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

[Lilyflower]

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

I believe that it is the Roman Catholic Church.

What are your thoughts? Please support your opinions with facts. I will provide information, which all goes to support the fact that the Roman Catholic Church is the true Church, founded by Jesus Christ and the Church that God intended for man…

Peace

Catholic.net - Catholics on the net

I believe it is the Roman Catholic in union with Holy Orthodox. Thus I think that we are part that Church but not wholly. Same for Holy Orthodox.

Blessings and peace

 

[Lilyflower]

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.

I can accept that. It is not my fault that someone made a mistake when writing an account of what Christ actually said.

Now if Scripture is wrong on this issue then it may well be wrong on others so it is a good job we have a Church which precedes Holy Scripture!

Blessings and peace

 

[Lilyflower]

plus when you look at the original language the rock used in that scripture is petra and pedro… two different words. One meaning small rock (Peter) and the other means large immovable rock (faith in Christ)

I have no issues with this definition.

So the Church is led by a small rock but ultimately it is protected and guided through all ages by a big rock!

Yes, that sounds about right. Thank you for the clarifiication

Blessings and peace.

 

[guanophore]

I’m not one to say we ought to ignore history – however, as far as I know not much is known about Peter’s actual role in the Roman Christian community.

I agree that the historical record is quite thin, just like the record about Mary! However, there are some important facts. Peter alone was charged with a special gift and mission, to strenghten the brethren. It is his confession of faith upon which the whole unity of the Church rests. This was revealed to him by God.

We know Peter followed Paul to Rome & met his same fate.

How do “we” know this?

We also know that the church Paul built in Rome stood the test and was alive and flourishing when Peter emerged in Rome.

It seems, from the letter to the Romans, that the church there was quite strong before Paul came there himself!

Moreover, it seems obvious to think Peter was made leader of that community immediately upon his arrival.

Peter had a gift and role that accompanied him whereever he went, but so did Paul. History shows that the two of them labored in Rome to build up the Church. The main reason that the church in Rome had primacy was because of the doctrinal foundation that was laid down there by these two powerful Apostles.

However, the conversion of these facts into the idea of a primacy at Rome was done by the Catholic Church, beginning around the time of Clement.

I think it was done by Christ when he selected these Apostles.

“Since, however, it would be very tedious, in such a volume as this, to reckon up the successions of all the Churches, we do put to confusion all those who, in whatever manner, whether by an evil self-pleasing, by vainglory, or by blindness and perverse opinion, assemble in unauthorized meetings; [we do this, I say,] by indicating that tradition derived from the apostles, of the very great, the very ancient, and universally known Church founded and organized at Rome by the two most glorious apostles, Peter and Paul; as also [by pointing out] the faith preached to men, which comes down to our time by means of the successions of the bishops. For it is a matter of necessity that every Church should agree with this Church, on account of its pre- eminent authority, that is, the faithful everywhere, inasmuch as the apostolical tradition has been preserved continuously by those [faithful men] who exist everywhere.” Irenaeus, Against Heresies, 3:3:2 (A.D. 180).

Now, we know that the church was not “founded” by them, because we have Paul’s letter to them which pre-dates either Apostle arriving in Rome. However, the arrival of these Apostles was likely the first direct Apostolic Teaching they received. Prior to that, the church was founded by persons who were on pilgrimmage to Jerusalem on the day of Pentecost, and took their fledgling faith back home with them. It is not likely that they were at all well versed in their new found faith. The Apostles later came and laid a firm foundation, and their labors resulted in Rome being the most solid community to which others might appeal for direction.

There is absolutely no proof anywhere that Peter endorsed such an idea, simply stated we may assume Peter stood silent on this issue.

We can see from Peter’s letters that he was a very humble man (at least, he seemed to become more so over the course of time). His faith was as solid as the Rock in whom it was placed, so I think it is fair to assume that, if there were questions or problems about doctrine or practice, he would have settled them.

We can further assume that Peter was silent over this issue because he never imagined that such an elaborate episcopal structure headed by one man would emerge, thus he never felt a need to enumerate anything with regard to church governance beyond what Paul had already spoken about.

I disagree on this point, because even the short passage above from Irenaeus makes it clear how important the Apostolic succession was. There were many “unauthorized” groups, and that is why those groups that were in union with a validly ordained bishop were considered right,a nd the others not.

However, I agree that neither Peter or Paul could ever have envisioned what we have today.

That Peter followed Paul, however, is an important fact that we can read into. He mediated between the Church at Jerusalem headed by James and Paul. However, ultimately his heart led him to follow Paul. We can at least know that this signifies Peter’s assent to Pauline theology and rejection of justification by works.

I don’t know where this is coming from at all. I don’t think Paul was deemed to have any authority in Jerusalem at all, and I think he was treated more like an outsider by most of the Jewish community. I think his idea of going to the Gentiles was not well received at all.

Justification by faith is what was taught by Jesus. It is not “Pauline theology”. All the Apostles got the same teaching.

 

[guanophore]

The CC can claim all it wants to. Lets look for facts to back these claims up. Again, where do we see Peter ruling from Rome? Where in Scripture do we see the other apostles supporting the idea that Peter is the leader of the entire church? In all their writing not one makes such a claim about him like this.

