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

[MDK]

I am somewhat familar with this. Lots of extrapolations are made to support this.

I suppose if you interpret God’s Word the way you like… but, we don’t do that. No extrapolations needed, just historical references of God’s way of doing things.

Why did Christ change Peter’s name if he didn’t have a lifechanging mission for him? Did God ever change anyone’s name and not have a special purpose for him? Abram to Abraham…, Saul to Paul, etc.

You still didn’t answer the question… Let me refresh your memory about the line of question you are answering… “The statement of Christ that they were the keys to the Kingdom of Heaven… was that made to any other Apostle?”

Did any other Apostle receive the keys to the Kingdom of Heaven? Since you keep watering this down to some kind of general authority to preach, do you understand what the Keys symbolize and mean? What did they mean in the OT, which was a foreshadowing of the real to come?

 

[MDK]

MDK;4083415:

You have to first get the first part. If you don’t admit that Peter was the head of the Apostles, the Rock of the Church established by Christ, then you’re just playing games here. I’m not at all interested in that.

i don’t know.

Do you know what the political climate was in Rome at the time, and whether Peter was a target? What was a code word for Rome?

Babylon?

Can you please learn how to quote properly, so the quoted link shows up when you post? I think you don’t want anyone to be able to go back and easily see what the line of questions and discussion was.

You need to determine and understand whether Christ made Kepha (Peter) the head of the Apostles, the Rock of the Church before moving on. This is so critical to your discussions here, that if you don’t have this, you’re going to keep going around in circles.

Peter was a target in Pagan Rome. He was a wanted man, and had to keep hidden as much as possible from the leaders who wanted to incarcerate or kill him.

Babylon is correct.

 

[Steven1620]

Can you please learn how to quote properly, so the quoted link shows up when you post? I think you don’t want anyone to be able to go back and easily see what the line of questions and discussion was.

 

[Steven1620]

Catholic brothers and sisters: some of the Truths that we are sharing have not been heard by others before (as hard as that is to believe). Consider hearing for yourself for the very first time that the earth was not flat!?! “NO!!” you’d say. “I need proof” we’d stammer. Well, just as the Truth has been distorted (particularly here in US), we need to charitably convey this Truth. As a former Protestant, I’m always amazed at how we Catholics can come off as haughty, arrogant ‘we were first’ Christians. It is right to be proud of Our Church, however, to bring others into the Fullness of Jesus Christ, one must be humble and charitable! God Bless You!

 

[MDK]

MDK;4083509:

Can you please learn how to quote properly, so the quoted link shows up when you post? I think you don’t want anyone to be able to go back and easily see what the line of questions and discussion was.

You know, I’ve just recently begun to get in on these forums and I know why I have avoided them. The anonymous character of using a computer allows one to be uncharitable. Why not dialogue as if we were standing face to face? Perhaps ‘justasking4’ is honestly searching for the Truth just as we all once did? We’re not all computer experts out here either. Charity! people! C’mon!

Welcome to the Forums. Hope it’s a rich and rewarding time for you.

I have to laugh a little, because I’m the same in person as here. And for anonymity… you’ll see that I’ve posted my photo on my public profile, with enough information to know who I am.

While you’re looking around here, you might find that justasking4 has posted over 4,500 times. Probably long enough to learn how to quote, would you agree?

Since you’re new, what you may not know is that I’ve seen justasking4 quite a lot here, and much of it has been very anti-Catholic. It’s not the first time JA4 and I have discussed things.

Welcome, and please take your own advice.

 

[guanophore]

You know, I’ve just recently begun to get in on these forums and I know why I have avoided them. The anonymous character of using a computer allows one to be uncharitable. Why not dialogue as if we were standing face to face? Perhaps ‘justasking4’ is honestly searching for the Truth just as we all once did? We’re not all computer experts out here either. Charity! people! C’mon!

I am all for charity, but if you search ja4’s posts, you will see clearly that his goal here has nothing to do with honesty, or searching for Truth. On the contrary, he posts lies and detraction (this is all he has been taught about Catholicism) and his goal is to convert us to Bible Christians. He has been posting calumny for almost two years, and it does not take that much time to read the tutorial on how to use the quotes. MDK is probably right, and he avoids quoting properly in the hopes of hiding his tracks. Throwing threads off topic is one of his favorite tactics.

