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

[MDK]

They do not understand what is written. did not St Paul said that if someone wants to marry is good but those who do not marry is better? why do they keep ignoring what is written? because they only aknowledge Scriptures that fit what their religion teaches. they dont want any Scriptures that justify what the CC is.

Sadly, it’s often not born of a desire for truth. A common motivation seems to simply be unaccountable to the authority established by Jesus to be His “Prime Minister” on earth when the King went away…, for the time after He ascended to Heaven. Therefore, any misinterpretation of God’s Word will work for their purpose(s) as long as it’s anti-Catholic.

We know the Holy Spirit is still very much with us here, among other things protecting the Church teachings, preserving the proper Oral Traditions and proper teaching of Written Tradition. Also, Cardinal DiNardo reminds us during his appearances to groups that the Apostles were not nostalgic for Christ after His ascension. Neither are we nostalgic today, because the Holy Spirit is with our Church, and Christ is still with us in the Eucharist. We love Him, but why would one be nostalgic for someone who never left?

 

[justasking4]

MDK;4005003]
Originally Posted by justasking4
i agree that there are a couple of list of “popes” that are traced to Rome. The issue is was the bishop of Rome always acknowledged as the supreme head of the entire church? The historical evidence does not support this.

MDK
I really don’t know where you’re trying to go with this. Are you shooting for a technicality of always physically being located in Rome?

Yes and more.

Are you asking whether each pope was always also called the Bishop of Rome? Are you asking whether those who are now called Eastern Orthodox had a problem with it? Please ask your question clearly.

I’m primarily asking does the historical evidence point to Linus as:

1. being recognized as the supreme leader of the entire church after Peter was killed?
2. if so, what did Linus proclaim for the entire church?

Nevertheless, to further expand on where you may be going, the validly elected successor to Peter is the head of the Catholic Church. The historical records do indeed support this, unless one attempts to revise history or make strange conclusions from the historical records.

Having a list is one thing demonstrating from this list (especially the first 10 for example) were recognized as the supreme leader of the entire church and if so what did they teach that binded the entire church?

There were some pretenders to the chair, who were not validly elected, but they are not valid successors to Peter. The pope was not always in the physical location of Rome, as some were in exile, but the validly elected pope is still considered a successor to St. Peter, first Bishop of Rome.

 

[guanophore]

i agree that there are a couple of list of “popes” that are traced to Rome. The issue is was the bishop of Rome always acknowledged as the supreme head of the entire church? The historical evidence does not support this.

No, this is not the issue. This is an anti-Catholic polemic. Jesus clearly instructed the Apostles that leadership in the Kingdom is not about supremacy.

The “issue” is that Jesus gave Peter a particular ministry, and he passed this ministry on to his successors. The Petrine ministry has nothing to do with supremacy. That is why the Pope signs his correspondence 'servant of the servants of God" and not “Supreme Head of the Entire Church” (a title belonging to Jesus).

Such a characterization of the papal ministry represents anti-Catholic ignorance, or bigotry, or perhaps both.

 

[MDK]

I’m primarily asking does the historical evidence point to Linus as:

1. being recognized as the supreme leader of the entire church after Peter was killed?
2. if so, what did Linus proclaim for the entire church?

Having a list is one thing demonstrating from this list (especially the first 10 for example) were recognized as the supreme leader of the entire church and if so what did they teach that binded the entire church?

Let’s dispense with the falsehoods first. Is it a requirement for the Catholic Church that a Pope has to teach something binding on the entire Church to be recognized as legitimate successor to Peter?

I agree that your use of phrase term “Supreme Leader” sounds denigrating, like an attempt to usurp power of Christ, rather than exercise authority given to him by Christ. Christ is ultimately the overall head of the Catholic Church. The pope is like the “Prime Minister” of the King Jesus to act with authority given to him by Christ.

 

[distracted]

Christ never started a church.
He is the shepherd of Gods people His assembly.
The people/assembly of God is made up of all who believe in/rely on/trust in God. You have been taught wrong. It is not your fault.

Christ never wrote a Bible…

Have you ever read St. Matthew 16:18?

 

[justasking4]

guanophore;4005321]
Originally Posted by justasking4
i agree that there are a couple of list of “popes” that are traced to Rome. The issue is was the bishop of Rome always acknowledged as the supreme head of the entire church? The historical evidence does not support this.

guanophore;
No, this is not the issue. This is an anti-Catholic polemic. Jesus clearly instructed the Apostles that leadership in the Kingdom is not about supremacy.

