If the 12 apostles did not belong to the Catholic church...

[chaunceygardner]

Okay, since none of these churches (Catholic, Protestant, Orthodox) - existed in the apostolic age, the apostles must have belonged to a different church and of course that church must still exist. Please identify the church, in the world today, that the apostles belonged to?

Ignatius, a disciple of the apostle John was a catholic by the way, so wouldn’t it be safe to say that John belonged to the CC?

Hi Joe. Your question sounds somewhat familiar; oh yes, we had this discussion in an earlier thread. The honest and direct answer is that the church that the apostles belonged to that still exists today is Judaism. They did not “belong” to any other church that exists today. All “Christian” churches that are around today did not exist at that time.

I don’t think you are surprised at my answer.

Peace and blessings to you.

 

[joe370]

Hey Jon…

JonNC;7168252]Indeed it is, Joe, and as it is part of His Church, the gates of Hell can never prevail over it, despite the differences and divisions within the Church Militant.

It seems to me that Jesus established one visible church (albeit a very small church) - with visible leaders endowed with the infallible holy spirit to guide these very fallible leaders into all truth and promised to be with His visible church until the end of time, and for me apostolic succession is the key to the preservation of truth, but I could be wrong, but it just feels really right. .The idea of AS is undeniably evident, not only from the fact that Jesus established a Church, but from the fact that he intended his Church to endure until the end of time as expressly stated: “I shall be with you all days even to the consummation of the world.” Jesus promised to remain not only with his apostles but also with all their successors until the end of time yes, no, maybe? If Christ imparted his divine authority to His apostles to continue His mission of salvation and promised to remain with His apostles until the end of time, it only stands to reason that his apostles would require successors to transfer those doctrinal truths from generation to generation, since they were inevitably going to pass away. Paul seems just as adamant about AS as he affirms to Titus when he says: *For this cause I left thee in Crete, that thou shouldest set in order the things that are wanting, and shouldest ordain elders in every city, as I also appointed thee. *(Titus 1:5 cf. also I Tim. 4:14) – Isn’t that apostolic succession? In other words, Titus, you are charged with the task of looking after Jesus’ Church and ensuring it’s preservation and edification by ordaining other ministers who can govern and teach in Jesus’ Church, those doctrines which you have received from me, and I from Christ.

Maybe I am missing something though; your thoughts friend?

Joe, maybe you can answer my question, or at least see my point: From a standpoint of Tradition

, how can one know which CC or OC is the one True Church? As for Peter, I think the entire Church Catholic is built upon his wonderful confession of faith, and the strength of his actions for that Church after the Ascension.

If Jesus meant that his church was built on the confession of Kepha then it would be a tad more difficult for me to pick one over the other. However, grammatically speaking that makes no sense to me. For example, below we can see that the adjective “this” grammatically speaking, must refer to the nearest preceding noun, which was Peter, not his declaration which occurs two verses earlier, wouldn’t you agree? When Jesus says “whatever you bind” to Peter in Mat 16:18, the Greek text used for “you” is singular. In Mat 18:18 the Greek text, the word for “you” in “whatever you bind” is plural. A few of the ECF’s did speak of Christ or of Peter’s confession as “the Rock” of Matt 16:18, and of course Jesus is the Divine rock/cornerstone. However, all of these same Church fathers also speak of Peter himself as the Rock. This was not an either or proposition for these folks.Not to mention the fact that it would conflict with all of those ECF’s that said Jesus was the rock. I’ll copy and paste some in my next post. Jon, click on the image below and tell me if you agree with the grammatical nature of the statement?

 

[Sufjon]

Hey Jon…

It seems to me that Jesus established one visible church (albeit a very small church) - with visible leaders endowed with the infallible holy spirit to guide these very fallible leaders into all truth and promised to be with His visible church until the end of time, and for me apostolic succession is the key to the preservation of truth, but I could be wrong, but it just feels really right. .The idea of AS is undeniably evident, not only from the fact that Jesus established a Church, but from the fact that he intended his Church to endure until the end of time as expressly stated: “I shall be with you all days even to the consummation of the world.” Jesus promised to remain not only with his apostles but also with all their successors until the end of time yes, no, maybe? If Christ imparted his divine authority to His apostles to continue His mission of salvation and promised to remain with His apostles until the end of time, it only stands to reason that his apostles would require successors to transfer those doctrinal truths from generation to generation, since they were inevitably going to pass away. Paul seems just as adamant about AS as he affirms to Titus when he says: *For this cause I left thee in Crete, that thou shouldest set in order the things that are wanting, and shouldest ordain elders in every city, as I also appointed thee. *(Titus 1:5 cf. also I Tim. 4:14) – Isn’t that apostolic succession? In other words, Titus, you are charged with the task of looking after Jesus’ Church and ensuring it’s preservation and edification by ordaining other ministers who can govern and teach in Jesus’ Church, those doctrines which you have received from me, and I from Christ.