Catholic brothers and sisters: some of the Truths that we are sharing have not been heard by others before (as hard as that is to believe). Consider hearing for yourself for the very first time that the earth was not flat!?! “NO!!” you’d say. “I need proof” we’d stammer. Well, just as the Truth has been distorted (particularly here in US), we need to charitably convey this Truth. As a former Protestant, I’m always amazed at how we Catholics can come off as haughty, arrogant ‘we were first’ Christians. It is right to be proud of Our Church, however, to bring others into the Fullness of Jesus Christ, one must be humble and charitable! God Bless You!

I agree that it is important to share the truth in love for those who have not heard it before. However, don’t kid yorself, ja4 has heard all this before hundreds of times on dozens of threads. He does not qualify as a “first time” hearer. I agree that we should not be haugty and arrogant, and I continue to struggle with it myself. However, no one comes in to the fullness of Christ if they are resisting the truth, and are compelled by a spiritual force to the opposite. One has to be noble, as the Bereans, and receive the Word with joy an eagerness. You will not see this in certain posts.

 

[donalddon5]

Hi sola scriptura,
Thank you for such a completely thorough and wonderful response.

I am not as researched as you in the different ways/beliefs. I did have a period in my life where I was away from the Catholic Church due to family issues. I attended the Methodist, Southern Baptist, and Assembly of God Churches with extended family and friends. Even as a late teen, I could tell something was off. Every Church had different teachings, different opinions, spoke of what they believed Sacred Scripture to mean, denegrated other Churches - especially the Catholic Church. They were great for worship, feeling good, but there was no real substance. Even young, I realized that Jesus only taught One Truth. I was hearning many different interpretations of that Truth.

You have your reasons for rejecting Catholic teachings, There are some really knowledgable people on these threads that can give you much scholarship. I do believe that you HAVE to set your pre-concieved notions aside to realize that you have learned in error. If you self study, you will wind up with different beliefs every time. Jesus taught One Truth, that doesn’t change. We are not supposed to self-interpret. Jesus knew our nature and put in place a system to keep His teachings protected from error. He gave His Authority to the Apostles, breathed on them and told them to go forth and teach. He said the gates of hell would never prevail and that He would guide and protect His Church until the end of the ages. We believe Him! He said those words. Every Church that splintered off of His Church is an apostate Church founded by man. You can name who started the Church and what year it started. Jesus didn’t say he would start new Churches if His teachings changed. He said, this is My Church and I will guide and protect it until the end of the ages. You either believe Him or you don’t. You either believe that He is capable of doing what He said, or you believe He is lying. He didn’t teach the thousands and thousands of different interpretations that are out there. He taught ONE Truth. It is in His Church - the Catholic Church. You can believe anything anyone tells you if you want to. But, what you have to do if you want to know the actual Truth is research Early Church History and all of the Early Church Fathers. Too many people have done that to try to disprove Catholic teachings and they couldn’t. They proved their own Church/beliefs to be in error and came home to Christ’s Church.

If you have so many objections to Catholic dogma, I think that you are misunderstanding the teaching.

It is all over the Bible that we have to participate in our salvation. Jesus Work is done, but ours isn’t. We can fall from grace and certain things need to be achieved/done to get back to full grace. Heaven isn’t just given to us because Jesus died for our sins. He didn’t die for our future sins. We have free will and we are responsible for our actions. The Catholics DON’T believe that works is the way to get us to heaven. That is a false/wrong teaching. Faith and works go hand in hand. Grace comes through faith, but not faith with out works. There is much in Scripture that teaches that as well. You have to be careful to read all the verses that support eachother and explain eachother, not just pick a verse that supports your belief and ignore the rest. If we did that, we would be called on the carpet for that. It is obviously wrong and teaches the wrong interpretation. It was understood and believed that we have to participate in our salvation for over 1500 years before some man started teaching that he thought the truth to be something else. We are saved through grace because of our complete faith (which includes following Jesus’ Law of Love) not just by faith alone. Our will, desires and actions play every role. This is specifically spelled out quite often in the Bible. Remember, not every man that believes in Jesus will go to heaven. There are reasons, do you know what they are? I don’t know of one passage that teaches that the grace that we are given has nothing to do with our efforts. They actually teach the opposite. How could you see that, when it just simply isn’t there?

