Did the fall away in the Anglican Church come because they corrupted the word of God with the new versions?

Huh?


You sent it to me Mik o_O:oops:
Of course did. To remind you what I was right about. Stop allowing satab from allowing the Truth to reach you.
'You ever notice that when Arch describes his denomination he doesn't use the word 'Christian'?'
There is no purgatory. Purgatory is a gift from satan sent he through the rc denomination.
 
? ... hope someday you will be with Christ through His Church.
It's heartbreaking. But I will leave you with this.

Repent and be baptized, be born-again and join God's true Church, the Body of Christ where all His born-again children are members.

There is no 'purgatory'. Now is the time to come to Christ.
 
You ever notice that when Arch describes his denomination he doesn't use the word 'Christian'?
When good and bad are exclusively defined by your church, then there is no room for Christ. If the only role for Christ in the RCC is to transmit the keys to Peter and then to the Pope, it is going to lead to problems.

Keys of authority in this 'Church of God' passed on from Christ to Peter.

Not arbitrary.... the Bishops of Alexandria, Smyrna, Antioch, Jerusalem, etc. were subject to Rome.#
If you look at when Rome was first treated as primus inter pares, it has nothing to do with Peter, but was solely in respect of Rome being the ancient seat of political authority of the Empire.

Second Ecumenical Council (Constantinople, 381), canon 3: Let the bishop of Constantinople … have the primacy of honour [presbeia tes times] after the bishop of Rome, because it is New Rome’; Fourth Ecumenical Council (Chalcedon, 451), canon 28: ‘The Fathers rightly accorded prerogatives [presbeia] to the see of older Rome since that is an imperial city; and moved by the same purpose the one hundred and fifty most devout bishops apportioned equal prerogatives to the most holy see of New Rome, reasonably judging that the city which is honoured by the imperial power and senate and enjoying privileges equalling older imperial Rome, should also be elevated to her level in ecclesiastical affairs and take second place after her’​

The top bishops owed their positions to the emperors (of course). Even the term primus inter pares was a title created by Octavian Augustus when he portrayed himself as the First Citizen (princeps) of the Republic. So again a political title.

[my sources for the above]

Nothing to do with apostolic keys. Possibly when the Popes began to elevate themselves over the other churches, commencing with Leo I I believe, they looked for new arguments to support their pretensions.

Same Church in the beginning... protestants

Same Church .... Christ to Peter and the apostles, to the next generation through the laying on of hands....
They laid their hands on many, from Antioch to Rome.

Yes, and they left His Catholic Church... some due to personal, fallible, interpretations of scripture.
They left the Pope, and why not? He was an arrogant SOAB: 1 Corinthians 5:13

The narrow gate is a warning for all...
The narrow gate is wide enough in Catholicism to admit all kinds of false religions and sinners. May be they don't know which gate is which?
 
  • Like
Reactions: Mik

First I copied a link to an article about faithful Church of England vicars and how they just get on with their work regardless, but of course there are scriptural issues with that.
Then I came across this and all we need is the headline. Archbishops are already guilty of facilitating mass child abuse in the form of affirming trans ideology in churches and schools but essentially the scriptures are to be set apart from the world, not to judge the world but to judge the church such as 1 Cor 5.
He never lifts a finger to help those clergy who are prosecuted by the world for preaching the truth.
 
If you look at when Rome was first treated as primus inter pares, it has nothing to do with Peter, but was solely in respect of Rome being the ancient seat of political authority of the Empire.

Second Ecumenical Council (Constantinople, 381), canon 3: Let the bishop of Constantinople … have the primacy of honour [presbeia tes times] after the bishop of Rome, because it is New Rome’; Fourth Ecumenical Council (Chalcedon, 451), canon 28: ‘The Fathers rightly accorded prerogatives [presbeia] to the see of older Rome since that is an imperial city; and moved by the same purpose the one hundred and fifty most devout bishops apportioned equal prerogatives to the most holy see of New Rome, reasonably judging that the city which is honoured by the imperial power and senate and enjoying privileges equalling older imperial Rome, should also be elevated to her level in ecclesiastical affairs and take second place after her’​

The top bishops owed their positions to the emperors (of course).
How about 300 years earlier..... Clement of [Latin] Rome writes a response to the Catholic Church in Greek speaking Corinth. St. John is residing in nearby Ephesus when the Corinthians appealed to St. Clement. ?
 
How about 300 years earlier..... Clement of [Latin] Rome writes a response to the Catholic Church in Greek speaking Corinth. St. John is residing in nearby Ephesus when the Corinthians appealed to St. Clement.
?
The answer is I don't know why the Corithinians appealed to Rome. May be there were fraternal bonds stemming from the disciples of Paul being at both places. John's circle of disciples was perhaps restricted to Asia, and perhaps were not known in Corinth. Also the cosmopolitan nature of the two cities would suggest similar problems. I would conjecture that these are likely reasons. Another reason could be John's advanced age precluded him from such a role
 
The answer is I don't know why the Corithinians appealed to Rome.
When one has preconceived notions, it is hard to see beyond their belief system.
John's circle of disciples was perhaps restricted to Asia, and perhaps were not known in Corinth. Also the cosmopolitan nature of the two cities would suggest similar problems. I would conjecture that these are likely reasons. Another reason could be John's advanced age precluded him from such a role
Is it possible in your view that Clement was the Bishop with the keys of universal authority?
 
Is it possible in your view that Clement was the Bishop with the keys of universal authority?
No. A bishop does not have universal authority. He has authority only over a church in a particular locale. Only Christ himself had "universal authority" and he is very much alive. Not even the apostles had universal authority, at least after Paul came along.
 