Maybe I am missing something though; your thoughts friend?

If Jesus meant that his church was built on the confession of Kepha then it would be a tad more difficult for me to pick one over the other. However, grammatically speaking that makes no sense to me. For example, below we can see that the adjective “this” grammatically speaking, must refer to the nearest preceding noun, which was Peter, not his declaration which occurs two verses earlier, wouldn’t you agree? When Jesus says “whatever you bind” to Peter in Mat 16:18, the Greek text used for “you” is singular. In Mat 18:18 the Greek text, the word for “you” in “whatever you bind” is plural. A few of the ECF’s did speak of Christ or of Peter’s confession as “the Rock” of Matt 16:18, and of course Jesus is the Divine rock/cornerstone. However, all of these same Church fathers also speak of Peter himself as the Rock. This was not an either or proposition for these folks.Not to mention the fact that it would conflict with all of those ECF’s that said Jesus was the rock. I’ll copy and paste some in my next post. Jon, click on the image below and tell me if you agree with the grammatical nature of the statement?

I think McDonald’s has a copy write on that diagram Joe370.

 

[chaunceygardner]

You do realize that the Son of God and God Himself are one and the same right? Please read this article that I made last night. I have attached it to my post. It is far from being perfect but I feel that it is orthodox in nature and that it does defend the fact that Jesus is God.

This is taking us away from the original question, but the point is not what WE think Jesus was, but what the first apostles thought. Did they consider Christ one and the same as God? It certainly doesn’t appear that way, except in the Gospel of John. Even there it is somewhat ambiguous.

The question is what church the Apostles belonged to, which for our friend Joe is apparently his one big question in life. He has already answered the question for himself, but is trying to get everyone else to buy his answer. The historically accurate answer is that they could not have belonged to a church which didn’t yet exist. But Joe does not like that answer, so continues to ask the question. Unfortunately for him, the answer remains the same, no matter how many times he asks the question.

Besides the problem of there not being a Catholic, Orthodox or (obviously) Protestant church at the time of the Apostles, there is another issue which affects our view of the question: It is that the idea or definition of church is different now than it was back then. We are trying to apply our concept of “church” to a time, place and culture in which it just doesn’t work. The churches or assemblies of people who were disciples of Christ at that time were not anything like the way we think of it today. The original followers of Jesus were Jews, with Gentiles coming aboard later. As another poster said, the view of the general population was that Christians were NOT a separate church, but were a sect of Judaism. That view changed, but not until years later, after the original apostles were gone and the Christian faith became a totally separate faith.

I am not arguing that there is no connection between those apostles and the church of today, but that the church as a formal and recognized entity came into being at a later time. Let’s use an analogy from our own history. The American Colonies declared independence in 1776, but the U.S. as a country in the form that we know it today did not come about until 1789 when our Constitution went into effect. So although we were no longer subjects of England at the end of the Revolution, we were not yet the “United States of America”, the country that we are today. The process of creating and forming the church was similar.

 

[scottm]

Okay…So help me find the one true reformed church that does teach what the united church taught back in the early centuries???

Reformed church?!?
Hmmm. Does the Counter-Reformation count? Or post-Communism Eastern Europe?

To reach back to the beginning your choices are Catholic (23 varieties), Eastern Orthodox (15 self-governing varieties plus several more under them), and Coptic Orthodox. I don’t know of any other. In practice Coptic Orthodox is identical to Eastern Orthodox; due to unfortunate cultural and political misunderstandings they fell outside the larger communion. So, essentially it boils down to Catholic versus Orthodox. As between them, see post 46.

joe370:

scottm:

Duh, the gates of hell did not prevail. The Reformation happened.
What Protestant denomination were you a member of?

