The Catholic Church is just another denomination

[jmcrae]

PS: The bottom line, for me, is that the Scriptures, which I have always revered as God’s Word, clearly indicate that the Apostle Peter was the first chief shepherd of Christ’s Church.

When I realized that Christ had, in fact, set Peter up as the authority over His Church, and when I also realized that the Pope is in a direct line of Succession from St. Peter the Apostle, I think it started to sort of vaguely knock on the door of my understanding that Christ had not founded an invisible assembly of believers who were all equal in authority with each other. (Despite throughout the New Testament, the Apostles flinging orders and commandments at various church communities that no Protestant would ever accept from the Pope, or even quite possibly any Apostle, if he were still living, today - somehow, I was able to read these things and say to myself, “Yes, the Ephesians (or whoever) had to believe these doctrines and follow these commands,” without at the same time thinking that God could have ensured a succession of leadership that had authority equal to that of St. Paul and St. Peter.)

Even in the case of our own Presbytry, I remember that our congregation used to vote on whether to follow its directives, or not. (Which I think must have been very frustrating for them.)

I can’t for the life of me imagine the Ephesians receiving that letter from St. Paul, getting up a meeting, and taking a vote on whether to follow his directives and believe his doctrines or not. (And if they did, I can’t imagine St. Paul taking it lying down, or not excommunicating the bally lot of them, if they had.)

Bottom line: ONE. HOLY. CATHOLIC. APOSTOLIC.

 

[Grace_Seeker]

And when we disagree, by what marks do we know which of us (if either) is hearing the Holy Spirit, and which of us is being deceived by the Devil?

First, why would you jump to a conclusion that if two or more Christians disagree over something that they must be being deceived by the Devil? Why cannot it not just be their own human failings?

But to answer your question, in my church we hold to a view by which we consider 4 things: scripture, tradition, reason, and experience. Scripture is always primary, but these other things help to inform our understanding of scripture. Thus an understand of scripture can never be dictated to by tradition, it can only be informed by it. And if reason and experience tell us that the understanding arrived at by tradition alone cannot be true, we don’t accept it just because it comes down to us through the centuries. Centuries of error do not make it right.

For instance, with you, I find the writing of the early church father incredibly instructive. But I will not accept them when they are contradicted by scripture or when other tradition, reason, and experience tell me something different. One of my personal favorite early church fathers is Igantius of Antioch, yet I think this comment of his, while meant well, to not be very well thought out: “It is not lawful to baptize or give communion without the consent of the bishop. On the other hand, whatever has his approval is pleasing to God.” (Letter to the Smyrnaeans) Experience and reason tell me that over the centuries there have been bishops who have approved of things that I cannot possibily imagine were pleasing to God, simply consider the Medici and Borgia families. Of Roderigo Borgia even the New Advent Catholic Encyclopedia writees: “Alexander VI continued as Pope the manner of life that had disgraced his cardinalate.” I understand that bishops are just men and so as fallen as the rest of us. I do not hold that against the Catholic Church as a whole. But it does mean, that the writings of even so one as close to the apostles as Ignatius can be fallible, as they were in this instance. And that is but one example.

I am sorry, but tradition cannot be held as infallible and the tradition that says it is, is proviing itself fallible by that very statement.

 

[jmcrae]

First, why would you jump to a conclusion that if two or more Christians disagree over something that they must be being deceived by the Devil? Why cannot it not just be their own human failings?

We don’t hear locutions (voices from beyond) from our own human failings. Short of a locution (or a magesterial document), I know that I’m relying on my own personal opinions. But if I think I am “hearing” the Holy Spirit, then there are three possibilities: 1. it is the Holy Spirit; 2. it is the Devil; or 3. I have a mental illness.

Ruling out a mental illness, we are back to two possibilities, since real locutions come either from God or from the Devil. Insane people often imagine they are having locutions, or else have auditory hallucinations.

But to answer your question, in my church we hold to a view by which we consider 4 things: scripture, tradition, reason, and experience. Scripture is always primary, but these other things help to inform our understanding of scripture. Thus an understand of scripture can never be dictated to by tradition, it can only be informed by it.

This assumes that tradition came after Scripture. In reality, it was the other way around. We got the Scriptures from Tradition. One of the ways the Bishops of the Catholic Church authenticated the books of the New Testament was by seeing whether they lined up with Tradition, or not.

