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

[distracted]

Oh. That sounds pretty serious then. On another thread, some Orthodox posters were saying it was Peters brother that took his role over.

I am finding out a heck of a lot in one day!

i wonder why your handle?

If you were truly “not smart”… you would be closed-minded…

like others i could mention (but won’t )… God bless…

 

[justasking4]

MDK;4018682]
Originally Posted by justasking4
Do you know the kind and nature of the unity that Christ prayed for? What was the kind of unity He had with the Father? Do you think the Catholic church has acheived the unity of John 17:21?

MDK
I believe Christ prayed for the kind of unity of his flock responding to His establishment of one “Prime Minister” of His Church, endowed with delegated authority form Christ.

Where do you get this out of this passage?

There is one final authority, which all those who seek to follow Christ must go acknowledge and be in communion with.

Again, where do you get this in Scripture?

To deny this, dissent, or to break away from this goes outside the kind of unity that would be produced from a Church such as Jesus established. To put it in plain English, those not in communion with the “Prime Minister” (Pope) that Jesus established and keeps from error in faith and morals, would be outside the unity that would be produced from what Christ established and protects. There are obviously varying degrees of this, as one is farther and farther away.

This does not come close to the unity prayed for John 17:21-23. There is no mention in this passage on unity that a pope or leader of the church is required for the unity that Christ prayed for.

 

[cazayoux]

His letter to the church at Philippi clearly enumerates a presbyterian form of church governance.

So we know where John Knox got the name for the religion he founded.

Using this logic is to go in the wrong direction with terminology.
Presbyter-based structure came first, then about 1500 years later we see John Knox who uses this term for his church.

In no way does this ‘clearly enumerated presbyterian form of church governance’ mean that the Presbyterian Church (founded by John Knox in 1560) was *the *Christian Church that we see 1000 years ago … or even 1800-1900 years ago.

c’mon

michel

 

[sola_scriptura]

So we know where John Knox got the name for the religion he founded.

Using this logic is to go in the wrong direction with terminology.
Presbyter-based structure came first, then about 1500 years later we see John Knox who uses this term for his church.

In no way does this ‘clearly enumerated presbyterian form of church governance’ mean that the Presbyterian Church (founded by John Knox in 1560) was *the *Christian Church that we see 1000 years ago … or even 1800-1900 years ago.

c’mon

michel

You’re right, but you and I will sharply disagree over the definition of “church.”

As I said in the era of Polycarp there were various churches, most of which simply do not exist today in their original form (or geographic location for that matter). In essence he tells us a church is a congregation, a fellowship of faithful in Christ, who appoint themselves elders (presbyters), pastors, and deacons. These ministers of faith, while appointed by the congregation in accordance with the rules set forth by the Pastoral Epistles of Paul, have authority over the congregation (and should be accorded the highest level of respect). However, Christians are to reproof each other in love in accordance with preserving the proper teachings of Christ as enumerated by His word – expressed in Holy Scripture.

To imagine that every church in Christianity back then had direct contact with the Apostles, much less that their leaders were all ordained by the Apostles (and as such there is an unbroken episcopacy) is sheer Catholic fantasy.

 

[cazayoux]

You’re right, but you and I will sharply disagree over the definition of “church.”

As I said in the era of Polycarp there were various churches, most of which simply do not exist today in their original form (or geographic location for that matter).

When Polycarp was born, we were already on our second pope.
When Polycarp died, we were on our our 11th.

In essence he tells us a church is a congregation, a fellowship of faithful in Christ,

We agree.

…who appoint themselves elders (presbyters), pastors, and deacons. These ministers of faith, while appointed by the congregation in accordance with the rules set forth by the Pastoral Epistles of Paul, have authority over the congregation (and should be accorded the highest level of respect)

So did these churches become Christian (or come into existence) by hearing the word or reading it?
Who baptized them?
I see in Paul’s letter that he instructs Timothy to appoint others that will teach and appoint even others to teach.

However, Christians are to reproof each other in love in accordance with preserving the proper teachings of Christ as enumerated by His word – expressed in Holy Scripture.