I’m not following you.

A question was asked about what Protestants think. I responded from the point of view of a Protestant. Dude countered with a pat Roman Catholic response. I responded back from the point of view of a Protestant.

 

[joe370]

Jon, here are some ECF quotes regarding Peter as the Rock, which I am certain you are already familiar with; you are a big church history buff like me. When I first discovered these writings I was truly floored:

Tertullian (220 A.D.):

“Was anything hid from Peter, who was called the Rock, whereon the Church was built; who obtained the keys of the Kingdom of Heaven, and the power of loosing and of binding in heaven and on earth?” (Tertullian, De Praescript Haeret).

Tertullian thereafter writes to criticize Pope Callistus I by saying …

“I now inquire into your opinions, to see whence you usurp the right for the Church. Do you presume, because the Lord said to Peter, ‘On this rock I will build my Church …[Matt 16-19]’ that the power of binding and loosing has thereby been handed over to you, that is, to every church akin to Peter? What kind of man are you, subverting and changing what was the manifest intent of the Lord *when He conferred this personally on Peter? ‘**On you,’ He says, ‘I will build my Church; and I give to you the keys’…” (Tertullian, On Modesty 21:9-10)
)
The Clementine Homilies (C. 221)

“[Simon Peter said to Simon Magus in Rome:] For you now stand in direct opposition to me, who am a firm rock, the foundation of the Church [Matt. 16:18]” (Clementine Homilies 17:19 [A.D. 221]).
St. Hippolytus (225 A.D.):

"Peter, the Rock of the Church …" (Hippolytus in S. Theophan, n. 9, Galland, ii. p. 494). “Peter, the Rock of the Faith, whom Christ our Lord called blessed, the teacher of the Church, the first disciple, he who has the Keys of the Kingdom.” (Hippolytus, Ex Fabricio, Op. Hippol. tom. ii. De Fine Mundi et de Antichristo, n. 9).
Origen (230-250 A.D.):

“See what the Lord said to Peter,** that great foundation of the Church, and most solid Rock, upon which Christ founded the Church …” **(Origen, In Exodus. Hom. v. . 4 tom. ii).

“Look at [Peter], the great foundation of the Church, that most solid of rocks, upon whom Christ built the Church [Matt. 16:18]. And what does our Lord say to him? ‘Oh you of little faith,’ he says, ‘why do you doubt?’” [Matt. 14:31] (Homilies on Exodus 5:4 [A.D. 248]).

“Upon him (Peter), as on the earth, the Church was founded.” (Origen, Ep. ad. Rom. lib. v.c. 10, tom iv.)

“Peter, upon whom is built Christ’s Church, against which the gates of hell will not prevail.” (Origen, T. iv. In Joan. Tom. v.)
St. Cyprian (246 A.D.):

“For first to Peter, upon whom He built the Church, and from whom He appointed and showed that unity should spring …” (Cyprian, Ep. lxxiiii ad Fubaian).

“God is one, and Christ is one, and the Church is one, and the Chair (of Peter) is one, by the Lord’s word, upon a Rock …” (Cyprian, Ep. xl. ad Pleb).

“There is one God and one Christ and but one episcopal chair, originally founded on Peter, by the Lord’s authority. There cannot, therefore, be set up another altar or another priesthood. Whatever any man in his rage or rashness shall appoint, in defiance of the divine institution, must be a spurious, profane and sacrilegious ordinance” (St. Cyprian, The Unity of the Catholic Church)

“Peter, also to whom the Lord commends His sheep to be fed and guarded, on whom He laid the foundation of the Church …” (Cyprian, De Habitu Virg).
St. Ephream the Syrian (350-370 A.D.):

“Simon my follower,** I have made you the foundation of the Holy Church.** I betimes called you Peter because you will support all its buildings. You are the inspector of those who will build on earth a Church for Me. If they should wish to build what is false, you, the foundation, will condemn them. You are the head and fountain from which all My teaching flows.” (Ephraem, Homilies 4:1).

“Peter, who was called Kephas, he who was captured on the sea shore, and who received testimony from the great Shepherd, that ‘Upon this Rock I will build my Church.’” (Ephraem T. iiii. Gr. De Sacred).