You are allowing yourself to be contaminated by a secular notion of leadership. Jesus was very clear that the one who wanted to be the leader must be the servant of all. Peter is understood this teaching, and took on the attitude of a servant, not a “ruler”.

Peter does have primacy throughout the scriptures.

Not if you can’t support it with facts or Scripture.

Didn’t you ever notice that his name appears first in all the lists?

Primacy of Peter:

Matthew, chapter 16
18: And I tell you, you are Peter, and on this rock I will build my church, and the powers of death shall not prevail against it. 19: I will give you the keys of the kingdom of heaven, and whatever you bind on earth shall be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven."

Luke, chapter 22 – Jesus tells Peter to strengthen his brethren
31: “Simon, Simon, behold, Satan demanded to have you, that he might sift you like wheat,
32: but I have prayed for you that your faith may not fail; and when you have turned again, strengthen your brethren.”

John, chapter 21 – Peter is given Christ’s flock to shepherd
17: He said to him the third time, “Simon, son of John, do you love me?” Peter was grieved because he said to him the third time, “Do you love me?” And he said to him, “Lord, you know everything; you know that I love you.” Jesus said to him, "Feed my sheep.

Mark, chapter 16 – Peter is mentioned separate from the others
7: But go, tell his disciples and Peter that he is going before you to Galilee; there you will see him, as he told you."

Luke, chapter 24 – risen Jesus appeared to Peter first
34: who said, “The Lord has risen indeed, and has appeared to Simon!”

Acts, chapter 1 – Peter headed the meeting to elect Matthias
13: and when they had entered, they went up to the upper room, where they were staying, Peter and John and James and Andrew, Philip and Thomas, Bartholomew and Matthew, James the son of Alphaeus and Simon the Zealot and Judas the son of James.
14: All these with one accord devoted themselves to prayer, together with the women and Mary the mother of Jesus, and with his brothers.
15: In those days **Peter stood up among the brethren **(the company of persons was in all about a hundred and twenty), and said,
16: "Brethren, the scripture had to be fulfilled, which the Holy Spirit spoke beforehand by the mouth of David, concerning Judas who was guide to those who arrested Jesus.

Acts, chapter 2 - Peter leads the Apostles
14: But **Peter, standing with the eleven, lifted up his voice **and addressed them, "Men of Judea and all who dwell in Jerusalem, let this be known to you, and give ear to my words…
37: Now when they heard this they were cut to the heart, and said to Peter and the rest of the apostles, “Brethren, what shall we do?”
38: And Peter said to them, “Repent, and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of your sins; and you shall receive the gift of the Holy Spirit.
39: For the promise is to you and to your children and to all that are far off, every one whom the Lord our God calls to him.”
40: And he testified with many other words and exhorted them, saying, “Save yourselves from this crooked generation.”
41: So those who received his word were baptized, and there were added that day about three thousand souls.

Acts, chapter 3 - Peter performs first miracle after Pentecost
6: But Peter said, “I have no silver and gold, but I give you what I have; in the name of Jesus Christ of Nazareth, walk.”
7: And he took him by the right hand and raised him up; and immediately his feet and ankles were made strong.

Acts, chapter 5 – Peter inflicted first punishment
1: But a man named Anani’as with his wife Sapphi’ra sold a piece of property,
2: and with his wife’s knowledge he kept back some of the proceeds, and brought only a part and laid it at the apostles’ feet.
3: But Peter said, “Anani’as, why has Satan filled your heart to lie to the Holy Spirit and to keep back part of the proceeds of the land?
4: While it remained unsold, did it not remain your own? And after it was sold, was it not at your disposal? How is it that you have contrived this deed in your heart? You have not lied to men but to God.”
5: When Anani’as heard these words, he fell down and died. And great fear came upon all who heard of it.
6: The young men rose and wrapped him up and carried him out and buried him.
7: After an interval of about three hours his wife came in, not knowing what had happened.
8: And Peter said to her, “Tell me whether you sold the land for so much.” And she said, “Yes, for so much.”
9: But Peter said to her, “How is it that you have agreed together to tempt the Spirit of the Lord? Hark, the feet of those that have buried your husband are at the door, and they will carry you out.”
10: Immediately she fell down at his feet and died. When the young men came in they found her dead, and they carried her out and buried her beside her husband.
11: And great fear came upon the whole church, and upon all who heard of these things

Acts, chapter 8 – Peter is first to excommunicate a heretic
20: But Peter said to him, "Your silver perish with you, because you thought you could obtain the gift of God with money!
21: You have neither part nor lot in this matter, for your heart is not right before God.

Acts, chapter 10 Peter receives divine revelation
44: While Peter was still saying this, the Holy Spirit fell on all who heard the word.
45: And the believers from among the circumcised who came with Peter were amazed, because the gift of the Holy Spirit had been poured out even on the Gentiles.
46: For they heard them speaking in tongues and extolling God. Then Peter declared,
47: “Can any one forbid water for baptizing these people who have received the Holy Spirit just as we have?”
48: And he commanded them to be baptized in the name of Jesus Christ. Then they asked him to remain for some days.

