Protestants: What do you think of Matthew 16:18?

[Prodigal_Son1]

That still doesn’t really justify the mentality that the Catholic Church is the only true path to salvation. The Apostles Creed that I learned during my Lutheran Catechism/confirmation is identical to the Apostles Creed used within the Catholic church. My Lutheran understanding of baptism is identical, as well. The Lutheran understanding of the Eucharist, while not identical, is only very slightly different. Luther didn’t see his changes as a matter of interpretation, but rather, as a means of eliminating corruption within the Church. He didn’t even want to leave the church! Now obviously, I am totally and admittedly biased because of my religious education, but how do you preserve the idea of Apostolic succession being the true path to God given the undeniable historic abuses and corruption that existed prior to/during the reformation?

Please don’t take offense to this question - I really don’t want to offend anyone here. I’m just confused about Apostolic succession and the whole past corruption thing…

Peace and Blessings,
Julie

First, no offense taken and none given, I hope.

Most Catholics will admit to the corruption that Martin Luther found objectionable. Personally, I find it hard to understand being able to reform something you are no longer a part of.

Addressing the corruption, we can go back to Jesus, Himself. He chose Judas Iscariot. He had many disciples leave Him, and walk with Him no more (John 6:66). Peter denied Him, Thomas doubted, and all of them ran away when He was arrested. Was there enough corruption that we should question Christ and His decisions? No. Just as I don’t think we can question His Church.

Man cannot improve on what Christ built. No where does Christ, or any author of scriptures, suggest we leave His Church because of sinful men. In fact, let’s go back to Matthew 23. Christ told the people to observe and do whatsoever those that sat upon the chair of Moses said to them. Recognizing the sinful men, Christ said don’t do as they do, then He gives a list of woes on those ‘corrupt’ teachers for thier wrongs. It’s for Him to judge, not us.

Christ taught the people that God’s truth could be protected, even through the sinful men that sat upon the chair of Moses. He could, and can, protect His truth in the Church He built, to the point that even the gates of hell shall not prevail against it.

Christ built a Church and promised to be with it until the consummation of the world. He promised to send the Spirit of Truth to lead it in all things.

The slight differences in the Eucharist you mentioned. What was Martin Luther’s position on the Eucharist?

Who, but the devil, has granted such license of wresting the words of the holy Scripture? Who ever read in the Scriptures, that my body is the same as the sign of my body? or, that is is the same as it signifies? What language in the world ever spoke so? It is only then the devil, that imposes upon us by these fanatical men. Not one of the Fathers of the Church, though so numerous, ever spoke as the Sacramentarians: not one of them ever said, It is only bread and wine; or, the body and blood of Christ is not there present.

Surely, it is not credible, nor possible, since they often speak, and repeat their sentiments, that they should never (if they thought so) not so much as once, say, or let slip these words: It is bread only; or the body of Christ is not there, especially it being of great importance, that men should not be deceived. Certainly, in so many Fathers, and in so many writings, the negative might at least be found in one of them, had they thought the body and blood of Christ were not really present: but they are all of them unanimous.”

–Luther’s Collected Works, Wittenburg Edition, no. 7 p, 391

Catholics are not taught that only Catholics will go to heaven. We do not know who will and who won’t.

As you brought up, we have ‘shared’ beliefs, but scriptures do not teach ‘essentials’, or ‘basic tenants’ of faith. It seems clear to me that we are to be of the same mind and judgment.

 

[Prodigal_Son1]

Christ built His Church on Peter’s answer to His Matthew 16:15 question.

That is the Rock of which Jesus referred.

That is the Rock to which the Keys are issued.

Peter was the first member of the Church.

Peter was the first member of the Body.

All who partake of Matthew 16:16 are members of that Rock.

Peter was one of many who led, not the only one who led, the early Church.

History shows that avowing Jesus as Lord [Peter’s answer in Matthew 16:16] is upon which His Church flourished.

History shows the Church branched into the Catholic, Orthodox, and Protestant denominations.

The Church continues to weed out the false and to strengthen the truth and to be a work in progress.

Not all who say Matthew 16:16 will enter the Kingdom, but those under Matthew 16:17, in saying it, will.

