Question about the "One True Church"

  • Thread starter Thread starter Grant1
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
G

Grant1

Guest
Hello,

I have been praying about this. I am in no way a theological giant, but have whatever capacity has been given me and attempt to utilize it for His Truth. I sincerely desire answers to the following questions that arose in my prayer time concerning this topic. I dearly love my Catholic and Protestant Brothers and Sisters and pray for insight to help me reconcile the schisms that exist between these two bodies of believers. I have a deep respect for the Catholic church and recoginze it’s historical ties to the early church as well as the great good that it does (and has done) for the world and the cause of Christ our Lord.

So, first off, how is it that the “blessing” of the “One True Church” stayed with Rome rather than Constantinople when the Eastern Orthodox Church split? If I am not mistaken, Catholics do not recognize the Eastern Orthodox Church as part of the “One True Church” correct? So why did the “lineage” go with Rome when this split occurred?

Second, Peter was not the only one to start churches, as is evidenced in Paul’s letters. Peter (and ultimately Christ) extended the title of Apostle to Paul who went and planted churches as well. These churches were not all united under the “Catholic Church” as we know it today, nor were they ever completely, as they spun churches off of them. Paul’s churches (as well as other Apostle’s churches) were certainly numbered as “true” churches by Christ as is also evidenced by their mention in Revelation (whom most of us believe was written by John the Apostle as well.) So, following the direct line of Peter seems problematic to me. If we accept scripture, how can we say Peter’s church is the only true church?

Blessing, and much thanks to any thoughtful and prayerful answers to my questions. I do sincerely seek the Father through the Son. 🙂
 
Grant1 said:
Hello,

I have been praying about this. I am in no way a theological giant, but have whatever capacity has been given me and attempt to utilize it for His Truth. I sincerely desire answers to the following questions that arose in my prayer time concerning this topic. I dearly love my Catholic and Protestant Brothers and Sisters and pray for insight to help me reconcile the schisms that exist between these two bodies of believers. I have a deep respect for the Catholic church and recoginze it’s historical ties to the early church as well as the great good that it does (and has done) for the world and the cause of Christ our Lord.

So, first off, how is it that the “blessing” of the “One True Church” stayed with Rome rather than Constantinople when the Eastern Orthodox Church split? If I am not mistaken, Catholics do not recognize the Eastern Orthodox Church as part of the “One True Church” correct? So why did the “lineage” go with Rome when this split occurred?

Second, Peter was not the only one to start churches, as is evidenced in Paul’s letters. Peter (and ultimately Christ) extended the title of Apostle to Paul who went and planted churches as well. These churches were not all united under the “Catholic Church” as we know it today, nor were they ever completely, as they spun churches off of them. Paul’s churches (as well as other Apostle’s churches) were certainly numbered as “true” churches by Christ as is also evidenced by their mention in Revelation (whom most of us believe was written by John the Apostle as well.) So, following the direct line of Peter seems problematic to me. If we accept scripture, how can we say Peter’s church is the only true church?

Blessing, and much thanks to any thoughtful and prayerful answers to my questions. I do sincerely seek the Father through the Son. 🙂
Click to expand...
Jesus established ONE Church - ONE authority (Matt. 16:16-19, 18:15-18, John 16:12-15, 20:21-23). He prayed fervently for that ONE Church to remain united as ONE (John 17:20-23).

In the 11th century, the Eastern Curches split from the West in what is known as the Great Schism. Later, they were known as as the Eastern Orthodox Church.****
As for all of the Churches St. Paul started - you must remember - he wasn’t in competition with St. Peter. They worked together to build up the Catholic Church around the world, along with the other Apostles. All of the Churches in the different countries were dioceses - like we have today. They set up Bishops in each terretory who oversaw the various Churches (parishes) in the various provinces and cities.
****Remember, the two of them died around the same time in Rome during the persecution of Nero.
**Hope that helps.
**
 
May I offer a few thoughts on a few of your questions?First,these churches are not Pauls churches and Peter’s churches,they are Jesus’ churches.Jesus started one church not thousands.#3.Sacred Scripture states Peter had authority granted to him by our Lord,that the other Apostles did not have(the Keys etc.)You may want to do a historical search on the Popes(St.Peter,St. Linus,St. Anacletus,St. Clement all the way to Pope Benedict XVl.You may also want to check out New Advent that has many writings of early church Fathers.May our Lord Jesus help you and Bless you in your search,Rocky.
 
Thank you for your responses.

Yes, I agree that they are not Paul or Peter’s churches…but Christ’s although that is sort of the beginning of the arguement because it is based on the link to Peter that the Catholic Church stands on as it’s reasoning for being the only “true” church. Personally I’m not sure it matters who starts a church in Christs name as long as Christ is in it. So that’s what I’m trying to work through here.

