Catholic vs. Catholic

[steve_b]

The distinction is made because those outside of the RCC aknowledge that there ARE Eastern Churches that excommunicated the RCC just as the RCC excommunicated them.

given that Jesus is the one who sustains Peter and His successors, such that the Church Jesus builds on Peter CAN’T fail, one might ask, given the eternal perspective, can anyone realistically excommunicate the chair of Peter (Rome), and what do they think that gets them in the eternal perspective?
M:

And some of these churches existed before Rome had a church.

When you see the ancient listing of sees, it goes like this, in this order

1. 
   *]Rome
   *]Alexandria
   *]Antioch
   *]Jerusalem
   
   Constantinople came along in the 4th century and took 2nd place behind Rome, dropping the others down a notch
   M:
   

   So, the RCC “history” aside for a moment, those who look at Church history a bit more dispassionately recognize that the RCC has never been the entire Church, nor is it today.

   Yet the Church of Rome held the presidency. That’s from Ignatius of Antioch, a disciple of St John…
   
   Where Peter is, there is the Church. [St Ambrose *Commentary on Twelve Psalms of David 40:30 ]
   
   One could also say, that’s a commentary on [Mt 16:16…]

 

[wisdomseeker]

The distinction is made because those outside of the RCC aknowledge that there ARE Eastern Churches that excommunicated the RCC just as the RCC excommunicated them.

And some of these churches existed before Rome had a church.

So, the RCC “history” aside for a moment, those who look at Church history a bit more dispassionately recognize that the RCC has never been the entire Church, nor is it today.

One Church throughout the world. do you concede that one Church can convert the whole world? how many protestant churhces do you see in the Bible?

 

[Bluegoat]

Many people consider themselves to be catholic, but not Catholic.

Personally, as a non-Catholic who considers herself catholic, I would actually be quite happy to say that I am part of the Catholic Church. But that would tend to be very confusing, because I do not mean that I am part of the particular organization in communion with the Bishop of Rome that calls itself the Catholic Church (proper name) and which also thinks it is the catholic Church (universal and complete). And some might find it offensive too, which wouldn’t be my intent.

So a lot of the time it is simply a matter of clarity in writing.

When people say they mean little c catholic as opposed to Catholic, what they mean is the concept of a catholic, universal, complete Church can exist separately from the organization, the Catholic Church, which also says it has these characteristics.

So unfortunately there is no knock-out punch. You actually have to make the argument that the Catholic Church is the only catholic Church.

 

[Windfish]

Roman Catholic Church

But there is no such institution.

 

[Windfish]

So unfortunately there is no knock-out punch. You actually have to make the argument that the Catholic Church is the only catholic Church.

But does it really fall to us to prove that? This whole catholic vs. Catholic distinction is a blatant Protestant invention. Protestantism did not exist until 500 years ago - the “catholic” Church has always been hierarchal, with the Bishop of Rome at its head, with the Eucharist at its center. That’s the Catholic Church!

 

[Bluegoat]

But does it really fall to us to prove that? This whole catholic vs. Catholic distinction is a blatant Protestant invention. Protestantism did not exist until 500 years ago - the “catholic” Church has always been hierarchal, with the Bishop of Rome at its head, with the Eucharist at its center. That’s the Catholic Church!

If you just say that, do you think people will be convinced? Would you? You have to show that the modern CC that people see is actually the same as the Church that was established by the Christ and the Apostles, and you also have to show that only the CC has this characteristic.

Protestant, Catholic, Orthodox are all labels - in and of themselves they don’t reveal the truth about who is correct. They all consider that they are modern descendants of the Church established by Christ. The CC and the EC and OC all think they alone are that group, while most Protestants these days think that all are descendants. The first Reformers however thought they were the Church and the hierarchy was outside of the Church.

So you have to show, for example, that not only was the Church always apostolic, but that is an essential part, and that it must be understood the way the CC understands it, and that the modern CC has that apostolic structure and decent. Because the Orthodox and Anglicans also claim that status and have the lineage (if not validity, but that is getting ahead of the argument); the Lutherans say that apostolic succession is not the issue but apostolic faith; the OO and EO say the faith and the lineage are necessary; and many others say similar things with slight twists. Unless you make the argument it is not clear who is correct.