Acts, chapter 15 – Peter led the first council in Jerusalem
7: And after there had been much debate, Peter rose and said to them, "Brethren, you know that in the early days God made choice among you, that by my mouth the Gentiles should hear the word of the gospel and believe.

Galatians, chapter 1 – Paul visits Peter after conversion
18: Then after three years I went up to Jerusalem to visit Cephas, and remained with him fifteen days

In several other places Peter’s name is mentioned separate from the others as well as speaking for them. If you understand anything abut the writings of that time you’ll understand why. Also, Peters name is mentioned 195 times, more than all the other apostles combined.

 

[sola_scriptura]

I agree that the historical record is quite thin, just like the record about Mary! However, there are some important facts. Peter alone was charged with a special gift and mission, to strenghten the brethren. It is his confession of faith upon which the whole unity of the Church rests. This was revealed to him by God.

no argument here.

How do “we” know this?

It is recorded.

It seems, from the letter to the Romans, that the church there was quite strong before Paul came there himself!

True

Peter had a gift and role that accompanied him whereever he went, but so did Paul. History shows that the two of them labored in Rome to build up the Church. The main reason that the church in Rome had primacy was because of the doctrinal foundation that was laid down there by these two powerful Apostles.

But it was laid down by both Peter and Paul in other places as well. The only thing that distinguishes Rome is they were killed there.

“Since, however, it would be very tedious, in such a volume as this, to reckon up the successions of all the Churches, we do put to confusion all those who, in whatever manner, whether by an evil self-pleasing, by vainglory, or by blindness and perverse opinion, assemble in unauthorized meetings; [we do this, I say,] by indicating that tradition derived from the apostles, of the very great, the very ancient, and universally known Church founded and organized at Rome by the two most glorious apostles, Peter and Paul; as also [by pointing out] the faith preached to men, which comes down to our time by means of the successions of the bishops. For it is a matter of necessity that every Church should agree with this Church, on account of its pre- eminent authority, that is, the faithful everywhere, inasmuch as the apostolical tradition has been preserved continuously by those [faithful men] who exist everywhere.” Irenaeus, Against Heresies, 3:3:2 (A.D. 180).

With respect, I’m no fan of Irenaeus & I am well aware of his early writings propping up Rome and regarding Mariology.

Now, we know that the church was not “founded” by them, because we have Paul’s letter to them which pre-dates either Apostle arriving in Rome. However, the arrival of these Apostles was likely the first direct Apostolic Teaching they received. Prior to that, the church was founded by persons who were on pilgrimmage to Jerusalem on the day of Pentecost, and took their fledgling faith back home with them. It is not likely that they were at all well versed in their new found faith. The Apostles later came and laid a firm foundation, and their labors resulted in Rome being the most solid community to which others might appeal for direction.

Again nothing I disagree with, accept to note they laid this same foundation throughout the Hellenic world and Middle East?

We can see from Peter’s letters that he was a very humble man (at least, he seemed to become more so over the course of time). His faith was as solid as the Rock in whom it was placed, so I think it is fair to assume that, if there were questions or problems about doctrine or practice, he would have settled them.

Again, Peter visited many cities (with Paul). So the same could be said of many places he ministered in. He was always the leader of the church after Christ left, no one can deny this.

I disagree on this point, because even the short passage above from Irenaeus makes it clear how important the Apostolic succession was. There were many “unauthorized” groups, and that is why those groups that were in union with a validly ordained bishop were considered right,a nd the others not.

Again – I note my disagreements with Irenaeus.

However, I agree that neither Peter or Paul could ever have envisioned what we have today.

I would assume under RCC doctrine that wouldn’t be necessary (only that God did would suffice). However, I disagree over things like the meaning of “church” within the context of the Church of Christ, body of Christ, etc. Personally, if I had to guess, I would say God decreed these difference within the church to train us in love before someday the Christian world is united.

I don’t know where this is coming from at all. I don’t think Paul was deemed to have any authority in Jerusalem at all, and I think he was treated more like an outsider by most of the Jewish community. I think his idea of going to the Gentiles was not well received at all.

The Jerusalem Christians couldn’t stand Paul (that was my point).

Justification by faith is what was taught by Jesus. It is not “Pauline theology”. All the Apostles got the same teaching.

Agreed, however, sometimes it seems like James didn’t share this view (or at least came around to it slower than Paul)?

Blessings

 

[justasking4]

guanophore;4091681]
Originally Posted by justasking4
The CC can claim all it wants to. Lets look for facts to back these claims up. Again, where do we see Peter ruling from Rome? Where in Scripture do we see the other apostles supporting the idea that Peter is the leader of the entire church? In all their writing not one makes such a claim about him like this.

guanophore
You are allowing yourself to be contaminated by a secular notion of leadership. Jesus was very clear that the one who wanted to be the leader must be the servant of all. Peter is understood this teaching, and took on the attitude of a servant, not a “ruler”.

Did He just say this to Peter or to all the disciples?

Peter does have primacy throughout the scriptures.

What you don’t see in Scripture is it is just about Peter but the others. Notice that Paul for example was chosen outside the inner circle of disciples and it can easily be demonstrated that Paul and not Peter has had a greater influence on the Christianity.

Quote:
Originally Posted by justasking4
Not if you can’t support it with facts or Scripture.

guanophore
Didn’t you ever notice that his name appears first in all the lists?