For instance, with you, I find the writing of the early church father incredibly instructive. But I will not accept them when they are contradicted by scripture or when other tradition, reason, and experience tell me something different. One of my personal favorite early church fathers is Igantius of Antioch, yet I think this comment of his, while meant well, to not be very well thought out: “It is not lawful to baptize or give communion without the consent of the bishop. On the other hand, whatever has his approval is pleasing to God.” (Letter to the Smyrnaeans) Experience and reason tell me that over the centuries there have been bishops who have approved of things that I cannot possibily imagine were pleasing to God, simply consider the Medici and Borgia families. Of Roderigo Borgia even the New Advent Catholic Encyclopedia writees: “Alexander VI continued as Pope the manner of life that had disgraced his cardinalate.” I understand that bishops are just men and so as fallen as the rest of us. I do not hold that against the Catholic Church as a whole. But it does mean, that the writings of even so one as close to the apostles as Ignatius can be fallible, as they were in this instance. And that is but one example.

He is stating what the responsibility of a Bishop is, which is that Bishops are in charge of the Sacraments of the Church. The fact that Bishops are in charge of the Sacraments of the Church doesn’t change just because one Bishop or Pope here or there did something bad.

In the Methodist Church, it is the ordained Methodist clergy who are in charge of the preaching, right?

If a particular Methodist minister happened to commit a sin, would it suddenly then become not true that, generally speaking, it is the ordained Methodist clergy who are in charge of the preaching in the Methodist Church? Or would it suddenly become a free-for-all, where anybody who wanted to, regardless of their credentials or education, could get up and start preaching, merely because one guy or a few guys did something not befitting of a Methodist minister? (Would the role cease to exist, if the person himself were to sin?)

In the same way, Catholic Bishops did not lose their function as guardians of the Sacraments when someone committed a sin.

 

[MrS]

We agree on two of your points:

Of course, I submit to you that the Catholic Church, just like every other church with a human steering it today, is at best a faith community, and all equally so within the Church which is of Jesus Christ.

Would you be able to provide some historical background for this opionion.

The Way, as referred to in Acts, and eventually referred to as Catholic, as hardly a community of believers alone. Lest the travels of Paul, Barnabas, Silas, Timothy… and oh yeh, Peter, would not have been necessary.

The Early Church, in disipline, in practice, and in liturgy is evidenced in ACTS as a growing, governed relationship with God… the fullfillment of the OT in Jesus Christ.

In fact, for centuries the word Church only applied to that religion which was one form of Christianity. Only after the 1500s did the upstart reformers take the word church to use with their own un-authorized faith communities. We refere to them today as “churches” only out of an abuse of the word, which has now become a norm.

Jesus said ONLY to Peter “…feed My sheep, tend My flock, feed My sheep…”

He did not say feed “the” sheep, or “any” sheep".

He did not give that authority to the disciples or to the divinity school which graduates today’s Protestant ministers.

He did not recind or put limits on that authority…

He did however give Peter, alone the power to bind and loose
He did however give Peter and the 11 the power to bind and loose.

That is why I say you teach on matters of God without authority from God.

 

[Grace_Seeker]

It took me 17 years to become Catholic, and yes, that was certainly a consideration, since it was apparent almost from the very beginning of my investigations that the Catholic Christ, and the God that I was worshipping in the United Church of Canada didn’t have very much in common with each other - and I was naturally predisposed to assume that the God I had been raised to believe in in my Protestant church was the “real” one.

And thus I am very glad that you found God in Christ through the ministry of the Catholic Church. I do not wish to destroy it, or tear it down. It has a legacy that no other church today can match.

Though in another sense, the history of the Catholic Church is my history too. I can remember once my parents each bragging about their family history and how my Dad’s family was connected to a few presidents and my Mom’s family was here even before the Pligrims. Finally I just laughed and reminded them that whatever was true for either of them, all of it was true for me. Well, my church may be separated from the Catholic Church, still all but the last 400 years of its history are my history too.

Probably not. It is a very confusing religion. The more I learn about it, the more confusing it gets. I was much more sure of Protestantism when I was Protestant, and thought that all Protestants believed what I believed - and any that didn’t just hadn’t been to the right schools.

Protestanism is not a religion. All Protestantism is a subset of Christianity. And as you are aware, there is no one “protestant” Church (except perhaps in places like Germany and Norway). But there are themes that run through nearly all Protestant churches. These things can be talked about in another thread devoted to that, but it really isn’t all that confusing.