Also, as far as Matthew 18:18 I find the following:

The rock on which the Church is founded is not Peter, but Peter’s confession, “thou art the Christ”. (Matt. 16:16) The following is the evidence:

Matt. 21:42; Acts 4:11; 1 Cor. 10:4; Eph. 2:20; 1 Peter 2:6-8 unambiguously states that Christ is the Rock. Paul explicitly states, “For other foundation can no man lay than that is laid, which is Jesus Christ”. (1 Cor. 3:11). To take Peter as the foundation flatly contradicts this passage.

The Roman Church emphasizes John 1:42 in stating that Jesus gave the name “Rock” (Petros) to Simon at the very start. But in Matt. 16:18 the Greek is: “Thou art Petros, and upon this petra I will build my Church.” Two different Greek words are employed with two different connotations:
petros (masc.), detached stone
petra (fem.), living rock, solid rock.

It is clear that a difference between Peter and the foundation is meant or the word “petros” would simply have been repeated. “Petros”, therefore, shows Peter’s instability, (e.g., Matt. 16:22-23) while “petra” indicates the immovable rock-like character of Christ, or the confession of Peter, “thou art the Christ.”

The power of the keys 5 given to Peter (Matt. 16:19) gave him no unique authority - no authority which the other apostles did not possess as well - Matt. 18:18 (cf. vs. 1); John 20:22,23.

“Keys” - keys to knowledge of the Kingdom (Luke 11:52; cf. Matt. 23:13). The keys were used by Peter in preaching to the Jews on the day of Pentecost (Acts 2); to the household of Cornelius (Acts 14:27 cf. Acts 10); and to the Gentiles (Acts 11:18).
“binding” - e.g., Ananias and Sapphira - Acts 5. Here Peter’s condemnation uttered on earth was immediately enforced in heaven.

“loosing” - e.g., palsied Aeneas loosed at Lydda. (Acts 9:32-35). Peter said, “Jesus Christ maketh thee whole” verse 34; Jesus in heaven “loosed” the paralytic. See also Acts 5:12-16.

“gates of hell” - the grave of Isaiah 38:10,17,18. Christ’s Ecclesia will prevail against “hades” - (1 Cor. 15:53-55).

Peter did not receive infallible authority from Jesus, even in matters ex cathedra, for Paul wrote: “But when Peter was come to Antioch, I withstood him to the face, because he was to be blamed.” (Gal. 2:11). Note how Christ also reproved Peter in Matt. 16:22,23.

There is not a particle of historical evidence that Peter passed on any authority to anyone; and, what is more important, there is no New Testament evidence at all that Christ commanded Peter to pass any authority. Without such a clear command of Christ, the “successors” of Peter must be regarded as having arrogated authority to themselves, rather than having received it from Christ.

So, as you can see, I have much to digest and pray upon. Again, however, I do thank you for your answers and for engaging me in conversation. Iron sharpens iron.

As a final point, when the great schism occurred, why did the power/lineage/authority (originally from Peter per the CC position) go to Rome? Why not Constantinople?
 
Wow - You started off with all those questions and then managed to answer all your own points to your own satisfaction in about one hour.
You didn’t just come here to preach Protestantism did you?
If you really want some discussion why not pose your points one by one and wait a few days for responses before announcing that you knew the ‘truth’ all along?
 
Grant1 said:
The rock on which the Church is founded is not Peter, but Peter’s confession, “thou art the Christ”. (Matt. 16:16) The following is the evidence:

Matt. 21:42; Acts 4:11; 1 Cor. 10:4; Eph. 2:20; 1 Peter 2:6-8 unambiguously states that Christ is the Rock. Paul explicitly states, “For other foundation can no man lay than that is laid, which is Jesus Christ”. (1 Cor. 3:11). To take Peter as the foundation flatly contradicts this passage.

The Roman Church emphasizes John 1:42 in stating that Jesus gave the name “Rock” (Petros) to Simon at the very start. But in Matt. 16:18 the Greek is: “Thou art Petros, and upon this petra I will build my Church.” Two different Greek words are employed with two different connotations:
petros (masc.), detached stone
petra (fem.), living rock, solid rock.

It is clear that a difference between Peter and the foundation is meant or the word “petros” would simply have been repeated. “Petros”, therefore, shows Peter’s instability, (e.g., Matt. 16:22-23) while “petra” indicates the immovable rock-like character of Christ, or the confession of Peter, “thou art the Christ.”

The power of the keys 5 given to Peter (Matt. 16:19) gave him no unique authority - no authority which the other apostles did not possess as well - Matt. 18:18 (cf. vs. 1); John 20:22,23.