The “issue” is that Jesus gave Peter a particular ministry, and he passed this ministry on to his successors. The Petrine ministry has nothing to do with supremacy. That is why the Pope signs his correspondence 'servant of the servants of God" and not “Supreme Head of the Entire Church” (a title belonging to Jesus).

Such a characterization of the papal ministry represents anti-Catholic ignorance, or bigotry, or perhaps both.

What you write here does not line up with the cathechism of the Catholic church. Here are a few references for you to look up:

882 The Pope, Bishop of Rome and Peter’s successor, "is the perpetual and visible source and foundation of the unity both of the bishops and of the whole company of the faithful."402 "For the Roman Pontiff, by reason of his office as Vicar of Christ, and as pastor of the entire Church has full, supreme, and universal power over the whole Church, a power which he can always exercise unhindered."403

883 “The college or body of bishops has no authority unless united with the Roman Pontiff, Peter’s successor, as its head.” As such, this college has "supreme and full authority over the universal Church; but this power cannot be exercised without the agreement of the Roman Pontiff."404

884 "The college of bishops exercises power over the universal Church in a solemn manner in an ecumenical council."405 But "there never is an ecumenical council which is not confirmed or at least recognized as such by Peter’s successor."406

937 The Pope enjoys, by divine institution, “supreme, full, immediate, and universal power in the care of souls” (CD 2).

There is no doubt from these passages from the catechism that the pope is the supreme and most powerful leader in the catholic church…

 

[justasking4]

Christ never wrote a Bible…

Have you ever read St. Matthew 16:18?

It is true that Christ never wrote the Bible but is He not the source of its inspiration and authority since He is God?

 

[guanophore]

From what we know of the structure of the NT church for example we don’t see unmarried leadership as we see in the Catholic church.

If you do not see this, ja4, it is because you have your anti-catholic blinders on.

Many of the Apostles and disciples were unmarried, including Paul and Timothy. Then there is Jesus…

Do you not consider these persosn leaders in the Church?

(I Timothy 3 spells out the qualifications of church leadership)

Actually, you are suffering from an erroneous modern misunderstanding of the text. This is not uncommon when one becomes separated from the Apostolic Tradition from which the text was derived.

We also don’t see many doctrines and practices of the Catholic in NT. Things like the Marian doctrines and practices comes to mind.

You cannot “see” what is there because of the blinders.

We also don’t see a supreme head of the church in the NT as we do in the Catholic church.

Actually, we do. Jesus is the supreme head of the church. Always has been, always will be.

To whom was this “apostolic succession” pasted on to?

Apostolic succession is not “pasted”. Successors are ordained by the laying on of hands.

Let’s take Peter as a case in point. Where and when did Peter pass his apostolic authority?

Peter passed on his apostolic authority everywhere he ministered. We have lines traced back to him in Antioch, where the disciples of Jesus were first called Christians and throughout the mideast. He passed on his Petrine ministry in Rome, where he was imprisoned prior to his martyrdom there.

If it was the bishop of Rome, was this bishop (Linus?) known as the supreme head of the entire church by other leaders in the church?

No. The Catholic Church has always held that Jesus is the supreme head of the entire church.

Where did Jesus say His church would grow like this? If the church is to grow as you say are there limits in the way it is to grow?

In the parable of the mustard seed.

 

[distracted]

It is true that Christ never wrote the Bible but is He not the source of its inspiration and authority since He is God?

It is true that Christ established a Church and He is the source of its inspiration and authority since He is God…

If you take the Bible out of its proper context (the Church, which came before the New Testamnet)… it is like taking a fish out of water…

 

[justasking4]

Originally Posted by justasking4
It is true that Christ never wrote the Bible but is He not the source of its inspiration and authority since He is God?

distracted
It is true that Christ established a Church and He is the source of its inspiration and authority since He is God…

If you take the Bible out of its proper context (the Church, which came before the New Testamnet)… it is like taking a fish out of water…

Is the church the source of the NT or is Christ? If the church is the source then the NT would be insubjection to those who are its source. The fact is that the church is not the source of the NT but Christ is Who worked through men to write it. The church is to be accountable to the Scriptures and not the Scriptures accountable to the church.

 

[guanophore]

I looked this passage up and it has nothing to do with church leadership.

I agree. The equation if celibacy = catholic leadership is not a reality anywhere but in your mind. On the contrary, most Latin Rite parishes are comprised of lay leaders who are on a pastoral council. The priest serves as a pastor to the leadership, as well as fulfilling the sacramental functions. Priests do not necessarily make good leaders (although it is nice when they do). They administer and preside over the sacraments, and the flock of God. They are servants of the servants of God.

What do you mean by “discipline”?