And yet, one sees them so often denying the actual motherhood of Mary. They say that she was “merely a vessel,” and other things of that kind.

If I respond, I think I will really knock this thread off topic. So, this too is probably best left for a thread of its own.

Do they not understand that Christ gets His human nature from Mary?

I doubt if many Protestant spend much time thinking about this. But those who do would begin with a recognition that Jesus is indeed born a human, and that Joseph was only his “supposed” father, thus of course all of Jesus humanness comes from Mary. Though ask this question of yourself, if a human being inherits half of his genes from his mother and half from his father, and Jesus was 100% human (not a freak), then he had to have a full complement of human genes. Where did the half that Mary’s egg could not have supplied come from?

It’s not always so obvious that many Protestants “get” this.

I’m sure I didn’t, when I was Protestant. In fact, I don’t think it’s a subject I ever even thought about very coherently.

I don’t think I was even really aware that Christ was the God of the Old Testament, since I used to think of “the God of the Old Testament” and “Christ” as though they were opposites - certainly, it never occurred to me that they were the same person. While still holding to monotheism - which shows how thoroughly confused I was. (Although I think I may have been under the impression that the Old Testament was a human idea of God, and that God never actually revealed Himself until the time of Christ. I obviously didn’t think that one through to its conclusion, either, if so. )

The issues you raise here are about quality of pastoral leadership and Christian education. My sister-in-law is Catholic and happens to think that her children were all christened and that this is distinct from baptism; she claimed to not even know what baptism was and thought it was a protestant invention. Having attended the ceremony, there is no doubt that the priest was baptizing these children. Eventually she was so distressed over it, I told her to go back and ask the priest to explain what it was that he had done. She did, and was then finally at peace about it. Yes, they had been baptized, but though raised a Catholic she had never known the term. All of that is to say, it is to bad that you were poorly informed of your faith in the United Church of Canada. I am glad you are better informed now. But the issues you raise here are not with protestantism as much as with local congregational practice and personal attentiveness.

 

[Grace_Seeker]

We don’t hear locutions (voices from beyond) from our own human failings. Short of a locution (or a magesterial document), I know that I’m relying on my own personal opinions. But if I think I am “hearing” the Holy Spirit, then there are three possibilities: 1. it is the Holy Spirit; 2. it is the Devil; or 3. I have a mental illness.

Ruling out a mental illness, we are back to two possibilities, since real locutions come either from God or from the Devil. Insane people often imagine they are having locutions, or else have auditory hallucinations.

This assumes that tradition came after Scripture. In reality, it was the other way around. We got the Scriptures from Tradition. One of the ways the Bishops of the Catholic Church authenticated the books of the New Testament was by seeing whether they lined up with Tradition, or not.

He is stating what the responsibility of a Bishop is, which is that Bishops are in charge of the Sacraments of the Church. The fact that Bishops are in charge of the Sacraments of the Church doesn’t change just because one Bishop or Pope here or there did something bad.

In the Methodist Church, it is the ordained Methodist clergy who are in charge of the preaching, right?

If a particular Methodist minister happened to commit a sin, would it suddenly then become not true that, generally speaking, it is the ordained Methodist clergy who are in charge of the preaching in the Methodist Church? Or would it suddenly become a free-for-all, where anybody who wanted to, regardless of their credentials or education, could get up and start preaching, merely because one guy or a few guys did something not befitting of a Methodist minister? (Would the role cease to exist, if the person himself were to sin?)

In the same way, Catholic Bishops did not lose their function as guardians of the Sacraments when someone committed a sin.

I think my point still stands. Not all of the things that a bishop approves of are pleasing to God. That does not mean that the bishops lose their function in the church. It just means that simply because a bishop approves of it, we should not infer that God does also. Yet that is what Ignatius said.

If your argument is that I am misapplying what Igantius was referring to in a specific reference to everything else with regard to bishops, the I can appreicate that. I need to take into consideration the context in which Ignatius wrote those words. This is the same argument I have against the Catholic Church’s application of the words of Matthew 16. The Church Jesus referred to in Matthew 16 is something different than the Catholic Church of today.

The first person to use the term catholic was again Ignatius, “wherever Jesus Christ is, there is the Catholic Church.”