“Keys” - keys to knowledge of the Kingdom (Luke 11:52; cf. Matt. 23:13). The keys were used by Peter in preaching to the Jews on the day of Pentecost (Acts 2); to the household of Cornelius (Acts 14:27 cf. Acts 10); and to the Gentiles (Acts 11:18).
“binding” - e.g., Ananias and Sapphira - Acts 5. Here Peter’s condemnation uttered on earth was immediately enforced in heaven.

“loosing” - e.g., palsied Aeneas loosed at Lydda. (Acts 9:32-35). Peter said, “Jesus Christ maketh thee whole” verse 34; Jesus in heaven “loosed” the paralytic. See also Acts 5:12-16.

“gates of hell” - the grave of Isaiah 38:10,17,18. Christ’s Ecclesia will prevail against “hades” - (1 Cor. 15:53-55).

Peter did not receive infallible authority from Jesus, even in matters ex cathedra, for Paul wrote: “But when Peter was come to Antioch, I withstood him to the face, because he was to be blamed.” (Gal. 2:11). Note how Christ also reproved Peter in Matt. 16:22,23.

There is not a particle of historical evidence that Peter passed on any authority to anyone; and, what is more important, there is no New Testament evidence at all that Christ commanded Peter to pass any authority. Without such a clear command of Christ, the “successors” of Peter must be regarded as having arrogated authority to themselves, rather than having received it from Christ.
Click to expand...
As you know, the Lord said to Peter, “And so I say to you, you are Peter (Petros), and upon this rock (Petra) I will build my church, and the gates of the netherworld shall not prevail against it.” **
Many non-Catholics believe Peter is not the Rock but his confession of faith. It couldn’t be Peter because the Greek words used here are Petros, meaning, small stone and Petra, meaning, large mass of rock. They say that the Rock is Jesus because he is referred to as Rock elsewhere, including, Matt. 21:42 and 1 Pet. 2:3-8. The problem with this is that Jesus didn’t speak Greek to his Apostles - he spoke Aramaic.

What Jesus actually said was, “And so I say to you, you are Kepha, and upon this rock Kepha I will build my church, and the gates of the netherworld shall not prevail against it.” Kepha is a large mass of rock. This is why St. Peter is referred to as Cephas in many of St. Paul’s letters, because Cephas is the closest Greek transliteration of the Aramaic, Kepha.

There is another problem for the non-Catholic. Petra is a feminine Greek noun and could hardly be used to describe a man, so the word was translated as Petros in Scripture because it was being used in reference to a man. Jesus clearly appointed St. Peter as earthly head of the Church and Chief Apostle here in Matthew’s Gospel as well as Luke 22:31-32, where he told Peter that he prayed for him to strengthen the other Apostles in his absence and in John 21:15-19, where he told Peter 3 times to feed his sheep.
 
When I had questions about why Paul seemed to do all the legwork when Peter was the rock someone pointed something out to me that cleared the issue up. For me, at least.

“The other disciples are the ‘employees’, Peter is the ‘assistant manager’ and Christ is the ‘manager’ and God is the ‘owner’ of the Church.” My paraphrase of what this person said to me when I asked about the Paul vs. Peter thing.

It’s not that Paul started this church or John started that church or Andrew started that one… in fact, I highly doubt they thought of those churches are ‘their’ churches. They were acting in unity to share what Jesus had given them. I see nothing in scripture that makes me think they did NOT see Peter as their ‘assistant manager’ after Jesus left. In fact, despite his denial of Jesus during the crucifixion they STILL included the verses that make it clear Jesus appointed Peter as the ‘rock’ of the Church. Peter was THE foundation, and he was clearly one of Jesus’ favorite disciples. After Jesus left I have NO doubt that the other disciples turned to Peter when they had their doubts.

To summarize my disordered little paragraph.

Just because Peter did not personally start all of the Christian communities that sprung up after Christ’s death does NOT mean he ceased to be the foundation of the Church. The disciples were a team, all teams have leaders and co-leaders to assist when the leader is unavailable.

For all we know, behind the scenes, the other disciples were disorganized after Christ. For all we know Peter very well could have been the one that encouraged them and kept them moving. There is SO MUCH that went on beyond the few writings we’ve been given that we cannot presume that Peter was not the backbone of the disciples.
 
Grant1 said:
Thank you for your responses.

Yes, I agree that they are not Paul or Peter’s churches…but Christ’s although that is sort of the beginning of the arguement because it is based on the link to Peter that the Catholic Church stands on as it’s reasoning for being the only “true” church. Personally I’m not sure it matters who starts a church in Christs name as long as Christ is in it. So that’s what I’m trying to work through here.