 

[joe370]

"That Rock which He set up that Satan might stumble thereon, Satan, on the other hand, wished to put this Rock in the way of the Lord that He might stumble upon it, when Peter said, ‘Far be it from Thee, Lord.’ [Matt 16:22-23] (Ephraem, Sermo de Transfig. Dom., Sec. IV).
St. Hilary of Poitiers (356 A.D.)

“Blessed Simon who, **after his confession of the Mystery, was set to be the foundation-stone of the Church **and received the Keys of the Kingdom.” (Hilary, De Trinitate, 6:20).

“Peter, the first Confessor of the Son of God, the Foundation of the Church, …” (Hilary, Tract in Ps. cxxxi.)

“And in truth Peter’s confession obtained a worthy recompense …Oh! in thy designation by a new name, happy Foundation of the Church, and a Rock worthy of the building up of that which was to scatter the infernal laws of the gates of hell!” (Hilary, Comm. in Matt. c. xvi.)

“You cannot deny that you are aware that in the city of Rome the episcopal chair was given first to Peter; the chair in which Peter sat, the same who was head - that is why he is also called Cephas “Rock”] - of all the apostles; the one chair in which unity is maintained by all” (The Schism of the Donatists 2:2 [A.D. 367]).
St. Gregory Nazianzen (370 A.D.):

"See thou that of the disciples of Christ, all of whom were great and deserving of the choice, one is called a Rock and entrusted with the foundations of the Church." (Gregory Naz., T. i or xxxii).

"Peter, the Chief of the disciples, but he was a Rock … (Gregory Naz., T. ii.)

“[Peter], that unbroken Rock who held the keys.” (Gregory Naz., Sect. ii Poem Moral. tom. ii.)
St. Gregory of Nyssa (371 A.D.):

“Peter, with his whole soul, associates himself with the Lamb; and, by means of the change of his name, he is changed by the Lord into something more divine. Instead of Simon, being both called and having become a Rock, the great Peter did not by advancing little by little attain unto this grace, but at once he listened to his brother (Andrew), believed in the Lamb, and was through faith perfected, and, having cleaved to the Rock, became himself Peter.” (Gregory of Nyssa, T. i. Hom. xv. in C. Cantic).

“Peter …that most firm Rock, upon which the Lord build His Church.” (Gregory of Nyssa, Alt. Or. De. S. Steph.)
St. Basil the Great (371 A.D.):

"The house of God, which is the Church of the living God, the foundations of which are on the holy mountains, for it is built upon the Apostles and prophets. One also of these mountains was Peter, upon which Rock the Lord promised to build His Church." (Basil, T. i. Comment. in Esai. c. ii.).

“The soul of blessed Peter was called a lofty Rock …” (Basil, Sermon 1 De Fide I.13).
St. Epiphanius (385 A.D.):

“Blessed Peter, who for a while denied the Lord, Peter who was Chief of the Apostles, he who became unto us truly a firm Rock upon which is based the Lord’s Faith, upon which Rock the Church is in every way built.” (Epiphanius, Adv. Haeres).

"Holy men are therefore called the temple of God, because the Holy Spirit dwells in them; as the Chief of the Apostles testifies, he who was found worthy to be blessed by the Lord, because the ‘Father had revealed unto him.’ …This was befitting in that the First of the Apostles, **that *firm Rock upon which the Church of God is built, and ‘the gates of hell shall not prevail against it.’ '*The gates of hell’ are heretics and heresiarchs. For, in every way, the faith confirmed in him who received the Keys of Heaven; who looses on earth and binds in heaven. For in him are found all subtle questions of faith …And He heard from the same God, Peter, ‘feed my lambs;’ to him was entrusted the flock; he leads the way admirably in the power of His own Master. (Epiphanius, T. ii. in Anchor., 9).
St. Ambrose of Milan (385 A.D.):

 

[joe370]

“Peter is called the Rock because, **like an immovable rock, he sustains and joins the mass of the entire Christian edifice.” (**Ambrose, Sermon 4).

“Christ is the Rock, 'For they drank from that spiritual Rock that followed them and that Rock was Christ, ’ and He did not refuse to bestow the favor of this title even upon His disciple, so that he too might be ‘Peter,’ in that he has from the Rock a solid consistancy of firm faith.” (Ambrose, Expos. in Luc.).

