Catholic Answers for Protestant Questions

[Jitterbug]

Hello all!

 I KNOW these have probably been asked to death...but I was having a bit of trouble finding answers that were really what I was looking for while looking at the site(If I DID miss them, however, please point me to them)

 I have a Protestant friend who asks a great deal of questions(Not that that's a bad thing in the slightest) But I was only received at the last Easter Vigil. While I went through RCIA, there are still some parts I can't explain well. I understand and believe them, but fail when it comes to words.

So, I’d like to ask the following questions:

 What is a good way of defining Real Presence? I understand the concept, but when I attempt to explain I make it sound symbolic or cannibalistic.

 Why does the Greek Orthodox Bible have 4 more books than the Roman Catholic Bible?

 Where can I obtain valid historic texts that show when the "Extra books" were taken out?

 What is Sacred Tradition, and how does it add to Scripture?

 What is a good analogy for Purgatory?

 How was Mary Holy?

I (Think) I know some of these already, but I’d HATE to give misinformation. Thank you all so much in advance.

 

[DavidFilmer]

You have many good questions (and a rather well-informed protestant friend). However, I think you will be better off if you abandon this thread and open a separate thread for each question (and, actually, forum policy does not allow multiple questions in one post, so a moderator might close this thread anyway). It’s OK to group the questions about the Orthodox canon, as they deal with the same basic topic.

Don’t worry - you won’t annoy anybody. And threads are free.

 

[pablope]

Hello all!

 I KNOW these have probably been asked to death...but I was having a bit of trouble finding answers that were really what I was looking for while looking at the site(If I DID miss them, however, please point me to them)

 

[Jitterbug]

Thank you very much for your answers.

I didn’t know about the rule about multiple questions (It’s been a while). I shall note that in the future.

That all makes sense. I need to remember it’s Scripture comes from Tradition. That’s a SLIGHT hurdle I need to learn to jump.

The part about the books is quite interesting!

Of course Real Presesnce is still a question that needs an answer…but I think that a rather hard one to explain in any way that does it justice.

Now I think I WILL take the advice and seperate these. Thanks again.

 

[Conorcrrll]

Hey,

The best way to define the real prescence is to say that it is the Body, Blood, Soul and Divinity of Our Lord Jesus Christ. There is no advantage in being at all ambiguous about it.

It may come out sounding cannabalistic, but it is not at all. Jesus said (Im not quoting) that we must eat his flesh and drink his blood. The jews were perplexed and worried and many left because of this, but he did not change his position he repeated it. He then said to the Apostles did they want to leave also, but the chose to profess their faith in him and stay. It is not cannibalistic, because it is God, and as we are not god’s ourself we are not cannibal.

shop.catholic.com/product.php?productid=17166 the dvd here will help aswell.

God bless

Conor

 

[MarcoPolo]

Why does the Greek Orthodox Bible have 4 more books than the Roman Catholic Bible?

They are following what they believe to be the true tradition. But also note, even some Orthodox do not believe there has been a single tradition on the canon. For example, Orthodox priest Fr. Stergiou writes: “there are also inconsistencies in the different Traditions of Orthodoxy on which books are to be included in the greater Canon.”

 

[afifriend]

Hello all!

 I KNOW these have probably been asked to death...but I was having a bit of trouble finding answers that were really what I was looking for while looking at the site(If I DID miss them, however, please point me to them)

 I have a Protestant friend who asks a great deal of questions(Not that that's a bad thing in the slightest) But I was only received at the last Easter Vigil. While I went through RCIA, there are still some parts I can't explain well. I understand and believe them, but fail when it comes to words.

So, I’d like to ask the following questions:

 What is a good way of defining Real Presence? I understand the concept, but when I attempt to explain I make it sound symbolic or cannibalistic.

 Why does the Greek Orthodox Bible have 4 more books than the Roman Catholic Bible?

 Where can I obtain valid historic texts that show when the "Extra books" were taken out?

 What is Sacred Tradition, and how does it add to Scripture?

 What is a good analogy for Purgatory?

 How was Mary Holy?

I (Think) I know some of these already, but I’d HATE to give misinformation. Thank you all so much in advance.

