big difference between Catholics and Protestants

[rinnie]

No, not a bit. Jesus founded the Church, not Peter. Secondly, Jesus founded the Church in Jerusalem, and it spread East to Antioch and Syria and Asia before it ever came to Rome. The Church that Jesus founded is not “Roman” and neither was Peter.

Of course the Church was founded by Jesus. But the Church was built upon Peter. We have been through this :slapfight: But its okay we disagree. But Jesus built the Church upon Peter. Why did Jesus change Simons name to Peter to Rock. He was only taking to Peter when he said You are Peter and upon this ROCK (PETER) I will built my Church. You cannot take those words away. And he gave Peter the KEYS. I am sorry thats the words and I believe them. And Peter built the first CHURCH in Rome. IT is still there today. The room was not the first visible CHURCH It was in ROME I am sorry. When I say CHURCH I mean CHURCH as we see it today. And that Church is built upon Peter is still there. And it is built in Rome. That is why it is the Roman Catholic CHurch and Peter has the keys and has handed them down, and they are still held today by the Pope. Sorry thats what I believe and what the bible says. Now if you can show me where it says different I will be glad to listen.

 

[Hisalone]

Can you please show this? I would prefer that you use Catholic documents to prove that our faith is not in Christ, but I will accept any reasonable arguement (other than your opinion, which appears to be what you have posted here.)

Can you show how the Nicean Creed, which we recite at every Mass, reflects “a different gospel”? What is contained in it that is contrary to the one fiath in Jesus?

I am also curious, Hisalone, if you believe this, why are you on CAF?

Everywhere where you say The Church substitute The Catholic Church which is what you mean.
Christ did not teach that salvation is through a church He taught that salvation was through Him.
Thus a different gospel.
I am here so you can never say you never heard the true gospel of Jesus Christ do not reject it.

 

[santodomingo]

No, not a bit. Jesus founded the Church, not Peter. Secondly, Jesus founded the Church in Jerusalem, and it spread East to Antioch and Syria and Asia before it ever came to Rome. The Church that Jesus founded is not “Roman” and neither was Peter.

I thought I´d chip in with a seasonal reflection on this.

Santa Claus is in reality the fourth century saint from Asia Minor, St. Nicholas. He is commonly known as St. Nicholas of Bari. There happens to be a parish in my city named after him.

My point is this; why is he called St. Nicholas OF BARI? Bari, by the way, is a town in Italy. Was he from Bari, did he ever go to Bari? No and no. He has that title because his remains were taken to Bari and are still venerated there.

It´s easy to understand how the fact that St. Peter was not from Rome makes little difference to the fact that “his” church (the Catholic Church) has her heart in that city. The fundamental fact is that he was martyred there and his bodily remains have lain there for 20 centuries. This is simply history.

“On this Rock I will build my Church” was also meant literally. The Basilica of St. Peter´s in Rome is built on top of the crypt containing the body of the apostle.

That is why the Church THAT CHRIST FOUNDED is Roman and nothing else.

 

[rinnie]

Everywhere where you say The Church substitute The Catholic Church which is what you mean.
Christ did not teach that salvation is through a church He taught that salvation was through Him.
Thus a different gospel.
I am here so you can never say you never heard the true gospel of Jesus Christ do not reject it.

Hisalone we have been through this also, But you also scat when its your turn to answer. Explain to me why Jesus said Saul Saul why are you persecuting me, I am Jesus the one you are persecuting. We all know that Saul was persecuting the Church. So how can you say Jesus is not the Church. Salvation is through the CC because you cannot separate them. Oh but you try! Now what did Jesus mean when he was talking to Saul then?

 

[guanophore]

Of course the Church was founded by Jesus. But the Church was built upon Peter. We have been through this :slapfight: But its okay we disagree. But Jesus built the Church upon Peter. Why did Jesus change Simons name to Peter to Rock. He was only taking to Peter when he said You are Peter and upon this ROCK (PETER) I will built my Church. You cannot take those words away. And he gave Peter the KEYS. I am sorry thats the words and I believe them. And Peter built the first CHURCH in Rome. IT is still there today. The room was not the first visible CHURCH It was in ROME I am sorry. When I say CHURCH I mean CHURCH as we see it today. And that Church is built upon Peter is still there. And it is built in Rome. That is why it is the Roman Catholic CHurch and Peter has the keys and has handed them down, and they are still held today by the Pope. Sorry thats what I believe and what the bible says. Now if you can show me where it says different I will be glad to listen.

