I am a Protestant I don't think Protestant Christianity is true?

[QuickCat]

I am a Protestant I don’t think Protestant Christianity is true I am trying to decide between Roman Catholic Christianity and or Eastern Orthodox Christianity how do I decide thank you ?

Easy! Get into Biblical Christianity! Study Paul’s epistles. 1 Cor. 15:1-4; Col. 2:8-10; Ephesians 1:13; 2:8-10; 2 Cor. 5:16-21. Grace and Peace, QC

 

[mjakemccoy]

It’s fairly uncontroversial that there was no monarchical episcopate in Rome until about the mid 2nd century, so these lists of successors are quite anachronistic.

I would argue that Irenaeus’ claim would create controversy due to the fact he is challenging the Gnostic’s claim of Apostolic Succession. Not only does he deny their claim, but affirms his own faith by claiming to know the descendants of the Apostles first hand and none of them as ever being Gnostics, and the only town he bothers to mention to prove his claim was that of Rome, descending from Peter. I do not contend or challenge that there was little historical record before this point. That is why I mentioned the Roman Persecutions. Before Gnosticism there was little challenge to the notion of the authority of the Apostles and their descedents, so their was little reason to divulge into that in great lengths at that time.

But I think both of us have to look at Irenaeus’ contributions to our faith and to both of our Bibles and ask was the Holy Spirit with this man? There are certainly legitimate claims to challenge the papacy, but there are legitimate claims and arguments against Jesus Christ as the Messiah, and certainly more as to the compilation of the Bible. What shall men do with these doubts? At some point it boils down to faith. Did Christ leave a Church founded on the rock of Peter, shepherded by the Holy Spirit, that the gates of the netherworld would not prevail against, or was our Lord mistaken? This is the BIG question, do we trust God, are we humble enough to accept the men he sent forth “as the Father had sent Him”? Certainly the Apostle’s weren’t without failure, even Peter, yet Christ never took the keys from him.

Simon’s name was changed to Peter (means rock) after Peter recognized Jesus as the Messiah, Immediately following changing Simon’s name Christ stated that “upon this rock I will build my church, and the gates of the netherworld shall not prevail against it”, then he was immediately given the keys to the Kingdom. This was no small gesture for a Jew. A covenant was made when Simon’s name was changed (like Abram, Jacob, etc.). If you’re not familiar with Jewish tradition, when the king was away his master of the palace held the keys until the king returned, using the keys in the king’s stead. Another chap by the name of Isaiah spoke of these keys (ch. 22) which remarkably resembles what Christ mentioned in Matthew ch. 16. This is strong Scriptural evidence demonstrating a single authority, one rock was mentioned and only one Apostle was given keys. These aren’t the words of Peter, or Paul, but of Christ as told by Matthew. Perhaps Matthew was mistaken?

Buddha left a set of philosophies, Muhammad wrote the Quran (for it to be legitimate it has to be written in the same language Muhammad wrote it in since Muhammad claimed to be the “messenger of God”), while Christ left no writings. He left us a church. Most of the New Testament letters were written after the church had been evangelizing for decades. The Bible wasn’t really established until the 4th century. The Church preceded the Bible, and had the authority to claim it was the inspired inerrant word of God. I guess Jesus had a great deal of faith in the Church he founded and in the Holy Spirit’s ability to keep an eye on things after Christ died and rose. Maybe we should too. Peace be with you and your household.

 

[Contarini]

The criterion is doctrinal unity of course, that which all members of the Church at least profess.

And in what way do canonical Orthodox jurisdictions lack doctrinal unity?

You obviously do not mean that there are no theological disagreements, since such disagreements exist in spades in the Catholic Church.

It seems to me that we can only speak of doctrinal disunity between two religious bodies if one of them says to the other, “you cannot join/serve as clergy/participate in some other way because your church holds to belief X and our church holds that belief to be false.”

This is, if anything, likelier to be true between Roman and Eastern Catholic churches, or even among Catholic religious orders, than among Orthodox jurisdictions.