Polycarp was about 25 years old before all that is in the New Testament was even written.
In this early time, it is very possible that these ‘outlying’ churches would not have a copy of every writing we now have in the New Testament. As well, it’s likely they had other writings that eventually did not make it into the New Testament.
They didn’t have a new testament canon and what they considered scripture would not match with what you and I agree is scripture today.
When we see ‘scripture’ referenced in the New Testament, the reference is to what we call the Old Testament.
We would not have settled what was and what was not scripture for the new testament for another 227 years after Polycarp died.

To imagine that every church in Christianity back then had direct contact with the Apostles, much less that their leaders were all ordained by the Apostles (and as such there is an unbroken episcopacy) is sheer Catholic fantasy.

I would not suggest that every church (community of believers) had direct contact with the apostles or that their leaders were all ordained by the apostles themselves.
I would say that they were taught by either an apostle, one sent by an apostle (Timothy), or one sent by those (Timothy’s appointees), or sent by those (Timothy’s appointees appointees), et cetera.

Somebody came to these areas to baptize and teach these communities.

I think a lot of our thinking is more inline than I first thought.

Take care!

michel

 

[sola_scriptura]

When Polycarp was born, we were already on our second pope.
When Polycarp died, we were on our our 11th.

of course few outside of Rome itself knew that. What you define as a global Pope was actually a Bishop of Rome & claims of Roman authoritative supremacy dating back this far are fictitious.

I would not suggest that every church (community of believers) had direct contact with the apostles or that their leaders were all ordained by the apostles themselves.
I would say that they were taught by either an apostle, one sent by an apostle (Timothy), or one sent by those (Timothy’s appointees), or sent by those (Timothy’s appointees appointees), et cetera.

How are Protestants any different in this regard? Certainly the break away Protestant churches were all Catholic initially. The greatest reformers began as Catholics i.e. Luther, Calvin.

Half of Germany wound up becoming Lutheran (and nearly all of Scandinavia). All of their churches and clergy were Catholic. Bishops right down to priests broke from Rome, all properly ordained by laying of hands in Apostolic succession, etc.

Moreover, how does the rest of the Protestant world, who sprang from the original reformation somehow lose its connection to the Apostles. Haven’t we lived in the same Christian world as Catholics? The claim is ridiculous at this point.

This is just political hogwash with no basis in fact or Scripture. Rome tries to scare protestants into thinking we’re not in succession, the Roman boogie man. Well, the Romans are dead; and they ain’t coming back? Caesar is now Bush, and will hopefully be McCain in a few months.

 

[cazayoux]

how does the rest of the Protestant world, who sprang from the original reformation somehow lose its connection to the Apostles. Haven’t we lived in the same Christian world as Catholics? The claim is ridiculous at this point.

At the point they separate themselves, they no longer have the authority to lay hands on others.
Those that separated *themselves *from the church that Jesus founded taught different doctrines. The differences in doctrine eventually diverged to an extreme extent.

How is this the unity called for in scripture?

1 Cor 1:10
[10] I appeal to you, brethren, 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 judgment.

Your theology seems to be that we are all Christian and the details don’t matter.

Did the Christian’s of every Church in, say the 8th century, disagree on any doctrine?
No.

Why is it okay for us to disagree on doctrine today and, by your theology, and still say we are in the same church?

michel

 

[cazayoux]

of course few outside of Rome itself knew that. What you define as a global Pope was actually a Bishop of Rome & claims of Roman authoritative supremacy dating back this far are fictitious.

Really? What makes you say this?

michel

 

[guanophore]

Your view fails to consider the facts. As I’ve said before there is a wide divergence of theological views within the Catholic Church. Differences between East and West, differences in soteriology (the question of predestination), just to mention a couple. Indeed the differences in Catholicism parallel the theological differences between protestant denominations.

Let me provide an example. In protestantism there are two broad categories of believers. Arminians (after the Dutch theologian Jacob Arminius) and Calvinists (after John Calvin). Arminians (generally Methodists and other “Wesleyan” churches) ascribe to the notion that we must “cooperate with grace” and that we can, through our own free will, resist God’s saving grace. Calvinists believe that all who were predestined by God cannot resist grace. Therefore, for the Calvinist our own will, effort, or desires have nothing to do with our salvation, it’s God’s sovereign choice.

