post the verse where they officially changed the day of worship to Sunday.

 

There is NO recorded down Sabbath day as Jewish one for the Church to observe, as in scripture and in all historical documents of the early church, Sunday was the observed worship day to gather together!

 

So since there is no recording in Scripture of the Apostles officially changing the day of worship to Sunday, it is nothing more than a tradition you follow. Thanks for finally admitting it. It only took you a couple of days to finally do so.

The reason why Catholics worship God on Sunday is because the Sabbath is fulfilled in Jesus Christ. For He is the true Temple. (cf. Rev. 21:22)

 

The christians worshipped on Sunday as that was day Lord Jesus arose and instituted new covenant age, and also Church was born on Pentacost Sunday!

 

Still no verse which supports what you asserted, that the Apostles officially changed the day of worship to Sunday! You only have your own sect's tradition, nothing more.

---> The reason the Church began worshiping on Sunday is because Easter and the Eucharist are inextricably woven as one. Christ is the fulfillment of the Sabbath.

 

The church is not based on the works of man, but on the rock Christ Jesus. The name Peter means rock. To say Peter is the foundation would be the first heresy in the church. No one did that, not even Clement. Peter left Rome, and went to Iraq. John was the last and final Gospel, thus what the church should accept. They should not go back and interpret the other 3 Gospels on their own whim.

Of course the evangelists went to the Synagogues on the Sabbath. That was the only day any one was there. Have you tried to visit a church when no one is there? The doors are locked, and you cannot get in. They went to talk to people who were gathered. Waiting for people to show up on any other day would be just that. Waiting till the next Sabbath.

Really, what is the point of trying to make people go to church when they are at work? If the government says only Wednesday was the day no one worked, would you really make a stink about it? Just call Wednesday the 7th day and go to work the other six. God is not worried about how a human calendar works.