Rinnie, I admire your passion for your faith, but there are some points upon which you are ill informed, and make bold assertions that are just not consistent with history.

The Church in Rome most likely began with converts that were present in Jerusalem during Pentecost. When Paul wrote the letter to the Church in Rome, it had not yet been visited by any Apostle. It was already a community prior to Peter and Paul ever coming there.

Further, the Latin Rite of the Catholic Church was one of the last to emerge, since the Church spread East first. It was not until the Roman empire fell, and the bishop of Rome was given secular authority that the Latin Rite began to take precedence. The Catholic Church is not “Roman”, Rinnie. The other 22 Rites of the Catholic Church are no less in union with the bishop of Rome and the Magesterium as you are. Try to step aside from your prejudice for a bit, and realize that it is not all about being “Roman”.

By the way, of course I agree that Jesus built the Church upon Peter. That still does not make the Church Roman.

 

[guanophore]

Everywhere where you say The Church substitute The Catholic Church which is what you mean.

Do you not agree that Jesus only founded One Church? In this creed, the word “catholic” is used only once, and it means “universal”.

At the time that creed was written, there were no “denominations”. But we can’t go around adding or subtracting from the credal statements. Just look what the addition of the filoque did to our Eastern brethren if you want to see the effects of that!

Christ did not teach that salvation is through a church He taught that salvation was through Him.

He taught that there was only one Church, that it is His Holy Bride, and that He and the Church are one. Jesus did not separate Himself from the Church, and He gave us the Church as the means by which we can remain on the path of salvation.

Thus a different gospel.

I do understand that what the Apostles taught does very much sound like a “different gospel” to modern day evangelicals. Most have never been exposed to what the Apostles taught, so it seems odd.

I am here so you can never say you never heard the true gospel of Jesus Christ do not reject it.

CAF is not a venue for you to preach your non-Apostolic version of the gospel, Hisalone. We are here to answer sincere questions about the Catholic faith, not to provide bandwidth for heretical viewpoints being promoted.

You did not answer my question. Please show what in the creed is contradictory to Scripture. I guess you are saying the word “catholic” is, but since that is in scripture, you will have to try again.

 

[guanophore]

I thought I´d chip in with a seasonal reflection on this.

Santa Claus is in reality the fourth century saint from Asia Minor, St. Nicholas. He is commonly known as St. Nicholas of Bari. There happens to be a parish in my city named after him.

My point is this; why is he called St. Nicholas OF BARI? Bari, by the way, is a town in Italy. Was he from Bari, did he ever go to Bari? No and no. He has that title because his remains were taken to Bari and are still venerated there.

It´s easy to understand how the fact that St. Peter was not from Rome makes little difference to the fact that “his” church (the Catholic Church) has her heart in that city. The fundamental fact is that he was martyred there and his bodily remains have lain there for 20 centuries. This is simply history.

“On this Rock I will build my Church” was also meant literally. The Basilica of St. Peter´s in Rome is built on top of the crypt containing the body of the apostle.

That is why the Church THAT CHRIST FOUNDED is Roman and nothing else.

I agree with all the points you have made here, except the last one. Jesus did not found a “Roman” Church. He founded a universal Church, and it has continued to be universal. The fact that the chief of the Apostles was martyred in Rome does not change the universal nature of the Church.

 

[rinnie]

Rinnie, I admire your passion for your faith, but there are some points upon which you are ill informed, and make bold assertions that are just not consistent with history.

The Church in Rome most likely began with converts that were present in Jerusalem during Pentecost. When Paul wrote the letter to the Church in Rome, it had not yet been visited by any Apostle. It was already a community prior to Peter and Paul ever coming there.

Further, the Latin Rite of the Catholic Church was one of the last to emerge, since the Church spread East first. It was not until the Roman empire fell, and the bishop of Rome was given secular authority that the Latin Rite began to take precedence. The Catholic Church is not “Roman”, Rinnie. The other 22 Rites of the Catholic Church are no less in union with the bishop of Rome and the Magesterium as you are. Try to step aside from your prejudice for a bit, and realize that it is not all about being “Roman”.