It is all about Jesus. Not Peter, Paul, or Mary.

It is all about our answer to Matthew 16:15.

For those who believe Peter is the first Vicar, I say fine. Peace to you and your thoughts. Though I think you are wrong in your view, I know we are all pilgrims of the Faith.

After all, we can always take refreshment in Matthew 10:14 with each other !

God, the father, revealed Christ’s identity to Peter. Since the revelation did not come to the other Apostles, did they not go to heaven?

How does a statement of faith bind and loose, with promises it will be made so in heaven?

It is all about Jesus. All of scriptures teach us the way and we have to wonder why the inspired word of God tells us to obey our prelates?

**Heb 13:17 Obey your prelates and be subject to them. For they watch as being to render an account of your souls: that they may do this with joy and not with grief. For this is not expedient for you. **

 

[Prodigal_Son1]

I think all of them to some degree resemble the church at the time of Peter and all of them in many ways do not. I can’t think of a particular church that looks exactly like the church at the time of Peter. All have gone through evolutionary changes. Some of the changes are pretty significant. To me, Christianity looks like one tree with a lot of branches. No one branch looks much more like the original seedling than the other.

I think Peter foresaw all of this when He said: “I truly understand that God shows no partiality, but in every nation anyone who fears him and does what is right is acceptable to him.”

So if Peter is the true father of the Church, I take it that this is what He had to say on the matter.

Your friend
Sufjon

But then when we read scriptures within scriptures, we see we are to be of one mind and judgment. That is not the case with ‘resembles’. There are many doctrines being taught against each other as the way.

Eph 4:14 That henceforth we be no more children tossed to and fro and carried about with every wind of doctrine, by the wickedness of men, by cunning craftiness by which they lie in wait to deceive.

 

[Prodigal_Son1]

An important part of interpreting a passage of scripture is understanding the audience present when Christ spoke. In this passage, we are discussing, the words were only spoken to the men Christ chose and appointed over His Church. This was not a teaching/promise He shared with a multitude.

 

[Prodigal_Son1]

Caesarea Philippi was a mountain, which primarily consisted of a massive rock. Originally, Caesarea Philippi was Panion, the city of the Greek God Pan. Pan was the God of shepherds and flocks, among other things. It was believed by people of the time of Christ and before, that there was an entrance to a great abyss, or hades/hell, located in the mountain.

Panion had statues of Zeus, as well as Pan, on this pagan holy place.

Why, of all places, did Christ choose Caesarea Philippi, so named Caesarea in honour of Caesar Augustus? Herod the Great, Herod Philip, had built a temple to Augustus there. This place, where men worshipped side by side the forces of nature and political power, was the place chosen by our Lord. The same place His divinity was professed by Peter.

This was the place He re-named Simon, Kipha, rock, Peter. This was the place He said He would give the keys to the Kingdom of Heaven to Peter. The same place He stated, “…and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it.”

Name changes in the Bible were significant. Name changes in the Old Testament always included explanations. Abram becomes Abraham because God will make of him a great nation. Jacob becomes Israel because he contended and had power with God and with men and prevailed.

Simon becomes Peter, Kipha/rock, because his strength of faith would have Christ’s Church built upon it.

To understand the symbolism of the “keys”, I suggest reading the passage containing Isaiah 22:22.

Isa 22:22 And I will lay the key of the house of David upon his shoulder: and he shall open, and none shall shut: and he shall shut, and none shall open.

1Chron 9 details the specifics of the keys.

The person who was designated as the keeper of the keys was the “right hand man” of the king. He literally sat at the right hand of the king’s throne.

1Ch 29:23 And Solomon sat on the throne of the Lord as king instead of David his father, and he pleased all: and all Israel obeyed him.

The keeper of the keys serves as prime minister to the King. He sits upon the earthly throne…until Christ returns.

 

[Juliebug108]

The slight differences in the Eucharist you mentioned. What was Martin Luther’s position on the Eucharist?

Catholics are not taught that only Catholics will go to heaven. We do not know who will and who won’t.

Your response really makes sense, so thanks! I’ve never really thought of it in those terms before. Oh, and no offense taken on my end either.