What doctrinal belief divides canonical Orthodox jurisdictions, being formally taught by one and denied by another?

Edwin

 

[paul_c]

And in what way do canonical Orthodox jurisdictions lack doctrinal unity?

You obviously do not mean that there are no theological disagreements, since such disagreements exist in spades in the Catholic Church.

It seems to me that we can only speak of doctrinal disunity between two religious bodies if one of them says to the other, “you cannot join/serve as clergy/participate in some other way because your church holds to belief X and our church holds that belief to be false.”

This is, if anything, likelier to be true between Roman and Eastern Catholic churches, or even among Catholic religious orders, than among Orthodox jurisdictions.

What doctrinal belief divides canonical Orthodox jurisdictions, being formally taught by one and denied by another?

Edwin

You are right that most of the self proclaimed orthodox churches are in doctrinal unity, in that they recognize each others sacraments as valid. But your claim that there is disunity between the 22 Catholic Churches (including the 21 Eastern Catholic Churches) or between Religious orders is wrong. They are all in union with the Pope and that Pope, is working very hard to bring the Orthodox and Catholic faiths back together. Indeed, there is little other than politics separating us. As you know from being Episcopalian, the Pope is welcoming many Anglicans back into the Church as well.

 

[Michael_J_Lord]

Read Bible history.I would suggest ‘How we got the Bible’ by Henry Graham.This is a real eye opener.Peace.

 

[guanophore]

I am a Protestant I don’t think Protestant Christianity is true I am trying to decide between Roman Catholic Christianity and or Eastern Orthodox Christianity how do I decide thank you ?

What makes you think that Protestant Christianity is not true?

 

[passer_by]

As one Missourian to another, I will confide to you that I don’t know the answer to your question. But it is something about which I have given considerable thought since one of my adult daughters is very attracted to Eastern Catholicism and, frankly, I find it attractive in many ways myself. I would not personally consider Orthodoxy for a number of reasons; among them the close identification with states and ethnicity, their divisions over what I perceive as very little and the hostility of one toward another.

But my main reason for remaining “Latin” (as opposed to even Eastern Catholicism) is that,in blood and bone I AM a Latin; by heritage, by culture, and by inclination.

What does that mean? Well, certainly all my forbears were Latin Catholics; Irish, Italian and Alsatian. All of those groups are culturally “Roman” in the sense that their languages, their modes of expression, their ways of thinking are all far more influenced by the Latin heritage than by anything else. Our very street layouts, our general preference for being clean-shaved and with short hair, our language, our architecture, our laws and concepts of what laws ought to be, our monetary concepts, our trade concepts, our ideas of governance, our admiration for efficient engineering and technical proficiency, our practicality, our ways of reasoning, all are Latin to the core, if one considers “Greco-Roman” ways to be Latin. And notwithstanding the “Greco” part of it, the heritage of Greece is, in a sense, no longer the heritage of the place named Greece or the Orthodoxy that arose from it. There is more of classic Greece in Edinburgh or Calgary or Kansas City now than there is in Athens.

“We Latins” have particular views of the relationship between the physical and the spiritual. Look at the interiors of churches. Latin churches, as compared to Eastern churches, are rather spare and symmetrical. (something Protestantism took to a lifeless extreme in my opinion) Our statues and paintings are lifelike and celebrate the Divine in humanness as we see humanness with our eyes. Icons in Eastern churches are not lifelike, rarely full, without perspective. They are not “what we see with our eyes”. True, those Eastern images have a very different purpose. They are “invitations” into a transcendent experience of the Divine. Eastern liturgies are mystical and mesmerizing. There is good to that, and I’m not criticizing it. “Latin” liturgies are logical, literal, and direct. Eastern liturgies are aclutter and half hidden by iconastasis. Latin liturgies are out in the open, plain to see and intended to be seen. Again, not putting the Easterners down, but I am more comfortable worshipping in the latter than in the former.

Even the liturgical garments. You look at the Latin vestments; simple even when most ornate; very Roman, actually rather functional. You look at Eastern vestments; ornate beyond belief, beautiful but to a Westerner like me, well, just a bit too much.