Also, as far as Matthew 18:18 I find the following:

The rock on which the Church is founded is not Peter, but Peter’s confession, “thou art the Christ”. (Matt. 16:16) The following is the evidence:

Matt. 21:42; Acts 4:11; 1 Cor. 10:4; Eph. 2:20; 1 Peter 2:6-8 unambiguously states that Christ is the Rock. Paul explicitly states, “For other foundation can no man lay than that is laid, which is Jesus Christ”. (1 Cor. 3:11). To take Peter as the foundation flatly contradicts this passage.

The Roman Church emphasizes John 1:42 in stating that Jesus gave the name “Rock” (Petros) to Simon at the very start. But in Matt. 16:18 the Greek is: “Thou art Petros, and upon this petra I will build my Church.” Two different Greek words are employed with two different connotations:
petros (masc.), detached stone
petra (fem.), living rock, solid rock.

It is clear that a difference between Peter and the foundation is meant or the word “petros” would simply have been repeated. “Petros”, therefore, shows Peter’s instability, (e.g., Matt. 16:22-23) while “petra” indicates the immovable rock-like character of Christ, or the confession of Peter, “thou art the Christ.”

The power of the keys 5 given to Peter (Matt. 16:19) gave him no unique authority - no authority which the other apostles did not possess as well - Matt. 18:18 (cf. vs. 1); John 20:22,23.

“Keys” - keys to knowledge of the Kingdom (Luke 11:52; cf. Matt. 23:13). The keys were used by Peter in preaching to the Jews on the day of Pentecost (Acts 2); to the household of Cornelius (Acts 14:27 cf. Acts 10); and to the Gentiles (Acts 11:18).
“binding” - e.g., Ananias and Sapphira - Acts 5. Here Peter’s condemnation uttered on earth was immediately enforced in heaven.

“loosing” - e.g., palsied Aeneas loosed at Lydda. (Acts 9:32-35). Peter said, “Jesus Christ maketh thee whole” verse 34; Jesus in heaven “loosed” the paralytic. See also Acts 5:12-16.

“gates of hell” - the grave of Isaiah 38:10,17,18. Christ’s Ecclesia will prevail against “hades” - (1 Cor. 15:53-55).

Peter did not receive infallible authority from Jesus, even in matters ex cathedra, for Paul wrote: “But when Peter was come to Antioch, I withstood him to the face, because he was to be blamed.” (Gal. 2:11). Note how Christ also reproved Peter in Matt. 16:22,23.

There is not a particle of historical evidence that Peter passed on any authority to anyone; and, what is more important, there is no New Testament evidence at all that Christ commanded Peter to pass any authority. Without such a clear command of Christ, the “successors” of Peter must be regarded as having arrogated authority to themselves, rather than having received it from Christ.

So, as you can see, I have much to digest and pray upon. Again, however, I do thank you for your answers and for engaging me in conversation. Iron sharpens iron.

As a final point, when the great schism occurred, why did the power/lineage/authority (originally from Peter per the CC position) go to Rome? Why not Constantinople?
Click to expand...
Another thing you might want to look into is the name Cephas.This name means Rock.This is Peters name.
 
Grant1 said:
Thank you for your responses.

Yes, I agree that they are not Paul or Peter’s churches…but Christ’s although that is sort of the beginning of the arguement because it is based on the link to Peter that the Catholic Church stands on as it’s reasoning for being the only “true” church. Personally I’m not sure it matters who starts a church in Christs name as long as Christ is in it. So that’s what I’m trying to work through here.

Also, as far as Matthew 18:18 I find the following:

The rock on which the Church is founded is not Peter, but Peter’s confession, “thou art the Christ”. (Matt. 16:16) The following is the evidence:

Matt. 21:42; Acts 4:11; 1 Cor. 10:4; Eph. 2:20; 1 Peter 2:6-8 unambiguously states that Christ is the Rock. Paul explicitly states, “For other foundation can no man lay than that is laid, which is Jesus Christ”. (1 Cor. 3:11). To take Peter as the foundation flatly contradicts this passage.

The Roman Church emphasizes John 1:42 in stating that Jesus gave the name “Rock” (Petros) to Simon at the very start. But in Matt. 16:18 the Greek is: “Thou art Petros, and upon this petra I will build my Church.” Two different Greek words are employed with two different connotations:
petros (masc.), detached stone
petra (fem.), living rock, solid rock.

It is clear that a difference between Peter and the foundation is meant or the word “petros” would simply have been repeated. “Petros”, therefore, shows Peter’s instability, (e.g., Matt. 16:22-23) while “petra” indicates the immovable rock-like character of Christ, or the confession of Peter, “thou art the Christ.”

The power of the keys 5 given to Peter (Matt. 16:19) gave him no unique authority - no authority which the other apostles did not possess as well - Matt. 18:18 (cf. vs. 1); John 20:22,23.