“Lutherans believe that the Body and Blood of Christ are “truly and substantially present in, with and under the forms” of consecrated bread and wine (the elements),[7] so that communicants eat and drink both the elements and the true Body and Blood of Christ himself”

• Pardon my wikipedia copy/paste, but this wording is much better than mine…lol

Please correct me if I’m wrong - doesn’t the Catholic church teach that the bread and wine actually become changed in substance - they actually become the physical Body/Blood? From my understanding the only slight difference is that Catholics believe it turns into the Body/Blood, whereas Lutherans believe that the Body/Blood are totally present in, with, and under the form of bread and wine. I don’t know…that all kind of confuses me…all I know for sure, is that our Savior is fully present in the Eucharist, and that’s pretty awesome!

Also, it seems I was confused about the Catholic perception of Salvation…idk I always thought that Catholics believed that only fellow Catholics were true Christians, and thus, only Catholics were on the true path, and only they were truly saved from hell.

Peace and Blessings,
Julie

 

[Prodigal_Son1]

Your response really makes sense, so thanks! I’ve never really thought of it in those terms before. Oh, and no offense taken on my end either.

“Lutherans believe that the Body and Blood of Christ are “truly and substantially present in, with and under the forms” of consecrated bread and wine (the elements),[7] so that communicants eat and drink both the elements and the true Body and Blood of Christ himself”

• Pardon my wikipedia copy/paste, but this wording is much better than mine…lol

Please correct me if I’m wrong - doesn’t the Catholic church teach that the bread and wine actually become changed in substance - they actually become the physical Body/Blood? From my understanding the only slight difference is that Catholics believe it turns into the Body/Blood, whereas Lutherans believe that the Body/Blood are totally present in, with, and under the form of bread and wine. I don’t know…that all kind of confuses me…all I know for sure, is that our Savior is fully present in the Eucharist, and that’s pretty awesome!

I’ve found, through these discussions on these forums, that many differences can be attributed to ‘semantics’. We can agree, but fail to see agreement because of the terminology we use to describe our beliefs.

Catholics believe the Eucharist to have the body, blood, soul and divinity of Christ.

Also, it seems I was confused about the Catholic perception of Salvation…idk I always thought that Catholics believed that only fellow Catholics were true Christians, and thus, only Catholics were on the true path, and only they were truly saved from hell.

Peace and Blessings,
Julie

Just as we believe Christ can protect God’s truth, even through sinful men, we believe the Holy Spirit can work where and when He chooses. It might be easier for me to accept, being a convert myself. I view it as a spiritual growth, as we are led, and we will be judged according to where we are in that growth.

Many things, that I found confusing as a Protestant, have become clear to me as a Catholic. Is it always easy? No, I pray for intellect, knowledge, wisdom, counsel, piety, strength of faith and fear of the Lord (7 gifts of the Holy Spirit) to lead me in my walk.

I also pray for unity and hopefully one day will see when we will be united again. I don’t think it would be as hard for some denominations as others. As you said, we are fairly close in our beliefs now.

 

[Sufjon]

But then when we read scriptures within scriptures, we see we are to be of one mind and judgment. That is not the case with ‘resembles’. There are many doctrines being taught against each other as the way.

Well, I think most Christians are of one mind when it comes to loving God and their neighbors, at least in theory. As far as “resembles” goes, I think all Christians churches resemble the church at the time of Peter and also do not resemble it pretty equally. A lot has changed and been added over time. Trying to make anything stay the same in the world of mutability is like trying to nail a drop of water to the wall. The only thing that doesn’t change is that which all denominations seek.

Your friend
Sufjon

 

[elvisman]

My point is that the text at hand does not describe Peter receiving the keys in Matt 16:19 and there is no reason to force such an understanding on the verse. Whether Peter received the keys at verse 19 or at the Ascension it does no violence to Catholic position so I am not sure why some Catholics force such an understanding into verse 19.

And, as one who rejects Sola Scriptura - I am asking you, who adheres to this doctrine, to show men where Jesus gives the keys to Peter at the Ascension at the Ascension or any time after Matt. 16:19.**

 

[elvisman]

My point is that the text at hand does not describe Peter receiving the keys in Matt 16:19 and there is no reason to force such an understanding on the verse. Whether Peter received the keys at verse 19 or at the Ascension it does no violence to Catholic position so I am not sure why some Catholics force such an understanding into verse 19.