There are many, many threads which have spelled out this over and over again much better than I could ever explain it. These are just a few threads that I think you would enjoy and learn from some really fantastic, informative posts:

forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?t=233879
forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?t=239353
forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?t=247998
forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?t=248507
forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?t=239277
forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?t=252961

I pray that you can open your heart and mind to the Truth that has been taught for 2,000 years now. I also pray that you somehow see that you are believing in teachings and traditions of men. The things that you have written were never true or believed to be true by Christians until man changed things. The writings are there for you to study. You will see that these teachings are in error. You either believe in the teachings of Christ, the way he gave them to the apostles, or you believe in the teachings of men. Your search shouldn’t be over. I honestly don’t believe you have studied the writings and teachings of the very Early Church Fathers. If you studied them, I truly believe you would be saying something entirely different.

If I could one time speak as a prophet of the Lord Jesus, I would say, Amen, Amen, Amen.

 

[MDK]

Catholic brothers and sisters: some of the Truths that we are sharing have not been heard by others before (as hard as that is to believe). Consider hearing for yourself for the very first time that the earth was not flat!?! “NO!!” you’d say. “I need proof” we’d stammer. Well, just as the Truth has been distorted (particularly here in US), we need to charitably convey this Truth. As a former Protestant, I’m always amazed at how we Catholics can come off as haughty, arrogant ‘we were first’ Christians. It is right to be proud of Our Church, however, to bring others into the Fullness of Jesus Christ, one must be humble and charitable! God Bless You!

Is it charitable that a fellow Catholic falsely accuses others? Is that real charity as you understand it, so that you’re walking in the ways you admonish others? God’s eighth commandment is important to me as it is to the Church. Perhaps take some time, and determine what is arrogant behavior, what is haughty behavior. For instance, many of us have seen hundreds of posts of JA4, and have seen the same patterns over and over… Since you’re new, I am giving you the benefit of the doubt that you have not.

One mode of charity is to continue to share the truth with someone who has doubted and refused to even entertain such with some nice exceptions coming occasionally. Have you been part of this? I haven’t seen you there in these discussions.

I would say a good definition of arrogance is coming into a situation one does not know nor understand, and slinging false accusations at people you don’t know. This is not taught by the Church.

Sometimes, one needs to be firm in order to get the message across. There is also a time to enjoy. Would you consider it rude to pour cold water on someone to wake them up if their house was on fire, and they refused to wake otherwise? To me, there are many whose spiritual house is on fire. For example, I do what I can every day to come closer to Christ and follow him, and have made much more effort in helping myself than I do anyone else.

When one is humble to the Lord, it doesn’t mean one cannot be firm in defending the Church, and helping others to find the Church. To learn what humility is might be an eye opener for you.

Please follow your own advice first. Next time you’re in front of the mirror, please remove the plank from your eye(s).

 

[guanophore]

There has been much debate on what you write here. It is true that Peter was the first to open the door for people to enter the kingdom. We see this in the early chapters of Acts. He was not the only to do so. Paul also had such authority. So did the other apostles.

There is only debate from those who wish to find a way to circumvent the authority established on earth by Jesus. Jesus gave Peter a ministry that He gave to no other Apostle.

Where do we see Peter ruling from Rome?

The only people who see “Peter ruling” are those whose perceptions have been twisted and contaminated by secular reasoning. Jesus was clear that those who were to be great in the Kingdom were to be servants, not ‘rulers’. As we can see from Peter’s epistles, he considered himself a servant, and reflects a great humility, in spite of the massive Gift given him by Jesus. Peter retained and served with this gift no matter where he was, but he was martyred in Rome for his faith. Prior to that he ministered to the church, and wrote the two pastoral letters that have been preserved in the NT.

Between the time of the resurrection and the death of Peter is there any record that he was known as the leader of the church at Rome?

Yes, but I think you will not accept the historical evidence to this effect, since you have stated that anything except the Scriptures is “speculation of men”.

Before i answer (not dodge) what does it mean Peter is the rock? Is he himself what the church is built on?

