Which church is God's true church? Is it the Roman Catholic Church?

  • Thread starter Thread starter Jimmy_B
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Mat 16:18
And I say also unto thee, That thou art Peter, and upon this rock I will build my church; and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it.

The word Church in the Greek is ekklēsia

ekklēsia
1)
a gathering of citizens called out from their homes into some public place, an assembly
a) an assembly of the people convened at the public place of the council for the purpose of deliberating
b) the assembly of the Israelites
c) any gathering or throng of men assembled by chance, tumultuously
d) in a Christian sense

1) an assembly of Christians gathered for worship in a religious meeting
2) a company of Christian, or of those who, hoping for eternal salvation through Jesus Christ, observe their own religious rites, hold their own religious meetings, and manage their own affairs, according to regulations prescribed for the body for order’s sake
3) those who anywhere, in a city, village, constitute such a company and are united into one body
4) the whole body of Christians scattered throughout the earth
5) the assembly of faithful Christians already dead and received into heaven

So with the definitions by themselves, I can see how some non-Catholics view the church as an invisible church, or as just an ecclesial community of believers.

But when you combine it with the actions of Paul and the Apostles in the book of Acts like meeting in council and Paul presenting his Gospel to Peter so that he “might not have run in vain”, and the writings of the very early Christians, such as the Didache and the early church fathers, we see that the Church was more than that. Yes it does have an invisible aspect to it, but it also had a hierarchy with Deacons, Priests and Bishops who had their roles in this church, and the members of this church were told to submit to the authority of these leaders. We see that the church continued to meet in councils to settle disputes and errors which were creeping into the church.

We see that Jesus say that he would establish his church, not his churches. We see that he said that he would be with his church until the end of the age, and that he would send them the Holy Spirit so they would not be left orphans. We see talk of an apostasy, but it states that many would be led astray, not that the hold church would fall away.
We see that this in fact did occur, with the arian heresy, many were in fact led astray, but the Church met to correct this and many other errors which crept into the church. It wasn’t until the Protestant reformation, that a very large group apostatized from the church not to return, and began to teach a different Gospel which was passed down from Jesus and the Apostles.
Have you read some of the introductions in the letters of the NT about how the various churches are addressed? One thing you will notice is that there is no mention of any of these churches being tied to Rome except in the book of Romans. Secondly, the idea that Peter was recognized as the supreme leader i.e. pope is not supported in the NT nor in history.
 
Have you read some of the introductions in the letters of the NT about how the various churches are addressed? One thing you will notice is that there is no mention of any of these churches being tied to Rome except in the book of Romans. Secondly, the idea that Peter was recognized as the supreme leader i.e. pope is not supported in the NT nor in history.
That someone can actually claim this is simply denial. What planet’s history are you speaking of?

Do you claim infallible interpretation of God’s Word? If not, then you can only claim honestly that your own fallible interpretation of God’s Holy Word is what you’re going on. Therefore, your fallible interpretation says the pope is not the visible head of the Church built by Christ.

For you or anyone to say that it is not covered in Scripture is patently false.

Our Church has been given the ability to interpret infallibly, and the correct interpretation is that the idea of the head of the Bishops, the visible head of the Church built by Christ, the “Prime Minister” given the keys when the King was going away was Peter and this office is established by Christ.
 
Have you read some of the introductions in the letters of the NT about how the various churches are addressed? One thing you will notice is that there is no mention of any of these churches being tied to Rome except in the book of Romans. Secondly, the idea that Peter was recognized as the supreme leader i.e. pope is not supported in the NT nor in history.
Your statement that the Pope is not supported by history is inaccurate. I am posting just a couple of short examples that show that the Pope did have supreme authority. If you want many more examples tell me and I will provide the sources. We have many letters from all over the known world referring to the Pope as Supreme. We have letters from numerous Bishops from the different continents asking for Rome to decide matters for them.