According to the Catechism of the Catholic Church, paragraph 881, Peter receives the keys in Matt. 16:18. Footnote #26 points directly to this verse. It does not state or otherwise imply that it happened after Matt. 16:19:

CCC 881 - The Lord made Simon alone, whom he named Peter, the “rock” of his Church. He gave him the keys of his Church and instituted him shepherd of the whole flock.26 “The office of binding and loosing which was given to Peter was also assigned to the college of apostles united to its head.”27 This pastoral office of Peter and the other apostles belongs to the Church’s very foundation and is continued by the bishops under the primacy of the Pope.

 

[elvisman]

Christ built His Church on Peter’s answer to His Matthew 16:15 question.

That is the Rock of which Jesus referred.

That is the Rock to which the Keys are issued.

And in post 97 - which you conveniently dodged - I obliterated that argument with the plain text of the passage.

Nowhere, does Jesus mention or even imply that Peter’s statement was the rock. He tells Peter that HE (Peter is the rock). “You are Kepha and upon this Kepha I will build my church.” * Jesus never saye, “You are Kepha and upon your statement - which I now refer to as ‘Kepha’ - I will build my church.”*

It’s as ridiculous an argument now as it was when it was first invented.
Go back and read the post, friend . . .

 

[pablope]

Thanks. Why then the strong reaction to my first post?

SR…I think it was all a misunderstanding. I, for one, thought you did not believe the keys were passed. Better wording next time…i think we all learned a lesson here.

God bless to you…

pablope

 

[pablope]

Hi Prodigal!

Hmm…that’s an interesting point. I’m new to exploring the understandings and beliefs of the Catholic faith, so please don’t think I’m trying to be argumentative. I was simply trying to emphasize that our true Leader is Christ our King. When I look at it that way, the rest seems a lot less important. I don’t really understand the “keys to Heaven” debate. Didn’t Jesus teach that we are ALL one in Christ? Rom. 12:5, Rom. 15:7, Rom. 16:16 1 Peter 5:14, Colossians 3:15, and I can list many more as well. Why debate over the “true church” or who has the keys to the kingdom? Again, I’m not trying to annoy anyone…just trying to learn.

Peace and blessings!
Julie

Read post 119, I think Nicea gave an explanation, and then post 81 for the heavenly confirmation.

 

[Pitcharan]

So, let’s say I agree that it makes sense that Jesus gave the actual keys of Heaven to Peter (which I’m not totally sold on, just yet), why would that mean that only the Catholic church has the fullness of truth? If the various denominations are founded in Biblical truth and in Christ’s very own teachings, are they somehow less than the Catholic church? If we are all one in the body of Christ, it makes no sense that the Catholic church would be the only “true” church. I would, however, say that any church refusing to accept the Apostles Creed is seriously in error…but, if the basic tenets of our faith are rooted in the same place, then are we not all equal in the eyes of Christ?

Peace and Blessings,
Julie

Not only christians of different denominations, but also followers of other religions are all equal in the eyes of God. Jesus established the church to guide people to the fullness of truth and therefore CC abounds in this. However He did not forfeit His prerogative to reveal the truth to all who seek truth. CC is undoubtedly the main institution established by God Himself for the salvation of mankind, without limiting God’s prerogative of saving humans in many other comprehensible and incomprhensible ways. Technically all genuine seekers of truth are members of the CC since it is the mystical body of Jesus Christ who is the Way, the Truth and the Life

 

[Curious_Seed]

God, the father, revealed Christ’s identity to Peter. Since the revelation did not come to the other Apostles, did they not go to heaven?

How does a statement of faith bind and loose, with promises it will be made so in heaven?

It is all about Jesus. All of scriptures teach us the way and we have to wonder why the inspired word of God tells us to obey our prelates?

The Father revealed Jesus’ identity as the Christ to Peter, and he acknowledged it.

Does that mean it was only revealed to Peter? Could the other disciples have had the revelation, but denied it?

Can one have the revelation of Christ, but choose to deny it?

Did all the Apostles find their way to heaven?

To what does the statement of binding and loosing, with it so to be in heaven, rest upon?