Frankly, while I admire much in the Eastern churches, I know what I am. I know I cannot truly ever be anything but a “Latin” person, in every way there is to be one. I can study Eastern mysticism. But I can also study Western mysticism, and it’s easier for me to relate to the latter than to the former. I can study Western philosphy and theology and “get it” readily. Eastern writings just make my mind sort of swirl.

So, while I would not discourage you from seeking your home in Eastern Catholicism, I will caution that it’s, well, very Eastern, and might not quite fit the way your mind works. Westerners, like Easterners, have had centuries of a particular cultural way of looking at things, and we should not discount the effect it has had on us.

That was a really well written answer! Thank you for sharing!

 

[Contarini]

You are right that most of the self proclaimed orthodox churches are in doctrinal unity, in that they recognize each others sacraments as valid. But your claim that there is disunity between the 22 Catholic Churches (including the 21 Eastern Catholic Churches) or between Religious orders is wrong. They are all in union with the Pope and that Pope, is working very hard to bring the Orthodox and Catholic faiths back together. Indeed, there is little other than politics separating us. As you know from being Episcopalian, the Pope is welcoming many Anglicans back into the Church as well.

I was not claiming that there is doctrinal disunity. What I said is that if anything one could make a better case for such disunity between Latin and Eastern Catholics than between, say, Greek and Russian Orthodox. There are big differences in theology and spirituality, and I have encountered Byzantine Catholics online who say that they don’t have to believe in the Immaculate Conception or papal infallibility or the Filioque. The Melkites have officially proclaimed that they believe everything the Orthodox believe while remaining in communion with Rome. (I don’t say this as a criticism, since that sounds like the perfect theological position to me!)

I am quite willing to grant that these things do not add up to doctrinal disunity. But then, a fortiori there is no doctrinal disunity among the Orthodox.

Jurisdictionally, however, there is disunity within both Communions, particularly in the U.S. The difference is that the Orthodox see this as a problem, while Catholics seem to think it’s a cause for pride (“Look–we aren’t just Roman Catholics–we have 20+ sui juris churches,” etc.).

It seems to me that if we take the early Church’s understanding of Catholic unity seriously (and if we don’t, I see no reason for us Protestants not to continue on our merry disunified way), then there are two basic principles that must be upheld:

1. All baptized Christians within one place should be united around one bishop; and
2. All the bishops throughout the world should be in communion with each other.

Catholics, for some reason, seem to have decided that only the second principle matters.

I understand the sensitive issues that have led to the Latin/Eastern jurisdictional divisions in places like the U.S. But good diplomacy is not necessarily good ecclesiology, and there are ways of protecting the concerns of Eastern Catholics without violating a basic principle of historic Catholic polity.

Edwin

 

[paul_c]

I was not claiming that there is doctrinal disunity. What I said is that if anything one could make a better case for such disunity between Latin and Eastern Catholics than between, say, Greek and Russian Orthodox. There are big differences in theology and spirituality, and I have encountered Byzantine Catholics online who say that they don’t have to believe in the Immaculate Conception or papal infallibility or the Filioque. The Melkites have officially proclaimed that they believe everything the Orthodox believe while remaining in communion with Rome. (I don’t say this as a criticism, since that sounds like the perfect theological position to me!)

I am quite willing to grant that these things do not add up to doctrinal disunity. But then, a fortiori there is no doctrinal disunity among the Orthodox.

Jurisdictionally, however, there is disunity within both Communions, particularly in the U.S. The difference is that the Orthodox see this as a problem, while Catholics seem to think it’s a cause for pride (“Look–we aren’t just Roman Catholics–we have 20+ sui juris churches,” etc.).

It seems to me that if we take the early Church’s understanding of Catholic unity seriously (and if we don’t, I see no reason for us Protestants not to continue on our merry disunified way), then there are two basic principles that must be upheld:

1. All baptized Christians within one place should be united around one bishop; and
2. All the bishops throughout the world should be in communion with each other.

Catholics, for some reason, seem to have decided that only the second principle matters.