And where exactly is Jesus? According to scripture, wherever two or three are gathered in his name.

So, according to Ignatius of Antioch, the context of the use of the term “catholic” is NOT EXCLUSIVE of those who are outside the Catholic Church as long as they are gathered in Jesus’ name. Your own tradition demands this understanding.

Are you going to teach contrary to the teachings of the Church, of Ignatius, and of Christ himself? What is the term the Catholic Church has for people who do?

 

[Grace_Seeker]

That is why I say you teach on matters of God without authority from God.

Obviously I think differently than you on this.

 

[jmcrae]

I think my point still stands. Not all of the things that a bishop approves of are pleasing to God. That does not mean that the bishops lose their function in the church. It just means that simply because a bishop approves of it, we should not infer that God does also. Yet that is what Ignatius said.

If your argument is that I am misapplying what Igantius was referring to in a specific reference to everything else with regard to bishops, the I can appreicate that. I need to take into consideration the context in which Ignatius wrote those words.

What St. Ignatius was saying was that it is up to the Bishop (who is appointed by the Bishop of Rome, the successor of Peter, as he points out elsewhere), who is to be called a Christian, who is to be considered a member of the Church, and who is to receive the Sacraments.

This remains true even until today - when I converted to the Catholic faith, I was presented to the Bishop, and I received his permission to approach the Sacraments after a period of self-examination and purification. I could not have done so, without receiving his permission to do so.

This is the same argument I have against the Catholic Church’s application of the words of Matthew 16. The Church Jesus referred to in Matthew 16 is something different than the Catholic Church of today.

The first person to use the term catholic was again Ignatius, “wherever Jesus Christ is, there is the Catholic Church.”

And where exactly is Jesus? According to scripture, wherever two or three are gathered in his name.

He is also in the Tabernacle, and in the Scriptures, and in the priest when he is in persona Christi.

Do you deny that Christ gave authority over the whole Church to the Apostles, and especially to St. Peter?

What is your understanding of John 21:15-19?

So, according to Ignatius of Antioch, the context of the use of the term “catholic” is NOT EXCLUSIVE of those who are outside the Catholic Church as long as they are gathered in Jesus’ name. Your own tradition demands this understanding.

Of course they have an imperfect connection to the Church - no one denies that. But are they “in” the Church? (Are they even aware that the Church exists in a tangible form that they can be either in, or not in?)

After all, if everyone who claims to be a Christian is “in” the church, then what becomes of Christ’s command to the Apostles to excommunicate those who do not obey the Church? (Would Christ give a commandment that has no practical meaning or effect?)

After all, if I get myself excommunicated from the Catholic Church for some reason, what practical meaning does that have, if I can just waltz on in to your Methodist church and decide that I’m still in good standing with Christ, since I haven’t (yet) disobeyed the Methodist hierarchy? Or if I decide that all Church laws are merely man-made, and even less than man-made, since if I break man-made laws, I at least go to jail, or else receive a fine, and that therefore my break with the Church doesn’t have any effect on my relationship with Christ - despite Christ’s clear and repeated teachings to the contrary.

 

[guanophore]

The Orthodox *also* reject the primacy of Peter. They retain the Sacraments of the Church because they have had the good sense to retain the Succession from the Apostles, but they are not in union with it.

I am not sure this is true. Many Orthodox persons and writings have confirmed to me that the Eastern Churches always recognized Peter as first among equals. I think what they rejected was the corruption of some of the persons in office, and that abuse of authority that I took to a new thread. (I would appreciate hearing from you on that one, I think it is called "is the catholic church supreme). The doctrine if the infallibility of the Pope is the issue, not his status as first among equals. In the Orthodox mind, these things are not the same.

 

[jmcrae]

I am not sure this is true. Many Orthodox persons and writings have confirmed to me that the Eastern Churches always recognized Peter as first among equals. I think what they rejected was the corruption of some of the persons in office, and that abuse of authority that I took to a new thread. (I would appreciate hearing from you on that one, I think it is called "is the catholic church supreme). The doctrine if the infallibility of the Pope is the issue, not his status as first among equals. In the Orthodox mind, these things are not the same.

What I know is that they are not, at present, in communion with the See of Peter, for the reason that they reject his authority over them, and even his ability to have authority over them. Infallibility is certainly an issue, as well, and probably only compounds the problem.