The same essential difference exists in Catholicism. Calvin’s inspiration was St. Augustine. The Benedictine Order today ascribes to nearly the same view of election as Calvinists. However, most Catholics are Arminian in thought and practice. However, there are even wider differences in Catholic soteriology. For example, the Jesuits follow the soteriology of Luis Molina, who struggled to find harmony between human free will and divine providence. In fact when we look at the East West schism we cannot even say all these differences exist under one tent in Catholicism. Both recognize the others claim to valid apostolic succession, so both believe the other is part of the “one true apostolic church of Christ.”

No, this is not the case, SS. Catholicism is, by definition, one whole set of beliefs. I will agree that there are individual theologians that have differences, but the standard is the same for all. Those who depart from what the Catholic Church teaches are not Catholic, even if they claim to be so. There are many different formulations of theology, yes, but nothing like the divergence seen in the Protestant circles. All Catholics (and Orthodox) believe in the Apostles Creed, for example.

 

[justasking4]

No, this is not the case, SS. Catholicism is, by definition, one whole set of beliefs. I will agree that there are individual theologians that have differences, but the standard is the same for all. Those who depart from what the Catholic Church teaches are not Catholic, even if they claim to be so. There are many different formulations of theology, yes, but nothing like the divergence seen in the Protestant circles. All Catholics (and Orthodox) believe in the Apostles Creed, for example.

Where can these “one whole set of beliefs” be found? Is the Roman rite the same identical rite as what you belong to? Are you bound by the catechism of the Roman catholic church or does your rite have a different catechism?

 

[MDK]

Where do you get this out of this passage?

Again, where do you get this in Scripture?

This does not come close to the unity prayed for John 17:21-23. There is no mention in this passage on unity that a pope or leader of the church is required for the unity that Christ prayed for.

Sorry if I don’t believe your disingenuous post. It requires a modicum of decency and respect for truth in order to understand what I wrote and not distort it. However, if you’re willing to distort the word of God, not surprised you attempt the same with mine as well.

You asked for an interpretation of Scripture, and I presented an accurate one. That you didn’t like it is quite another thing.

In addition, how about not getting silly with the restrictions. Some passages require others in order to explain. This is the case here. I know you don’t like that, because it thwarts your attempts to take it out of context and twist it into something it was never meant. The Bible is to be taken together, with some Scriptures used to understand others. Do you deny that the Bible should be taken as a whole?

We Catholics rely on the entire picture, and don’t attempt to take it out of context.

You don’t know the correct teachings the way the inspired authors meant. So, it’s no wonder you question that which you do not see, nor do you understand. That you seek to deny what you do not understand is quite another thing.

 

[sola_scriptura]

No, this is not the case, SS. Catholicism is, by definition, one whole set of beliefs. I will agree that there are individual theologians that have differences, but the standard is the same for all. Those who depart from what the Catholic Church teaches are not Catholic, even if they claim to be so. There are many different formulations of theology, yes, but nothing like the divergence seen in the Protestant circles. All Catholics (and Orthodox) believe in the Apostles Creed, for example.

Reformed protestants (Calvinists i.e. Presbyterians), Episcopalians, Lutherans, Baptists, Methodists, etc. also believe the Apostles creed. That is a very general statement of faith. It doesn’t touch on soteriology at all.

As I said before, just research the differences in soteriology between the Benedictines and Jesuits, Louis Molina and St. Augustine. The parallel (to some degree) the differences between Arminian and Calvinist soteriology.

 

[sola_scriptura]

At the point they separate themselves, they no longer have the authority to lay hands on others.
Those that separated *themselves *from the church that Jesus founded taught different doctrines. The differences in doctrine eventually diverged to an extreme extent.

So then what about the Eastern Church, they split?

 

[justasking4]

MDK;4029886]
Originally Posted by justasking4
Where do you get this out of this passage?

Again, where do you get this in Scripture?

This does not come close to the unity prayed for John 17:21-23. There is no mention in this passage on unity that a pope or leader of the church is required for the unity that Christ prayed for.

MDK
Sorry if I don’t believe your disingenuous post. It requires a modicum of decency and respect for truth in order to understand what I wrote and not distort it. However, if you’re willing to distort the word of God, not surprised you attempt the same with mine as well.