I understand the sensitive issues that have led to the Latin/Eastern jurisdictional divisions in places like the U.S. But good diplomacy is not necessarily good ecclesiology, and there are ways of protecting the concerns of Eastern Catholics without violating a basic principle of historic Catholic polity.

Edwin

Edwin, For Catholics, it comes down to the differences in Church Doctrine (what it believes) and Church Practice (how it teaches those beliefs to the people). Church Doctrine are eternal truths that can never change. These must be held to be true by all Catholics. Church practices, however, can change over time and distance because how the truth is taught most effectively depends on Culture and innovation. For instance, Mass in english would not have been possible in the 3rd century when the language did not exist, yet it is now important to bringing the truth to the English speaking population. Similarly, the 21 eastern rites and in fact, the new Anglican ordinate also represent differences in church practices but not in church doctrine. These Churches bring the same doctrinal truths to their congregations in different, yet compatible ways. This is a sign of the universality of the church. Their hierarchies are all similar by the way and they all are subject to the Pope.

By the way, why does proximity matter so much to you in church governance? Surely you recognize that commonality and comfort is not a function of where you live.

 

[Contarini]

Edwin, For Catholics, it comes down to the differences in Church Doctrine (what it believes) and Church Practice.

You can’t draw a neat line between the two. I recognize that no doctrine is being explicitly denied in the “sui juris” practice, but the practice does not match Sacred Tradition and poorly expresses the Church’s teaching. Therefore it should be reformed.

By the way, why does proximity matter so much to you in church governance? Surely you recognize that commonality and comfort is not a function of where you live.

I’m not sure what you mean by that second sentence. I hope you aren’t suggesting that one should attend a local church based on how much one has in common with other members or on how comfortable one feels there. That is simply giving the fort away to the Protestants. That’s not a church at all–it’s a club.

Geographical proximity is important because, well, we’re talking about the “local” church, and the “local” church is simply the expression of the Catholic Church in a particular place. If I go to one church and my next-door neighbor goes to another one, both of us passing still other churches along the road, then the Church in our locality is divided. Period.

I could see an argument for an ecclesial equivalent of “busing” as a way of overcoming our divisions. I wouldn’t push such a practice, but I wouldn’t be upset with it if it existed. However, “choosing” a parish almost inevitably turns into a sacrifice to the abominable idols of “commonality and comfort.”

The Church, by definition, is a body that unites all believers. The local Church unites all believers in a particular place. If that is not at least in principle what a particular community of Christians is trying to do, then it makes no sense to call it a church at all.

Edwin

 

[paul_c]

You can’t draw a neat line between the two. I recognize that no doctrine is being explicitly denied in the “sui juris” practice, but the practice does not match Sacred Tradition and poorly expresses the Church’s teaching. Therefore it should be reformed.

Edwin, you must certainly can draw a line between what is taugth and how it is taugth. I don’t know what you mean by Sui Juris.practice. I’'ve never heard of it, but I looked it up and it seems to imply self jurisdiction. That is not what the 22 churches in communion with Rome are. They are all under the jurisdiction of the Pope. And the fact that there are 22 churches is because the Universal church recognizes that from the ealiest time, the individual churches had their own faith traditions. These are allowed to continue as long as they don’t effect Church doctrine.

I’m not sure what you mean by that second sentence. I hope you aren’t suggesting that one should attend a local church based on how much one has in common with other members or on how comfortable one feels there. That is simply giving the fort away to the Protestants. That’s not a church at all–it’s a club.

Geographical proximity is important because, well, we’re talking about the “local” church, and the “local” church is simply the expression of the Catholic Church in a particular place. If I go to one church and my next-door neighbor goes to another one, both of us passing still other churches along the road, then the Church in our locality is divided. Period.

I could see an argument for an ecclesial equivalent of “busing” as a way of overcoming our divisions. I wouldn’t push such a practice, but I wouldn’t be upset with it if it existed. However, “choosing” a parish almost inevitably turns into a sacrifice to the abominable idols of “commonality and comfort.”