I am off to the Chrism Mass, to reaffirm what St. Ignatius said about the Bishops, and in particular, my own Bishop.

I will be back here tomorrow.

 

[guanophore]

I see that you do recognize other groups as churches. From other things that you have written, I wasn’t sure that you would. So we are making progress.

It really is an improper designation. “There is one body and one Spirit, just as you were called to the one hope that belongs to your call, 5 one Lord, one faith, one baptism, 6 one God and Father of us all, who is above all and through all and in all.” Eph 4:3-6

 Now why does only one church of the many churches make the claim for exclusivity that the Catholic Church does?  Probably because the others have a better understanding of the nature of the Church than does the one.

I don’t think Catholics are the only ones that do this. In fact, people who believe that you have to ask Jesus into your heart to be saved often don’t believe that Catholics are Christians at all. Catholics recognize the truth of Paul’s words above, that there is ONLY ONE Body, ONLY ONE “church”. We are all members one of another.

I was speaking of the Catholic Church’s concept of the Church being only a physical body, and that it is not an invisible body of all Christians.

If it is a physical body, the Orthodox have as much right to claim this presence in their organization as do the Catholics.

I agree with you.

And the Catholics should grant it. This would make for Christ’s physical body to be divided, for it is in schism. But Christ is not divided.

Because in truth, when talking about the Church as the body of Christ, Paul is not talking about the same thing that the Catholic Church is talking about.

I guess I just don’t understand this. I agree that scripture teaches that we should all be one. That there is one body, and that Christ Himself is not divided, though His body on earth has been terribly wounded and dismembered. It must make Him ache.

Thus if one is forced to understand the Church as the body of Christ in either the understanding used by Paul or the understanding used by the Catholic Church, I will go with what Paul spoke about.

There is no difference between the two.

I would rather teach contrary to the Catholic Church on this matter and be labeled a heretic, than to teach contrary to the scriptures.

I think you see a dichotomy where none exists. It is probably because you are not familiar with the teachings of the church.

And what commands are these that Jesus speaks of? He just told his disciples what it was:
Grace Seeker;2061682:

You say: “Protestants and Orthodox both reject various aspects of Christian authority.” I hardly think so. I see no one here accept for a few (and not even all) Catholics who are unwilling to love another who belongs to Christ.

Both things are true. Separations have occurred because of rejection of some of the teachings. That rejection was, in part, fostered by a lack of love, and continues to persist due to a lack of love.

 

[guanophore]

In another thread, another poster shared this touching story:

We can begin living right now as brothers and sisters of one another. We don’t need a council of bishops to make it so. We only need to quit telling another that this Christian is a “better” Christian than another because he/she is of the “preferred” church. We are all the Church, and even as we belong to many different churches and communions we are all still one Church. That Church is what Jesus referred to when he said to Peter, I will found “my church”. It is the metaphorical body of Christ Paul spoke of, for we all belong to one Lord and have one baptism in Christ. That is what makes us one, not doctrine, but the person of Jesus Christ and his Holy Spirit that lives in each one of us individually. The rest of it, the stuff that divides us, is just the nonsense and the invention of men.

Yes and no. The stuff that divides is not all nonsense, and not all invention of men. No, we don’t need bishops to “make” us united, and the best way to bring about the unity that Christ calls us to is to love one another. However, having a council of bishops does, indeed, help to resolve the differences.

 

[mark_a]

Can you explain what you mean here? I’m not sure I understand.

The hard work, the theology, was already done by the Church. The divinity of Christ, the incarnation, the Eucharist, the Trinity, the perpetual virginity of Mary, the Creeds, etc. were already established.
Luther, whatever his intentions were, was no brilliant theologian. He brought no insight to Christianity.

This is, of course, only my opinion.

 

[guanophore]

I need to correct you on one point, we do have authority – authority given to the Church (all believers not just the 12) by Christ through the Holy Spirit.

Are you saying that you take for yourself the role and responsibilities that Jesus gave to the 12?

 

[mark_a]

You say: “Protestants and Orthodox both reject various aspects of Christian authority.”

Hello Grace Seeker,

Keep an eye on the moral teaching authority of the chair of Peter. You said earlier that you don’t disagree with the moral teachings of the Catholic Church, but I challenge you to look deeply. You’ll find some disagreements because you are not Catholic.

All the other differences between Protestants, Orthodox, Catholics, and whoever are just us jockying for the position of the right hand of the right hand of the Father.