“Keys” - keys to knowledge of the Kingdom (Luke 11:52; cf. Matt. 23:13). The keys were used by Peter in preaching to the Jews on the day of Pentecost (Acts 2); to the household of Cornelius (Acts 14:27 cf. Acts 10); and to the Gentiles (Acts 11:18).
“binding” - e.g., Ananias and Sapphira - Acts 5. Here Peter’s condemnation uttered on earth was immediately enforced in heaven.

“loosing” - e.g., palsied Aeneas loosed at Lydda. (Acts 9:32-35). Peter said, “Jesus Christ maketh thee whole” verse 34; Jesus in heaven “loosed” the paralytic. See also Acts 5:12-16.

“gates of hell” - the grave of Isaiah 38:10,17,18. Christ’s Ecclesia will prevail against “hades” - (1 Cor. 15:53-55).

Peter did not receive infallible authority from Jesus, even in matters ex cathedra, for Paul wrote: “But when Peter was come to Antioch, I withstood him to the face, because he was to be blamed.” (Gal. 2:11). Note how Christ also reproved Peter in Matt. 16:22,23.

There is not a particle of historical evidence that Peter passed on any authority to anyone; and, what is more important, there is no New Testament evidence at all that Christ commanded Peter to pass any authority. Without such a clear command of Christ, the “successors” of Peter must be regarded as having arrogated authority to themselves, rather than having received it from Christ.

So, as you can see, I have much to digest and pray upon. Again, however, I do thank you for your answers and for engaging me in conversation. Iron sharpens iron.

As a final point, when the great schism occurred, why did the power/lineage/authority (originally from Peter per the CC position) go to Rome? Why not Constantinople?
Click to expand...
**What if you’re wrong?

What if Jesus did want only “One True Church” & appointed Peter to be the 1st Pope?

We can intellectualize & rationalize ourselves to believe anything.

Without one, definitive authority, ie. the POPE, we are left to our own personal & often erroneous interpretations.

Do not confuse the sins of the Catholic Church’s members with the Truth of Jesus Christ!

Remember, the 12 Apostles Jesus hand selected & trained for 3 years did not understand His message & betrayed, abandoned & denied Him until Jesus said;

"He said to them, “It is not for you to know times or seasons which the Father has fixed by his own authority. But you shall receive power when the Holy Spirit has come upon you; and you shall be my witnesses in Jerusalem and in all Judea and Sama’ria and to the end of the earth.” (Acts 1:8)**

Sancta Maria, Mater Dei, Ora Pro Nobis Peccatoribus!

mark
 
Western-centric is not a virtue.

Being an American I was raised Western — I learned a lot about France and England and such, but almost nothing about Russia and Turkey and Lebanon and such. I learned lots about the Roman Catholic Church, but I was never told that there are 22 other types of Catholic, and that these 22 other types of Catholic are Eastern Orthodox in theology and tradition. Being an American I knew the soundbyte arguments for why the East split away from the West, but I knew nothing at all, nothing, nothing, from the perspective of the Eastern Orthodox Church.

But don’t our courts of law have two sides? For every prosecutor, is there not a defense attorney? Can anybody cook a pancake so thin that it doesn’t have two sides? Is there not another side to every story?

Yes. The East has a story to tell too. For reasons of history their side is not widely known in North America or Western Europe.

The See of Rome was originally given primacy of honor not because Peter was the first pope of Rome (he was the first pope of Antioch too, and the church of Antioch was older than the church of Rome!!!), but because Rome was the capital of the empire. At the same time Constantinople was given 2nd place, and this because it was the 2nd capital of the empire. These were practical political decisions. They were not religious decisions. Originally primacy meant that the patriarch of Rome would be the leader at councils, would be the Church’s spokesman to the world, would hear cases between bishops, would hear appeals brought from the jurisdictions of other bishops, and would have to involved in council decisions for the decisions to be “ecumenical” and thereby universally binding. In short, he would be the loving father who held the family together.

He was not, in the beginning, the king of the church militant. “Primacy” did not mean that the bishop of Rome would rule the territories of other bishops. There were 11 other named Apostles personally appointed by Jesus to start churches all over the planet. There were four other Sees. The claim that the original Roman papacy ruled the church in the way claimed in this thread is absurd on its face, because it immediately and necessarily undermines the appointment of the other apostles: Paul, James, the other James, Simon, and so on down the list. To say that Peter or his successor ruled every parish from Rome negates the appointment of his own brother Andrew who brought him to Jesus, negates the pastorate of the last surviving apostle, John, in Ephesus, and negates the authority of the bishop in God’s city of Jerusalem who succeeded the martyred apostle James. That is an untenable position. Saint John, the last living Apostle, did not from his Turkish parish treat whoever was Pope in Rome in the way that this thread suggests a Turkish patriarch is supposed to treat him! That suggestion is absurd on its face!