The Church, by definition, is a body that unites all believers. The local Church unites all believers in a particular place. If that is not at least in principle what a particular community of Christians is trying to do, then it makes no sense to call it a church at all.

Edwin

This is not about church shopping. That’s a fools errand based on trying to find the church that agrees with yourr own point of view rather than the one that actually teaches the truth. Its actually about allowing people to continue on in thier own faith traditions as long as they teach the Truth. For instance, the Anglican communion that is rejoining the Catholic Church through Pope Benedict’s recently announced Anglican Ordinariate are allowed to retain elements of the Anglican liturgy that are consistent with Catholic teaching. In this way Church practice does not become an impediment to Anglican’s coming into communion with the Catholic Church as long as they agree to Catholic doctrine. How it is taught should never be an impediment to what is taught.

 

[Contarini]

Edwin, you must certainly can draw a line between what is taugth and how it is taugth.

What I said is that you can’t draw a “neat” line. Obviously there is a distinction, but the line is fuzzy.

I don’t know what you mean by Sui Juris.practice. I’'ve never heard of it, but I looked it up and it seems to imply self jurisdiction.

You can find it discussed in the Code of Canon Law of the Oriental Churches.

And the fact that there are 22 churches is because the Universal church recognizes that from the ealiest time, the individual churches had their own faith traditions.  These are allowed to continue as long as they don't effect Church doctrine.

Surely you mean “violate.” Obviously the rich theological and liturgical diversity of the Catholic Church “affects Church doctrine.”

Originally these divisions were geographical–churches in different places had distinct traditions, and obviously that’s as it should be. The problem with the present system of overlapping jurisdictions is that it segregates the different traditions so that they don’t challenge and shape each other. It’s a system created to protect the Eastern Churches from Latinization. I understand that. But it’s still ecclesiologically flawed and hinders the full expression of the Catholicity of the Church.

For instance, in the Research Triangle of North Carolina, in the 90s, many conservative Latin Catholics attended the Byzantine parish (St. Cyril and Methodius). The priest of that parish tried to persuade me to join it. It was a refuge from what was perceived as the liberalism of the diocese. Very convenient for local conservative Catholics, but ecclesiologically counter-productive. The Catholicity of the Church means that people with different views and different traditions have to learn to live together.

Note: my example may seem hostile to conservative Catholics, but that’s so only insofar as they were quasi-schismatic in their unwillingness to participate in their local parishes. One could of course find ways in which the complex structures of the Catholic Church give liberals similar “refuges” (liberal Catholics might, for instance, choose to worship at the Newman Center at a local university rather than at their local parish). I would have been very sorry to see the wonderful liturgy at St. Cyril and Methodius messed with by local diocesan officials who thought they were enforcing the “Spirit of Vatican II” (though in my opinion, St. C & M was an excellent example of the liturgical teachings of Vatican II–the last few times I visited there, for instance, the preparation of the gifts was being done out in front of the iconostasis with participation from the congregation). Obviously, if the Catholic Church were ever to abolish the “sui juris” parallel-jurisdiction system, there would have to be protections for threatened liturgical traditions (just as there now are, increasingly, for those who want to celebrate the “Extraordinary Form” of the Latin liturgy).

This is not about church shopping. That’s a fools errand based on trying to find the church that agrees with yourr own point of view rather than the one that actually teaches the truth.

Of course, all sane and rational people (and most crazy people as well) think that their own point of view *is *the truth. So that’s not a very helpful contrast!

Of course this is about church shopping. The person who first seriously pressed on me the claims of the Catholic Church drove from Durham to Cary (about a 45-minute drive) to attend a Byzantine parish, because he didn’t like any of the parishes in Durham. That’s obviously “church shopping.” Of course he and his wife went to the Byzantine parish because he thought it proclaimed the truth more clearly and celebrated the liturgy more reverently. Or, in other words, because it agreed better with his point of view (see the previous paragraph).

