What does the RCC officially teach regarding Mary?

[lakeside]

annsni, because St. Paul was correct in saying that then: " that all the churches of Christ greet you ' they were all under the same doctrinal umbrella. { Eph. 4: 3-6 }

 

[DHK]

DHK, furthermore,although the Bible has no unmistakable evidence that he was there (though 1 Peter 5:13 does imply it), early Christian writers such as Tertullian, Clement of Alexandria, and Lactantius are unanimous in saying that he went to Rome, presided over the Church there, and was martyred during the Emperor Nero’s persecution.

There was no early writer who claimed that Peter never went to Rome and died elsewhere, and no other ancient city ever claimed to be the place of his death or to have his remains—which makes sense, since in this century it has been demonstrated that his bones lay beneath the high altar of St. Peter’s Basilica.

A popular account of the archaeological excavations conducted from 1939 to 1968, at which time Pope Paul VI confirmed that Peter’s bones had been scientifically and historically identified, may be found in John E. Walsh’s book The Bones of St. Peter.
,

The history of the Papacy's temporal role can be divided into three major time periods: the early church, the Middle Ages, and the modern era. During the Early Church, the Pope had no temporal power and served only as the bishop of the Christian church in Rome. Even in that spiritual role, it was contested whether the patriarchs of the other churches were subordinate to the bishop of Rome.

The study of the New Testament offers "no proof that Peter was regarded as the first bishop of Rome",...Some historians argue that the notion that Peter was the first bishop of Rome and founded the Christian church there can be traced back no earlier than the third century.
Since the Reformation, the question of the origins of the papacy has been vital to all Christian churches. Some Protestant theologians stated that Peter was never in Rome, a view taken most prominently by Ferdinand Christian Baur and the Tübingen School.

http://religion.wikia.com/wiki/History_of_the_Papacy

In short the evidence for Peter being a leader of a church in Rome is scarce.

 

[lakeside]

DHK, only for those who are without proof, no matter if there is more proof than no proof i.e writings of mostif not all Church fathers / early Jewish writers and the catacomb martyrs , excavations of Peter's bones by Catholic, Jewish secular scientists after WW 2 in Rome.

 

[DHK]

DHK, only for those who are without proof, no matter if there is more proof than no proof i.e writings of mostif not all Church fathers / early Jewish writers and the catacomb martyrs , excavations of Peter's bones by Catholic, Jewish secular scientists after WW 2 in Rome.

No doubt his bones are in Rome. The RCC moved them there. Even if they found them there that wouldn't be a problem--to accept that he was martyred there and that is all.
But to accept that he was bishop/pope in Rome for 25 years is a ludicrous claim that even contradicts Scripture. It is an impossibility. Scripture contradicts the RCC position. There is no evidence that Peter was ever a "bishop" of any church in Rome and that should shatter any Catholic's faith who puts their trust in Peter as the "founder" of their faith.

 

[annsni]

annsni, because St. Paul was correct in saying that then: " that all the churches of Christ greet you ' they were all under the same doctrinal umbrella. { Eph. 4: 3-6 }

But there were many churches. We have two churches meet in our building. We are different denominationally but we are under the same doctrinal umbrella. When we speak of "the church", we consider ourselves part of the one church on earth that is led by Christ. However, we have our own little congregations.

 

[lakeside]

annsni, you are right, there were other heretical churches and movements in the first centuries of Christianity in addition to the true Church founded by Jesus Christ through the Apostles. However, those "churches" and beliefs were condemned by the early Church. There's plenty of evidence of this. First, we have the letters written by the Apostles (Paul, Peter, John, etc.). Second, we have the writings of the early Church Fathers. Finally, we have the Ecumenical Councils.

Just because there were many heretical movements in the first centuries (just like there are many heretical "churches" today), it doesn't mean that there was not a unified Church that was build on and through the Apostles. That Church subsists today in the Catholic and Orthodox Churches.

 

[DHK]

annsni, you are right, there were other heretical churches and movements in the first centuries of Christianity in addition to the true Church founded by Jesus Christ through the Apostles. However, those "churches" and beliefs were condemned by the early Church. There's plenty of evidence of this. First, we have the letters written by the Apostles (Paul, Peter, John, etc.). Second, we have the writings of the early Church Fathers. Finally, we have the Ecumenical Councils.

Just because there were many heretical movements in the first centuries (just like there are many heretical "churches" today), it doesn't mean that there was not a unified Church that was build on and through the Apostles. That Church subsists today in the Catholic and Orthodox Churches.