There were four viable Sees at the time of the East/West split. Three of them went one way, together, in unity. Hypothetical objective uninterested observer is asked which side is adhering to the longstanding tradition: the three united to each other, or the lone dissenter?

Answer: the three united are maintaining longstanding tradition. The lone dissenter has strayed. That is why he is alone.

When this gets figured out the two sides will reunite – but not before.
 
Grant1 said:
Hello,

I have been praying about this. I am in no way a theological giant, but have whatever capacity has been given me and attempt to utilize it for His Truth. I sincerely desire answers to the following questions that arose in my prayer time concerning this topic. I dearly love my Catholic and Protestant Brothers and Sisters and pray for insight to help me reconcile the schisms that exist between these two bodies of believers. I have a deep respect for the Catholic church and recoginze it’s historical ties to the early church as well as the great good that it does (and has done) for the world and the cause of Christ our Lord.

So, first off, how is it that the “blessing” of the “One True Church” stayed with Rome rather than Constantinople when the Eastern Orthodox Church split? If I am not mistaken, Catholics do not recognize the Eastern Orthodox Church as part of the “One True Church” correct? So why did the “lineage” go with Rome when this split occurred?

Second, Peter was not the only one to start churches, as is evidenced in Paul’s letters. Peter (and ultimately Christ) extended the title of Apostle to Paul who went and planted churches as well. These churches were not all united under the “Catholic Church” as we know it today, nor were they ever completely, as they spun churches off of them. Paul’s churches (as well as other Apostle’s churches) were certainly numbered as “true” churches by Christ as is also evidenced by their mention in Revelation (whom most of us believe was written by John the Apostle as well.) So, following the direct line of Peter seems problematic to me. If we accept scripture, how can we say Peter’s church is the only true church?

Blessing, and much thanks to any thoughtful and prayerful answers to my questions. I do sincerely seek the Father through the Son. 🙂
Click to expand...
I don’t know really, I know that Peter never visited Pauls churches. And according to Acts 15 when there was a decision over cirumsission Paul met with the Apostles in Jerusalem for a decision and then I think he went away and did his own thing.

There was no unity because when there was a famine (I think it was in the philipian churches) the other churches did nothing about it. I think Luke was part of Pauls church because they travelled together but Luke wasn’t talking to Peter so there was disunity there.

Christians at first if I understand had meetings in homes - everyone believing what they wanted and then there were bishops but they were all appointed by Peter like Barnabus. Barnabus worked with Paul for a while so he must have broken off with Peter before he met with Paul.

Hope that helps, its a little unclear but I thinks that’s how it was.
 
How can we recognize the true church of Jesus Christ? In the fourth century, the Fathers of the Church looked at the biblical testimony and discerned four strong charecteristics of the church: It is One, Holy, Catholic, and Apostolic
St. Paul emphasized that, just as there is one Lord and one God, so there is “one faith, one baptism (Eph 4:5) identified with the integrity and uniqueness of Jesus’ own body (Rom 12:5; Cor 10:17,12:12-13: Eph 2:16. 4:4; Col 3:15)
Some people object that this “church” is a purely spiritual or figurative reality. But is that what Paul means when he speaks of the church as the “body” of Christ? For a body is the visible part of a being endowed with a soul. If Paul had wanted to describe a purely spiritual church, he could have called it the “soul” of Christ, but body would be an unlikely choice, especially for a metaphor so dominant in his writings. Does body not mean a visible unity? Jesus himself expressed a profound desire for Church unity, by quoting many OT texts He PROMISED “There will be one flock, one shepherd” (John 10:16) Could it be that Jesus or St. Paul were talking about some vague unity that over looked differences??
Paul says " I appeal to you, bretheren, by the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, that all of you agree, and that there be no dissensions among you, but that you be united in the same mind and the same judgement” (1 Cor 1:10)
The only candidate for such unity is the Catholic Church, which trancends all ethnic, national, and cultural boundaries. It is the only Christian body that professes one faith, undivided, unchanged, throughout the world and throughout the ages. Those seperated Christians who profess "scripture alone, have multiplied denominations into the tens of thousands. Those Christian bodies differ fro one another on such key matters: the nature of attonment and the meaning of charismatic gifts, the appropriate age for baptism, and the frequency of communion, the morality of abortion and euthenasia, the nature and function of the clergy, even the day of the week on which Christians should worship. Denominations as large as the Lutherans and Baptist’s disagree profoundly on the nature of the saraments. Could such confusion be what Jesus and St. Paul meant by the church’s unity?
 