I didn’t like the Catholicism found in the local parish in Durham either–that’s one of the reasons I dropped out of RCIA and went back to the Episcopal Church. I was more conservative then than I am now, but I think that parish would still probably drive me up the wall both theologically and liturgically. But we need to be willing to learn from those with whom we disagree.

Its actually about allowing people to continue on in thier own faith traditions as long as they teach the Truth. For instance, the Anglican communion that is rejoining the Catholic Church through Pope Benedict’s recently announced Anglican Ordinariate are allowed to retain elements of the Anglican liturgy that are consistent with Catholic teaching. In this way Church practice does not become an impediment to Anglican’s coming into communion with the Catholic Church as long as they agree to Catholic doctrine.

I appreciate the Holy Father’s generosity very much–indeed, it has added one more burden on my conscience.

However, segregating Anglicans from other Catholics isn’t the way to bring the riches of Anglicanism into Catholicism, or (far more significantly) the way to provide Anglicans with the riches of Catholicism. As an Anglican who finds much about Catholic liturgy and practice like nails on a chalkboard, I think that we need to mortify our connoisseurish attitude to the Church by submitting ourselves to a community of people who don’t do things the way we consider “proper.” And similarly, Catholic parishes need an infusion of people who are used to participating actively in the liturgy, interacting personally with the priest, praying the liturgy of the hours on a regular basis, etc. (not suggesting that only Anglicans do these things, of course).

Edwin

 

[Arizona_Samson]

I am a Protestant I don’t think Protestant Christianity is true

Greetings MC! How ironic someone from the “show me” state would make such a statement.

Exactly what is it about biblical Christianity that you find to be false?

 

[Contarini]

Greetings MC! How ironic thatsomeone from the “show me” state would make such a statement.

What exactly is it about biblical Christianity that you find false?

The OP said “Protestant Christianity.”

This is a loaded question.

Edwin

 

[paul_c]

Quote:
Originally Posted by paul c
Edwin, you must certainly can draw a line between what is taugth and how it is taugth.

perhaps in some cases but in most cases its pretty well understood where the line is.

Quote:

I don’t know what you mean by Sui Juris.practice. I’'ve never heard of it, but I looked it up and it seems to imply self jurisdiction.

Thank you for the link It was written sui IURIS so that made my search easier

And the fact that there are 22 churches is because the Universal church recognizes that from the ealiest time, the individual churches had their own faith traditions. These are allowed to continue as long as they don’t effect Church doctrine

How much did you read that link you send me? Did you get to canon 32:

Canon 32

1. No one can validly transfer to another Church sui iuris

without the consent of the Apostolic See. 2. In the case of

Christian faithful of an eparchy of a certain Church sui iuris

who petition to transfer to another Church sui iuris which has

its own eparchy in the same territory, this consent of the Apostolic See is presumed, provided that the eparchial bishops of

both eparchies consent to the transfer in writing.

These churches are meant to administer to those born into them. They move to different jurisdictions (like North Carolina) to administer to those that migrated there. They are not meant to be choices for people to make.

Quote:
This is not about church shopping. That’s a fools errand based on trying to find the church that agrees with yourr own point of view rather than the one that actually teaches the truth.

The difference as I see it is if you believe a Church is truly from God, you will approach it differently. When you see something that you don’t think makes sense in this situation, you would ask yourself what you are missing rather than assume the church was wrong.

 

[paul_c]

Of course this is about church shopping. The person who first seriously pressed on me the claims of the Catholic Church drove from Durham to Cary (about a 45-minute drive) to attend a Byzantine parish, because he didn’t like any of the parishes in Durham. That’s obviously “church shopping.” Of course he and his wife went to the Byzantine parish because he thought it proclaimed the truth more clearly and celebrated the liturgy more reverently. Or, in other words, because it agreed better with his point of view (see the previous paragraph).

Well, your friend was not following the spirit of the Catholic Canon as shown above in canon 32.

I didn’t like the Catholicism found in the local parish in Durham either–that’s one of the reasons I dropped out of RCIA and went back to the Episcopal Church. I was more conservative then than I am now, but I think that parish would still probably drive me up the wall both theologically and liturgically. But we need to be willing to learn from those with whom we disagree.