St. Ignatius “The presiding church in the place of the land of the Romans”
St. Cyprian “one church and one see founded by the Lord; voice of Peter. No other alter can be setup, no new priesthood be made, except the one altar and one priesthood. Whoever gathers elsewhere scatters…one church founded by Christ our Lord on Peter, by the source and reason unity.
Opatatus of Milevis statement to Donatist “How can you pretend to have the keys of the Kingdom of heaven, who sacrilegiously fight against the see of Peter by your presumption and impudence.
St. Ambrose “Roman Church is the head of the whole world.”

Concerning the NT why doesn’t the Bible transfer authority to John when Peter was martyed? It is because the authority remained in Rome with the Pope.
 
Who did die for the Eucharist in the early church? Do you have some names?
Ignatius wrote approx 107 a.d. He was on his way to be thrown to the lions as he writes the following letters. Ignatius died for all these reasons mentioned in these and all his 6 letters, the Eucharist being one of them as you can see.

ch 4 newadvent.org/fathers/0108.htm
ch 7 & 8 newadvent.org/fathers/0109.htm

in ch 4 he uses Eucharistic imagry (bread)
newadvent.org/fathers/0107.htm

May I suggest reading the entire letters not just going to the specific chapter. And by all means read all his letters not just these 3 to get a feel for what he believed.
 
Your statement that the Pope is not supported by history is inaccurate. I am posting just a couple of short examples that show that the Pope did have supreme authority. If you want many more examples tell me and I will provide the sources. We have many letters from all over the known world referring to the Pope as Supreme. We have letters from numerous Bishops from the different continents asking for Rome to decide matters for them.

St. Ignatius “The presiding church in the place of the land of the Romans”
St. Cyprian “one church and one see founded by the Lord; voice of Peter. No other alter can be setup, no new priesthood be made, except the one altar and one priesthood. Whoever gathers elsewhere scatters…one church founded by Christ our Lord on Peter, by the source and reason unity.
Opatatus of Milevis statement to Donatist “How can you pretend to have the keys of the Kingdom of heaven, who sacrilegiously fight against the see of Peter by your presumption and impudence.
St. Ambrose “Roman Church is the head of the whole world.”

Concerning the NT why doesn’t the Bible transfer authority to John when Peter was martyed? It is because the authority remained in Rome with the Pope.
What did Peter do while he was in Rome? Did he make some rulings there etc?
 
What did Peter do while he was in Rome? Did he make some rulings there etc?
Anyone who desired to seek truth would investigate these on their own as possible leads to the truth. Arrogantly clinging to falsehoods that have been long since been disproven, while continually denying the truths presented by others is no way for a Christian to live.
 
MDK;4082304]
Originally Posted by justasking4
What did Peter do while he was in Rome? Did he make some rulings there etc?
MDK
Anyone who desired to seek truth would investigate these on their own as possible leads to the truth. Arrogantly clinging to falsehoods that have been long since been disproven, while continually denying the truths presented by others is no way for a Christian to live.
A couple of claims are being made that require some evidence.
  1. Was Peter recognized as the supreme leader of the church from Rome?
  2. If so, what did he do from there?
Do you know the answers to these questions?
 
A couple of claims are being made that require some evidence.
  1. Was Peter recognized as the supreme leader of the church from Rome?
  2. If so, what did he do from there?
Do you know the answers to these questions?
Let the one who can guarantee to interpret Scripture infallibly cast the first objection to Peter’s primacy.

Is that you?
 
A couple of claims are being made that require some evidence.
  1. Was Peter recognized as the supreme leader of the church from Rome?
  2. If so, what did he do from there?
Do you know the answers to these questions?
I do know the answer to these questions, but you have some answering to do first, as you’ve been asked previous to your post quoted above, if you can interpret God’s Word infallibly. Please let us know.
 
What did Peter do while he was in Rome? Did he make some rulings there etc?
I will pull some books out and give you examples of rulings that show at the very beginning the bishops recognized Rome and the Pope as the authority.

I would agree with the other poster that stated to read the writings of the early Church Fathers. We have incredible documentation concerning the early Church. We have documentation of their masses. We have letters written between bishops concerning theology. Much of it written by people directly taught by the Apostles themselves. The writings aren’t just made up thoughts from someone hundreds of year later.
 