1 John 2:19 They went out from us, but they were not of us; for if they had been of us, they would no doubt have continued with us: but they went out, that they might be made manifest that they were not all of us.

John describes those who were not faithful in the churches.
There was no such thing as "The Church." We have already established you are building on a faulty premise. You have no evidence that Peter was ever in Rome, certainly not as a bishop. Thus there was no "The Church," but only "churches," that the apostles started, especially the Apostle Paul.

Once we dismiss Peter's activity in Rome you have nothing left to stand upon.
What really happened in Rome?
Look in Scripture:

Rom 16:1 I commend unto you Phebe our sister, which is a servant of the church which is at Cenchrea:
Rom 16:2 That ye receive her in the Lord, as becometh saints, and that ye assist her in whatsoever business she hath need of you: for she hath been a succourer of many, and of myself also.
--Phoebe comes, a servant of the Lord, bearing Paul's epistle.

Rom 16:3 Greet Priscilla and Aquila my helpers in Christ Jesus:
Rom 16:4 Who have for my life laid down their own necks: unto whom not only I give thanks, but also all the churches of the Gentiles.
Rom 16:5 Likewise greet the church that is in their house. Salute my wellbeloved Epaenetus, who is the firstfruits of Achaia unto Christ.
--Out of the many names mentioned here, Priscilla and Aquilla are mentioned. Paul had met them in Ephesus (Acts 18:28). Now they are in Rome, and a church gathers in their house. He greets others in verse 5 that had also been the fruit of his ministry elsewhere.

Rom 16:6 Greet Mary, who bestowed much labour on us.
Rom 16:7 Salute Andronicus and Junia, my kinsmen, and my fellowprisoners, who are of note among the apostles, who also were in Christ before me.
--The Mary was another Mary (not the mother of our Lord), and he greets those that were imprisoned with him whom the apostles had also known.

Rom 16:8 Greet Amplias my beloved in the Lord.
Rom 16:9 Salute Urbane, our helper in Christ, and Stachys my beloved.
Rom 16:10 Salute Apelles approved in Christ. Salute them which are of Aristobulus' household.
--In this group of note is Aristobulus. It is possible that there was a church in his household.

Rom 16:11 Salute Herodion my kinsman. Greet them that be of the household of Narcissus, which are in the Lord.
Rom 16:12 Salute Tryphena and Tryphosa, who labour in the Lord. Salute the beloved Persis, which laboured much in the Lord.
--All of these are those that labored with Paul at one time or another.

Rom 16:13 Salute Rufus chosen in the Lord, and his mother and mine.
Rom 16:14 Salute Asyncritus, Phlegon, Hermas, Patrobas, Hermes, and the brethren which are with them.
Rom 16:15 Salute Philologus, and Julia, Nereus, and his sister, and Olympas, and all the saints which are with them.
--Tradition says that Rufus is the son of the Ethiopian that helped to bear the cross of Jesus on the way to Calvary.
It seems that in verse 15 are all the names of one family and the saints with them, which could possibly hint at a church in their house.

The rest is some practical advice along with the conclusion of the letter, ending with:
Rom 16:27 To God only wise, be glory through Jesus Christ for ever. Amen. Written to the Romans from Corinthus, and sent by Phebe servant of the church at Cenchrea.

There is no note of Peter, no hint even of his existence. Paul spent a year and a half in Corinth 57-59. Both Peter and Paul died within a year or so of each other. Peter's epistles were certainly not written from Rome, and were written about five or more years after this one was written. Where is the evidence that Peter was in Rome for any length of time. There is none. He died in the late 60's.

 

[McCree79]

DHK, I see nothing about Sola Scriptura but I do see Apostolic Oral Teaching along with Acts 1:20 - we see in the early Church that successors are immediately chosen for the apostles' offices. Just as the Church replaced Judas, it also replaced Peter with a successor after Peter's death.

Judas was the only one replaced and they replaced him because scripture, commanded the wicked man's office be filled by another. Psalms 109:8. Nothing in scripture about replacing the other offices.

 

[lakeside]

McCree, the early Church historian J. N. D. Kelly, a Protestant, writes, "[W]here in practice was [the] apostolic testimony or tradition to be found? . . . The most obvious answer was that the apostles had committed it orally to the Church, where it had been handed down from generation to generation. . . . Unlike the alleged secret tradition of the Gnostics, it was entirely public and open, having been entrusted by the apostles to their successors, and by these in turn to those who followed them, and was visible in the Church for all who cared to look for it.