 

[afifriend]

In order to forestall at the very outset, the unworthy notion, that in the Eucharist we receive merely the Body and merely the Blood of Christ but not Christ in His entirety, the Council of Trent defined the Real Presence to be such as to include with Christ’s Body and His Soul and Divinity as well. A strictly logical conclusion from the words of promise: “he that eateth me the same also shall live by me”, this Totality of Presence was also the constant property of tradition, which characterized the partaking of separated parts of the Savior as a sarcophagy (flesh-eating) altogether derogatory to God. Although the separation of the Body, Blood, Soul, and Logos, is, absolutely speaking, within the almighty power of God, yet then actual inseparability is firmly established by the dogma of the indissolubility of the hypostatic union of Christ’s Divinity and Humanity. In case the Apostles had celebrated the Lord’s Supper during the triduum mortis (the time during which Christ’s Body was in the tomb), when a real separation took place between the constitutive elements of Christ, there would have been really present in the Sacred Host only, the bloodless, inanimate Body of Christ as it lay in tomb, and in the Chalice only the Blood separated from His Body and absorbed by the earth as it was shed, both the Body and the Blood, however, hypostatically united to His Divinity, while His Soul, which sojourned in Limbo, would have remained entirely excluded from the Eucharistic presence. This unreal, though not impossible, hypothesis, is well calculated to throw light upon the essential difference designated by the Council of Trent (Sess, XIII, c. iii), between the meanings of the words ex vi verborum and per concomitantiam. By virtue of the words of consecration, or ex vi verborum, that only is made present which is expressed by the words of Institution, namely the Body and the Blood of Christ. But by reason of a natural concomitance (per concomitantiam), there becomes simultaneously present all that which is physically inseparable from the parts just named, and which must, from a natural connection with them, always be their accompaniment. Now, the glorified Christ, Who “dieth now no more” (Romans 6:9) has an animate Body through whose veins courses His life’s Blood under the vivifying influence of soul. Consequently, together with His Body and Blood and Soul, His whole Humanity also, and, by virtue of the hypostatic union, His Divinity, i.e. Christ whole and entire, must be present. Hence Christ is present in the sacrament with His Flesh and Blood, Body and Soul, Humanity and Divinity.

 

[Anneymay]

I am new to this forum and am so glad that I found it. I have two questions. I have noticed that in the protestant world, they are beginning to put limits on whether or not a person can receive communion just as the catholics do. By limits I mean that you must be free of sin before taking communion. I see this as an impossibility as we can sin by even our thoughts. My question is this: In all of the gospels in the scriptures of the last supper when Jesus says, “Do this in rememberance of me,” I do not see the words “only if” anywhere. So how did the churches decide they were going to add it in?

If the people are the temple that Jesus built then how is it that so many churches say that they are the only true religion? People that love God and know that Jesus is the son of God and the Messiah are the temple then does God really care what avenue they take as long as it is christian? I am truely saddened about the “competition” that goes on between churches that, from what I see, only opens the door to argument and strife between people of God.
Thank you,
Anneymay

 

[ricofall]

I am new to this forum and am so glad that I found it. I have two questions. I have noticed that in the protestant world, they are beginning to put limits on whether or not a person can receive communion just as the catholics do. By limits I mean that you must be free of sin before taking communion. I see this as an impossibility as we can sin by even our thoughts. My question is this: In all of the gospels in the scriptures of the last supper when Jesus says, “Do this in rememberance of me,” I do not see the words “only if” anywhere. So how did the churches decide they were going to add it in?

If the people are the temple that Jesus built then how is it that so many churches say that they are the only true religion? People that love God and know that Jesus is the son of God and the Messiah are the temple then does God really care what avenue they take as long as it is christian? I am truely saddened about the “competition” that goes on between churches that, from what I see, only opens the door to argument and strife between people of God.
Thank you,
Anneymay

Anneymay
I am sure there are better people than I that can answer your questions. However, I will say this. Our first pope, Saint Peter, was given the keys to loosen and bind. That power was passed on to his successors. With that and other events, the church became organized and has spread since. The competition you are seeing are usually protestant churches. They usually try to one up each other. Some have accepted same sex marriage. Some have coffee and doughnuts that you can take into the church. Some even have video games outside the main chapel. My school used to rent out a Church of Christ and used their worship area for a district employee meeting. Would you ever see that at a Catholic Church? Can you imagine a present saying “guys, can you move that box with bread, its in our way.” kpeople:

The Church has not really changed in 2000 years of history in her most sacred Traditions. Manly what changes is how we go about expressing our worship and what has been revealed to us by the magisterium. Many of those Traditions are accepted by our non-Catholic bothers and sisters without a second thought. For example the Trinity, the divinity of Jesus, the books in the bible (with the exception on a few thanks to Calvin and Luther), so on and so on.