By the way, of course I agree that Jesus built the Church upon Peter. That still does not make the Church Roman.

Here is the way that Father explained it to me. As far as Peter and Paul. After Jesus went back to heaven Peter and Paul split up and Peter went one way Paul went the Other. Yes you are correct in the sense we believe the same exact thing. But the Church that was founded by Peter was built in Rome. That was what was considered to be the center of the world at that time. It was built in Rome and that is why it was considered the Roman Catholic Church. And as far as in communion with eachother yes, I do agree with you. Father told me as long as you have all of the sacraments you have all the teachings of the Church. As far as Peter being in Rome he was, and that it where he started the Church. But I do not want to drag this thread into that, we can start another which I am sure many have been started before. If you go to Catholic Answers you can see that at first we were called Roman Catholic. It is better to look up Roman Catholic and find it for yourself. Thats the easiest.

 

[rinnie]

I agree with all the points you have made here, except the last one. Jesus did not found a “Roman” Church. He founded a universal Church, and it has continued to be universal. The fact that the chief of the Apostles was martyred in Rome does not change the universal nature of the Church.

Yes but what does universal Church mean, it mean ONE! Which means Catholic. ANd like I said the word Roman does not mean the Church was ROman it meant Peter started the Church in Rome. That is how ROMAN CATHOLIC CHURCH got its name.

Maybe to make you understand this easier you agree Peter was the Chief well the Chief started his Church in Rome and thats why its considered Roman Catholic, Does that at least make sense to you.

 

[SIA]

Yes but what does universal Church mean, it mean ONE! Which means Catholic. ANd like I said the word Roman does not mean the Church was ROman it meant Peter started the Church in Rome. That is how ROMAN CATHOLIC CHURCH got its name.

Maybe to make you understand this easier you agree Peter was the Chief well the Chief started his Church in Rome and thats why its considered Roman Catholic, Does that at least make sense to you.

It seems more than odd to me that Paul never once spoke of Peter’s martyrdom even though Paul was in Rome when Peter was supposedly pope there (25 AD or so?). Paul never eluded to it once in the Epistles and it seems to me that he would have shouted it from the rooftops. Anyone care to explain this one to me?

 

[rinnie]

It seems more than odd to me that Paul never once spoke of Peter’s martyrdom even though Paul was in Rome when Peter was supposedly pope there (25 AD or so?). Paul never eluded to it once in the Epistles and it seems to me that he would have shouted it from the rooftops. Anyone care to explain this one to me?

Here is a little something to chew on.

quote: In his letter to the Romans (A.D.110) Ignatius of Antioch remarked that he could not command the ROMAN CHRISTIANS the way Peter and Paul once did, such a comment making sense only if Peter had been a leader, If not the Leader of the Church in ROME. unquote. Get it Roman Catholic’s. The Roman Catholic Church, Roman Christians. The leader of the Church In Rome the Roman Church

Here is another one. Inrenaeus in Against Heresies (A.D.190) Quote: said that Matthew wrote his Gospel while Peter and Paul were evangelizing in Rome and Laying the foundation of the CHURCH. A few lines later he :extrahappy: notes that Linus was named as Peters successor that is the second Pope and the next line were Anacietus and then Clement of Rome.

The Church here in Babylon (code name for Rome) The authorities knew that Peter was a leader of the Church and under Roman law was considered organized atheism. The worship of other gods other than Roman was considered atheism. Peter would do himself or the others a service by advertising his presence in the Capital after all mail service in rome was routinely read by roman officials. the only candidates for the great city mentioned in Revelation are ROME and JERUSALEM.

Now here is the best one yet. The universal Church, why is it the RCC. Well lets see at that time Rome was considered the center of the UNIVERSE. Universal Church. Catholic Church Located in Rome. The Roman Catholic Church.
Don’t it kinda fit snug as a bug in a rug:dancing:

 

[rinnie]

It seems more than odd to me that Paul never once spoke of Peter’s martyrdom even though Paul was in Rome when Peter was supposedly pope there (25 AD or so?). Paul never eluded to it once in the Epistles and it seems to me that he would have shouted it from the rooftops. Anyone care to explain this one to me?