The first Christians had no doubts about how to determine which was the true Church and which doctrines the true teachings of Christ. The test was simple: Just trace the apostolic succession of the claimants.

Apostolic succession is the line of bishops stretching back to the apostles. All over the world, all Catholic bishops are part of a lineage that goes back to the time of the apostles, something that is impossible in Protestant denominations (most of which do not even claim to have bishops).

The role of apostolic succession in preserving true doctrine is illustrated in the Bible. To make sure that the apostles’ teachings would be passed down after the deaths of the apostles, Paul told Timothy, "[W]hat you have heard from me before many witnesses entrust to faithful men who will be able to teach others also" (2 Tim. 2:2). In this passage he refers to the first three generations of apostolic succession—his own generation, Timothy’s generation, and the generation Timothy will teach.

The Church Fathers, who were links in that chain of succession, regularly appealed to apostolic succession as a test for whether Catholics or heretics had correct doctrine. This was necessary because heretics simply put their own interpretations, even bizarre ones, on Scripture. Clearly, something other than Scripture had to be used as an ultimate test of doctrine in these cases.

For the early Fathers, the identity of the oral tradition with the original revelation is guaranteed by the unbroken succession of bishops in the great sees going back lineally to the apostles. . . . [A]n additional safeguard is supplied by the Holy Spirit, for the message committed was to the Church, and the Church is the home of the Spirit. Indeed, the Church’s bishops are . . . Spirit-endowed men who have been vouchsafed ‘an infallible charism of truth’"
Thus on the basis of experience the Fathers could be "profoundly convinced of the futility of arguing with heretics merely on the basis of Scripture. The skill and success with which they twisted its plain meaning made it impossible to reach any decisive conclusion in that field" { Early Christian Doctrines, 37 }

 

[McCree79]

McCree, the early Church historian J. N. D. Kelly, a Protestant, writes, "[W]here in practice was [the] apostolic testimony or tradition to be found? . . . The most obvious answer was that the apostles had committed it orally to the Church, where it had been handed down from generation to generation. . . . Unlike the alleged secret tradition of the Gnostics, it was entirely public and open, having been entrusted by the apostles to their successors, and by these in turn to those who followed them, and was visible in the Church for all who cared to look for it.

The first Christians had no doubts about how to determine which was the true Church and which doctrines the true teachings of Christ. The test was simple: Just trace the apostolic succession of the claimants.

Apostolic succession is the line of bishops stretching back to the apostles. All over the world, all Catholic bishops are part of a lineage that goes back to the time of the apostles, something that is impossible in Protestant denominations (most of which do not even claim to have bishops).

The role of apostolic succession in preserving true doctrine is illustrated in the Bible. To make sure that the apostles’ teachings would be passed down after the deaths of the apostles, Paul told Timothy, "[W]hat you have heard from me before many witnesses entrust to faithful men who will be able to teach others also" (2 Tim. 2:2). In this passage he refers to the first three generations of apostolic succession—his own generation, Timothy’s generation, and the generation Timothy will teach.

The Church Fathers, who were links in that chain of succession, regularly appealed to apostolic succession as a test for whether Catholics or heretics had correct doctrine. This was necessary because heretics simply put their own interpretations, even bizarre ones, on Scripture. Clearly, something other than Scripture had to be used as an ultimate test of doctrine in these cases.

For the early Fathers, the identity of the oral tradition with the original revelation is guaranteed by the unbroken succession of bishops in the great sees going back lineally to the apostles. . . . [A]n additional safeguard is supplied by the Holy Spirit, for the message committed was to the Church, and the Church is the home of the Spirit. Indeed, the Church’s bishops are . . . Spirit-endowed men who have been vouchsafed ‘an infallible charism of truth’"
Thus on the basis of experience the Fathers could be "profoundly convinced of the futility of arguing with heretics merely on the basis of Scripture. The skill and success with which they twisted its plain meaning made it impossible to reach any decisive conclusion in that field" { Early Christian Doctrines, 37 }

I wouldn't call the Church of England Protestant. It is more of hybrid. They hold to RCC tradition. When presenting Kelly as a Protestant voice in the matter, that is a little deceiving. His view, his churches view, is very much with the RCC on this matter.