 

[benjohnson]

If I could make a humble suggestion, I would urge you to point your friend to authentic Protestant sources - sources that mirror your Catholic teaching.

One of the hardest struggles Protestants have is finding the correct sources among all the available texts and leaders.

Don’t just show what the Catholics believe - show him with correct sources what Protestants should believe. You know you have a correct Protestant source if what you find seems to have echoes of the Catholic faith.

…

A good source is Luther’s Book of Concorde - it will help you dispel many bad notions that modern Protestants find themselves believing.

I certainly don’t expect you to believe anything in the Book of Concorde, but it’s a good foundation for your Protestant friend.

…

I do the same for my Catholic friends - I find may of their questions can be answered with Catholic teachings in the CCC. I’ll tell them my Lutheran viewpoint if asked, but I always see to boost their authentic faith using authentic Catholic sources.

 

[Hamlet123]

I am truely saddened about the “competition” that goes on between churches that, from what I see, only opens the door to argument and strife between people of God.
Thank you,
Anneymay

It is truly impossible not to have competition between churchs because one is right and another is wrong. The right one is required to tell the truth while the wrong one has a conflict with this truth. This scenario creates competition.

To have this feeling is understandable, to be against this concept it contrary to objective truth. “Can’t we all get along” is another way of saying that all truth is relavent. Unfortunately or fortunately, we have absolute truths that must be followed or the world will be in a difficult possition and hell will be in need of a larger entrance door.

 

[_TLC]

Because she is the Mother of God…and she did not sin, remained a perpetual virgin to serve the Lord…and is the Mother of the Church.

If the church was intended to be the authority on earth then why did God allow the protestants to form? While the bible was pulled together (as pablope says) for the purpose of being used as literagy the individual books were written BEFORE the Catholic or orthodox church’s formed (Old testiment: before Jesus even came New testiment:when it was still the early church) so shouldn’t they be the higher authority? The bible is from God while the church is man’s institution blessed by God. Your salvation has to do with your personal relationship with God and not what church you belong to; fellowship with other beleivers was meant to strengthen your faith not be the defining factor which would be the case if the church held the ultimate authority from God (which would mean that the whole meaning behind the curtain in the temple being torn when Jesus died is neglegent because we still cannot go DIRECTLY to God, we would have to go through the Church just like the Jews went through their preists). God uses the church to do his will but the ultimate authority on Earth exists through the Holy Spirit, that lives within us, which allows us to discern and has given us the bible (and allowed those who chose the books in the bible to discern which were the ones God wanted in the bible). In short- I dont see how the church can have a higher authority than the bible.

 

[ricofall]

In short- I dont see how the church can have a higher authority than the bible.

First, welcome to our forum. I hope you learn and find what you are looking for. You made many statements so I will address a few here. I do think it is interesting that you base your authority on the bible…which is a collection on books that the Catholic Church put together. You can view it in anyway you want, but history is history. You cannot change the fact that the Bible is a Church book. So, if you accept the bible as your authority, then to some extend, you accept the Church’s authority. Like it or not, that is a truth. Also, God allows people free will, therefore the Protestant movement took hold. To deny that would deny free will.

Please excuse any typos. I am writing on my tablet computer right now.

 

[pablope]

^in response to “why is Mary holy”

But Jesus was the only sinless human (who is also fully God and man), wasn’t he? Can someone please explain why Mary is holy? Where in the bible does it say that?

Firstly…where does the Bible state that everything about Christianity is contained in the Bible?

Mary was still alive when most of the NT books were being written…so there is little mention of Mary. There are, however…writings that did not make it to the Bible about Mary…

Gospel of James…newadvent.org/fathers/0847.htm

John the Theologian on the Dormition…newadvent.org/fathers/0832.htm

As for others being blameless…the Bible also mentions…in Luke 1…5 In the time of Herod king of Judea there was a priest named Zechariah, who belonged to the priestly division of Abijah; his wife Elizabeth was also a descendant of Aaron. 6 Both of them were righteous in the sight of God, observing all the Lord’s commands and decrees blamelessly.

So…there is the possibility of one achieving being sinless and blameless.

As for being holy…definition of holiness…Holy" is from the Greek word that means “separated,” and in this case it means separated from sin and therefore consecrated to God, or set apart for a sacred purpose.

We are called to be holy too…to strive to be holy…1peter1…15 But just as he who called you is holy, so be holy in all you do; 16 for it is written: “Be holy, because I am holy.”[a]

Also…

If the church was intended to be the authority on earth then why did God allow the protestants to form?