For the most part, the Catholic Church is very consistent in its theology and liturgy from place to place (speaking as someone who has travelled to a lot of places)… On rare occaisions, I have encountered deviating parishes who definitely didn’t follow the litrugical rubrics. This is typically a problem with a priest that is solved with episcopal action after being alerted by the parishioners.

I appreciate the Holy Father’s generosity very much–indeed, it has added one more burden on my conscience.

I’m sure you will ultimately make the right decision.

However, segregating Anglicans from other Catholics isn’t the way to bring the riches of Anglicanism into Catholicism, or (far more significantly) the way to provide Anglicans with the riches of Catholicism. As an Anglican who finds much about Catholic liturgy and practice like nails on a chalkboard, I think that we need to mortify our connoisseurish attitude to the Church by submitting ourselves to a community of people who don’t do things the way we consider “proper.” And similarly, Catholic parishes need an infusion of people who are used to participating actively in the liturgy, interacting personally with the priest, praying the liturgy of the hours on a regular basis, etc. (not suggesting that only Anglicans do these things, of course).

There are many devout CAtholics in every parish that go to daily mass, adore the eucharist, participate actively in the liturgy and interact with the priests.

 

[Elvis_Guy]

All of this talk of disunity is disturbing, and should be to Christians, for Christ said “a house divided cannot stand”. But Greek Orthodoxy and Rome are in real serious discussions right now about working toward full communion. So let’s keep praying for unity. Some history might be important in deciding between Roman Catholic and Greek Orthodox.

Christ founded his Church on Peter, who was the first bishop of Rome; Pope. When the Roman Empire split between east and west, there were 2 differing capitals, Rome and Constantinople. One spoke greek the other latin, over centuries disagreements grew. But Constantinople always acknowledged submission to Rome until the great schism in 1054. You can join a 1000 year old church, or a 2,000 year old one that Christ founded. Certainly Roman Catholics have our problems, but history should tell us starting new churches doesn’t solve problems. If there’s problems with the Church Christ started who are any of us to start new churches? Our duty is to get to Rome and sort it out. We are called to be one Body, so brothers let’s get back in full communion.

Right on Cat!

 

[Arizona_Samson]

The OP said “Protestant Christianity.”

This is a loaded question.

Edwin

Yes, biblical Christianity.

The difference as I see it is if you believe a Church is truly from God, you will approach it differently. When you see something that you don’t think makes sense in this situation, you would ask yourself what you are missing rather than assume the church was wrong.

Unfortunately our friends who are based in Salt Lake City often offer a similar answer.

Which is why we are commanded to “Test everything; hold fast what is good” (1 Thess 5:21)

We do this just as the Bereans did by **“Examining the Scriptures daily to see whether these things were so.” **Acts 17:11

Absolutely nothing at all which is why I am Catholic

Do you believe all of the doctrines to which you hold fast are found in the Bible?

 

[Arizona_Samson]

Did Christ leave a Church founded on the rock of Peter, shepherded by the Holy Spirit, that the gates of the netherworld would not prevail against, or was our Lord mistaken?

Or is the Catholic interpretation of the passage incorrect?

This is strong Scriptural evidence demonstrating a single authority, one rock was mentioned and only one Apostle was given keys. These aren’t the words of Peter, or Paul, but of Christ as told by Matthew. Perhaps Matthew was mistaken?

Or perhaps you’re reading things into the passage that Matthew never intended?

 

[QuickCat]

I am a Protestant I don’t think Protestant Christianity is true I am trying to decide between Roman Catholic Christianity and or Eastern Orthodox Christianity how do I decide thank you ?

Questions: Are you a saved individual? Do you know the Lord Jesus Christ as your Savior? Have you believed the gospel of salvation as stated by Paul in 1 Cor.; 15:1-4? If you can answer in the affirmative you are already a member of the Body of Christ. You were placed there by God the Holy Spirit the moment you “believed on the LORD Jesus Christ” [1 Cor. 12:13].
Grace and Peace,
QC