Let the one who can guarantee to interpret Scripture infallibly cast the first objection to Peter’s primacy.

Is that you?
Who can infallibly interpret the Scriptures? Who has ever done so except the Lord Jesus Who was God incarnate?

Does a priest have such authority?
 
justasking4;4082334:
A couple of claims are being made that require some evidence.
  1. Was Peter recognized as the supreme leader of the church from Rome?
  2. If so, what did he do from there?
Do you know the answers to these questions?
I do know the answer to these questions, but you have some answering to do first, as you’ve been asked previous to your post quoted above, if you can interpret God’s Word infallibly. Please let us know.
I do this because the problem is not one where we Catholics don’t have enough evidence or Scripture on our side, because there is and we do. The problem is with false beliefs and arrogance of those anti-Catholics for whom it will never matter if we fill up the Grand Canyon ten times over with evidence, it will never be enough. Let’s address the real issue here, and it isn’t a problem with Catholicism. There is not now, nor has there ever been, nor will there ever be a problem with Catholic dogma or doctrine. Those who say there is, then demand proof, and when shown deny the truth… have the problem.
 
Who can infallibly interpret the Scriptures? Who has ever done so except the Lord Jesus Who was God incarnate?

Does a priest have such authority?
You are correct that is why the Holy Spirit guides and protects the teachings of the Church. It appears that you are not understanding the concept of papal infallibility. Nowhere do we hold that the Pope is inspired.

The papal claims are:
1)Pope is chief bishop.
2)Has jurisdiction over all members of the Church.
3)To be a member of the Church one must be in communion with the Pope.
4)The guidance of God will see to it that the Pope and Magisterium shall never commit the Church to error concerning matters of faith (teaching)

No preist do not have such authority.
 
Who can infallibly interpret the Scriptures? Who has ever done so except the Lord Jesus Who was God incarnate?

Does a priest have such authority?
I am curios about your posts. It appears that you have over 4,000 posts so all of these subjects must have come up before. Plus these are fairly easy subjects for Catholics to prove their points while showing documentation.

Are you refuting the evidence we have provided? Why pose such easy questions that show Protestant theology is in error?
 
Who can infallibly interpret the Scriptures? Who has ever done so except the Lord Jesus Who was God incarnate?

Does a priest have such authority?
Thank you for answering my question, even if it was in round-about way… By questioning whether anyone but God can do it, you are saying that would be a big NO, you can’t interpret infallibly.

You’re right in that God knows. God can reveal the truth to some. Do you deny that the inspired authors who wrote Sacred Scriptures knew what they wrote? Did they not teach others what it meant? Did not those others pass this down. The Church is the pillar and ground of truth for a reason. That reason is that God protects the Church from error. The gates of hell will never prevail against the Church. There will never be error taught by God’s holy Church.

The Rock of the Church is the rock because of Christ. Can the Rock of the Church teach error in faith and morals and still be the rock of the Church established by Christ?

It is exactly God’s protection that keeps His designated dynastic office of “rock of the Church” protected from error in faith and morals. Christ protects His Church from the gates of Hell… in other words from false teachings of God’s Word.

I will say that a non-Catholic priest certainly cannot interpret infallibly.

The only Bishop of Rome who we claim to have been an inspired author was Peter. A Catholic Bishop of Rome can interpret and teach infallibly. The Magisterium, the union of Bishops with the Bishop of Rome can teach infallibly. It’s all with the guidance of God. Priests can present the infallible teachings if they are in communion with what the rock of the Church has interpreted and taught infallibly and present it faithfully. Lay Catholics can present the same infallible teaching if they are in communion with the rock of the Church, and present faithfully what has been taught without error in faith and morals. If you love God, believe what He did and established, and love His Church, beautiful truth is laid in front of the believer. If you’re anti-Catholic, then you’re not going to have this, and then doubt that it exists.

The point here is that if you can’t interpret infallibly, or even faithfully repeat an infallible teaching…, while the Catholic Church can teach infallibly because of the protection of God, then why should anyone take your side of the matter when you oppose the teachings of this Church built by Christ?
 