It is a “rule” or way of life proscribed by the Latin Rite. Jesus did not require celibacy, though He modeled it, and encouraged it. He chose some married persons for Apostles.

The NT canon was not fully recognized during this period.

True, and when it was recognized, it was done through the same Sacred Tradition that promotes celibacy as a sacred way of life. and of great value to the Church.

Even the traditions for Mary’s assumption are weak. Writing in 377 A.D., church father Epiphanius states that no-one knows Mary’s end.

You are equating historical references (which I agree, are weak) with Sacred Tradition. This is an error, since Sacred Tradition comes from God, and therefore, cannot be “weak”.

This verse has nothing to do with her being sinless. When the angel called her “favored one, the Lord is with thee” would be something to ponder in her condition in life as a simple girl with no claims to anything.

We see it differently, ja4. We have been over this on numerous threads.

Not sure what the angel looked like in this verse. It does not say. The special greeting is explained further on in her bearing the Christ. She alone was chosen by God for this great privilege.

And specially prepared by Him in advance!

He filled her with His grace, so that there would be no room for sin.

Do we see in the rest of the NT Peter alone as being the supreme leader of the entire church? Do any writers of the letters ever appeal to his authority?

Not until the next century, when it became necessary to appeal to the successor of Peter as an authority. HOwever, in no case do we see this slanderous phrase “supreme leader of the entire church”. That is just anti-Catholic bigotry talking. The pope is the Servant of the Servants of God. He does not seek supremacy.

Would Rome agree with what you write here? Do they consider your church to be in full commonion with them?

What I wrote is Catholic Teaching.

The Catholic Church teaches that there is only ONE CHURCH which is HIS BODY. There is no “my” church or “your” church, but only the Church that Jesus founded. All others are counterfeit.

And yes, all 23 Rites of the Catholic Church are in communion with the bishop of Rome.

 

[Jimmy_B]

Thank you for your response to my thought. The post you are responding to was an answer to a poster who said we Protestants don’t believe in annointing the sick and we don’t believe in the Epistle of James. Those are generalizations, and that is what I was responding to. If Catholics or Protestants are going to comment on one another’s beliefs, then one should have the facts before doing so. We Protestants do believe in annointing the sick and we do believe the Epistle of James should remain in the Canon of Scripture. Things like this make it difficult for those of differing opinion to communicate effectively.

Hello t68ware,

When you wrote -

"We Protestants do believe in annointing the sick and we do believe the Epistle of James should remain in the Canon of Scripture"
(I’ve emphasized some words here, above).

Isn’t this a generalization? I have personally met “Protestants”, Evangelical, “Born again”… non-Catholic Christians, who, when confronted with verses in the Catholic Epistles…like the Book of James…which support Catholicism and prove that their beliefs are incorrect; respond, “I go by the Gospels’”. That is why my next question is usually, “Do you believe that there exists conflict in the Bible, where one Bible verse conflicts with another”?

Can you see my point here? Thank you for your comments.

Your Thoughts?

God Bless You!

 

[guanophore]

I really don’t know where you’re trying to go with this. Are you shooting for a technicality of always physically being located in Rome? Are you asking whether each pope was always also called the Bishop of Rome? Are you asking whether those who are now called Eastern Orthodox had a problem with it? Please ask your question clearly.

Nevertheless, to further expand on where you may be going, the validly elected successor to Peter is the head of the Catholic Church. The historical records do indeed support this, unless one attempts to revise history or make strange conclusions from the historical records. There were some pretenders to the chair, who were not validly elected, but they are not valid successors to Peter. The pope was not always in the physical location of Rome, as some were in exile, but the validly elected pope is still considered a successor to St. Peter, first Bishop of Rome.

ja4 is just using this thread to ply his tactics.

It could just as easily be shown in some respects how quickly the church was allowing unbilical teachings into the church at a very early stage.

If the catholic church was not corrupt, then why was desired in the catholic church itself for a reformation around the 15th century?

Do you consider the inquisitions that was supported by various popes for centuries a sign of corruption?

How about some of the popes, the vicars of Christ who were evil. Is this a sign of corruption?

" guanophore:

What do you think Catholics need to do about the Magesterium?

Confront them and expose them.

He wants to foment rebellion amongst Catholics toward those in the Apostolic succession, because he believes it is a “false doctrine”.