So. This just proves he is mentioned first.

Primacy of Peter:

Matthew, chapter 16
18: And I tell you, you are Peter, and on this rock I will build my church, and the powers of death shall not prevail against it. 19: I will give you the keys of the kingdom of heaven, and whatever you bind on earth shall be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven."

Luke, chapter 22 – Jesus tells Peter to strengthen his brethren
31: “Simon, Simon, behold, Satan demanded to have you, that he might sift you like wheat,
32: but I have prayed for you that your faith may not fail; and when you have turned again, strengthen your brethren.”

John, chapter 21 – Peter is given Christ’s flock to shepherd
17: He said to him the third time, “Simon, son of John, do you love me?” Peter was grieved because he said to him the third time, “Do you love me?” And he said to him, “Lord, you know everything; you know that I love you.” Jesus said to him, "Feed my sheep.

Mark, chapter 16 – Peter is mentioned separate from the others
7: But go, tell his disciples and Peter that he is going before you to Galilee; there you will see him, as he told you."

Luke, chapter 24 – risen Jesus appeared to Peter first
34: who said, “The Lord has risen indeed, and has appeared to Simon!”

Acts, chapter 1 – Peter headed the meeting to elect Matthias
13: and when they had entered, they went up to the upper room, where they were staying, Peter and John and James and Andrew, Philip and Thomas, Bartholomew and Matthew, James the son of Alphaeus and Simon the Zealot and Judas the son of James.
14: All these with one accord devoted themselves to prayer, together with the women and Mary the mother of Jesus, and with his brothers.
15: In those days Peter stood up among the brethren (the company of persons was in all about a hundred and twenty), and said,
16: "Brethren, the scripture had to be fulfilled, which the Holy Spirit spoke beforehand by the mouth of David, concerning Judas who was guide to those who arrested Jesus.

Acts, chapter 2 - Peter leads the Apostles
14: But Peter, standing with the eleven, lifted up his voice and addressed them, "Men of Judea and all who dwell in Jerusalem, let this be known to you, and give ear to my words…
37: Now when they heard this they were cut to the heart, and said to Peter and the rest of the apostles, “Brethren, what shall we do?”
38: And Peter said to them, “Repent, and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of your sins; and you shall receive the gift of the Holy Spirit.
39: For the promise is to you and to your children and to all that are far off, every one whom the Lord our God calls to him.”
40: And he testified with many other words and exhorted them, saying, “Save yourselves from this crooked generation.”
41: So those who received his word were baptized, and there were added that day about three thousand souls.

Acts, chapter 3 - Peter performs first miracle after Pentecost
6: But Peter said, “I have no silver and gold, but I give you what I have; in the name of Jesus Christ of Nazareth, walk.”
7: And he took him by the right hand and raised him up; and immediately his feet and ankles were made strong.

Acts, chapter 5 – Peter inflicted first punishment
1: But a man named Anani’as with his wife Sapphi’ra sold a piece of property,
2: and with his wife’s knowledge he kept back some of the proceeds, and brought only a part and laid it at the apostles’ feet.
3: But Peter said, “Anani’as, why has Satan filled your heart to lie to the Holy Spirit and to keep back part of the proceeds of the land?
4: While it remained unsold, did it not remain your own? And after it was sold, was it not at your disposal? How is it that you have contrived this deed in your heart? You have not lied to men but to God.”
5: When Anani’as heard these words, he fell down and died. And great fear came upon all who heard of it.
6: The young men rose and wrapped him up and carried him out and buried him.
7: After an interval of about three hours his wife came in, not knowing what had happened.
8: And Peter said to her, “Tell me whether you sold the land for so much.” And she said, “Yes, for so much.”
9: But Peter said to her, “How is it that you have agreed together to tempt the Spirit of the Lord? Hark, the feet of those that have buried your husband are at the door, and they will carry you out.”
10: Immediately she fell down at his feet and died. When the young men came in they found her dead, and they carried her out and buried her beside her husband.
11: And great fear came upon the whole church, and upon all who heard of these things

Acts, chapter 8 – Peter is first to excommunicate a heretic
20: But Peter said to him, "Your silver perish with you, because you thought you could obtain the gift of God with money!
21: You have neither part nor lot in this matter, for your heart is not right before God.

Acts, chapter 10 Peter receives divine revelation
44: While Peter was still saying this, the Holy Spirit fell on all who heard the word.
45: And the believers from among the circumcised who came with Peter were amazed, because the gift of the Holy Spirit had been poured out even on the Gentiles.
46: For they heard them speaking in tongues and extolling God. Then Peter declared,
47: “Can any one forbid water for baptizing these people who have received the Holy Spirit just as we have?”
48: And he commanded them to be baptized in the name of Jesus Christ. Then they asked him to remain for some days.

Acts, chapter 15 – Peter led the first council in Jerusalem
7: And after there had been much debate, Peter rose and said to them, "Brethren, you know that in the early days God made choice among you, that by my mouth the Gentiles should hear the word of the gospel and believe.

No doubt Peter had an important role in the church. However, he was never looked upon as the supreme leader as we see happening the Roman Catholic church. Secondly, it was James and not Peter who spoke what was to be.