You are correct that is why the Holy Spirit guides and protects the teachings of the Church. It appears that you are not understanding the concept of papal infallibility. Nowhere do we hold that the Pope is inspired.

The papal claims are:
1)Pope is chief bishop.
2)Has jurisdiction over all members of the Church.
3)To be a member of the Church one must be in communion with the Pope.
4)The guidance of God will see to it that the Pope and Magisterium shall never commit the Church to error concerning matters of faith (teaching)

No preist do not have such authority.
Then where do you go when you want to know how a particular verse or passage of Scripture has been infallibly defined?
Must a catholic know that a verse or passage has been infallibly interpreted before he knows it to be a true interpretation?
 
What did Peter do while he was in Rome? Did he make some rulings there etc?
Why would he have had to make a ruling there, as proof he was there or what?

What did he do there?
Well for one thing, he became a martyr there.

The fact is that the testimony of the early church fathers place him there, and the church of Rome is only church that claims to have his bones.
 
Originally Posted by justasking4
What did Peter do while he was in Rome? Did he make some rulings there etc?

savedsinner
Why would he have had to make a ruling there, as proof he was there or what?

What did he do there?
Well for one thing, he became a martyr there.

The fact is that the testimony of the early church fathers place him there, and the church of Rome is only church that claims to have his bones.
This is an important question since so much is claimed that he was the first pope and the Roman Catholic church derives its authority after Christ from Peter and this location. If Peter was a pope and this is where his chair is then we should see some evidence that he was in Rome known as a pope.
 
This is an important question since so much is claimed that he was the first pope and the Roman Catholic church derives its authority after Christ from Peter and this location. If Peter was a pope and this is where his chair is then we should see some evidence that he was in Rome known as a pope.
Again, read the testimony of the early church fathers.
Do you need them to actually use the word “Pope” to believe he was the pope? Do you need to see the word “Trinity” in the bible to believe in the Trinity?

Clement of Alexandria
“[T]he blessed Peter, the chosen, the preeminent, the first among the disciples, for whom alone with himself the Savior paid the tribute [Matt. 17:27], quickly grasped and understood their meaning. And what does he say? ‘Behold, we have left all and have followed you’ [Matt. 19:27; Mark 10:28]” (Who Is the Rich Man That Is Saved? 21:3–5 [A.D. 200]).

Tertullian
“For though you think that heaven is still shut up, remember that the Lord left the keys of it to Peter here, and through him to the Church, which keys everyone will carry with him if he has been questioned and made a confession [of faith]” (Antidote Against the Scorpion 10 [A.D. 211]).

“[T]he Lord said to Peter, ‘On this rock I will build my Church, I have given you the keys of the kingdom of heaven [and] whatever you shall have bound or loosed on earth will be bound or loosed in heaven’ [Matt. 16:18–19]. . . . Upon you, he says, I will build my Church; and I will give to you the keys, not to the Church” (Modesty 21:9–10 [A.D. 220]).

The Letter of Clement to James
“Be it known to you, my lord, that Simon [Peter], who, for the sake of the true faith, and the most sure foundation of his doctrine, was set apart to be the foundation of the Church, and for this end was by Jesus himself, with his truthful mouth, named Peter, the first fruits of our Lord, the first of the apostles; to whom first the Father revealed the Son; whom the Christ, with good reason, blessed; the called, and elect” (Letter of Clement to James 2 [A.D. 221]).

Origen
“*f we were to attend carefully to the Gospels, we should also find, in relation to those things which seem to be common to Peter . . . a great difference and a preeminence in the things [Jesus] said to Peter, compared with the second class [of apostles]. For it is no small difference that Peter received the keys not of one heaven but of more, and in order that whatsoever things he binds on earth may be bound not in one heaven but in them all, as compared with the many who bind on earth and loose on earth, so that these things are bound and loosed not in [all] the heavens, as in the case of Peter, but in one only; for they do not reach so high a stage with power as Peter to bind and loose in all the heavens” (Commentary on Matthew 13:31 [A.D. 248]).