Or in the case of the Bishop of Rome, there are many who agree he has a special role, but not what Rome says. The Scriptures are frankly inconclusive on this. Historically, there has been clear development. And many will say there is no evidence that Rome could not err, even if it had a special role at one time. And then there are others who think it is irrelevant.

And so on.

So none of this stuff is as obvious as some like to think. Probably the first step is to really learn how the other Christian groups understand the Church, and then you can see clearly where they are understanding something differently.

 

[wisdomseeker]

If you just say that, do you think people will be convinced? Would you? You have to show that the modern CC that people see is actually the same as the Church that was established by the Christ and the Apostles, and you also have to show that only the CC has this characteristic.

Protestant, Catholic, Orthodox are all labels - in and of themselves they don’t reveal the truth about who is correct. They all consider that they are modern descendants of the Church established by Christ. The CC and the EC and OC all think they alone are that group, while most Protestants these days think that all are descendants. The first Reformers however thought they were the Church and the hierarchy was outside of the Church.

So you have to show, for example, that not only was the Church always apostolic, but that is an essential part, and that it must be understood the way the CC understands it, and that the modern CC has that apostolic structure and decent. Because the Orthodox and Anglicans also claim that status and have the lineage (if not validity, but that is getting ahead of the argument); the Lutherans say that apostolic succession is not the issue but apostolic faith; the OO and EO say the faith and the lineage are necessary; and many others say similar things with slight twists. Unless you make the argument it is not clear who is correct.

Or in the case of the Bishop of Rome, there are many who agree he has a special role, but not what Rome says. The Scriptures are frankly inconclusive on this. Historically, there has been clear development. And many will say there is no evidence that Rome could not err, even if it had a special role at one time. And then there are others who think it is irrelevant.

And so on.

So none of this stuff is as obvious as some like to think. Probably the first step is to really learn how the other Christian groups understand the Church, and then you can see clearly where they are understanding something differently.

Well that should not be hard to do. Let’s see for example. who found your church? when?
whose authority?

The CC has been here for 2000 years. how about yours? protestants did not exist before the Bible was printed, do you see the connection here? do you believe that people should use the Bible to get authority to build their own belief system. Did Jesus build a Church?
can you prove to me that hte Apostles tought anything differen from each other? did you read how St Paul describes the Church?

Does Jesus intend that people teach diferent things about Him? where is the Truth?

In Isaiah, God says: "in those days, I will set up a new type of Sacrifice, a clean and unbloody Sacrifice. He also says, from East to West, a new Sacrifice will be offered in my name, everyday, from sun up to sundown. I dont know the exactly words, so I am just writing what I remember. where do you think that this has been fulfilled? who performs sacrifce in the OT? So, if it s a sacrifice, then only priests can offer sacrifice. It was stablised by God in the OT and so it is with the NT. protestants cannot change what God has ordained.

 

[Muze]

given that Jesus is the one who sustains Peter and His successors, such that the Church Jesus builds on Peter CAN’T fail, one might ask, given the eternal perspective, can anyone realistically excommunicate the chair of Peter (Rome), and what do they think that gets them in the eternal perspective?

These are RCC assumptions and are not given. You even acknowledge below that there are multiple sees.

When you see the ancient listing of sees, it goes like this, in this order

1. 
   *]Rome
   *]Alexandria
   *]Antioch
   *]Jerusalem

1. 
   Constantinople came along in the 4th century and took 2nd place behind Rome, dropping the others down a notch
   Thank you for acknowledging that there are multiple sees in the early Church. Now, go read Acts and tell me which church was created first, and which churches existed in Acts 15.
   

   Yet the Church of Rome held the presidency. That’s from Ignatius of Antioch, a disciple of St John…
   
   Where Peter is, there is the Church. [St Ambrose *Commentary on Twelve Psalms of David

   40:30 ]
   
   One could also say, that’s a commentary on [Mt 16:16…]
   
   Well, those are nice RCC commentaries and interpretations…

 

[Muze]

But there is no such institution.

Are you allowed to deny the existence of the Church that you claim to belong to?

 

[ESMDHokie77]

Are you allowed to deny the existence of the Church that you claim to belong to?

Wind is referring to the fact that there is a Latin Rite in the Catholic Church. the term “Roman Catholic Church” is not the true name for Catholic Churchs that use the western/roman/latin rite.