maryj said:
How can we recognize the true church of Jesus Christ? In the fourth century, the Fathers of the Church looked at the biblical testimony and discerned four strong charecteristics of the church: It is One, Holy, Catholic, and Apostolic
St. Paul emphasized that, just as there is one Lord and one God, so there is “one faith, one baptism (Eph 4:5) identified with the integrity and uniqueness of Jesus’ own body (Rom 12:5; Cor 10:17,12:12-13: Eph 2:16. 4:4; Col 3:15)
Some people object that this “church” is a purely spiritual or figurative reality. But is that what Paul means when he speaks of the church as the “body” of Christ? For a body is the visible part of a being endowed with a soul. If Paul had wanted to describe a purely spiritual church, he could have called it the “soul” of Christ, but body would be an unlikely choice, especially for a metaphor so dominant in his writings. Does body not mean a visible unity? Jesus himself expressed a profound desire for Church unity, by quoting many OT texts He PROMISED “There will be one flock, one shepherd” (John 10:16) Could it be that Jesus or St. Paul were talking about some vague unity that over looked differences??
Paul says " I appeal to you, bretheren, by the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, that all of you agree, and that there be no dissensions among you, but that you be united in the same mind and the same judgement” (1 Cor 1:10)
The only candidate for such unity is the Catholic Church, which trancends all ethnic, national, and cultural boundaries. It is the only Christian body that professes one faith, undivided, unchanged, throughout the world and throughout the ages. Those seperated Christians who profess "scripture alone, have multiplied denominations into the tens of thousands. Those Christian bodies differ fro one another on such key matters: the nature of attonment and the meaning of charismatic gifts, the appropriate age for baptism, and the frequency of communion, the morality of abortion and euthenasia, the nature and function of the clergy, even the day of the week on which Christians should worship. Denominations as large as the Lutherans and Baptist’s disagree profoundly on the nature of the saraments. Could such confusion be what Jesus and St. Paul meant by the church’s unity?
Click to expand...
Very good points.
 
maryj said:
How can we recognize the true church of Jesus Christ? In the fourth century, the Fathers of the Church looked at the biblical testimony and discerned four strong charecteristics of the church: It is One, Holy, Catholic, and Apostolic
St. Paul emphasized that, just as there is one Lord and one God, so there is “one faith, one baptism (Eph 4:5) identified with the integrity and uniqueness of Jesus’ own body (Rom 12:5; Cor 10:17,12:12-13: Eph 2:16. 4:4; Col 3:15)
Some people object that this “church” is a purely spiritual or figurative reality. But is that what Paul means when he speaks of the church as the “body” of Christ? For a body is the visible part of a being endowed with a soul. If Paul had wanted to describe a purely spiritual church, he could have called it the “soul” of Christ, but body would be an unlikely choice, especially for a metaphor so dominant in his writings. Does body not mean a visible unity? Jesus himself expressed a profound desire for Church unity, by quoting many OT texts He PROMISED “There will be one flock, one shepherd” (John 10:16) Could it be that Jesus or St. Paul were talking about some vague unity that over looked differences??
Paul says " I appeal to you, bretheren, by the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, that all of you agree, and that there be no dissensions among you, but that you be united in the same mind and the same judgement” (1 Cor 1:10)
The only candidate for such unity is the Catholic Church, which trancends all ethnic, national, and cultural boundaries. It is the only Christian body that professes one faith, undivided, unchanged, throughout the world and throughout the ages. Those seperated Christians who profess "scripture alone, have multiplied denominations into the tens of thousands. Those Christian bodies differ fro one another on such key matters: the nature of attonment and the meaning of charismatic gifts, the appropriate age for baptism, and the frequency of communion, the morality of abortion and euthenasia, the nature and function of the clergy, even the day of the week on which Christians should worship. Denominations as large as the Lutherans and Baptist’s disagree profoundly on the nature of the saraments. Could such confusion be what Jesus and St. Paul meant by the church’s unity?
Click to expand...
yes, great insight.
 
scottm said:
The See of Rome was originally given primacy of honor not because Peter was the first pope of Rome (he was the first pope of Antioch too, and the church of Antioch was older than the church of Rome!!!), but because Rome was the capital of the empire. At the same time Constantinople was given 2nd place, and this because it was the 2nd capital of the empire. These were practical political decisions. They were not religious decisions. Originally primacy meant that the patriarch of Rome would be the leader at councils, would be the Church’s spokesman to the world, would hear cases between bishops, would hear appeals brought from the jurisdictions of other bishops, and would have to involved in council decisions for the decisions to be “ecumenical” and thereby universally binding. In short, he would be the loving father who held the family together.
Click to expand...
When the Catholic faithful east and west removes the false pretense of the successors of Peter to be some kind of worldly dictator, when by divine institution was given the Keys of the Kingdom of God on earth as protector and defender of the Apostolic teachings and Apostolic Traditions united with his brothers from the apostolic succession.