And tell me would you shout it off the roof tops if they wanted to kill you when you were trying to start a Church In Rome?

 

[guanophore]

Here is the way that Father explained it to me. As far as Peter and Paul. After Jesus went back to heaven Peter and Paul split up and Peter went one way Paul went the Other.

Well, Father may have been a little deficient in his understanding, or you did not get all the information. Peter and Paul never did work together, so it was not a matter of “splitting up”. Paul was called to be an Apostle separately from the others, and he was taught by the Church outside of Jerusalem. It was years before he even met Peter.

Yes you are correct in the sense we believe the same exact thing. But the Church that was founded by Peter was built in Rome.

The Church was founded by Christ, in Jerusalem. From there it spread to Antioch, Syria, and points East. It was quite solid long before Peter or Paul ever went to Rome.

That was what was considered to be the center of the world at that time. It was built in Rome and that is why it was considered the Roman Catholic Church.

No, the Catholic Rite you belong to, formerly the Latin Rite, commonly called the Roman Rite, developed in Rome and spread North an West. It is the most common Catholic Rite here in the West, and in Europe. Most Protestants, and most Catholics don;t even know there are other Rites, and that most of them pre-ceeded the Latin rite. The Church is not “Roman”, rinnie.

And as far as in communion with eachother yes, I do agree with you.  Father told me as long as you have all of the sacraments you have all the teachings of the Church.  As far as Peter being in Rome he was, and that it where he started the Church.

I think if you are willing to read the book of Acts, rinnie, you will see that the Church did not start in Rome.

But I do not want to drag this thread into that, we can start another which I am sure many have been started before. If you go to Catholic Answers you can see that at first we were called Roman Catholic.

No, rinnie. “we” were first called “Christians”, and this happened in Antioch, prior to Peter and Paul coming to Rome. The term “Roman” is a slur that emerged in the Reformation as a way of insulting Catholics.

It is better to look up Roman Catholic and find it for yourself. Thats the easiest.

Thanks rinnie, but I have studied my family history. I recommend that you follow your own advice. Start with the oldest Catholic hsitory book, the book of Acts. You will find that Rome and Peter are not even mentioned together, because that part did not happen until after most of the New Testament was already written.

Yes but what does universal Church mean, it mean ONE! Which means Catholic. ANd like I said the word Roman does not mean the Church was ROman

Good. Maybe we are getting somewhere!

the word Roman does not mean the Church was ROman it meant Peter started the Church in Rome. That is how ROMAN CATHOLIC CHURCH got its name.

No rinnie, you are mistaken. However, I challenge you to to produce ANY historical evidence the support this point. Good luck!

Maybe to make you understand this easier you agree Peter was the Chief well the Chief started his Church in Rome and thats why its considered Roman Catholic, Does that at least make sense to you.

We are in agreement that Peter was chief of the Apostles. He was chief when the church was started in Jerusalem, and chief when the disciples were first called Christians in Antioch. He was chief when the Church spread to Asia and Egypt. He was chief whereever he was, long before he came to Rome.

 

[rinnie]

Well, Father may have been a little deficient in his understanding, or you did not get all the information. Peter and Paul never did work together, so it was not a matter of “splitting up”. Paul was called to be an Apostle separately from the others, and he was taught by the Church outside of Jerusalem. It was years before he even met Peter.

The Church was founded by Christ, in Jerusalem. From there it spread to Antioch, Syria, and points East. It was quite solid long before Peter or Paul ever went to Rome.

No, the Catholic Rite you belong to, formerly the Latin Rite, commonly called the Roman Rite, developed in Rome and spread North an West. It is the most common Catholic Rite here in the West, and in Europe. Most Protestants, and most Catholics don;t even know there are other Rites, and that most of them pre-ceeded the Latin rite. The Church is not “Roman”, rinnie.

I think if you are willing to read the book of Acts, rinnie, you will see that the Church did not start in Rome.

No, rinnie. “we” were first called “Christians”, and this happened in Antioch, prior to Peter and Paul coming to Rome. The term “Roman” is a slur that emerged in the Reformation as a way of insulting Catholics.