 

[Odell]

Thank you for acknowledging that there are multiple sees in the early Church. Now, go read Acts and tell me which church was created first, and which churches existed in Acts 15.

The Catholic church has not denied that there are some churches that existed before the Rome church. But it is the same church that is now based in Rome. This is why we call the Church Catholic not necessarily Roman Catholic that is a rite. To educate you a little we have the Byzantine Catholic and Greek Catholic, Alexandrian, Antiochian, Armenian and Chaldean Catholic. They are all in communion with the bishop of Rome.

Just as all the churches where in communion with Petter in Acts 15

The Church I see in Acts 15 is an authoritative Church. Notice Paul and Barnabas decided to go up to Jerusalem to the apostles about this question. Notice he does the same thing in Galatians Ch 2 he goes to make sure he is not teaching in vain.

Back to Acts 15 24 we see the council sending forth presbyters because some have gone out without any mandate from the apostles.

So question to you. Do you think that there would be no succession where people would be sent out without mandate after the apostles are dead and gone? If not would it matter where these people decided to meet?

Isn’t the important thing that we are all in union all Catholic (universal) Phil. 2:2 - Paul prays that Christians be of the same mind, of one accord. This is why Paul went to Jerusalem.

We see here an authoritative Church

Are you allowed to deny the existence of the Church that you claim to belong to?

No are you?

 

[Muze]

The Catholic church has not denied that there are some churches that existed before the Rome church.

So, you’re admitting that the Church has not always been the Roman Church. That’s a good start.

But it is the same church that is now based in Rome.

According to you… I’m guessing that our EO friends would say otherwise.

This is why we call the Church Catholic not necessarily Roman Catholic that is a rite. To educate you a little we have the Byzantine Catholic and Greek Catholic, Alexandrian, Antiochian, Armenian and Chaldean Catholic. They are all in communion with the bishop of Rome.

Funny how the RCC replicated all the other Eastern Churches after you excommunicated each other.

Just as all the churches where in communion with Petter in Acts 15

Right before James made the final judgment and ruling?

The Church I see in Acts 15 is an authoritative Church. Notice Paul and Barnabas decided to go up to Jerusalem to the apostles about this question. Notice he does the same thing in Galatians Ch 2 he goes to make sure he is not teaching in vain.

Actually, you see apostles who are strugging to answer a tough question regarding Gentiles.

And, in Galatians 2, Paul had to stop Peter from teaching error to the Galatians.

Back to Acts 15 24 we see the council sending forth presbyters because some have gone out without any mandate from the apostles.

And no Roman church there at all…

So question to you. Do you think that there would be no succession where people would be sent out without mandate after the apostles are dead and gone?

Well, when Peter was confronted with his own death, and wrote 2 Peter, he left only one thing to cling to when false teachers would arise, and that was the writings of the prophets and the disciples who saw Jesus’ glory. No successor. No magesterium. Just the writings.

If not would it matter where these people decided to meet?

Well, they had to meet somewhere… and it seems pretty important that they all see James, who would make the ruling… and he was in Jerusalem…

Isn’t the important thing that we are all in union all Catholic (universal) Phil. 2:2 - Paul prays that Christians be of the same mind, of one accord. This is why Paul went to Jerusalem.

That would be nice. Unfortunately, the Pope, the papacy, Sacred Tradition, and the filoique are kinda in the way.

We see here an authoritative Church

On whose authority? Where does Peter tell us of an authoritative successor?

 

[steve_b]

These are RCC assumptions and are not given. You even acknowledge below that there are multiple sees.

They are NOT assumptions. They ARE a given. Now since you think they are assumptions, and NOT fact, you need to prove that.

As for sees. that is the name of the chair of the bishop. ALL bishops have sees. Only ONE see is the see of Peter. That’s Rome.
M:

Thank you for acknowledging that there are multiple sees in the early Church. Now, go read Acts and tell me which church was created first, and which churches existed in Acts 15.

There is only ONE Church. The one Jesus started and promised to build, and gave all His promises to.

It is worldwide but ONE Church. Jesus made Peter head apostle, gave him alone, the keys of the kingdom, therefore, Peter is head of Our Lord’s Church worldwide…His see is Rome, and his office another has succeeded for 2000 years.

Now Re: the book of Acts, what is it you’re trying to prove? Peter went to Antioch. He also went to Rome.