“[Christ] made answer: 'You are Peter, and upon this rock will I build my Church . . . ’ Could he not, then, strengthen the faith of the man to whom, acting on his own authority, he gave the kingdom, whom he called the rock, thereby declaring him to be the foundation of the Church [Matt. 16:18]?” (The Faith 4:5 [A.D. 379]).

“It is to Peter that he says: ‘You are Peter, and upon this rock I will build my Church’ [Matt. 16:18]. Where Peter is, there is the Church. And where the Church, no death is there, but life eternal” (Commentary on Twelve Psalms of David 40:30 [A.D. 389]).
St. Asterius of Pontus (387 A.D.):

"Peter went not away unrequited and unrewarded; but was declared “blessed” by the truly Blessed, and was called the Rock of faith, the foundation and substructure of the Church of God." (Ambrose, Hom. in Apost. Pet. et Paul, tom ii.).
St. John Chrysostom (387 A.D.):

“…and when I name Peter,** I name that unbroken Rock, that firm foundation**, the Great Apostle, the First of the disciples …” (Chrysostom, T. ii. Hom. iii. de Paednit).

“Peter, the leader of the choir, that Mouth of the rest of the Apostles, that Head of the brotherhood, that one set over the entire universe, **that Foundation of the Church.” (**Chrysostom, In illud. hoc Scitote).

"Peter, … that Pillar of the Church, the Buttress of the Faith, the Foundation of the Confession." (Chrysostom, T. iii. Hom. de Dec. Mill. Talent)
St. Jerome (393 A.D.):

"Christ is not alone in being the Rock, for He granted to the Apostle Peter that he should be called ‘Rock’. " (Jerome, Comm. on Jerimias 3:65).

“For what has Paul to do with Aristotle? Or Peter to do with Plato? For as the latter (Plato) was prince of philosophers, so was the former (Peter) prince of Apostles:** on him the Lord’s Church was firmly founded, and neither rushing flood nor storm can shake it.”** (Jerome, Against the Pelagians 1:14a).

“‘But,’ you [Jovinian] will say, ‘it was on Peter that the Church was founded’ [Matt. 16:18]. Well . . . one among the twelve is chosen to be their head **in order to remove any occasion for division.” **(Against Jovinian 1:26 [A.D. 393]).

“I follow no leader but Christ and join in communion with none but your blessedness [Pope Damasus I], that is, with the chair of Peter. I know that this is the rock on which the Church has been built. Whoever eats the Lamb outside this house is profane. Anyone who is not in the ark on Noah will perish when the flood prevails” (Letters 15:2 [A.D. 396]).
St. Augustine (410 A.D.):

“These miserable wretches, refusing to acknowledge the Rock as Peter and to believe that the Church has received the Keys to the Kingdom of Heaven, have lost these very keys from their own hands.” (Augustine, Christian Combat).

“…Why! a ****** that is cut from the vine retains its shape. But what use is that shape if it is not living from the root? Come, brother, if you wish to be engrafted in the vine. It is grievous when we see you thus lying cut off. Number the bishops from the See of Peter. And, in that order of fathers, see whom succeeded whom. This is the Rock which the proud gates of hades do not conquer. All who rejoice in peace, only judge truly.” --St. Augustine, Psalmus Contra Pertem Donati.

 

[joe370]

Hey Scott…

[scottm;7168598]Reformed church?!?
Hmmm. Does the Counter-Reformation count? Or post-Communism Eastern Europe?

Just the name of the one true reformed church guided by the holy spirit.

To reach back to the beginning your choices are Catholic (23 varieties),

All in communion with the Pope. That’s one choice.

Eastern Orthodox (15 self-governing varieties plus several more under them),

That’s another choice.

and Coptic Orthodox.

And yet another choice.

I don’t know of any other. In practice Coptic Orthodox is identical to Eastern Orthodox; due to unfortunate cultural and political misunderstandings they fell outside the larger communion. So, essentially it boils down to Catholic versus Orthodox. As between them, see post 46.

That was the conclusion that I drew. I’ll check out post 46.

A question was asked about what Protestants think. I responded from the point of view of a Protestant. Dude countered with a pat Roman Catholic response. I responded back from the point of view of a Protestant.