 

[DHK]

McCree, the early Church historian J. N. D. Kelly, a Protestant, writes, "[W]here in practice was [the] apostolic testimony or tradition to be found? . . . The most obvious answer was that the apostles had committed it orally to the Church, where it had been handed down from generation to generation. . . . Unlike the alleged secret tradition of the Gnostics, it was entirely public and open, having been entrusted by the apostles to their successors, and by these in turn to those who followed them, and was visible in the Church for all who cared to look for it.

The first Christians had no doubts about how to determine which was the true Church and which doctrines the true teachings of Christ. The test was simple: Just trace the apostolic succession of the claimants.

Apostolic succession is the line of bishops stretching back to the apostles. All over the world, all Catholic bishops are part of a lineage that goes back to the time of the apostles, something that is impossible in Protestant denominations (most of which do not even claim to have bishops).

This in itself shows ignorance as the word bishop, found numerous times in the NT, simply means "overseer." It is another word for pastor describing another part or function of his office, and that is all. He prefers to be called "pastor" instead of bishop because we do not have the ungodly hierarchical system of church government not found in the Bible.

The role of apostolic succession in preserving true doctrine is illustrated in the Bible.

No it isn't. It has to be inferred. It is called "eisigesis," a method of teaching false doctrine.

To make sure that the apostles’ teachings would be passed down after the deaths of the apostles, Paul told Timothy, "[W]hat you have heard from me before many witnesses entrust to faithful men who will be able to teach others also" (2 Tim. 2:2). In this passage he refers to the first three generations of apostolic succession—his own generation, Timothy’s generation, and the generation Timothy will teach.

What Paul told Timothy "the things which thou hast heard of me," were the same things that are written in the Bible today (1 and 11 Timothy) and exposition of the Word of God. He did not teach him "tradition." This again is that ungodly eisigesis, reading into the Word of God things that are not there. For example, one can take that verse and claim that Paul taught Timothy a "tradition of reincarnation." It doesn't say he didn't, does it? And that is exactly how the RCC argument is made--reading their heretical doctrines into the Bible when they are not there.

The Church Fathers, who were links in that chain of succession, regularly appealed to apostolic succession as a test for whether Catholics or heretics had correct doctrine.

God gave us the Word of God. The Word of God is truth. Jesus himself said "I am the truth." We need no other truth but the truth God gave us.
The Lord told the nation of Israel long ago:
Isa 8:20 To the law and to the testimony: if they speak not according to this word, it is because there is no light in them.
--There is no light in the RCC because the don't speak according to "this word."

This was necessary because heretics simply put their own interpretations, even bizarre ones, on Scripture. Clearly, something other than Scripture had to be used as an ultimate test of doctrine in these cases.

The scripture alone is our final authority. If one cannot discern a heretic by using the Scriptures then perhaps they too are a heretic, or not saved. They don't have the Spirit of God dwelling in them to give them that discernment.

For the early Fathers, the identity of the oral tradition with the original revelation is guaranteed by the unbroken succession of bishops in the great sees going back lineally to the apostles. . . .

It was impossible for them to go back to the apostles. They didn't have the history. Besides that, the ECF contradicted each other. We have their works. It is easily demonstrable. It is the ECF that brought damnable heresies into Christianity. They did not operate as a single unified group. They were split over many doctrines.

[A]n additional safeguard is supplied by the Holy Spirit, for the message committed was to the Church, and the Church is the home of the Spirit. Indeed, the Church’s bishops are . . . Spirit-endowed men who have been vouchsafed ‘an infallible charism of truth’"

"The Church" never existed until Constantine married it to the government in the 4th century. That is when the RCC came into existence. Before that time there were only churches, never "The Church."

Thus on the basis of experience the Fathers could be "profoundly convinced of the futility of arguing with heretics merely on the basis of Scripture. The skill and success with which they twisted its plain meaning made it impossible to reach any decisive conclusion in that field" { Early Christian Doctrines, 37 }

The doctrine of the RCC is full of heresy easily disproved by the Word of God.
This is a matter of the pot calling the kettle black.
The early churches had the truth. When Constantine came on the scene he introduced idolatry and paganism into "The Church" and thus pagan RCC began.

 

[lakeside]

Mc Cree, a little deceptive you say, It doesn't matter what I write you or another non-Catholic call it deceptive. The Church of England or any other break-away church [ s ] from the original Apostolic Christian Church was almost identical with the Catholic Church, check history [ work of the great counterfeiter ], but as generations passed your break-away splintered churches moved further and further away from the true gospel, with each generation becoming more watered-down than the previous.