Acts 28: (from the Protestant NIV)

Paul’s Arrival at Rome

"11 After three months we put out to sea in a ship that had wintered in the island—it was an Alexandrian ship with the figurehead of the twin gods Castor and Pollux. 12 We put in at Syracuse and stayed there three days. 13 From there we set sail and arrived at Rhegium. The next day the south wind came up, and on the following day we reached Puteoli. 14 There we found some brothers and sisters who invited us to spend a week with them.* And so we came to Rome. 15 The brothers and sisters there* had heard that we were coming, and they traveled as far as the Forum of Appius and the Three Taverns to meet us. At the sight of these people Paul thanked God and was encouraged. 16 When we got to Rome, Paul was allowed to live by himself, with a soldier to guard him. "

As you can see, the Church of Rome is already there at this writing, AND that Paul’s letter to the Church of Rome (book of Romans) precedes Paul’s going to Rome. This section of Acts obviously described a time period after Paul wrote the book of Romans.

To prove the point,

[Rm 1:7…] from the Protestant NIV

" 7 To all in Rome who are loved by God and called to be his holy people:

Grace and peace to you from God our Father and from the Lord Jesus Christ.

Paul’s Longing to Visit Rome

8 First, I thank my God through Jesus Christ for all of you, because your faith is being reported all over the world. 9 God, whom I serve in my spirit in preaching the gospel of his Son, is my witness how constantly I remember you 10 in my prayers at all times; and I pray that now at last by God’s will the way may be opened for me to come to you."

Obviously the Church of Rome is already there at Paul’s writing of Romans.

So what is it that you are trying to prove?
M:

Well, those are nice RCC commentaries and interpretations…

You should learn from them.

 

[Odell]

So, you’re admitting that the Church has not always been the Roman Church. That’s a good start.

No one here is saying the Church started in Rome. We are saying that it started Catholic. So there is no need to start here.

According to you… I’m guessing that our EO friends would say otherwise.

Who are our EO friends? What is EO rather?

Funny how the RCC replicated all the other Eastern Churches after you excommunicated each other.

Some have never been out of communion with Rome others have been brought back into communion.

Right before James made the final judgment and ruling?

Actually Peter stood up after much debate and says “why are you now putting God to the test…” After they all fell silent James reiterates simply what Paul and Peter… said before him. He puts his two cents in kind of like you are doing except you have no authority.

And take a closer look at the role of James in the council. James’s words (verse 19) “my judgment is” (RSV) translate the Greek verb krino. In Acts 13:46; 16:15; 26:8, the verb is used to denote expression of an opinion.

Actually, you see apostles who are strugging to answer a tough question regarding Gentiles.

How did they solve this matter? Did not Paul seek the apostles?

[QUOT]And, in Galatians 2, Paul had to stop Peter from teaching error to the Galatians.

Acts 10:34-48, 11:1-18 - Peter is first to teach about salvation for all (Jews and Gentiles).

Paul is contending against the Judaizers, who taught that the Mosaic ceremonial laws, including circumcision and the dietary laws, were still in force. But notice that in the preceding ten verses (Gal. 2:1-10) Paul goes to great lengths to assure his readers that he and Peter saw eye to eye on this issue.

(Notice, by the way, that throughout these chapters Paul refers to Simon Peter as “Cephas”–the transliteration of the Aramaic “Rock”–in recognition of the unshakeable doctrinal steadfastness conferred upon Peter by our Lord in Matthew 16:18.)

The problem at Antioch arose when Peter acted in a manner inconsistent with his creed. It was not a matter of doctrinal error, but hypocrisy (the very Greek word Paul uses in verse 13), which means not practicing what one preaches. If Peter’s drawing back from fellowship with non-kosher-eating Gentiles had stemmed from a faulty theology, he could not have been indicted by Paul as being guilty of hypocrisy.

Even in his very rebuke of Peter, Paul explicitly testifies to their doctrinal agreement: “We who are Jews by birth…we [you and I, Cephas] know that a man is not justified by such Mosaic ceremonies” (Gal. 2:15-16).

And no Roman church there at all…

But an authoritative visible Church was

Well, when Peter was confronted with his own death, and wrote 2 Peter, he left only one thing to cling to when false teachers would arise, and that was the writings of the prophets and the disciples who saw Jesus’ glory. No successor. No magesterium. Just the writings.