I guess I am said dude. I am a former protestant with no pat notions regarding the CC. I tried to prove that the CC was NOT the church founded by Jesus, for a couple of years even but I could not, and in the process of doing so became convinced otherwise. If I am wrong then simply prove it.

 

[joe370]

Hey Scott, I misspoke. I don’t believe that the CC is the one true reformed church. I believe that the CC is the church built by Jesus on Kepha and the rest of the apostles and prophets.

 

[JonNC]

“Peter is called the Rock because, **like an immovable rock, he sustains and joins the mass of the entire Christian edifice.” (**Ambrose, Sermon 4).

“Christ is the Rock, 'For they drank from that spiritual Rock that followed them and that Rock was Christ, ’ and He did not refuse to bestow the favor of this title even upon His disciple, so that he too might be ‘Peter,’ in that he has from the Rock a solid consistancy of firm faith.” (Ambrose, Expos. in Luc.).

“[Christ] made answer: 'You are Peter, and upon this rock will I build my Church . . . ’ Could he not, then, strengthen the faith of the man to whom, acting on his own authority, he gave the kingdom, whom he called the rock, thereby declaring him to be the foundation of the Church [Matt. 16:18]?” (The Faith 4:5 [A.D. 379]).

“It is to Peter that he says: ‘You are Peter, and upon this rock I will build my Church’ [Matt. 16:18]. Where Peter is, there is the Church. And where the Church, no death is there, but life eternal” (Commentary on Twelve Psalms of David 40:30 [A.D. 389]).
St. Asterius of Pontus (387 A.D.):

"Peter went not away unrequited and unrewarded; but was declared “blessed” by the truly Blessed, and was called the Rock of faith, the foundation and substructure of the Church of God." (Ambrose, Hom. in Apost. Pet. et Paul, tom ii.).
St. John Chrysostom (387 A.D.):

“…and when I name Peter,** I name that unbroken Rock, that firm foundation**, the Great Apostle, the First of the disciples …” (Chrysostom, T. ii. Hom. iii. de Paednit).

“Peter, the leader of the choir, that Mouth of the rest of the Apostles, that Head of the brotherhood, that one set over the entire universe, **that Foundation of the Church.” (**Chrysostom, In illud. hoc Scitote).

"Peter, … that Pillar of the Church, the Buttress of the Faith, the Foundation of the Confession." (Chrysostom, T. iii. Hom. de Dec. Mill. Talent)
St. Jerome (393 A.D.):

"Christ is not alone in being the Rock, for He granted to the Apostle Peter that he should be called ‘Rock’. " (Jerome, Comm. on Jerimias 3:65).

“For what has Paul to do with Aristotle? Or Peter to do with Plato? For as the latter (Plato) was prince of philosophers, so was the former (Peter) prince of Apostles:** on him the Lord’s Church was firmly founded, and neither rushing flood nor storm can shake it.”** (Jerome, Against the Pelagians 1:14a).

“‘But,’ you [Jovinian] will say, ‘it was on Peter that the Church was founded’ [Matt. 16:18]. Well . . . one among the twelve is chosen to be their head **in order to remove any occasion for division.” **(Against Jovinian 1:26 [A.D. 393]).

“I follow no leader but Christ and join in communion with none but your blessedness [Pope Damasus I], that is, with the chair of Peter. I know that this is the rock on which the Church has been built. Whoever eats the Lamb outside this house is profane. Anyone who is not in the ark on Noah will perish when the flood prevails” (Letters 15:2 [A.D. 396]).
St. Augustine (410 A.D.):

“These miserable wretches, refusing to acknowledge the Rock as Peter and to believe that the Church has received the Keys to the Kingdom of Heaven, have lost these very keys from their own hands.” (Augustine, Christian Combat).

“…Why! a ****** that is cut from the vine retains its shape. But what use is that shape if it is not living from the root? Come, brother, if you wish to be engrafted in the vine. It is grievous when we see you thus lying cut off. Number the bishops from the See of Peter. And, in that order of fathers, see whom succeeded whom. This is the Rock which the proud gates of hades do not conquer. All who rejoice in peace, only judge truly.” --St. Augustine, Psalmus Contra Pertem Donati.

Hey Joe,
Maybe Scottm would respond to these quotes as to what the Orthodox (name removed by moderator)ertrepation of they actually mean in terms of the primacy/supremacy of the Bishop of Rome.