Cyprian of Carthage
“The Lord says to Peter: ‘I say to you,’ he says, ‘that you are Peter, and upon this rock I will build my Church.’ . . . On him [Peter] he builds the Church, and to him he gives the command to feed the sheep [John 21:17], and although he assigns a like power to all the apostles, yet he founded a single chair [cathedra], and he established by his own authority a source and an intrinsic reason for that unity. Indeed, the others were that also which Peter was *, but a primacy is given to Peter, whereby it is made clear that there is but one Church and one chair. So too, all [the apostles] are shepherds, and the flock is shown to be one, fed by all the apostles in single-minded accord. If someone does not hold fast to this unity of Peter, can he imagine that he still holds the faith? If he [should] desert the chair of Peter upon whom the Church was built, can he still be confident that he is in the Church?” (The Unity of the Catholic Church 4; 1st edition [A.D. 251]).

Cyril of Jerusalem*
“The Lord is loving toward men, swift to pardon but slow to punish. Let no man despair of his own salvation. Peter, the first and foremost of the apostles, denied the Lord three times before a little servant girl, but he repented and wept bitterly” (Catechetical Lectures 2:19 [A.D. 350]).

“[Simon Magus] so deceived the city of Rome that Claudius erected a statue of him. . . . While the error was extending itself, Peter and Paul arrived, a noble pair and the rulers of the Church, and they set the error aright. . . . [T]hey launched the weapon of their like-mindedness in prayer against the Magus, and struck him down to earth. It was marvelous enough, and yet no marvel at all, for Peter was there—he that carries about the keys of heaven [Matt. 16:19]” (ibid., 6:14).

“In the power of the same Holy Spirit, Peter, both the chief of the apostles and the keeper of the keys of the kingdom of heaven, in the name of Christ healed Aeneas the paralytic at Lydda, which is now called Diospolis [Acts 9:32–34]” (ibid., 17:27).

Ephraim the Syrian
“[Jesus said:] Simon, my follower, I have made you the foundation of the holy Church. I betimes called you Peter, because you will support all its buildings. You are the inspector of those who will build on Earth a Church for me. If they should wish to build what is false, you, the foundation, will condemn them. You are the head of the fountain from which my teaching flows; you are the chief of my disciples. Through you I will give drink to all peoples. Yours is that life-giving sweetness which I dispense. I have chosen you to be, as it were, the firstborn in my institution so that, as the heir, you may be executor of my treasures. I have given you the keys of my kingdom. Behold, I have given you authority over all my treasures” (Homilies 4:1 [A.D. 351]).

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

Pope Damasus I
“Likewise it is decreed . . . that it ought to be announced that . . . the holy Roman Church has been placed at the forefront not by the conciliar decisions of other churches, but has received the primacy by the evangelic voice of our Lord and Savior, who says: ‘You are Peter, and upon this rock I will build my Church, and the gates of hell will not prevail against it; and I will give to you the keys of the kingdom of heaven . . . ’ [Matt. 16:18–19]. The first see, therefore, is that of Peter the apostle, that of the Roman Church, which has neither stain nor blemish nor anything like it” (Decree of Damasus 3 [A.D. 382]).

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

“Simon Peter, the son of John, from the village of Bethsaida in the province of Galilee, brother of Andrew the apostle, and himself chief of the apostles, after having been bishop of the church of Antioch and having preached to the Dispersion . . . pushed on to Rome in the second year of Claudius to overthrow Simon Magus, and held the sacerdotal chair there for twenty-five years until the last, that is the fourteenth, year of Nero. At his hands he received the crown of martyrdom being nailed to the cross with his head towards the ground and his feet raised on high, asserting that he was unworthy to be crucified in the same manner as his Lord” (Lives of Illustrious Men 1 [A.D. 396]).

Pope Innocent I
“In seeking the things of God . . . you have acknowledged that judgment is to be referred to us [the pope], and have shown that you know that is owed to the Apostolic See [Rome], if all of us placed in this position are to desire to follow the apostle himself [Peter] from whom the episcopate itself and the total authority of this name have emerged” (Letters 29:1 [A.D. 408]).