 

[guanophore]

What you write here does not line up with the cathechism of the Catholic church. Here are a few references for you to look up:

882 The Pope, Bishop of Rome and Peter’s successor, "is the perpetual and visible source and foundation of the unity both of the bishops and of the whole company of the faithful."402 "For the Roman Pontiff, by reason of his office as Vicar of Christ, and as pastor of the entire Church has full, supreme, and universal power over the whole Church, a power which he can always exercise unhindered."403

883 “The college or body of bishops has no authority unless united with the Roman Pontiff, Peter’s successor, as its head.” As such, this college has "supreme and full authority over the universal Church; but this power cannot be exercised without the agreement of the Roman Pontiff."404

884 "The college of bishops exercises power over the universal Church in a solemn manner in an ecumenical council."405 But "there never is an ecumenical council which is not confirmed or at least recognized as such by Peter’s successor."406

937 The Pope enjoys, by divine institution, “supreme, full, immediate, and universal power in the care of souls” (CD 2).

There is no doubt from these passages from the catechism that the pope is the supreme and most powerful leader in the catholic church…

You are imposing your secular and carnal ideas about leadership onto the Church, and the squeeze does not fit. You can’t fit that square peg in a round hole. Supreme authority is not the same as “power and control” as you seem to believe. It is the duty of the Authority appointed by Christ to preserve the Teachings. These they do “with all authority”, as scripture indicates. Pastoral authority in the care of souls has nothing to do with secular power and control.

 

[justasking4]

You are imposing your secular and carnal ideas about leadership onto the Church, and the squeeze does not fit. You can’t fit that square peg in a round hole. Supreme authority is not the same as “power and control” as you seem to believe. It is the duty of the Authority appointed by Christ to preserve the Teachings. These they do “with all authority”, as scripture indicates. Pastoral authority in the care of souls has nothing to do with secular power and control.

You need to go back and study the references i gave you. They don’t support this answer…

 

[justasking4]

I agree. The equation if celibacy = catholic leadership is not a reality anywhere but in your mind. On the contrary, most Latin Rite parishes are comprised of lay leaders who are on a pastoral council. The priest serves as a pastor to the leadership, as well as fulfilling the sacramental functions. Priests do not necessarily make good leaders (although it is nice when they do). They administer and preside over the sacraments, and the flock of God. They are servants of the servants of God.

It is a “rule” or way of life proscribed by the Latin Rite. Jesus did not require celibacy, though He modeled it, and encouraged it. He chose some married persons for Apostles.

True, and when it was recognized, it was done through the same Sacred Tradition that promotes celibacy as a sacred way of life. and of great value to the Church.

You are equating historical references (which I agree, are weak) with Sacred Tradition. This is an error, since Sacred Tradition comes from God, and therefore, cannot be “weak”.

We see it differently, ja4. We have been over this on numerous threads.

And specially prepared by Him in advance!

He filled her with His grace, so that there would be no room for sin.

Not until the next century, when it became necessary to appeal to the successor of Peter as an authority. HOwever, in no case do we see this slanderous phrase “supreme leader of the entire church”. That is just anti-Catholic bigotry talking. The pope is the Servant of the Servants of God. He does not seek supremacy.

What I wrote is Catholic Teaching.

The Catholic Church teaches that there is only ONE CHURCH which is HIS BODY. There is no “my” church or “your” church, but only the Church that Jesus founded. All others are counterfeit.

And yes, all 23 Rites of the Catholic Church are in communion with the bishop of Rome.

Do all these 23 Rites of the Catholic Church believe everything that the Roman Catholic church does?

 

[Jimmy_B]

Hello t68ware,

When you wrote -

"We Protestants do believe in annointing the sick and we do believe the Epistle of James should remain in the Canon of Scripture"
(I’ve emphasized some words here, above).

Isn’t this a generalization? I have personally met “Protestants”, Evangelical, “Born again”… non-Catholic Christians, who, when confronted with verses in the Catholic Epistles…like the Book of James…which support Catholicism and prove that their beliefs are incorrect; respond, “I go by the Gospels’”. That is why my next question is usually, “Do you believe that there exists conflict in the Bible, where one Bible verse conflicts with another”?

Can you see my point here? Thank you for your comments.

Your Thoughts?

God Bless You!

Martin Luther, the “Father of Protestantism”, called the Catholic Book, or the Book of James, the “Book of Straw” and he wanted it removed from the Bible, did he not?

 

[justasking4]

Martin Luther, the “Father of Protestantism”, called the Catholic Book, or the Book of James, the “Book of Straw” and he wanted it removed from the Bible, did he not?

I think you are correct…

 

[MDK]

ja4 is just using this thread to ply his tactics.

He wants to foment rebellion amongst Catholics toward those in the Apostolic succession, because he believes it is a “false doctrine”.

Yes, and I am being charitable.

 

[justasking4]

Yes, and I am being charitable.

Charitable about what???