You asked for an interpretation of Scripture, and I presented an accurate one. That you didn’t like it is quite another thing.

How can your interpretation of John 17:21-23 be the correct one when it does not contain some of the things you mentioned? The distortion is not on my end but yours. It is you who have added to the passage not me.

In addition, how about not getting silly with the restrictions. Some passages require others in order to explain. This is the case here.

Then show me other passages that specifically support your claims?

I know you don’t like that, because it thwarts your attempts to take it out of context and twist it into something it was never meant. The Bible is to be taken together, with some Scriptures used to understand others.

This does have its place. However, what John 17:21-23 is quite specific and it makes no mention of what you claimed.

Do you deny that the Bible should be taken as a whole?

Depends what you mean by that. The Bible is the inspired-inerrant Word of God that deals with a lot of different issues.

We Catholics rely on the entire picture, and don’t attempt to take it out of context.

What guides you on this matter of context? How do you know if you have the correct interpretation of a passage?

You don’t know the correct teachings the way the inspired authors meant.

This must mean you do. Correct? If so, what is your specific source that tells you your interpretation of John 17:21-23 is the correct one and mine is false?

So, it’s no wonder you question that which you do not see, nor do you understand. That you seek to deny what you do not understand is quite another thing.

 

[guanophore]

Uhhh, he had a mother in law so obviously he was married. Of course his wife is not mentioned since the families of the Apostles are not the focus of their ministry.

I find this fascinating. While I agree with you, I note that, when Catholics use this same reasoning about the paucity of scripture reference to Mary, this reasoning is disqualified.

Perhaps his wife may have stayed home while he was away building the church, but that’s not the point is it? He was married and to a woman.

Actually, that is exactly the point. We don’t think that Jesus would have the Apostles abandon their marital and parental duties, which are also of God.

If someone married is called to serve, then they have a prior commitment. The Catholic Church considers marriage a sacrament, and as much of a holy vocation as priesthood. In order to preserve and protect the sanctity of that calling, the Church does not choose from among those previously committed to the vocation of husband/father.

But, for the sake of the record, Peter’s wife did accompany him in ministry.

1 Cor 9:5
5 Do we not have the right to be accompanied by a believing wife, as do the other apostles and the brothers of the Lord and Cephas?

Apparently Jesus chose a number of married persons to be His Apostles.

 

[guanophore]

I absolutely agree with your statement. I do not purport to say marriage is required of pastors or priests, it’s not. My only beef in this regard is absolute prohibitions on marriage, which seem to ride against Scripture. However, the celibacy of the priesthood is not a big point of contention for me; I’ve protestant for various other reasons.

This is clearly a misunderstanding about what the Catholic Church teaches. The Catholic Church does not prohibit marriage at any time for anyone at all. On the contrary, the Catholic Church teaches that marriage is a holy sacrament, created by God between one man and one woman, to represent His relationship with His Church.

What the Catholic Church does do is encourage members to keep their vows made in the sight of God and men. This includes marriage vows, and other vows such as a vow to make oneself a eunuch for the Kingdom. One must never take a vow rashly.

The Church prefers to choose for priests among those who are called to the gift of celibacy. If a person made a mistake in their vow, they are free to leave their community, along with the vows they made, and enter into marriage. The Catholic Church does not prohibit this.

 

[guanophore]

Oh. That sounds pretty serious then. On another thread, some Orthodox posters were saying it was Peters brother that took his role over.

I am finding out a heck of a lot in one day!

I think such a statement reflects a misunderstanding of Peter’s role. James was the bishop of Jerusalem, and presided over that community. Peter was itinerant, and went about strengthening the Churches, just as Paul did. Paul appointed bishops in the regions, since he could not stay and take care of all the communities personally.

It is not possible for anyone to “take Peter’s role over”. The Petrine gift and mission is unique, and is passed on via Apostolic succession.

 

[MDK]

How can your interpretation of John 17:21-23 be the correct one when it does not contain some of the things you mentioned? The distortion is not on my end but yours. It is you who have added to the passage not me.

Then show me other passages that specifically support your claims?

This does have its place. However, what John 17:21-23 is quite specific and it makes no mention of what you claimed.