Peter is a rock because he embraces the Rock of Christ, and Jesus grafted Peter into His own “rockness”. Jesus, the statement of faith, and Peter are all “rock”. The reason that Peter will be able to strengthen his brethren, and feed the flock, is because Jesus made him rocky.

Do not agree with this. The other apostles also had the authority i.e. keys to open the door to the kingdom via the preaching of the gospel.

There is much more to the Keys than opening the door via preaching the gospel. To understand this, one must understand the position of the chief steward in the house of the King in ancient Israel.

Yes even though the same wording may not have been used.

The same wording was not used because Jesus meant something different.

I have yet to see any evidence of Peter ruling from Rome.

And you will not. You are imposing your wordly concept of secular power onto the Church of God, and it does not fit. It is like trying to pound a square peg into a round hole. If you study his epistles, you can see that his primacy flows from his unity with Christ, and the Truth, not secular supremacy. This is why, to this day, the successor of Peter signs his epistles "servant of the servants of God.

Its not mentioned as far as i know in Scripture that he was ever in rome.

That just goes to show how much there still is for you to learn!

Take Paul’ letter to the Romans. In chapter 16 he mentions a lot of people in this letter who are in Rome but he never mentions Peter. I’m familar of a tradition that says he was marytred in Rome.

It is likely that the letter was written years before either one of them made it to Rome.

What difference does it make?

I’m familar of a tradition that says he was marytred in Rome.

What is the value of denying this historical element?

I am somewhat familar with this. Lots of extrapolations are made to support this.

we call it exegesis. We understand that the Gospel is concealed in the OT, and revealed in the NT. We can understand the teachings of the NT much better when we understand what these terms meant in the OT. Jesus is the heir of King David, and upon HIs shoulders was the government placed. When he left earth, he gave the Keys to Peter, and left the government in his keeping.

 

[sola_scriptura]

I think a discussion regarding the role Peter played in the early church (particularly in the early Roman church) is a difficult one, since we really don’t much about it (accept of course Peter was killed in Rome). It’s one of those discussions that no one can win and both sides will become inevitably frustrated … I say why bother?

Why not just keep it to theology so we all learn something? At least that provides a basis for fruitful discussion & I dare even say decent relations.

 

[guanophore]

I think a discussion regarding the role Peter played in the early church (particularly in the early Roman church) is a difficult one, since we really don’t much about it (accept of course Peter was killed in Rome). It’s one of those discussions that no one can win and both sides will become inevitably frustrated … I say why bother?

Why not just keep it to theology so we all learn something? At least that provides a basis for fruitful discussion & I dare even say decent relations.

Catholic theology includes the facts about history, as well as matters of faith. We don’t try to build theology in a vaccuum apart from the truth of what happened in the world. This type of theology is the error of Sola Scriptura only.

 

[Jimmy_B]

I think a discussion regarding the role Peter played in the early church (particularly in the early Roman church) is a difficult one, since we really don’t much about it (accept of course Peter was killed in Rome). It’s one of those discussions that no one can win and both sides will become inevitably frustrated … I say why bother?

Why not just keep it to theology so we all learn something? At least that provides a basis for fruitful discussion & I dare even say decent relations.

Hello sola_scriptura,

Early Christians, built churches over the gravesites of the Apostles and early Christian Saints.

Saint Peter is buried beneath the alter, at Saint Peters Basilica in Vatican City.

I think all sources of information regarding Christianity are Sacred and important and should be considered and not rejected.

If traditions and previous history were rejected in secular investigations into ancient times, there wouldn’t be much known today, about ancient historical events and peoples.

Protestant, non-Catholic Christianity, is the only case that I am aware of, where everything is based on early writings (the books of the Bible) and all other information is ignored or rejected.

If all we had, today in the United States was the Declaration of Independence, we wouldn’t know a whole lot about early America or early Americans and that is going back, less than three hundred years.

The Catholic Church connects us to the early Christians and to the early Church and in doing so, connects us to Christ.

Your Thoughts?

Peace

 

[catholiconce]

Can you please learn how to quote properly, so the quoted link shows up when you post? I think you don’t want anyone to be able to go back and easily see what the line of questions and discussion was.