Thanks rinnie, but I have studied my family history. I recommend that you follow your own advice. Start with the oldest Catholic hsitory book, the book of Acts. You will find that Rome and Peter are not even mentioned together, because that part did not happen until after most of the New Testament was already written.

Good. Maybe we are getting somewhere!

No rinnie, you are mistaken. However, I challenge you to to produce ANY historical evidence the support this point. Good luck!

We are in agreement that Peter was chief of the Apostles. He was chief when the church was started in Jerusalem, and chief when the disciples were first called Christians in Antioch. He was chief when the Church spread to Asia and Egypt. He was chief whereever he was, long before he came to Rome.

Ok lets start here. First of all I said that Peter built the Church in Rome. As I said before I understand that there were meetings in the (upper room). I do not consider that the first Church. I said the first CHURCH, CHurch as we know it today Church. Peter started, no let say BUILT that is a better word in Rome.

Now lets start here what does Paul say in Rom. 15:20 and what does that mean to you?

 

[guanophore]

Ok lets start here. First of all I said that Peter built the Church in Rome.

No, lets start before that happened. Let’s start at the beginning. I challenge you to read your own family history, and be informed. Read the book of Acts, and tell me that the Church was formed first in Rome. Give the chapter and verse please.

As I said before I understand that there were meetings in the (upper room). I do not consider that the first Church. I said the first CHURCH, CHurch as we know it today Church. Peter started, no let say BUILT that is a better word in Rome.

rinnie, the Church was build and functioning well in the East before any Apostles made it to Rome. This is a fact, and you can read these facts in yoru bible, if you are willing.

Now lets start here what does Paul say in Rom. 15:20 and what does that mean to you?

It means that there was a church in Rome before Peter or Paul ever came there.

It means that Paul preferred to take the gospel where others had not already preached it.

Paul testifies of himself that he did not go to Peter for approval to preach.

Gal 1:15-17
15 But when God, who had set me apart before I was born and called me through his grace, was pleased 16 to reveal his Son to me, so that I might proclaim him among the Gentiles, I did not confer with any human being, 17** nor did I go up to Jerusalem to those who were already apostles before me,** but I went away at once into Arabia, and afterwards I returned to Damascus.

He took the Gospel into Arabia. It was 14 years before Paul went to Jerusalem to consult with the Apostles there.

Gal 2:1-10
Then after fourteen years I went up again to Jerusalem … 6 And from those who were supposed to be acknowledged leaders (what they actually were makes no difference to me; God shows no partiality) — those leaders contributed nothing to me. 7 On the contrary, when they saw that I had been entrusted with the gospel for the uncircumcised, just as Peter had been entrusted with the gospel for the circumcised 8(for he who worked through Peter making him an apostle to the circumcised also worked through me in sending me to the Gentiles), 9 and when James and Cephas and John, who were acknowledged pillars, recognized the grace that had been given to me, they gave to Barnabas and me the right hand of fellowship, agreeing that we should go to the Gentiles and they to the circumcised… ."

So you see, they never actually “parted” ways, as they were laying foundation in different areas since the beginning.

 

[rinnie]

No, lets start before that happened. Let’s start at the beginning. I challenge you to read your own family history, and be informed. Read the book of Acts, and tell me that the Church was formed first in Rome. Give the chapter and verse please.

rinnie, the Church was build and functioning well in the East before any Apostles made it to Rome. This is a fact, and you can read these facts in yoru bible, if you are willing.

It means that there was a church in Rome before Peter or Paul ever came there.

It means that Paul preferred to take the gospel where others had not already preached it.

Paul testifies of himself that he did not go to Peter for approval to preach.

Gal 1:15-17
15 But when God, who had set me apart before I was born and called me through his grace, was pleased 16 to reveal his Son to me, so that I might proclaim him among the Gentiles, I did not confer with any human being, 17** nor did I go up to Jerusalem to those who were already apostles before me,** but I went away at once into Arabia, and afterwards I returned to Damascus.

He took the Gospel into Arabia. It was 14 years before Paul went to Jerusalem to consult with the Apostles there.