 

[McCree79]

Mc Cree, a little deceptive you say, It doesn't matter what I write you or another non-Catholic call it deceptive. The Church of England or any other break-away church [ s ] from the original Apostolic Christian Church was almost identical with the Catholic Church, check history [ work of the great counterfeiter ], but as generations passed your break-away splintered churches moved further and further away from the true gospel, with each generation becoming more watered-down than the previous.

You check history. The RCC has been moving further away from the Gospel. Constantine was an accelerant, that has lead to false doctrines that have polluted the minds of its members. The tradition of the RCC is poison. It is nullifying scripture more and more. It constantly adds "revisions" to God's word.

 

[McCree79]

Mc Cree, a little deceptive you say, It doesn't matter what I write you or another non-Catholic call it deceptive. The Church of England or any other break-away church [ s ] from the original Apostolic Christian Church was almost identical with the Catholic Church, check history [ work of the great counterfeiter ], but as generations passed your break-away splintered churches moved further and further away from the true gospel, with each generation becoming more watered-down than the previous.

To address "further and further away from the gospel". Weather it be DHK. Steaver, Old Regular, Rebel, Convited 1, Icon, Protestant or myself, we defend our belief with scripture. The RCC is the one that must pull away from scripture and turn to traditions of man to defend its beliefs. Tradition that is ever evolving, going further from what is written. In the words of Paul, " learn by us to not go beyond what is written."

 

[DHK]

Mc Cree, a little deceptive you say, It doesn't matter what I write you or another non-Catholic call it deceptive. The Church of England or any other break-away church [ s ] from the original Apostolic Christian Church was almost identical with the Catholic Church, check history [ work of the great counterfeiter ], but as generations passed your break-away splintered churches moved further and further away from the true gospel, with each generation becoming more watered-down than the previous.

As I keep telling you the entirety of the RCC is built on a lie.
Was Peter ever in Rome?
The answer comes back, a resounding NO!!
Read this article for yourself:

http://www.christianbeliefs.org/articles/peter&rome.html

History is decidedly against you. And without that history the entirety of the RCC falls.
Christ did not build his church on Peter, the stone, but rather on Christ the rock. Christ is known as the "rock" throughout the NT, but Peter, never.

Christ and the apostles are the foundation of the NT churches, never Peter alone.
Peter was never in Rome, never a bishop, never a Pope. Both the Bible and history stand against you, proving your religion's foundation is not built on Christ or Peter, but rather on a lie.

 

[Rebel]

I have already shown how a Catholic priest and archaeologist discovered Peter's burial place in Jerusalem, and the pope tried to cover that fact up.

The whole foundation of the RCC is based on falsehood. It is no more the one true church than Mormonism is.

 

[McCree79]

I have already shown how a Catholic priest and archaeologist discovered Peter's burial place in Jerusalem, and the pope tried to cover that fact up.

The whole foundation of the RCC is based on falsehood. It is no more the one true church than Mormonism is.

Was it on this thread Rebel? I missed it and would like to read it.

 

[lakeside]

DHK, the only Scripture Timothy was brought up on was the OT, the rest of your post is as confused as with your statement on Timothy.


Rebel, about that supposed priest and archaeologist finding the bones of Peter; please supply your documentation.

 

[Bro. James]

A not so short kibbitz: Most folk believe exactly what they want to believe--regardless of the facts.

Surf: www.biblelight.net/peters-jerusalem-tomb.htm

Most traditions of men are patently false, the rest seriously corrupted.

This is why sola scriptura is so pivotal for faith and practice.

The Apostle Peter may well be in heaven--probably not at the gates. Could he be in purgatory--having denied Jesus three times, all beatifications and canonizations notwithstanding?

Beatifications of Mary, the mother of Jesus, is included in the patently false category. Her mommy and daddy were sinners like the whole human kind. This makes Mary in need of salvation like everyone else populating the planet, yesterday, today, and tomorrow.

Even so come, Lord Jesus.

Bro. James,
An ex-subject of Pius XII.

 

[lakeside]

BrotherJames It is just another great work of fiction with fake priests to make it look real... that's why nobody layed claim to the site. Still quite a few Dan Browns around [ Da Vinci code author ] There is much more real scientific unbiased, meaning but not inclusive to Jewish, secular and main-line Protestant scientists that researched the bones of St. Peter after WW2 discovered in Rome.