Peace be with you
Click to expand...
 
Grant1 said:
Hello,

I have been praying about this. I am in no way a theological giant, but have whatever capacity has been given me and attempt to utilize it for His Truth. I sincerely desire answers to the following questions that arose in my prayer time concerning this topic. I dearly love my Catholic and Protestant Brothers and Sisters and pray for insight to help me reconcile the schisms that exist between these two bodies of believers. I have a deep respect for the Catholic church and recoginze it’s historical ties to the early church as well as the great good that it does (and has done) for the world and the cause of Christ our Lord.

So, first off, how is it that the “blessing” of the “One True Church” stayed with Rome rather than Constantinople when the Eastern Orthodox Church split? If I am not mistaken, Catholics do not recognize the Eastern Orthodox Church as part of the “One True Church” correct? So why did the “lineage” go with Rome when this split occurred?

Second, Peter was not the only one to start churches, as is evidenced in Paul’s letters. Peter (and ultimately Christ) extended the title of Apostle to Paul who went and planted churches as well. These churches were not all united under the “Catholic Church” as we know it today, nor were they ever completely, as they spun churches off of them. Paul’s churches (as well as other Apostle’s churches) were certainly numbered as “true” churches by Christ as is also evidenced by their mention in Revelation (whom most of us believe was written by John the Apostle as well.) So, following the direct line of Peter seems problematic to me. If we accept scripture, how can we say Peter’s church is the only true church?

Blessing, and much thanks to any thoughtful and prayerful answers to my questions. I do sincerely seek the Father through the Son. 🙂
Click to expand...
Glory to Jesus Christ!

I’m sure you already realize this, but it is not very likely you will get an accurate rendering of Holy Orthodoxy here. I would recommend visiting an Orthodox forum and hashing out your questions there as a starting point. Sadly on this forum, these types of threads devolve into fighting matches and the OP gets lost somewhere in the midst of it all.

If you’d like to get an Orthodox perspective, PM me and I can help point you in the right direction. May God bless you on your journey!

In Christ,
Andrew
 
Grant1 said:
Hello,
I have been praying about this. I am in no way a theological giant, but have whatever capacity has been given me and attempt to utilize it for His Truth. I sincerely desire answers to the following questions that arose in my prayer time concerning this topic. I dearly love my Catholic and Protestant Brothers and Sisters and pray for insight to help me reconcile the schisms that exist between these two bodies of believers. I have a deep respect for the Catholic church and recoginze it’s historical ties to the early church as well as the great good that it does (and has done) for the world and the cause of Christ our Lord.
Click to expand...
Click to expand...
 
Harpazo said:
Glory to Jesus Christ!

I’m sure you already realize this, but it is not very likely you will get an accurate rendering of Holy Orthodoxy here. I would recommend visiting an Orthodox forum and hashing out your questions there as a starting point. Sadly on this forum, these types of threads devolve into fighting matches and the OP gets lost somewhere in the midst of it all.
Click to expand...
This is true. No fighting on Orthodox forums, it is usually wonderfully peaceful because they don’t exactly encourage controversy and certainly not the making of positive points about Catholicism.
 
elvisman said:
As you know, the Lord said to Peter, “And so I say to you, you are Peter (Petros**), and upon this rock (Petra) I will build my church, and the gates of the netherworld shall not prevail against it.”
Many non-Catholics believe Peter is not the Rock but his confession of faith. It couldn’t be Peter because the Greek words used here are Petros, meaning, small stone and Petra, meaning, large mass of rock. They say that the Rock is Jesus because he is referred to as Rock elsewhere, including, Matt. 21:42 and 1 Pet. 2:3-8. The problem with this is that Jesus didn’t speak Greek to his Apostles - he spoke Aramaic.

What Jesus actually said was, “And so I say to you, you are Kepha, and upon this rock Kepha I will build my church, and the gates of the netherworld shall not prevail against it.” Kepha is a large mass of rock. This is why St. Peter is referred to as Cephas in many of St. Paul’s letters, because Cephas is the closest Greek transliteration of the Aramaic, Kepha.

There is another problem for the non-Catholic. Petra is a feminine Greek noun and could hardly be used to describe a man, so the word was translated as Petros in Scripture because it was being used in reference to a man. Jesus clearly appointed St. Peter as earthly head of the Church and Chief Apostle here in Matthew’s Gospel as well as Luke 22:31-32, where he told Peter that he prayed for him to strengthen the other Apostles in his absence and in John 21:15-19, where he told Peter 3 times to feed his sheep.
Click to expand...
What I do not understand from non-Catholics is why is it okay for them to have their minister/pastor succeed another,but the same practice cannot be applicable to the Catholic Church? Nothing but double standards to me.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top