Does it rest upon Peter, himself, or Peter’s proclamation of Jesus the Christ?

There are prelates and we are to obey them.

But, who are the prelates? Are they to be found only in the Catholic Church?

 

[elvisman]

Not only christians of different denominations, but also followers of other religions are all equal in the eyes of God. Jesus established the church to guide people to the fullness of truth and therefore CC abounds in this. However He did not forfeit His prerogative to reveal the truth to all who seek truth. CC is undoubtedly the main institution established by God Himself for the salvation of mankind, without limiting God’s prerogative of saving humans in many other comprehensible and incomprhensible ways. Technically all genuine seekers of truth are members of the CC since it is the mystical body of Jesus Christ who is the Way, the Truth and the Life

Sorry, bit I would have to disagree with you.
**Jesus didn’t establish a “main institution” - he established a Church, and he only established ONE. **

All who seek the truth are not “technically” members of the Church - but they can be saved through the Church.
**CCC 847 -

847 This affirmation is not aimed at those who, through no fault of their own, do not know Christ and his Church:
Those who, through no fault of their own, do not know the Gospel of Christ or his Church, but who nevertheless seek God with a sincere heart, and, moved by grace, try in their actions to do his will as they know it through the dictates of their conscience - those too may achieve eternal salvation.

**

 

[Prodigal_Son1]

The Father revealed Jesus’ identity as the Christ to Peter, and he acknowledged it.

Does that mean it was only revealed to Peter? Could the other disciples have had the revelation, but denied it?

Can one have the revelation of Christ, but choose to deny it?

Did all the Apostles find their way to heaven?

To what does the statement of binding and loosing, with it so to be in heaven, rest upon?

Does it rest upon Peter, himself, or Peter’s proclamation of Jesus the Christ?

There are prelates and we are to obey them.

But, who are the prelates? Are they to be found only in the Catholic Church?

Do you answer all questions with questions? oops, I did it now.

Peter was singled out, not only at Caesarea Philippi but again in the Gospel of John.

Binding and loosing is making decisions. Here is a small copy and paste from the Jewish Encyclopedia that explains the cultural meaning known to them at the time Christ spoke it. Some of today’s explanations are creative, but seem to be biased to support a particular view.

In this sense Jesus, when appointing his disciples to be his successors, used the familiar formula (Matt. xvi. 19, xviii. 18). By these words he virtually invested them with the same authority as that which he found belonging to the scribes and Pharisees who “bind heavy burdens and lay them on men’s shoulders, but will not move them with one of their fingers”; that is, “loose them,” as they have the power to do (Matt. xxiii. 2-4). In the same sense, in the second epistle of Clement to James II. (“Clementine Homilies,” Introduction), Peter is represented as having appointed Clement as his successor, saying: “I communicate to him the power of binding and loosing so that, with respect to everything which he shall ordain in the earth, it shall be decreed in the heavens; for he shall bind what ought to be bound and loose what ought to be loosed as knowing the rule of the church.” Quite different from this Judaic and ancient view of the apostolic power of binding and loosing is the one expressed in John xx. 23, where Jesus is represented as having said to his disciples after they had received the Holy Spirit: “Whosesoever sins ye remit, they are remitted unto them; and whosesoever sins ye retain, they are retained.” It is this view which, adopted by Tertullian and all the church fathers, invested the head of the Christian Church with the power to forgive sins, the “clavis ordinis,” "the key-power of the Church."

The prelates are of apostolic succession, in my honest opinion. This is based on the fact that no one appointed themselves or was appointed by someone without the proper authority in scriptures. Also, I do not believe that God left hundreds of years of people without the proper authority, in the apostolic succession. That’s something that no one has proven on these forums, specifically of any other Churches to exist prior to the reformation, not counting the great schism in 1054 since both East and West have apostolic succession.

Just a suggestion, it gives more validity to respond to questions than hide behind a big list of questions.

 

[Gabriel_of_12]

Curious Seed

“Red”]W

hen Jesus said to Peter - as you indicate, singularly - " You are Kephas and upon this Kephas, I will build My Church " did He mean that the Church would be built upon Peter, singularly? Was it Peter, his person, upon which Jesus would build His Church? Or was it upon Peter’s answer to Jesus’ question that He would build His Church?