Depends what you mean by that. The Bible is the inspired-inerrant Word of God that deals with a lot of different issues.

What guides you on this matter of context? How do you know if you have the correct interpretation of a passage?

This must mean you do. Correct? If so, what is your specific source that tells you your interpretation of John 17:21-23 is the correct one and mine is false?

If you understood Scriptures, and you love God, you’d want to be Catholic.

I can’t help you if you refuse to listen.

First, your request was for John 17:21, which I gave you you, and did so accurately. It’s kind of ignorant to say that other Scripture can’t help to understand this one, wouldn’t you say?

Does one have to have explicit permission in listed in John 17:21 to use other Scriptural teachings that relate to what is taught in John 17:21? Obviously not. The Sacred Scriptural passages do not conflict with each other and support the whole together. Actually, one must ask how one takes a passage out of the context it is in, and can still maintain any correct meaning?

Like I said, other Scripture is used to help explain some Scripture, in this case other Scripture is needed to help explain John 17:21, which I’ve done accurately. You simply can’t stand that I gave a decent and correct interpretation, so you seem to try to further deny and obfuscate. Why in the world would I simply recite the words in Scripture and leave that for an interpretation. That’s a quote, not an interpretation.

The papacy is described elsewhere. If you don’t have the proper background for this, then you have no chance at understanding what was provided. The fact that you insist on your own private interpretation of Scripture, leads you astray. Can you acknowledge the true path, when you’re convinced of a false one?

Knowing the Gospel (the truth thereof, and not false interpretations) is what tells me I know this. What is your interpretation of John 17:21?

Your argument that you presented here, simply has no merit. There are a few facts, once again twisted to false conclusions, just like you do with Sacred Scriptures.

 

[MDK]

Perspective on 1 Cor 9:5:
**5 Have we not power to carry about a woman, a sister, as well as the rest of the apostles, and the brethren of the Lord, and Cephas? **

**5 “A woman, a sister”… Some erroneous translators have corrupted this text by rendering it, a sister, a wife: whereas, it is certain, St. Paul had no wife (chap. 7 ver. 7, 8) and that he only speaks of such devout women, as, according to the custom of the Jewish nation, waited upon the preachers of the gospel, and supplied them with necessaries. **

Peter was the only one we know who had a wife at any time, and many believe he may have been a widower. In the passage where Jesus heals Peter’s mother-in-law, there is no mention of Peter’s wife, other the connection through which Peter and his mother-in-law are in relation.

No evidence of any of the other apostles having been married at any time.

In the end, it doesn’t matter, really. The Latin Rite Catholic Church’s custom on priests not being married is just that… a custom. It’s not doctrine or dogma. If the person wants to be married, that is fine and no one keeps them from it. In that case, they would not enter the priesthood.

 

[guanophore]

Peter was not the founder of the Roman Christian community, nor does the RCC claim this.

I agree, however, the early writings do point to Peter and Paul as the “founders” of the Church in Rome. I think this is because, although there was a Christian Community there, it was not established by an Apostle nor did they directly receive the benefit of Apostolic instruction until Peter an Paul came there to be martyred.

T

he Roman Church in fact does not begin to assume dominance over the Christian world until the time of Irenaeus (early second century).

I think this is an erronous statement. The “Roman Church” did not assume “dominance” in secular terms until the fifth century, when the Roman empire in the West politically collapsed. The Emperor moved to constantiople, and the only organized entity left to manage secular affairs was the Church in Rome. That was when secular authority was given to the Church.

However, the Successor of Peter was always considered to have primacy among the college of bishops. It was not necessary to exercise this authority piror to the second century, when dissentions arose that required intervention from a higher authority.

Prior to Irenaeus there were the apostolic fathers, the big three are Ignatius, Polycarp, and Clement.

Surprisingly Clement is a rather mysterious figure in early Christianity because historians aren’t sure exactly who he was & scholars have debunked the authorship of many writings previously attributed to him. Much is known about Ignatius, however, there has also been problems in establishing the authorship of some of his writings (some proven to have not been written by him).

Well. If this is not very convenient “scholarship”.

Anything that sounds too “catholic” can be dismissed.