You need to determine and understand whether Christ made Kepha (Peter) the head of the Apostles, the Rock of the Church before moving on. This is so critical to your discussions here, that if you don’t have this, you’re going to keep going around in circles.

Peter was a target in Pagan Rome. He was a wanted man, and had to keep hidden as much as possible from the leaders who wanted to incarcerate or kill him.

Babylon is correct.

and if someone Quotes wrong your going to…? Chill out get a life

 

[catholiconce]

Welcome to the Forums. Hope it’s a rich and rewarding time for you.

I have to laugh a little, because I’m the same in person as here. And for anonymity… you’ll see that I’ve posted my photo on my public profile, with enough information to know who I am.

While you’re looking around here, you might find that justasking4 has posted over 4,500 times. Probably long enough to learn how to quote, would you agree?

Since you’re new, what you may not know is that I’ve seen justasking4 quite a lot here, and much of it has been very anti-Catholic. It’s not the first time JA4 and I have discussed things.

Welcome, and please take your own advice.

Why all the hatred attitudes like yours is why I left.

 

[PerryJ]

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 you are describing is why Protestants misinterpret the Bible. The Bible has to be read and understood in its entirety. One can not pull a verse out here and there and expect to understand the will of the Lord.

Your point also shows the weakness of Protestant theology. You believe people have the ability to interpret the Bible. To a limited degree this is true because the Lord’s words do have power. As we all know this is not universal and totally encompassing as we have some many different versions of Christianity. We do not hold that the Pope is inspired. We hold that the Holy Spirit will not allow the Church to teach false doctrine. It is because of the weakness of man, including Popes, that Christ protects his teachings. You place your faith in man; we place it in the Lord.

Here are additional examples of the Pope having authority over the Church. St. Clements first letter to the Corinthians discusses Christians of Corinth rebelling against their hierarchy when they drove out their presbyter “If any disobey what he says through us, let them know that they will be involved in no small offence and danger.” Here is the Bishop of Rome sending orders to Greece to discipline Christians. They are across the sea, they are not Italians yet the Bishop of Rome gives judgment. Note this Bishop is actually found in our Bible. He saw the apostles and lived with them. In addition when this statement is made it is believed that the apostle John was still alive. This is irrefutable evidence that the Bishop of Rome has authority. The matter was not taken to John. The matter was settled by Rome and the Pope.

St Cyprian asks Pope Stephen to intervene in the affairs of Bishop of Arles. Denis of Alexandria was sent to Rome and Denounced by the Bishop of Rome.

Socrates states " When they had explained their cause to Julius, Bishop of the City of Rome, he sent them back to the East strengthened by free letters, and restored to each his see, as is the right of Rome.

Even St. Jerome that Protestants base their whole belief in not accepting the duetercanonicals states “Whoever eats the lamb outside this house is profane … Whoever does not gather with you scatters, for whoever does not belong to Christ is of Antichrist.

Strong words from St. Jerome. I ask since the Protestants place all of their faith in Jerome’s statements against the Duetercanonicals (which Jerome was proved wrong by the Dead Sea Scrolls) why do they not follow his message concerning schism. Ask yourself how Protestants can pick and choose their beliefs. If they believe St. Jerome then they need to follow his example and be part of the one true Church.

I can provide lots more examples.

 

[MDK]

and if someone Quotes wrong your going to…? Chill out get a life

Thanks for your post. I have wonderful life in Christ. It’s a matter of honesty, which is perhaps why you don’t understand the reasoning. I can’t apologize for not being lax with the truth, or not disregarding it… if you desire to do so, that’s up to you.

 

[MDK]

Why all the hatred attitudes like yours is why I left.

Please don’t blame your poor decisions against Christ and His Church on a false characterization of someone who defends the Church and the truth. The post you unjustly vilify is pointing out to one that they falsely accused of hiding behind anonymity (i.e. being a coward), when the evidence to avoid that was easily available here in front of them, providing who I am in profile, and that JA4 who has 4,500 posts can’t be considered a newbie. If you had a sense of justice, you would have been angry with the one who falsely accused, rather than the one who responded with truth to the false accusation, even if it was firm. I’ve posted things to you that you can’t answer. Is this the way you respond with false accusations? If you read hatred into that post you reference, then you may have other issues unrelated to the actual post. Defending truth and calling out truth is hatred to you, no wonder why you left… the Catholic Church is the pillar and ground of truth. When you learn to at least tolerate truth, come back to the Church. From there, you may learn to love the truth.