Gabriel of 12

Jesus builds his Church upon Peter and the apostles and begins this building of his Church upon Peter to be holder of the keys to the kingdom of heaven, from the sign from heaven in “Simon’s profession of faith”, not Peter’s faith. Jesus does not begin this building until Jesus changes Simon’s name to Peter = Rock.

I would argue it is both. Jesus **built his Church upon Rock = Peter from **his professed faith. (see CCC 442) Peter’s faith is never Rock, because scripture reveals Peter’s faith failed three times. The Rock is the foundation built upon Peter holding the keys (authority) along with the apostles and prophets (Eph. 2:20) which is the church the body of Christ and Christ the head in heaven, Peter his vicar on earth until Jesus returns for his Church which is the pillar and foundation of Truth = John 14:6 Jesus is the way and the Truth.

“Where ever Jesus Christ is there is the Catholic Church” St.Ignatius of Antioch (98 A.D) Letter to the smyrneans chap. 8

The Faith Peter professed is the foundation from which Jesus builds his church upon Peter. In other words, Christians who profess this faith of Peter, that Jesus is the “Messiah, the Son of the living God”, belongs to the Church Jesus build’s upon Rock= Peter, because Jesus renamed Simon, Kepha which means Rock, translated to Peter today, if you do not read Rock out of Jesus context to originally mean Kepha which is Simons new name Rock?

Peter the Rock is the one who holds the keys in the kingdom of God to bind and loose over the whole church = This office of Peter’s chair cannot be removed from the earth so long as we await Jesus second coming.

History confirms this Office of Peter as Key holder on earth from the past 2000 years, as Rock, because Peter’s Chair has never fallen into heresy and has maintained the revelations of Jesus Christ unchanged as Rock.

Although history reveals the gates of hell coming against this Rock of Peter, it never prevailed. Although men of faulty character have filled this office of Peter as aposotlic successor in the Popes, never the less Peter’s office in the Popes is a divine office instituted by Jesus Christ alone unchanged as Rock.

To take Rock to interpret as “faith alone” comes away with only part of the Truth, the Full revealed Truth is both which the Catholic Church teaches. Jesus built his church upon Peter from his professed faith. And all those who profess this same faith of Peter’s “Builds their house on Rock” = Peter.

Those who oppose this authority revealed by Jesus Christ in Peter and his successors in the Popes remain under the umbrella of the Catholic Church = body of Christ by virtue of their baptism, this is something protestants should be addressing full communion, not rejecting what Jesus revealed in the keys (authority) given to Peter and his successors in the popes.

Scripture gives a definition of faith, and it is never defined as rock = Hebrews 11:1
1 Faith is the realization of what is hoped for and evidence 2 of things not seen.
2
Because of it the ancients were well attested.
3
By faith we understand that the universe was ordered by the word of God, 3 so that what is visible came into being through the invisible.

Peace be with you

 

[Nicea325]

Quote:
Originally Posted by Nicea325
Sorry my friend,but Jesus only founded His church,not thousands of man-made churches.He only promised His church to guide it into the fullness of truth,not the other thousands out there. Not to say those others are bad,but Jesus nor the Apostles did not found them

So, let’s say I agree that it makes sense that Jesus gave the actual keys of Heaven to Peter (which I’m not totally sold on, just yet), why would that mean that only the Catholic church has the fullness of truth? If the various denominations are founded in Biblical truth and in Christ’s very own teachings, are they somehow less than the Catholic church? If we are all one in the body of Christ, it makes no sense that the Catholic church would be the only “true” church. I would, however, say that any church refusing to accept the Apostles Creed is seriously in error…but, if the basic tenants of our faith are rooted in the same place, then are we not all equal in the eyes of Christ?