Gal 2:1-10
Then after fourteen years I went up again to Jerusalem … 6 And from those who were supposed to be acknowledged leaders (what they actually were makes no difference to me; God shows no partiality) — those leaders contributed nothing to me. 7 On the contrary, when they saw that I had been entrusted with the gospel for the uncircumcised, just as Peter had been entrusted with the gospel for the circumcised 8(for he who worked through Peter making him an apostle to the circumcised also worked through me in sending me to the Gentiles), 9 and when James and Cephas and John, who were acknowledged pillars, recognized the grace that had been given to me, they gave to Barnabas and me the right hand of fellowship, agreeing that we should go to the Gentiles and they to the circumcised… ."

So you see, they never actually “parted” ways, as they were laying foundation in different areas since the beginning.

In Romans 15:20 Paul says he doesn’t want to build on another mans foundation referring to Peter who built the Church in Rome.

Tell me if there was another CHRISTIAN Church in Rome before Peter or Paul started it then who started it. See what you are saying does not add up. Why does Peter write from Babylon which was the code name for Rome during these days of persecution. look in rev 14:8 16:19 175 which show babylon meant Rome. Rome was the great city of the NT the Lord wanted his church started in Rome. Also why did in gal. 1:18 if what you are saying is true does it say then after three years I went up to Jerusalem to confer with Kephas and remained with him for fifteen days. Thats because Paul spends fifteen days with Peter privately before beginning his ministry even after Christs revelation to Paul. Sorry my Pal, you just not adding up to scripture.

 

[SIA]

And tell me would you shout it off the roof tops if they wanted to kill you when you were trying to start a Church In Rome?

Paul did it everywhere else he went, why would it be any different if it were in Rome? For goodness sake, he was tortured, imprisoned and nearly killed on several occasions for preaching the Gospel.

 

[SIA]

In Romans 15:20 Paul says he doesn’t want to build on another mans foundation referring to Peter who built the Church in Rome.

Tell me if there was another CHRISTIAN Church in Rome before Peter or Paul started it then who started it. See what you are saying does not add up. Why does Peter write from Babylon which was the code name for Rome during these days of persecution. look in rev 14:8 16:19 175 which show babylon meant Rome. Rome was the great city of the NT the Lord wanted his church started in Rome. Also why did in gal. 1:18 if what you are saying is true does it say then after three years I went up to Jerusalem to confer with Kephas and remained with him for fifteen days. Thats because Paul spends fifteen days with Peter privately before beginning his ministry even after Christs revelation to Paul. Sorry my Pal, you just not adding up to scripture.

You don’t want to get it do you? Peter was NOT the Bishop of Rome to begin with. He was martyred in Rome after his shortest time as a bishop anywhere.

 

[santodomingo]

I agree with all the points you have made here, except the last one. Jesus did not found a “Roman” Church. He founded a universal Church, and it has continued to be universal. The fact that the chief of the Apostles was martyred in Rome does not change the universal nature of the Church.

Merry Christmas, guanophore!

First of all, allow me to congratulate you on your spectacular post number. You´ll be hitting 11,000 soon. That´s impressive!!

Secondly, I saw in your public profile that your religion is “byzantine”. Forgive my ignorance, but could you please explain what this means. Are you catholic or orthodox? If you are catholic, but from one of the Eastern rites, why don´t you call yourself “catholic byzantine”?

Thirdly, all the catholics who follow a different rite (a non-latin rite) are as catholic as anyone else. They are part of the Holy, Catholic, Apostolic Church, whose spiritual centre is in ROME, where the first pope was martyred and rests since then. We all know that Christ founded His Church in the Holy Land. That´s not the issue. The issue is that He entrusted the government of the Church to St. Peter, and St. Peter ended up in Rome. That´s why fidelity to Rome is a hallmark of true catholicism.

 

[jlhargus]

Non-Catholic: Mt15:18 “Truly I say to you, whatever you bind on earth shall have been bound in heaven; and whatever you loose on earth shall have been loosed in heaven.”

He said that to Peter but it wasn’t just unique to Peter. It was true of all the other Apostles, it’s true of all preachers, it’s true of all of us.

JL: I agree, in this instance, Mt15:18, it was not unique to Peter. In this case it was said to all, as a group, which included Peter. In this case they can bind and loose only as a collective not individually. In Mt16:19 Peter is given the KEYS individually and the authority to bind and loose individually, apart from the rest. The others can only bind, as a group or council, in union with one another and the holder of the keys, Peter.