God did not allow protestants to form…man’s disobedience formed protestants…from the pride and disobedience of Luther.

1 Samuel 15:22-23

New International Version (NIV)

22 But Samuel replied:

“Does the Lord delight in burnt offerings and sacrifices
as much as in obeying the Lord?
To obey is better than sacrifice,
and to heed is better than the fat of rams.
23 For rebellion is like the sin of divination,
and arrogance like the evil of idolatry.
Because you have rejected the word of the Lord,
he has rejected you as king.”

While the bible was pulled together (as pablope says) for the purpose of being used as literagy the individual books were written BEFORE the Catholic or orthodox church’s formed

The proclamation of the biblical canon…by Catholic Pope Damasus in AD382… tertullian.org/decretum_eng.htm

The Catholic Church (there was only one church prior to the East/West schism of 1054)…was founded by Christ upon the Peter in AD 33. The first book of the Bible was written arount AD 50 or so…so the Catholic Church had been in existence for several years before any NT book was written.

Where we Got the Bible…catholicapologetics.info/apologetics/protestantism/wbible.htm

The Bible, as you know it today, would be canonized in Ad382 by the Council of Rome, confirmed in Ad397 at Carthage. Please read the link…there more info there.

(Old testiment: before Jesus even came New testiment:when it was still the early church) so shouldn’t they be the higher authority?

The Catholic Church canonized the Septuagint, the Jewish writings, as the OT, and had 46 books. Protestants, because of the Reformation, removed 7 books from the Bible, starting in 1520 or so…and were completely removed in 1826, because of a decision no to print the 7 books to save money on printing costs.

The bible is from God while the church is man’s institution blessed by God.

The Bible NT books, writings, were written by the early Christians…who were catholics…were inspired by God. But without the Catholic Church, you would not have a Bible as you know it today…for it was the CC that selected which writings would be in the OT and NT.

Your salvation has to do with your personal relationship with God and not what church you belong to;

Well, if it did…why would Jesus have bothered to say the following…Matt 16…18 And I tell you that you are Peter,** and on this rock I will build my church, and the gates of Hades[c] will not overcome it. .

In short- I dont see how the church can have a higher authority than the bible.

**

Well…let me ask you…Jesus said in Matt 18…17 If they still refuse to listen, tell it to the church; and if they refuse to listen even to the church, treat them as you would a pagan or a tax collector.

How can you bring a dispute to the Bible? And is the Bible the source, the pillar and ground of Truth?

1tim3…14 Although I hope to come to you soon, I am writing you these instructions so that, 15 if I am delayed, you will know how people ought to conduct themselves in God’s household, which is the church of the living God, the pillar and foundation of the truth.

So let me ask you…which church was in existence when the passage above was written? Was it any of the protestant churches?

 

[Tony_the_mad]

It is truly impossible not to have competition between churchs because one is right and another is wrong. The right one is required to tell the truth while the wrong one has a conflict with this truth. This scenario creates competition.

To have this feeling is understandable, to be against this concept it contrary to objective truth. “Can’t we all get along” is another way of saying that all truth is relavent. Unfortunately or fortunately, we have absolute truths that must be followed or the world will be in a difficult possition and hell will be in need of a larger entrance door.

I agree that absolute truths exist and that we need to fight for those truths when they are threatened. But determining the absolute truth is hard and sometimes both sides are correct. An example of this occurred in the fourth century where two different groups of Greek speaking Christians were fighting over how divine and how human Christ was. We now accept that we must accept that Christ was fully human AND fully divine. (Interestingly enough the Latin speaking Christians didn’t have this trouble since their word for the unity between the Father and the Son (con-substantial) allowed for both.) The fight was hard and bitter, and in my opinion opened the way for one of the most damaging heresies in Church history, Arianism. Both sides could validly make the argument that they had the objective truth which they should defend at all costs. One could argue that the Bishops who participated in the struggle (such as Athanasius of Alexandria) were some of the greatest and most important Saints in our history; yet they still failed and failed miserably.

That should not be used an excuse when the difference are both real and important. But it should give us pause and concern.

 

[Hamlet123]

pablope;9319629:

^in response to “why is Mary holy”

But Jesus was the only sinless human (who is also fully God and man), wasn’t he? Can someone please explain why Mary is holy? Where in the bible does it say that?