Galatians, chapter 1 – Paul visits Peter after conversion
18: Then after three years I went up to Jerusalem to visit Cephas, and remained with him fifteen days

In several other places Peter’s name is mentioned separate from the others as well as speaking for them. If you understand anything abut the writings of that time you’ll understand why. Also, Peters name is mentioned 195 times, more than all the other apostles combined.

Can’t argue with the numbers. However its going to take more than counting to establish that Peter was thee supreme leader i.e. vicar of Christ in the NT church. That has not been demonstrated.

 

[guanophore]

It is recorded.

Then we can agree that there does exist some scant historical evidence that can be taken into account?

But it was laid down by both Peter and Paul in other places as well. The only thing that distinguishes Rome is they were killed there. With respect, I’m no fan of Irenaeus & I am well aware of his early writings propping up Rome and regarding Mariology.

Is that why you are not a “fan”? Even if not, would you not agree that he is writing ideas that are prevalent at the time?

In either case, your characterization that what distinguishes Rome was their deaths (although true) discounts the evidence that they “laid a foundation” in the Church their. This can only happen through vigorous and intensive Apostolic Teaching.

“Since, however, it would be very tedious, in such a volume as this, to reckon up the successions of all the Churches, we do put to confusion all those who, in whatever manner, whether by an evil self-pleasing, by vainglory, or by blindness and perverse opinion, assemble in unauthorized meetings; [we do this, I say,] by indicating that tradition derived from the apostles, of the very great, the very ancient, and universally known Church founded and organized at Rome by the two most glorious apostles, Peter and Paul; as also [by pointing out] the faith preached to men, which comes down to our time by means of the successions of the bishops. For it is a matter of necessity that every Church should agree with this Church, on account of its pre- eminent authority, that is, the faithful everywhere, inasmuch as the apostolical tradition has been preserved continuously by those [faithful men] who exist everywhere.” Irenaeus, Against Heresies, 3:3:2 (A.D. 180).

Think about what you are saying. At the time, there were no detractions as there are now. There was no NEED to “prop up Rome and Mariology”!

These things were believed and practiced by the Church throughout the whole known world.

Again nothing I disagree with, accept to note they laid this same foundation throughout the Hellenic world and Middle East?

Yes, but separately, or at different times. The only city we know of them both laboring at the same time is Rome. It also comes at the end of their careers, when their theology and teaching skills were at their height.

Again, Peter visited many cities (with Paul). So the same could be said of many places he ministered in. He was always the leader of the church after Christ left, no one can deny this.

I agree that there was never a dispute about Peter’s primacy. I think, for the most part, all the Apostles had respect throughout the world. Paul does write some indignant responses about “superlative apostles” who visited Churches he founded, and chastized them about thinking they were “better” or more. However, for the most part, I think Paul’s authority was consistently respected. John even writes, though, about some who rejected his authority.

Again – I note my disagreements with Irenaeus.

Do you think that is too far afield for this thread? I am curious why you object to those doctrines. I mean, if you were reading about them at the time he wrote them, do you think anything would be different?

The Jerusalem Christians couldn’t stand Paul (that was my point).

Ok. We are in agreement on that point. I mean, I think they chose to “stand” him, in the light of the revelation of the HS, but I don’t think they felt very good about it. That is speculation on my part.

Agreed, however, sometimes it seems like James didn’t share this view (or at least came around to it slower than Paul)?

I think what we are seeing in the other Pastoral Epistles is the faith represented from an Hebraic perspective. James and Peter did not have the Hellenistic influence as Paul had, and were not able to articulate the concepts in the same way. They articulated them according to the revelation they had been given, and saw Christianity as an unbroken expression of their Judiasm. Paul had a unique gift of understanding the Jewish faith from the Gentile perspective because his education and background was different.

 

[guanophore]

What if 2 or 3 people claim to being guided by the HS but come to different conclusions? Who is right in such situations?

This is an excellent question, and was answered in advance by Jesus.

Matt 18:15-20

“If another member of the church sins against you, go and point out the fault when the two of you are alone. If the member listens to you, you have regained that one. 16 But if you are not listened to, take one or two others along with you, so that every word may be confirmed by the evidence of two or three witnesses. 17 If the member refuses to listen to them, tell it to the church; and if the offender refuses to listen even to the church, let such a one be to you as a Gentile and a tax collector. 18 Truly I tell you, whatever you bind on earth will be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth will be loosed in heaven. 19 Again, truly I tell you, if two of you agree on earth about anything you ask, it will be done for you by my Father in heaven. 20 For where two or three are gathered in my name, I am there among them.”

Jesus’ method of resolving disputes among believers begins at the lowest level between two people. However, if that does not work, others may be involved to help solve the problem. However, if the member “refuses to listen” then a higher authority is sought, the Church that was founded by Jesus on Peter the Rock. This means the Church must be visible so that she can be found when there is a dispute. The Church is also that which is in unity, and has the authority to govern matters on earth.

Did He just say this to Peter or to all the disciples?

I think the text is ambiguous, but that is irrelevant, since they all acted in unity with one another. None of the Apostles would act in opposition to Peter. When scripture records 'it seemed right to the Holy Spirit and to us" it reveals total unity.