This is a great thread, by the way.

 

[onenow1]

Answer: “Now we see but a poor reflection as in a mirror; then we shall see face to face. Now I know in part; then I shall know fully, even as I am fully known.” (I Corinthians 13:12)

“Let this mind be in you, which was also in Christ Jesus” (Philippians 2"5)

“those who live in accordance with the Spirit have their minds set on what the Spirit desires.” (Romans 8:5)

But the verse you quoted has nothing to do with knowing what God has revealed to us, it has to do with being able to pass knowledge on to God, for the verse continues:
“Who has known the mind of the Lord?
Or who has been his counselor?”
“Who has ever given to God,
that God should repay him?” (Romans 11:34-35)

If this is how Catholics interpret scripture, it is no wonder you read it, even quote it and yet do not understand its teachings.

Righteousness from God comes through faith in Jesus Christ to all who believe. There is no difference whether you are Catholic or Protestant or Orthodox or what label you apply to yourself as long as you believe you shall be saved.

Answer to your answer: 1Cor 13You take this verse completely out of context. This verse is explaining a future event when we will see Jesus face to face.The only thing he knows in part, is he will understand, the mysteries of God when he sees him face to face.

Phil. 2: 5, He’s talking about the unity of believers. Have this mind among yourselves then he goes on to explain. VS. 6 He did not count equality with God a thing to be grasped.

Romans 8:5. Deals with the way we think of the of the gospels and everything he taught.

Romans 11: 33-35, Read both verses and I think you will get the idea of the verse you take out of context again.

Peace, OneNow1

 

[Grace_Seeker]

OK. I want to come back to the question I was trying to ask when I first entered this conversation. I haven’t gotten an answer to it yet, so I’m going to try to ask it in a different way.

If the Catholic Church were to cease to exist (just allow for the conjecture, no one is trying to attack the Catholic Church with the question, or deny any of your long standing views of it permanence), If the Catholic Church were to cease to exist, would that also mean that the Church of Jesus Christ had ceased to exist? Or would the Church of Jesus Christ continue to exist in and through the other epxressions of Christian believers who are members of other faith communities, fellowships, and communions?

 

[guanophore]

Answer: “Now we see but a poor reflection as in a mirror; then we shall see face to face. Now I know in part; then I shall know fully, even as I am fully known.” (I Corinthians 13:12)

I think that you are looking at this passage in the light of your Sola Scriptura doctrine.

"For our knowledge is imperfect and our prophecy is imperfect; 10 but when the perfect comes, the imperfect will pass away. 11 When I was a child, I spoke like a child, I thought like a child, I reasoned like a child; when I became a man, I gave up childish ways. 12 For now we see in a mirror dimly, but then face to face. Now I know in part; then I shall understand fully, even as I have been fully understood. " 1 Cor 13:8-13

The Sola Scriptura doctrine places the bible above the true Word, which is Jesus. Solas believe that “the perfect has come” in the form of the closed Canon. Therefore, they believe that they can see fully face to face the Divine One, though he remains at the right hand of the Father. They believe that, since the Bible is the fullness of Him, that they can understand fully, and are no longer imperfect in knowledge.

In contrast the Catholic Church teaches that Jesus Himself is the Word, and that perfection will not occur until He comes for His bride. For that reason, we continue to search and seek for Him in a dim world, enlightened by His Spirit, who preserves us until that Day.

 

[guanophore]

If this is how Catholics interpret scripture, it is no wonder you read it, even quote it and yet do not understand its teachings.

Righteousness from God comes through faith in Jesus Christ to all who believe. There is no difference whether you are Catholic or Protestant or Orthodox or what label you apply to yourself as long as you believe you shall be saved.

Grace Seeker, you have revealed here your ignorance with regard to “another denomination” as the thread states. The Catholic Church teaches this very truth. The fact that you are not aware of it, or misunderstand that we know righteousness comes from God through faith to all who believe only betrays your ignorance. Of course no one is saved by their “label”! What did anyone say that gave you that impression?!

 

[jco2004]

Let me differ. The Catholic Church of Rome was founded by Christ and His apostles. In that sense it is the Mother Church. .

Correction: the Chruch of Rome was one of the local churches founded by the apostles. Jerusalem, Antioch and Alexandria were others. The universal Church was founded by Christ on the foundation of the twelve apostles. Joe