So you are telling me we don’t have to honor appointed priest? 1 Tim. 5:17 - Paul charges the members of the Church to honor the appointed elders (“priests”) of the Church.

Heb. 13:7,17 - Paul charges the members of the Church to remember and obey their leaders who have authority over their souls

You telling me you have no one to obey?

Magesterium is teaching authority and that’s biblical.

Well, they had to meet somewhere… and it seems pretty important that they all see James, who would make the ruling… and he was in Jerusalem…

How ever you interpret the verse the point is they meet somewhere there was no divisions and there was a teaching authority. Who cares if the place they meet moves. I think they have the authority to meet where they please.

That would be nice. Unfortunately, the Pope, the papacy, Sacred Tradition, and the filoique are kinda in the way.

Actually those in the Catholic church are one we all believe the same. Seems to me we have exactly what Paul is praying for. Protestants on the other hand are not one in mind.

On whose authority? Where does Peter tell us of an authoritative successor?

Passing on an “inheritance”; 1 Tim 1:2, 2 Tim 1:2, 2:1; 1 Tim 1:18, Titus 1:4, 1 Cor 4:17

Apostolic authority is passed on; 2 Tim 1:13-14, 2 Tim 2:2, Titus 1:5-7, 1 Tim 1:3, 4:11-13

Authority passed on by “laying on of hands”; 2 Tim 1:6, 1 Tim 1:18, 4:14, 5:22

 

[Bluegoat]

Well that should not be hard to do. Let’s see for example. who found your church? when?
whose authority?

The CC has been here for 2000 years. how about yours? protestants did not exist before the Bible was printed, do you see the connection here? do you believe that people should use the Bible to get authority to build their own belief system. Did Jesus build a Church?
can you prove to me that hte Apostles tought anything differen from each other? did you read how St Paul describes the Church?

Does Jesus intend that people teach diferent things about Him? where is the Truth?

In Isaiah, God says: "in those days, I will set up a new type of Sacrifice, a clean and unbloody Sacrifice. He also says, from East to West, a new Sacrifice will be offered in my name, everyday, from sun up to sundown. I dont know the exactly words, so I am just writing what I remember. where do you think that this has been fulfilled? who performs sacrifce in the OT? So, if it s a sacrifice, then only priests can offer sacrifice. It was stablised by God in the OT and so it is with the NT. protestants cannot change what God has ordained.

You are making assertions about the CC, but you are not actually making any arguments. You are asking reasonable questions, but to show the CC is what it claims, you have to give some convincing answers.

For example, you say the CC is the only Church that has been around for 2000 years. The EO and the OO both claim that as well, and say the others left the Church ( though they are not so silly as to say they have no history). The Anglicans claim to be a catholic institution with apostolic succession, and there has been a church in England as long as or longer than in Rome. They would say their history is their own, and alsoshared with the rest of the Western Church. And the Protestant Reformers (the Lutherans and the radical reformers) thought that they were the descendants of the 2000 year old Church, and that the “Catholics” had apostatized, at least after Trent.

All of these groups believe in a big-C Church, and do not allow individual interpretation, and are sacramental. But you haven’t actually shown that those things are required, or what precisily they mean.

If it were easy, and obvious, do you think it would be the case that many different major Christian groups would contain numerous holy, educated, very smart people? And yet we know that is true. While not a logical argument, that should be a clue that maybe it isn’t a simple and easy question. And if you say it is, people will tend to think you don’t really know what you are talking about.

Also, you shouldn’t try to argue that the CC must be the real Church because only they have real priests. Non-Catholics don’t think they only have real priests. They generally think their own priests (whatever they mean by that) are just fine. You have to convince them that the CC is really the True Church first to convince them it alone has real priests.

 

[guanophore]

Funny how the RCC replicated all the other Eastern Churches after you excommunicated each other.

What does this mean?

Right before James made the final judgment and ruling?

This was most appropriate. Since James was the shepherd over the Judiazers that were troubling the flock, it was his reponsibility to correct them. He received correction from Peter, and then acted to inform and guide the flock under his charge.

Actually, you see apostles who are strugging to answer a tough question regarding Gentiles.

Yes, but they are not struggling by themselves.

This is now all the infallible decisions are made by the Church.

And, in Galatians 2, Paul had to stop Peter from teaching error to the Galatians.