Also…
pablope;9319629:

If the church was intended to be the authority on earth then why did God allow the protestants to form? While the bible was pulled together (as pablope says) for the purpose of being used as literagy the individual books were written BEFORE the Catholic or orthodox church’s formed (Old testiment: before Jesus even came New testiment:when it was still the early church) so shouldn’t they be the higher authority? The bible is from God while the church is man’s institution blessed by God. Your salvation has to do with your personal relationship with God and not what church you belong to; fellowship with other beleivers was meant to strengthen your faith not be the defining factor which would be the case if the church held the ultimate authority from God (which would mean that the whole meaning behind the curtain in the temple being torn when Jesus died is neglegent because we still cannot go DIRECTLY to God, we would have to go through the Church just like the Jews went through their preists). God uses the church to do his will but the ultimate authority on Earth exists through the Holy Spirit, that lives within us, which allows us to discern and has given us the bible (and allowed those who chose the books in the bible to discern which were the ones God wanted in the bible). In short- I dont see how the church can have a higher authority than the bible.

Where 1. in the bible does it say that the bible is the highest authority?
2. in the bible does it say the bible is the ONLY authority?
and 3. What do you mean my “authority”?

 

[Hamlet123]

I agree that absolute truths exist and that we need to fight for those truths when they are threatened. But determining the absolute truth is hard and sometimes both sides are correct. An example of this occurred in the fourth century where two different groups of Greek speaking Christians were fighting over how divine and how human Christ was. We now accept that we must accept that Christ was fully human AND fully divine. (Interestingly enough the Latin speaking Christians didn’t have this trouble since their word for the unity between the Father and the Son (con-substantial) allowed for both.) The fight was hard and bitter, and in my opinion opened the way for one of the most damaging heresies in Church history, Arianism. Both sides could validly make the argument that they had the objective truth which they should defend at all costs. One could argue that the Bishops who participated in the struggle (such as Athanasius of Alexandria) were some of the greatest and most important Saints in our history; yet they still failed and failed miserably.

That should not be used an excuse when the difference are both real and important. But it should give us pause and concern.

YOu say I agree that absolute truths exist… then you say “but”; hopelfully, you do not think I do not understand that it is hard to determine them - truths. The greatest obstacle I have finding and accepting truths is my sin(s), then my society that influences me then my church that is full of heretics and political leaders espousing heresy.

 

[bmonk]

^in response to “why is Mary holy”

But Jesus was the only sinless human (who is also fully God and man), wasn’t he? Can someone please explain why Mary is holy? Where in the bible does it say that?

Also…
If the church was intended to be the authority on earth then why did God allow the protestants to form? While the bible was pulled together (as pablope says) for the purpose of being used as literagy the individual books were written BEFORE the Catholic or orthodox church’s formed (Old testiment: before Jesus even came New testiment:when it was still the early church) so shouldn’t they be the higher authority? The bible is from God while the church is man’s institution blessed by God. Your salvation has to do with your personal relationship with God and not what church you belong to; fellowship with other beleivers was meant to strengthen your faith not be the defining factor which would be the case if the church held the ultimate authority from God (which would mean that the whole meaning behind the curtain in the temple being torn when Jesus died is neglegent because we still cannot go DIRECTLY to God, we would have to go through the Church just like the Jews went through their preists). God uses the church to do his will but the ultimate authority on Earth exists through the Holy Spirit, that lives within us, which allows us to discern and has given us the bible (and allowed those who chose the books in the bible to discern which were the ones God wanted in the bible). In short- I dont see how the church can have a higher authority than the bible.

Mary is called “full of grace” by the angel in Luke 1. It is through reflection on such texts, and the long tradition of the Church (both Catholic and Orthodox) that we developed a fuller doctrine of Mary’s sinlessness. In particular, it stresses that Mary is not sinless apart from God’s grace, but through a unique closeness to God, that it was God who preserved her as sinless.

The Bible was neither written nor collected before the Church formed. The Church was formed during Jesus’ ministry on Earth in the community of disciples gathered around Jesus, and established at Pentecost by the descent of the Spirit on that community. It is not a human-established institution, but one directly from Jesus himself. It’s also why many texts in the Bible don’t just talk about believing and being saved, or having God as your Father and being saved, but also stress baptism (Mark 16:16, Acts 2:38)–because being a member of the Church is part of the way God gave us to be saved.

That community then grew and spread–and continues to exist in the Church. The various books of the New Testament were written by members of that community, and accepted by the churches as inspired, that is, they expressed their own experience of God and the Gospel. We even have other texts, such as the letters of St. Ignatius of Antioch, that contain many or all of the elements later held by the Catholic Church–and this was in the 110s, long before the New Testament was collected and canonized. The community and its faith predate the Bible.