Peace and Blessings,
Julie

I am sorry my sister in Christ,but Jesus did not say: I might give you the keys Peter. Jesus is God and I am pretty sure Jesus did not second guess himself or change his mind. Here I’ll quote what I wrote for another Protestant who will be converting to the RCC soon. Here is the information:

In the Greek it is stated in the future tense,SINGULAR. But why the future tense? While still on earth,Jesus was establishing the kingdom of God, and through his death and resurrection he was given all authority in heaven and on earth (MT 28:18)

However, in the Eastern kingdoms,the sovereign king of the realm would delegate the authority and administration of his kingdom to a steward,who managed the kingdom-virtually ruling for the king-ESPECIALLY IN HIS ABSENCE. This promise is directed to Peter alone…not the other 11 Apostles. Jesus had chosen Peter to be the steward of his kingdom-“over the house”, the head vizier, the majordomo. Once the the work of redemption had been completed and all authority had been given to Jesus,he PASSED the keys of authority to Peter to administer the kingdom as a VISIBLE steward in Jesus absence.Likewsise Jesus anounced to the 12 in advance he would be leaving them (See John 13:33,36; 14:1; Acts 1:9-11.).

Jesus visible and physical presence would be removed;however,his kingdom would remain and flourish. Meaning what? He left a living STEWARD in charge (Peter) and Jesus promised to the send Holy Spirit.

Does that answer your question of WHEN Peter received the KEYS?

You also stated:

If the various denominations are founded in Biblical truth and in Christ’s very own teachings, are they somehow less than the Catholic church?

I am sorry,but I have an issue with such a flexible statement. If those denominations are founded on **“Biblical Truth” ** and on “Christ teachings” and follow scripture to the last letter,then why the need to found other churches? The Bible is very clear Jesus already founded His Church and promised HIS Church the Holy Spirit into the fullness of truth. So my question: Where is the “Biblical truth” and **“Christ teaching” **for any mere mortal to found their own church? Likewise,if all are founded on Biblical truth,then why so many different teachings?

 

[Juliebug108]

I am sorry,but I have an issue with such a flexible statement. If those denominations are founded on **“Biblical Truth” ** and on “Christ teachings” and follow scripture to the last letter,then why the need to found other churches? The Bible is very clear Jesus already founded His Church and promised HIS Church the Holy Spirit into the fullness of truth. So my question: Where is the “Biblical truth” and **“Christ teaching” **for any mere mortal to found their own church? Likewise,if all are founded on Biblical truth,then why so many different teachings?

Hi Nicea!

While I cannot speak for any other protestant denominations outside of the Lutheran Church - Missouri Synod, I really strongly disagree that my denomination has any less truth and validity than the CC. For one thing, Martin Luther never even wanted to leave the Catholic church - he simply wanted to REFORM the church to eliminate some very serious corruption and abuses within the clergy. He was excommunicated some four years after attempting to eliminate ridiculous abuses.

I find it very hard to believe that the Holy Spirit was leading the church to the fullness of truth when such things were occurring. The idea of infallibility of the Church is difficult for me to understand given the undeniable corruption that has existed in the Church’s past… One could easily argue that the Holy Spirit lead Luther, an ordained Catholic PRIEST, to take on the task of restoring the Church to truth and righteousness.

The only reason why Luther was excommunicated was because he presented a problem by challenging the authority of the Pope and the status quo. I think that it is incredibly unfortunate that cooperation couldn’t be had so that the Church remained united as one. Honestly though, if It hadn’t been Luther, I have a very strong feeling that it would have been someone else. Let’s not forget that the Lutheran Church was founded by a bunch of Catholics.

I mean no disrespect here. I am honestly a very curious Lutheran, and I find SO much beauty in the traditions of the Catholic Church.

Anyway, the doctrines of the Lutheran church-MS and the CC only disagree about the Pope, a couple issues with Mary, venial/mortal sin, and purgatory…as far as I know anyway. Last I checked, Jesus didn’t say anything about having to believe in the primacy and infallibility of the Pope to get into Heaven…nor did he say that belief in the immaculate conception and perpetual virginity were necessary.

I don’t personally agree with certain teachings of MANY/most other protestant denominations, but I also don’t assume to be in a position of “knowing” that they are wrong. I’ve encountered many individuals on this forum so far that come off a bit…bigoted. Bigotry doesn’t generally make people feel welcome…just saying.

In the end, I think the most important TRUTHS for any church to teach is that salvation is through genuine faith in Jesus Christ as our Lord and Savior, through baptism, through repentance/confession of sins, and living a Christ-like life.

Peace and blessings,
Julie