No, he had to stop Peter from behaving hypocritically. If Peter did not have the right teaching, then he would not be a hypocrite for not following it, would he? He was not acting in accordance with what had been revealed to HIm by God, and what he in turn revealed to the Church.

It was the Judiazers originating with James, who had already accepted his correction, with whom Peter fell into hypocrisy.

Gal 2:12
12 For before certain men came from James,

And no Roman church there at all…

How is this relevant?

At the time, the Apostles were still in Judea.

Well, when Peter was confronted with his own death, and wrote 2 Peter, he left only one thing to cling to when false teachers would arise, and that was the writings of the prophets and the disciples who saw Jesus’ glory. No successor. No magesterium. Just the writings.

I wonder why it is so important to you that you believe this?

What would happen if you had to admit that Peter did ordain successors that acted with his authority?

What would have to change if you came to accept that Jesus did, indeed, install a teaching authority over His flock?

Well, they had to meet somewhere... and it seems pretty important that they all see James, who would make the ruling.. and he was in Jerusalem...

Yes, because James, and the people that came from his jurisdiction were the source of the problem.

That would be nice. Unfortunately, the Pope, the papacy, Sacred Tradition, and the filoique are kinda in the way.

Whatever barriers you have erected against these things can be healed by Christ.

On whose authority?  Where does Peter tell us of an authoritative successor?

All the Apostles ordained authoritative successors. There is a line of Bishops emanting from Syria from Peter that predates the line in Rome.

The bishops acted with the authority of the Apostles, who acted with the authority of Christ. This is what the early church believed and taught, and those that retain the Apostolic faith still do so today.

 

[pjcsisabel]

Basically, catholic means universal, referring to the universal church. When we say Catholic, we refer to the Catholic Church itself. Usually, “Roman” is added before Catholic to distinguish it from the Eastern Catholics, which of course are also in full communion with Rome. So when we say Roman Catholic it only means that its about the Western or Latin rite of Catholicism. But generally, the term “Catholic Church” refers to the entire Catholic Church, Eastern and Western rite.

 

[ActuallyAquinas]

The Anglicans claim to be a catholic institution with apostolic succession, and there has been a church in England as long as or longer than in Rome.

Did you really say that there has been a Church in England as long as or longer than in Rome?

That is a blatant ignorance of history.

 

[guanophore]

Did you really say that there has been a Church in England as long as or longer than in Rome?

That is a blatant ignorance of history.

Welcom to the thread, Actually. You are new here, so you don’t know what a great error you have made with regard to Bluegoat, whose knowledge of Church history makes your own look about as small as what you can fit on your little pinky.

It appears to be you that is suffering from a blatant ignorance of history. Glad you are here. If you read the posts and follow the reading recommendations, this will get corrected.

 

[chuckfrmvalyfrg]

[You are making assertions about the CC, but you are not actually making any arguments. You are asking reasonable questions, but to show the CC is what it claims, you have to give some convincing answers.

For example, you say the CC is the only Church that has been around for 2000 years. The EO and the OO both claim that as well, and say the others left the Church ( though they are not so silly as to say they have no history). The Anglicans claim to be a catholic institution with apostolic succession, and there has been a church in England as long as or longer than in Rome. They would say their history is their own, and alsoshared with the rest of the Western Church. And the Protestant Reformers (the Lutherans and the radical reformers) thought that they were the descendants of the 2000 year old Church, and that the “Catholics” had apostatized, at least after Trent.

All of these groups believe in a big-C Church, and do not allow individual interpretation, and are sacramental. But you haven’t actually shown that those things are required, or what precisily they mean.

If it were easy, and obvious, do you think it would be the case that many different major Christian groups would contain numerous holy, educated, very smart people? And yet we know that is true. While not a logical argument, that should be a clue that maybe it isn’t a simple and easy question. And if you say it is, people will tend to think you don’t really know what you are talking about.

Also, you shouldn’t try to argue that the CC must be the real Church because only they have real priests. Non-Catholics don’t think they only have real priests. They generally think their own priests (whatever they mean by that) are just fine. You have to convince them that the CC is really the True Church first to convince them it alone has real priests.]

If you want to be convinced , why don’t you just read John Henry Newman ? He’s done about as good a job as anyone in the last 150 years of covering this ground and determining which Christian Church can trace it’s roots back to Christ and the Apostles .