 

[PerryJ]

Why all the hatred attitudes like yours is why I left.

We all have to accept responsibility for our faults. As a former Protestant I can attest that both Catholics and Protestant can be very loving and very hurtful.

With that said I would ask you to reconsider your choices. One should not leave Christ because of peoples attitude. As a former Catholic you have been taught that the Eucharist is Christ reachng out physically touching you. He is entering this world in a way that is not present for Protestants. As one that has lived the life of both I know this is true. If you search your faith do you recall how you felt when you took the sacrament? Was it not a loving expereince. Do not leave because of the attitudes of man. This is off topic and I apologize for that.

 

[PerryJ]

I have yet to see any evidence of Peter ruling from Rome.

.

justasking4 we have shown Peters supremacy in the Bible. We have shown subordination of the other apostles in the Bible. We have shown a Bible character, Clement, assuming the leadership role, instead of an apostle, and exercising this power as Pope. We have shown documentation from early Church Fathers that universally agreed that the Pope had this authority. We have shown secular documentation that shows the Pope had authority. At this time you have posted questions; however, you have been unable to support any of your thoughts with any kind of support. Why do you refute all of this evidence based upon what appears to be personal conjecture? Why do you believe that your thoughts should refute books of historical facts. Why do you do mental gymnastics to refute teachings in the Bible?

The evidence is overwhemling. We can continue to publish more and more material that proves our points. The documentation of the early Church is some of the best documentation we have anywhere concerning anything. Read our posts with an open mind as it not personal opinions we are posting. We are posting the thoughts of some of the greatest theologians and leaders in the world. Do you refute the Bible? Do you refute Socrates? Do you refute Jerome? Do you refute Clement? Do you refute the 19,000 people that died in Lyons for the faith? You have to refute all of these people and many more to believe what you believe.

Below are some additional notes from the Bible.

Its not mentioned as far as i know in Scripture that he was ever in rome. Take Paul’ letter to the Romans. In chapter 16 he mentions a lot of people in this letter who are in Rome but he never mentions Peter. I’m familar of a tradition that says he was marytred in Rome

Paul went to Jerusalem specifically to see Peter for 15 days
at the beginning of his ministry (Gal 1:18), and was commissioned
by Peter, James and John (Gal 2:9) to preach to the Gentiles.

Peter was the first traveling missionary, and first exercised
what would now be called “visitation of the churches” (Acts 9:32-
38, 43). Paul preached at Damascus immediately after his
conversion (Acts 9:20), but had not traveled there for that
purpose (God changed his plans). His missionary journeys begin in
Acts 13:2.

Peter wrote his first epistle from Rome, as its bishop, and as the universal bishop (pope) of the
early Church. “Babylon” (1 Pt 5:13) is regarded as code for Rome.

Peter acts, by strong implication, as the chief
bishop/shepherd of the Church (1 Pt 5:1), since he exhorts all the
other bishops, or “elders.”

Peter’s proclamation at Pentecost (Acts 2:14-41) contains a
fully authoritative interpretation of Scripture, a doctrinal
decision and a disciplinary decree concerning members of the
“House of Israel”-an example of “binding and loosing.”

Peter is specified by an angel as the leader and
representative of the apostles (Mk 16:7).

Peter alone among the apostles is exhorted by Jesus to
“strengthen your brethren” (Lk 22:32).

Likewise, Peter is regarded by Jesus as the chief shepherd
after himself (Jn 21:15-17), singularly by name, and over the
universal Church, even though others have a similar but
subordinate role (Acts 20:28; 1 Pt 5:2).

Bless you as I was a Protestant and know how hard it is to accept many of the things we have shown you. It was not easy for me; but, look at the evidence.

 

[PerryJ]

I accidently included justasking4’s quote in the body of my text

Its not mentioned as far as i know in Scripture that he was ever in rome. Take Paul’ letter to the Romans. In chapter 16 he mentions a lot of people in this letter who are in Rome but he never mentions Peter. I’m familar of a tradition that says he was marytred in Rome

This is not my belief.