Yes, the Old Testament did exist before the Church–but do not forget that God is also involved here. God prepared the way for Christ, and part of that preparation was the Hebrew Scriptures. This does not mean, for example, that Jesus was of less authority than the scriptures, as we see, for example, in how he treats divorce: Moses allowed it, but Jesus says it is not “original”, and the Church followed suit. We still do not permit “divorce” as such, but only allow it in cases where the original marriage was defective from the start, such that it did not really exist. (Just as a contract may be null and void if something essential is absent–like if you tried to sell me a car, but didn’t actually own it.)

As for the Protestants, God still allows us free will. Indeed, the whole Gospel is an exercise in respecting our free will: Jesus lays out the conditions of our existence, and lets us choose what we want, helps us make a free choice with his grace. The Protestant churches are different from the Orthodox and Catholics–our communities look back in an unbroken line to the churches that followed the Apostles. The Protestants look back–to a reformer who rejected the current Church as corrupt and founded a new community. A process that, sadly, continues today.

 

[steve_b]

I am new to this forum and am so glad that I found it. I have two questions.

Welcome
A:

I have noticed that in the protestant world,

they are beginning to put* limits* on whether or not a person can receive communion just as the catholics do. By limits I mean that you must be free of sin before taking communion. I see this as an impossibility as we can sin by even our thoughts. My question is this: In all of the gospels in the scriptures of the last supper when Jesus says, “Do this in rememberance of me,” I do not see the words “only if” anywhere. So how did the churches decide they were going to add it in?

This is not easy to answer in one post. As soon as one thing is said, many other issues pop up that need explaining. So please bear with the process

Re: free of sin.

• not all sin is equal. There is mortal, and non mortal (venial) sin. One can pray for forgiveness of venial sin and it is forgiven. As John says, not so for mortal sin. [1 Jn 5:16-17] example of mortal sins [Gal 5:19-21] any sin that keeps one from inheriting heaven is a deadly (mortal) sin
• What does one do about ridding themself of mortal sin? Sacramental confession, i.e. confess to a priest. Jas 5:[14] Is any man sick among you? Let him bring in the priests πρεσβύτεροςpresbyteros] of the church, and let them pray over him, anointing him with oil in the name of the Lord. [15] And the prayer of faith shall save the sick man: and the Lord shall raise him up: and if he be in sins, they shall be forgiven him. [16] Confess therefore your sins one to another: … i.e. the context is, the sinner confesses to the priest, it doesn’t mean everyone confeses their sins to each other.
• One might ask, how is it that a validly ordained priest has the power to forgive sins…all sins? Jesus gave that power to those He ordained*** [Jn 20:23]*** and that power was passed onto those who were apostolically ordained.

A:

If the people are the temple that Jesus built then

how is it that so many churches say that they are the only true religion? People that love God and know that Jesus is the son of God and the Messiah are the temple then does God really care what avenue they take as long as it is christian? I am truely saddened about the “competition” that goes on between churches that, from what I see, only opens the door to argument and strife between people of God.
Thank you,
Anneymay

Jesus started ONE Church. There was to be no division, no seperation, no splinter groups, no such thing as seperate but equal, etc etc from what He started. How do we know that?

• When Jesus prayed that they maybe one as you Father and I are one, that’s perfect unity. Since Jesus started His Church on the apostles with Peter as the head, there is only one Church that qualifies for that description. The Catholic Church. It’s been that way for 2000 years
• If you look at the list of sins mentioned in ***[Gal 5:19-21] ***. above you’ll see that factions / division, dissent, are condemned. The idea of every Tom Dick or Harry starting their own church was condemned from the beginning.

When Paul was coming to an end to His letter to the Church of Rome, the same Church today that Benedict XVI, 266th successor to St Peter, is bishop over, he wrote

Rom 16:17 I urge you, brothers, to watch out for those who cause divisions and put obstacles in your way that are contrary to the teaching you have learned. Keep away from them. 18 For such people are not serving our Lord Christ, but their own appetites. By smooth talk and flattery they deceive the minds of naive people. 19 Everyone has heard about your obedience, so I am full of joy over you; but I want you to be wise about what is good, and innocent about what is evil. 20 The God of peace will soon crush Satan under your feet.

Re: Paul’s timeframe there, I’ve often thought to myself, how soon is “soon” in Paul’s mind ?

I’m sure this will generate a bunch of questions.