What you don’t see in Scripture is it is just about Peter but the others. Notice that Paul for example was chosen outside the inner circle of disciples and it can easily be demonstrated that Paul and not Peter has had a greater influence on the Christianity.

No, I don’t think so. Jesus chose Paul in different circumstances, but none of the Apostles were chosen from within some “inner circle”. In fact, there does not seem to be any pattern in the way Jesus selected them. They were all going about their lives when they were called, and dropped everything to follow Him. This distinction of “Paul and not Peter” is artificial and divisive. Paul did not do anything in opposition to Peter and the other Apostles. It is also a reflection of a secular contamination of leadership to engage in these “greater” comparisons. Jesus was clear that this is not an appropriate attitude for Christians. No one else was given the Petrine gift, and we will not know the fullness of how critical this gift is until the end of the Church age. At the present time, we see those such as yourself who champion the primacy of Paul all in disunity with one another. This is not the unity that Jesus commanded, or that which is demonstrated by those in unity with Peter. Furthermore, there was not disunity between Peter and Paul.

So. This just proves he is mentioned first.

It certainly does. How do you account for such consistent primacy? Why is Peter always mentioned first?

Do you suppose that the words he spoke may have been true? Do you suppose that “in the early days, God made choice among you”?

No doubt Peter had an important role in the church. However, he was never looked upon as the supreme leader as we see happening the Roman Catholic church. Secondly, it was James and not Peter who spoke what was to be.

I agree. This notion of “supreme leader” exists only in your mind and heart, and appears to be emanating from an anti-Catholic bigotry. The pope does not claim “supremacy”, as your contaminated worldly view of Jesus Kingdom seems to indicate. He signs all his correspondence “servant of the servants of God”.

James was the bishop of the Jerusalem community, and it is his role to implement the councilar decisions. This role of bishops has not changed in 2000 years.

Can’t argue with the numbers.

But, you are.

However its going to take more than counting to establish that Peter was thee supreme leader i.e. vicar of Christ in the NT church. That has not been demonstrated.

Well, you will not see me falling into that contaminated secular attitude of “supremacy”.

Matt 20:25-28
25 But Jesus called them to him and said, “You know that the rulers of the Gentiles lord it over them, and their great ones are tyrants over them. 26 It will not be so among you; but whoever wishes to be great among you must be your servant, 27 and whoever wishes to be first among you must be your slave; 28 just as the Son of Man came not to be served but to serve, and to give his life a ransom for many.”

The pope today, just like Peter, is a humble man, and is the servant of the servants of God. He does not “rule as a tyrant” as you accuse.

 

[Always_For_Him]

Another baiting post. Way to go, Cinette.

It is baiting because you know that it must apply to you too. I am sorry, but it IS true. That post was about as perfect as you could get in this particular situation. Here, we have non-Catholics taking their Bible and using it against the VERY Church that taught it, understood it, wrote it and gave it to them - to ALL Christians. The Bible that non-Catholics use today was drastically changed through the Reformation and has been tragically mis-interpreted throughout the last 500 years. If it isn’t the original teachings as they were taught and believed by the only Church - the Catholic Church - all Christians until the Reformation changed those teachings for Protestants and non-C’s, then it ISN’T Apostolic teachings. It is teachings of man.

 

[O.S.Luke]

It is baiting because you know that it must apply to you too. I am sorry, but it IS true. That post was about as perfect as you could get in this particular situation. Here, we have non-Catholics taking their Bible and using it against the VERY Church that taught it, understood it, wrote it and gave it to them - to ALL Christians. The Bible that non-Catholics use today was drastically changed through the Reformation and has been tragically mis-interpreted throughout the last 500 years. If it isn’t the original teachings as they were taught and believed by the only Church - the Catholic Church - all Christians until the Reformation changed those teachings for Protestants and non-C’s, then it ISN’T Apostolic teachings. It is teachings of man.

It is baiting because it is a dishonest approach to apologetics, and more to the point, it is the antithesis of Christian conversation.

Not ALL non-Catholics “use” the bible against Catholics, and not all non-Catholics adhere to the Solas. I do neither, and neither does the communion I belong to. I resent the implication that I do, Always for Him. I have great respect for Catholicism.

The Bible is the Word of God. Not a weapon or source for proof-texting.

O+

 

[Always_For_Him]

Did He just say this to Peter or to all the disciples?

What you don’t see in Scripture is it is just about Peter but the others. Notice that Paul for example was chosen outside the inner circle of disciples and it can easily be demonstrated that Paul and not Peter has had a greater influence on the Christianity.

No doubt Peter had an important role in the church. However, he was never looked upon as the supreme leader as we see happening the Roman Catholic church. Secondly, it was James and not Peter who spoke what was to be.

Can’t argue with the numbers. However its going to take more than counting to establish that Peter was thee supreme leader i.e. vicar of Christ in the NT church. That has not been demonstrated.

You really are blinded by the teachings of man. You are so wrong about what you have written above. Your beliefs are less than 500 years old. So, how is it that they could be right? Oh, yeah, it is because they are so old that you are right, right?

 

[Traditional_Ang]

It is baiting because it is a dishonest approach to apologetics, and more to the point, it is the antithesis of Christian conversation.