Jon

 

[SnakeMauler]

It doesn’t matter what Church you are, if you accept Jesus as your personal savior and can confess with your tongue that he is Lord (not sure what people do if they’re mute) you will be saved.

Jesus founded an invisible Church full of people with their own theological ideas.

 

[Todd520]

Well, it is a fact that the early followers were considered a Jewish sect - you’re the one who must explain any confilict

I go with the interpretation that ROCK = WORD as rock is repeatedly used in this fashion in scripture

When you consider Christ built his Church on the WORD, he has been enormously successful. The schisms have only served to invigorate and grow the pool of followers to THE WORD.

If you consider his Church as only being the RCC, then his Church has not performed so well - the schisms represent true weakness in the Church.

A Jewish sect of Christ followers. Jesus said: I will build my church. What is your answer to my question.

 

[flower_of_God]

How can both be the one true Church?

So, which one has this indefectibility? And how can I as a Lutheran know for sure, other than by the say-so of each?

EDIT: Oh, and it seems to me that the gates of Hell would have to prevail against the Church Triumphant, too for it to be a Biblical Impossibility.
Jon

Not both are true, just the Catholic Church is the true church.

 

[jmcrae]

Besides the problem of there not being a Catholic, Orthodox or (obviously) Protestant church at the time of the Apostles, there is another issue which affects our view of the question: It is that the idea or definition of church is different now than it was back then. We are trying to apply our concept of “church” to a time, place and culture in which it just doesn’t work. The churches or assemblies of people who were disciples of Christ at that time were not anything like the way we think of it today. The original followers of Jesus were Jews, with Gentiles coming aboard later. As another poster said, the view of the general population was that Christians were NOT a separate church, but were a sect of Judaism. That view changed, but not until years later, after the original apostles were gone and the Christian faith became a totally separate faith.

It’s true that the Mass and the Sacraments as we know them today took years to develop, and that the Church hierarchy that we see today took years to develop - but not so many years that the Apostles weren’t there to oversee and guide the changes as they occurred.

The Church made its final break from Judaism in 70 AD, and most of the Apostles were still alive and active at that time.

The Church to which St. Ignatius of Antioch belonged looked and behaved very much like the Catholic and Orthodox churches of today, dispensing Sacraments, ordaining Bishops, priests, and deacons, and looking to the Pope for the final word on questions that were in dispute - and it is not unreasonable to suspect that he was given his office of Bishop by St. John the Evangelist, a disciple of Christ.

 

[joe370]

SnakeMauler;7169257]It doesn’t matter what Church you are, if you accept Jesus as your personal savior and can confess with your tongue that he is Lord (not sure what people do if they’re mute) you will be saved.

Jesus founded an invisible Church full of people with their own theological ideas.

You must be talking to my sister because she just said those exact words the other day. LoL…Thanks for the (name removed by moderator)ut; what is your answer to my question???

 

[joe370]

Hey Todd…

Todd520;7169433]Well, it is a fact that the early followers were considered a Jewish sect - you’re the one who must explain any confilict

Why me??? I’m the one asking the question, for a reason…If the apostles did not belong the CC, (and I know that they didn’t belong to any one PC) - then I simply want to locate the church in the world today, to which they belonged. The CC, so far, is the only plausible candidate, The EOC as wel…l.

I go with the interpretation that ROCK = WORD as rock is repeatedly used in this fashion in scripture

I respect your decision but where does the bible (specifically Matthew 16) - tell us that rock = word? I take it those ECF quotes regarding the rock, are not persuasive to you?

When you consider Christ built his Church on the WORD, he has been enormously successful. The schisms have only served to invigorate and grow the pool of followers to THE WORD

.

We must have different bibles. Where did Jesus say that He built His church on the word? Paul does not agree with you either.

If you consider his Church as only being the RCC, then his Church has not performed so well - the schisms represent true weakness in the Church.

Satan takes not breaks when it comes to his attack on Jesus’ church, but Satan will never succeed, according to Jesus. What is your answer to my question???

 

[scottm]

Hey Scott, I misspoke. I don’t believe that the CC is the one true reformed church. I believe that the CC is the church built by Jesus on Kepha and the rest of the apostles and prophets.