No. A bishop does not have universal authority. He has authority only over a church in a particular locale.
Strange that the Corinthians needed Rome to settle a dispute when several churches were closer. ?
Only Christ himself had "universal authority" and he is very much alive.
Through His Church.... the ministerial priesthood. His Church is the pillar of truth; wisdom of God is made known through her.
Not even the apostles had universal authority, at least after Paul came along.
Paul answered to Peter.
 
Strange that the Corinthians needed Rome to settle a dispute when several churches were closer.
?
Doubtless Rome offered prestige and political power: don't forget the Corinthians were a worldly church. Many have been duped by political power. (See above - The Romish church was only deemed superior on account of the political history of Rome itself.)

Through His Church.... the ministerial priesthood. His Church is the pillar of truth; wisdom of God is made known through her.
Through his Spirit - "The Lord is the Spirit." 2 Cor 3:17.

Paul answered to Peter.
He did not. He regarded Peter as his equal .Galatians 2:11-14.
 
Doubtless Rome offered prestige and political power: don't forget the Corinthians were a worldly church.
Clement speaks of Rome "turning its attention" to the problems of Corinth, thus implying that Rome routinely instructed the other churches. And he also praises the faith of the Corinthians in a universal context -- a context he could only invoke if Rome had universal jurisdiction. And, Clement continues:

"Your schism has subverted [the faith of] many, has discouraged many, has given rise to doubt in many, and has caused grief to us all. And still your sedition continueth." (First Clement, Chapter 46)

Here, Clement speaks on behalf of the universal Church in condemning the Corinthian schism. And, he goes on:

"Ye, therefore, who laid the foundation of this sedition, submit yourselves to the presbyters, and receive correction so as to repent, bending the knees of your hearts. Learn to be subject, laying aside the proud and arrogant self-confidence of your tongue." (First Clement, Chapter 57)

Clement gives a direct command.
Through his Spirit - "The Lord is the Spirit." 2 Cor 3:17.
Through His Church....

1 Tim 3:15 But if I should be delayed, you should know how to behave in the household of God, which is THE CHURCH of the living God, the PILLAR AND FOUNDATION OF [THE] TRUTH

Eph 3:10 so that the manifold WISDOM of God might now be made known THROUGH the CHURCH to the principalities and authorities in the heavens.
He did not. He regarded Peter as his equal .Galatians 2:11-14.
1 Cor 15:9 For I am the least of the apostles and do not even deserve to be called an apostle, because I persecuted the church of God.

Also, Paul calling Peter out shows Peter was the authority.... have you read those verses? See what Paul did not do?
 
Clement speaks of Rome "turning its attention" to the problems of Corinth, thus implying that Rome routinely instructed the other churches. And he also praises the faith of the Corinthians in a universal context -- a context he could only invoke if Rome had universal jurisdiction. And, Clement continues:
No such implications are to be inferred. Apparently the Corithinian schism was becoming notorious and damaging the reputation of the whole church, such that it was becoming a matter of universal concern. This was a one-off matter. It is also highly likely that the deposed elders made some kind of appeal to Rome: that is, they did not take their enforced dismissal lying down. It was refusal to accept their dismissal, which lead to the factionalism which is complained of, which created the schism.

"Your schism has subverted [the faith of] many, has discouraged many, has given rise to doubt in many, and has caused grief to us all. And still your sedition continueth." (First Clement, Chapter 46)

Here, Clement speaks on behalf of the universal Church in condemning the Corinthian schism. And, he goes on:

"Ye, therefore, who laid the foundation of this sedition, submit yourselves to the presbyters, and receive correction so as to repent, bending the knees of your hearts. Learn to be subject, laying aside the proud and arrogant self-confidence of your tongue." (First Clement, Chapter 57)

Clement gives a direct command.
Order was pre-requisite for unity in the eyes of Clement, but who didn't claim any such apostolic authority as the later popes asserted, but rather appealed to a letter written by Paul as comprising the rules for order and unity in the church (not Peter's office).

Through His Church....

1 Tim 3:15 But if I should be delayed, you should know how to behave in the household of God, which is THE CHURCH of the living God, the PILLAR AND FOUNDATION OF [THE] TRUTH

Eph 3:10 so that the manifold WISDOM of God might now be made known THROUGH the CHURCH to the principalities and authorities in the heavens.
On earth, the church is the witness of God to the world, but the witness of Christ to the church is through his Spirit.

1 Cor 15:9 For I am the least of the apostles and do not even deserve to be called an apostle, because I persecuted the church of God.

Also, Paul calling Peter out shows Peter was the authority.... have you read those verses? See what Paul did not do?
Paul recognized Peter, James and John as reputed / ostensible / construed (δοκέω = to be of opinion, think, suppose) authorities but under his agreement with them assumed responsibility for the conversion of the Gentiles.

Gal 2:6 "And from those who were reputed to be something (what they were makes no difference to me; God shows no partiality)--those, I say, who were of repute added nothing to me;​
Gal 2:7 "but on the contrary, when they saw that I had been entrusted with the gospel to the uncircumcised, just as Peter had been entrusted with the gospel to the circumcised​
Gal 2:8 "(for he who worked through Peter for the mission to the circumcised worked through me also for the Gentiles),​
Gal 2:9 "and when they perceived the grace that was given to me, James and Cephas and John, who were reputed to be pillars, gave to me and Barnabas the right hand of fellowship, that we should go to the Gentiles and they to the circumcised; "​
 
Back
Top