Augustine
“Among these [apostles] Peter alone almost everywhere deserved to represent the whole Church. Because of that representation of the Church, which only he bore, he deserved to hear ‘I will give to you the keys of the kingdom of heaven’” (Sermons 295:2 [A.D. 411]).

“Some things are said which seem to relate especially to the apostle Peter, and yet are not clear in their meaning unless referred to the Church, which he is acknowledged to have represented in a figure on account of the primacy which he bore among the disciples. Such is ‘I will give unto you the keys of the kingdom of heaven,’ and other similar passages. In the same way, Judas represents those Jews who were Christ’s enemies” (Commentary on Psalm 108 1 [A.D. 415]).

“Who is ignorant that the first of the apostles is the most blessed Peter?” (Commentary on John 56:1 [A.D. 416]).

Council of Ephesus
“Philip, presbyter and legate of [Pope Celestine I] said: ‘We offer our thanks to the holy and venerable synod, that when the writings of our holy and blessed pope had been read to you . . . you joined yourselves to the holy head also by your holy acclamations. For your blessednesses is not ignorant that the head of the whole faith, the head of the apostles, is blessed Peter the apostle’” (Acts of the Council, session 2 [A.D. 431]).

“Philip, the presbyter and legate of the Apostolic See [Rome] said: ‘There is no doubt, and in fact it has been known in all ages, that the holy and most blessed Peter, prince and head of the apostles, pillar of the faith, and foundation of the Catholic Church, received the keys of the kingdom from our Lord Jesus Christ, the Savior and Redeemer of the human race, and that to him was given the power of loosing and binding sins: who down even to today and forever both lives and judges in his successors’” (ibid., session 3).

Pope Leo I
“Our Lord Jesus Christ . . . has placed the principal charge on the blessed Peter, chief of all the apostles, and from him as from the head wishes his gifts to flow to all the body, so that anyone who dares to secede from Peter’s solid rock may understand that he has no part or lot in the divine mystery. He wished him who had been received into partnership in his undivided unity to be named what he himself was, when he said: ‘You are Peter, and upon this rock I will build my Church’ [Matt. 16:18], that the building of the eternal temple might rest on Peter’s solid rock, strengthening his Church so surely that neither could human rashness assail it nor the gates of hell prevail against it” (Letters 10:1 [A.D. 445).

“Our Lord Jesus Christ . . . established the worship belonging to the divine [Christian] religion. . . . But the Lord desired that the sacrament of this gift should pertain to all the apostles in such a way that it might be found principally in the most blessed Peter, the highest of all the apostles. And he wanted his gifts to flow into the entire body from Peter himself, as if from the head, in such a way that anyone who had dared to separate himself from the solidarity of Peter would realize that he was himself no longer a sharer in the divine mystery” (ibid., 10:2–3).

“Although bishops have a common dignity, they are not all of the same rank. Even among the most blessed apostles, though they were alike in honor, there was a certain distinction of power. All were equal in being chosen, but it was given to one to be preeminent over the others. . . . [So today through the bishops] the care of the universal Church would converge in the one See of Peter, and nothing should ever be at odds with this head” (ibid., 14:11).*
 
When I was Protestant I used this same exact logic “the early Church was not Catholic and there was no succession from Peter.” This is not true. Understand that people died for the Eucharist. During two brutal persecutions during the early Church people were brutally tortured and killed for Christ. They died so that today we could know the truth. The early Church wasn’t just Christians it was Catholic. The other Christian churches died out because they were not built upon Peter. It is sad that people do not understand that so many faithful died for the Catholic Church and the Eucharist. If someone chooses not to be Catholic so be it; however, we should not rewrite history and pretend that these early martyr died for some generic Christian religion. Read their accounts. They died for Christ, the Catholic Faith and the Eucharist. To state anything else is just not historically accurate.
The word Protestant is such a 16th century word. I am not anti Catholic or protesting anything
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top