Not ALL non-Catholics “use” the bible against Catholics, and not all non-Catholics adhere to the Solas. I do neither, and neither does the communion I belong to. I resent the implication that I do, Always for Him. I have great respect for Catholicism.

The Bible is the Word of God. Not a weapon or source for proof-texting.

O+

Deacon Luke:

The problem is that many Protestants do as Always for Him described. One of the brothers (not ordained) was recently handing out pamphlets at St. Marys from an anti-Catholic organization. I simply told him to stop, and (this time) he stopped. I then picked up a lot of the pamphlets and threw them away.

There is a right to Free Speech, but not a Right to sow Dissension in the body of Christ.

I’m sorry, but I can’t bring myself to believe that Jack Chick and his ilk are doing the work of God.

The same goes for Catholics who spend more time “Protestant Bashing” than praying with and working with “our Separated Brethren”. (Go argue with the Fathers of Vatican II!)

We have too many serious issues, such as Abortion, Fetal Stem Cell Research, Human Cloning, Euthanasia & Same-Sex Marriage to be engaged in bashing each other and refusing to work together to end the ones already being perpetrated and to prevent the rest from happening.

It seems to many of us have forgotten that the early pagans were converted NOT by the Early Christians’ proofs of God and the Resurrection, but by “how they loved one another”. and, “The greatest of these is love.”

As we post, maybe we should ask what how how we talk to each other witnesses to our Faith. and, As we post, maybe we should remember that our Lord said that whatever we do “to the least of these” (take that in this case as the brothers and sisters we disagree with) we do to Him.

Your Brother in Christ, Michael

PS: I believe the Catholic Church is the church founded by our Lord Jesus Christ, and that He gave us the Papacy as the guarantor against the sort of stuff many of my friends going through in the Anglican Communion and in the “Alphabet Soup” that forms much of the Anglican Continuum.

 

[Always_For_Him]

It is baiting because it is a dishonest approach to apologetics, and more to the point, it is the antithesis of Christian conversation.

Not ALL non-Catholics “use” the bible against Catholics, and not all non-Catholics adhere to the Solas. I do neither, and neither does the communion I belong to. I resent the implication that I do, Always for Him. I have great respect for Catholicism.

The Bible is the Word of God. Not a weapon or source for proof-texting.

O+

It is not dishonest! You can think of it as baiting if you wish. What is your proof that Jesus was here or said anything at all? What is your proof of anything that is written in the Bible? Where do you think it all came from? Seriously, you say we are being uncharitable, but it is the non-C’s that continually disparage and shredd Catholic teachings - original Apostolic teachings - into their own interpretations/teachings/beliefs and teach those as Truth, then refute our teachings and interpretation of Scripture based on what they believe it to really mean.

ALL non-C’s refute teachings of the Catholic Church. Maybe not all the same ones at the same time, but we are always having to “prove” why we believe what we believe and are asked to “prove” to them this or that.

We have given much support for everything that we state. ALL of our historical writings are yours and all non-C’s for the reading if you should choose to do so. Most people don’t read the Early Church writings and the ECF’s teachings and writings. They just believe what they hear in Church, hear from their pastor, hear from their fellow congregation, and believe what they interpret Scripture to mean. THEN, they teach those errors as Truth and so forth. The apostles teach not to self interpret Scripture. The teachings that are different from Apostolic teachings, are NOT the teachings of Jesus or the apostles! They are the teachings from man/men who THINK they know better what Scripture could mean over a Church who has taught the SAME Truth for 2,000 years, over what apostolic teachings were for over 1500 years before the Reformation.

I was responding to your post because it was not supporting the request for certain non-C posters to provide proof for their claims that didn’t come from the Catholic Church. At this juncture, I think it is only fair to ask for it. Immediately refuting our teachings and explanations of Scripture without considering where it really came from to teach their own teachings that are contrary to apostolic teaching is continually the issue. So, show us how your teachings could be the actual teachings of Christ. Teach us without using anything written by the Catholic Church. Because if it written by the Catholic Church, we know what it means and how it has always been interpreted. No one can take OUR writings and tell us that they mean something else.

If your Churches use OUR writings, then you HAVE to accept the authority of our Church. To believe ONE word, is to have to believe in Catholic teaching. BUT, non-C’s don’t want to do that. They just can’t do it. They have to separate themselves from Catholic teaching, to teach and believe their own interpretations. Non-C’s have to discredit Catholic teachings to further their own beliefs. It happens over and over again in every thread. So, you may not be using our Bible against us, or believing in the solas, but that is the norm here, and that is what we were responding to.

The Catholic Church certainly understood what it taught orally before Scripture was written and continued to teach orally for many, many centuries because most people didn’t own a Bible or even know how to read. Even through the Reformation, most of it was orally taught. The Truth doesn’t change. Meanings don’t just change. Men did that in the last 500 years. Look at the Early Church and see if you find the different non-C’s teachings/interpretations being taught/written about as the interpretation of Scripture.

 

[Traditional_Ang]

You really are blinded by the teachings of man. You are so wrong about what you have written above. Your beliefs are less than 500 years old. So, how is it that they could be right? Oh, yeah, it is because they are so old that you are right, right?