Thanks. The adjective “reformed” was throwing me off. Very strange restriction to impose upon church-shopping!

Regarding all your ECF quotes: As you would know if you read Orthodox material during your investigations (I don’t know if you did or not), the Eastern Church always agreed that the Patriarch of Rome (the “pope”) had “primacy,” and that he was the head of the universal Christian church. Even right now today that is the Orthodox position. But it does not follow that the definition of “primacy” that you as a Roman Catholic impose today is the definition that they used back then.

Example from a Christmas carol:

"Deck the halls with boughs of holly /
Fa-la-la-la-la la la la la /
Tis the season to be jolly /
Fa-lal-la-la-la la la la la /
DON WE NOW OUR GAY APPAREL … "

In that Christmas carol, does the phrase “gay apparel” mean today what it meant back in 1784, when it was written? (No, it does not.)

Or how about the much younger “Flintstones” cartoon theme song:

“Flintstones, meet the Flintstones /
They’re a modern stoneage family /
From the town of Bedrock /
They’re a page right out of history /
Let’s ride with the family down the street /
Through the courtesy of Fred’s two feet /
When you’re with the Flintstones /
Have a yabba dabba doo time /
A dabba doo time /
YOU’LL HAVE A GAY OLD TIME”

Does “gay old time” mean today what it meant in 1960, when the show first aired? (No, it does not.)

My point is that you cannot impose a circa-2000 definition of “papal primacy” upon ECF quotes. The definition ain’t the same. Back in those initial centuries leading up to the East/West split, the Roman Patriarch could not stick his nose in the other Patriarch’s domains and rule them. In the ecumencial councils the globe was chopped up into distinct regions. Each Patriarch ruled his region only. The Roman Patriarch’s “primacy” meant that he would mediate disputes between patriarchs if/when they arose, he would be a court of appeal for bishops if/when there was a dispute, he would be a pastor to the bishops (“feed my sheep” idea), he would presided over councils, he would be the spokesman to the world (so that the Church would speak in one voice), and the like. He did not have universal jurisdiction in the sense that he could hire and fire priests and bishops anywhere on the planet, or impose his own canon rules every on the planet. That sort of power was confined to his particular geographical lands only.

 

[JonNC]

Thanks. The adjective “reformed” was throwing me off. Very strange restriction to impose upon church-shopping!

Regarding all your ECF quotes: As you would know if you read Orthodox material during your investigations (I don’t know if you did or not), the Eastern Church always agreed that the Patriarch of Rome (the “pope”) had “primacy,” and that he was the head of the universal Christian church. Even right now today that is the Orthodox position. But it does not follow that the definition of “primacy” that you as a Roman Catholic impose today is the definition that they used back then.

---

My point is that you cannot impose a circa-2000 definition of “papal primacy” upon ECF quotes. The definition ain’t the same. Back in those initial centuries leading up to the East/West split, the Roman Patriarch could not stick his nose in the other Patriarch’s domains and rule them. In the ecumencial councils the globe was chopped up into distinct regions. Each Patriarch ruled his region only. The Roman Patriarch’s “primacy” meant that he would mediate disputes between patriarchs if/when they arose, he would be a court of appeal for bishops if/when there was a dispute, he would be a pastor to the bishops (“feed my sheep” idea), he would presided over councils, he would be the spokesman to the world (so that the Church would speak in one voice), and the like. He did not have universal jurisdiction in the sense that he could hire and fire priests and bishops anywhere on the planet, or impose his own canon rules every on the planet. That sort of power was confined to his particular geographical lands only.

Scott,
Sounds like you’re talking about the Council of Nicea, in part.

Joe has read this before from me; if the CC/OC were to come to an agreement regarding this issue, I wouldview it as an obvious and irresistible sign of the Holy Spirit moving within the Church.

Jon

 

[beth40n2]

The 12 apostles were Jews, but the followers of Jesus Christ were simply known as “people of the Way” (Acts 9:2, 24:14) in reference to their lifestyle, i.e., the way of life they lived. In other words, it was their lifestyle that identified them as being followers of Jesus Christ, not their words. They were not actually called Christian until Acts 11:26 in Antioch, then later in the 2nd century, St. Irenaeus, Bishops referred to Christians as Catholic, also in Antioch.