Always for Him:

You might be right, but you’ve stated it in such a way that I suspect “JustAsking” isn’t going to listen. AfH, we want to convert people such as JA, not pound them into submission or (worse) so turn them off their hearts become as hard as stone.

Fr. Fessio, Fr. Mullady and others at the SI Institute could have jumped all over me as you’re doing with JA, but they didn’t. The result if, that although I’ve taken a very roundabout route, I’ve been one of the ones working on the “Unity with Rome” Project for the last 3 years.

My dear brother, please remember, our job isn’t to “Clobber the Protestant” - It’s to show him the error of his ways and the way into the Kingdom. Clobbering him may be more fun, but only by helping him come into the Kingdom will we cause the angels to sing.

Your Brother in Christ, Michael

 

[O.S.Luke]

Baiting is always dishonest, Always - it’s intent is not the truth but to persuade by less than Christian manner. The ends never justify the means.

ALL non-C’s refute teachings of the Catholic Church. Maybe not all the same ones at the same time, but we are always having to “prove” why we believe what we believe and are asked to “prove” to them this or that.

ALL have not - it’s simply not true. And I’m not asking you to prove one thing - just to respect me and my faith, as I very much respect yours.

I am well aware of Christian history, the ECF’s, and how canon was composed. I’ve never questioned such, nor disparaged it - and give thanks for it daily. The Reformation was an awful time, with transgressions admitted on both sides. I pray one day we may be one again.

Peace be with you.

O+

 

[Cinette]

Really, what challenge was that if I may ask?

what’s your definition of anti-Catholic? Does it mean someone who is not Catholic (by that definition of course you would be anti-Protestant) or do you mean someone who feels hatred toward Catholicism? If it’s the latter then indeed why would I want to talk with a person who begins by slandering me? I’m always gracious & discuss theology in an intelligent manner – being careful to avoid insulting or demeaning remarks, so yes I would be highly insulted. If it’s the former – then great, but FYI the term “anti” carries a negative connotation.

Sola, I got acquainted with you on other threads and noticed how, despite your questions being answered intelligently and backed by scripture, you persisted in some of your remarks which are remarks often bandied about by anti-Catholics.

I then teased you but you didn’t like it!!

Later on other threads I noticed that you were settling down and enjoyed some of your posts although I have to admit I didn’t fully understand them as I am no theologian and you are obviously knowledgeable.

I have said that I consider myself a primary school Catholic who is looking to learn.

You may have a point - perhaps I was too liberal and hurt your feelings. I would say that I got a little bold, being influenced by some of the other posts. I notice how some people like to take the mickey out of JimmyB for example and it is all done in fun. Jimmy certainly does not take offence.

You keep insisting that there is no proof whatsoever that Peter was the first Pope and this has been proved many times over and over again. So I decided to challenge you. Since you named yourself “Sola Scriptura” I asked you to prove that Peter was not the first Pope (see my post #733). Furthermore, I reminded you that the Bible was a Catholic book and said that you were not to use the Bible … etc. etc see my post. I might have put you on the spot!

Now, if I have offended you I am truly sorry. :bowdown2: You are serious and dedicated In fact, there are many anti-Catholics who are more more likeable than some Catholics.

You are right about the “anti” maybe I should not use that. Perhaps it would be better to stick to non-Catholic although there are some on the forums who are decidedly anti. You may not be one of them.

If you remain offended then my feelings will be hurt. :crying:

 

[sola_scriptura]

Sola, I got acquainted with you on other threads and noticed how, despite your questions being answered intelligently and backed by scripture, you persisted in some of your remarks which are remarks often bandied about by anti-Catholics.

I then teased you but you didn’t like it!!

fair enough

Later on other threads I noticed that you were settling down and enjoyed some of your posts although I have to admit I didn’t fully understand them as I am no theologian and you are obviously knowledgeable.

 

[sola_scriptura]

Deacon Luke:

The problem is that many Protestants do as Always for Him described. One of the brothers (not ordained) was recently handing out pamphlets at St. Marys from an anti-Catholic organization. I simply told him to stop, and (this time) he stopped. I then picked up a lot of the pamphlets and threw them away.

There is a right to Free Speech, but not a Right to sow Dissension in the body of Christ.

I agree that is pretty sad.

I’m sorry, but I can’t bring myself to believe that Jack Chick and his ilk are doing the work of God.

Golly, you spoiled a great post by slamming the Anglican’s. I know they’re an easy target (when I seen the gay Episcopalian bishop on TV one day – man I wanted to jump through the TV and cart him off the inquisition – I mean he’s not just gay but he’s gaaaayyy).

Sorry, I couldn’t resist.

 

[Cinette]

fair enough

You could use the term Protestant or Reformed Christian? I’d rather be defined by what I am than what I am not. By your standards I am also an anti-criminal – which is fine, but would it make sense to use such a term to define me?

I hope you see my point. Would I call a Catholic an anti-protestant? Never (unless they were one of course) – I would call them a Catholic (or by their name if I knew it).

Anyways, No worries, I see you didn’t mean it the way it sounded.

:harp:

Thanks for that Sola - we can begin again!

I am doing some research on something you said in an earlier post and will come back to you on that.

I hope you are enjoying these exchanges - they are healthy and certainly beneficial.

Cheers
:clapping: :yup: