Some of the difficulty lies with the RCC belief that Jesus made Peter the first pope... "and upon this rock...," when, in fact, Jesus was referring to HIMSELF, not Peter, as the rock upon which the Church would be built.

Another difficulty is with the word "catholic" which means universal and does NOT refer specifically to the Roman CATHOLIC Church when it is used in the creeds.

Still another difficulty is that the only known Christian church, the early church spoken of in The Acts, developed into the RCC which claims to have preserved the catholic ("universal") tradition as handed down through the Early Church Fathers. (The word "Roman" in the title is there because of the central position attributed to the See of Rome ruling over the entire church body.)

Joe is obviously brainwashed I was brought up to believe all this true church rubbish too but I learned something different about Christ. What Joe doesn't know is that God speaks to Christians outside the RCC, why would he do that if the RCC were the only true church? Joe needs to realise that the RCC diverted from the path a long time ago, around about the time it became the Roman state religion, and needs to be restored. Luther began the task a thousand years later, but they chucked him out, others have tried but are yet to succeed.

The RCC has tried to make the Church some sort of exclusive club but the Holy Spirit won't be put in a box, he keeps breaking out, and that happens outside the RCC as well.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by paraclete

Joe is obviously brainwashed I was brought up to believe all this true church rubbish too but I learned something different about Christ. What Joe doesn't know is that God speaks to Christians outside the RCC, why would he do that if the RCC were the only true church? Joe needs to realise that the RCC diverted from the path a long time ago, around about the time it became the Roman state religion, and needs to be restored. Luther began the task a thousand years later, but they chucked him out, others have tried but are yet to succeed.

the RCC has tried to make the Church some sort of exclusive club but the Holy Spirit won't be put in a box, he keeps breaking out, and that happens outside the RCC as well.

---

It used to be when the train pulled into town the people would scramble to get on as quickly as possible. Once the conductor hollered out “All ABOARD!“ there were only seconds before the train left the station. Once the train pulled away the only way to get to your destination was to walk. And that could be dangerous. The same holds true in regard to Church, Peter, our conductor has shouted out – listen:

But Peter standing up with the eleven told faithful that had gathered “Therefore let all the house of Israel know most certainly that God has made both Lord and Christ, this same Jesus, whom you have crucified.” (Acts 2:36)

The significance relating to the 'Kingdom of God' (that is the Church) should be apparent. If you were a Jew standing in the crowd you'd know exactly what it meant. Most know it, but just in case, the etymology of the word 'Christ' is as much a title as it is a name, in fact it was considered even more so a title in the earlier days of the Church. Christ is the Greek equivalent of the Hebrew Messias or 'the anointed one.' There is no need to explain that the Messiah is to be the Deliverer of the Jews, bringing with him 'His Kingdom'. It's Peter's pronouncement that is important; it 'fingers' Jesus as being the Christ, the Messiah. Peter's announcement was meant to remove any doubt to the faithful. That is as St. John the Baptist pronounced, “The time is accomplished and the kingdom of God is at hand.” (Mark 1:14) and that Jesus stated that he was greater than Solomon– and there was no greater king in Judaism. (Cf. Luke 11:31). Jesus selected and appointed the Twelve and gave them and only the Twelve the mysteries of the Kingdom of Heaven (Matt 13:11). At Cæsarea Philippi Jesus commissioned and established an office in the person of Peter, declared he would build a Church, promised to increase and protect that Church (Matthew 16:15 sqq.) Then he commissioned his Church, “Going therefore, teach all nations: baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Ghost.” (Matthew 28:19)

Peter's announcement to the Jewish followers of Christ was the pronouncement that the Kingdom HAS ARRIVED, is LIVING, and will flourish in the protection of the Holy Spirit: ALL ABOARD!

You do know that the intellect reasons in the soul. It's to the soul that we look to see if the wisdom is good or if the wisdom is evil. It's here that washing occurs. So, paraclete might be right, at least in a perverse sense, there is a 'brainwashing.' The reality though is contextually much different; I would call it a 'soulwashing'. You see it's only in the Roman Catholic Church is there a cleansing, a washing of the soul, allowing a Divine Wisdom to flourish.

JoeT

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by JoeT777

You see it’s only in the Roman Catholic Church is there a cleansing, a washing of the soul, allowing a Divine Wisdom to flourish.

---

Good grief! So there'll be only RCC members in heaven? Oh, right. I get it. The rest of us will be in purgatory, repenting of our sin of being belonging to the wrong church. Isn't that fundamentalism? "I'm right, and you're not!"

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by inhisservice

You are still just repeating what you have said. How do you know that the "one and only true Church prophesied" is the RCC? You are evading this question from the beginning.

---

See: https://www.askmehelpdesk.com/christ...ml#post2265288

Quote:

---

There is no prophesy claiming the true Church to be the RC. That is lie number one. The Apostles did not establish the RC and that is lie number two. If you don't want your claims to be called a lie then back it up with evidence from scripture.

---

See: https://www.askmehelpdesk.com/christ...ml#post2265288

Quote:

---

This is why we say; "Christ “established here on earth” only one Church and instituted it as a “visible and spiritual community”, that from its beginning and throughout the centuries has always existed and will always exist, and in which alone are found all the elements that Christ himself instituted. “This one Church of Christ, which we confess in the Creed as one, holy, catholic and apostolic […]. This Church, constituted and organized in this world as a society, subsists in the Catholic Church, governed by the successor of Peter and the Bishops in communion with him”.

Quote:

---

Quote the Bible friend. Let's have some quotes from the word of God.

---

---

I don’t worship a book; I’ll quote whoever I please.

Quote:

---

In the Old Testament prophecy there is a conjoined and parallel prophecy of the Messiah and Christ's Kingdom, the Kingdom of God; the Catholic Church.

Quote:

---

There is that empty claim again.

---

---

All that’s been seen thus far from the book-only crowd is empty air. You might want to show, using biblical verse – your rules, just who what and where the Church is. Have you noticed, that I have been the only one that has offered ‘Scriptural’ proof thus far – is there some sort of problem?

Quote:

---

This prophecy cannot be separated from Christ. To do so denies His prophetic Messianic mission. Divine Prophecy foreshadows Christ establishment of a Kingdom which will reign over the world regenerating Israel. This prophecy requires Christ’s personal presence bestowing a the keys to new Church with a specific sacrificial system in his role as Messiah (Psalm 109:4). Its tenets will be based on Divine revelation as her high priest (Isaiah 66:18; Jeremiah 33:20). And her government will originate from the Messiah as its prophet (Malachi 1:11). According to prophecy the new Church will be supernaturally revealed by Christ.

Quote:

---

This is everything about the new Church. Nothing in here to support that the "new Church" is the RC.

---

---

The only Church that existed from the time of Christ’s ascension till 1520, till now the only True Church, has been the Catholic Church.

Quote:

---

If I can show from Old Testament Scriptures how the One and only One True Church is foretold as being the established here on earth, then how does the claim that a plethora of Churches constitute ONE CHURCH, ONE FAITH, ONE SPIRIT IN CHRIST? Or how does the claim of One Man equals One Church find any validity?

Quote:

---

You just do not understand that a Church does not refer to a denomination but a group of believers. You do not seem to understand the meaning of the word "Church".

---

---

There was no other Church that was commissioned by Christ. If there was, show it in the Scriptures. Can you show scripturally where your Church came from? How did it get from 2,000 years ago till today?

Quote:

---

The prophets of the Old Testament were told of a New Kingdom, a New Covent, to be consecrated by Christ for the salvation of the faithful with a particular sacrificial system having an authority emanating from the Messiah. Failing this understanding fails to see Christ’s prophetic role as the Messiah therein denying God’s revelation. The point is that it is this Church that was consecrated by the Divine to be Holy.

There is but One True Church of Jesus Christ

Quote:

---

True but is that one true Church of Jesus Christ the RC? That is what you have failed to answer.

---

---

How is it not? Let’s see there was only one Church in Rome, it was the same Church in 0 A.D. as it is today; how then is it not the Roman Catholic Church?

Quote:

---

You’re absolutely right; before you enter a house you should know the owner is Christ. That’s why I’m Catholic. All other houses are under different management.

Quote:

---

I could say that the RC is the one that has a different management. You are the one who is making this kind of insulting statements and not any of us. If you don't stop such kind of talk then the moderators will terminate this post also.

---

---

Insulting, how so? Can you point to a single statement that wasn’t in accord with the doctrine of the Roman Catholic Church or Scripture? Thus far, I'm the only one that has provided meaningful verse; have you, has anybody else?

JoeT

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Wondergirl

Good grief! So there'll be only RCC members in heaven? Oh, right. I get it. The rest of us will be in purgatory, repenting of our sin of being belonging to the wrong church. Isn't that fundamentalism? "I'm right, and you're not!"

---

Interesting idea; but I didn’t mention 'sin,' 'heaven', 'hell' or 'purgatory.' My reference was to 'Wisdom;' not knowledge, but the knowhow to knowhow, i.e. wisdom. Also, note that there has been no condemnation in any of my statements.

JoeT

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by JoeT777

Also, note that there has been no condemnation in any of my statements.

---

Quote:

---

It doesn't matter which Church we walk into? Do you mean to imply that one Church is as good as another? Then we can say the Catholic Church is in every way, at the very least, 'equal' to your Church?

---

This doesn't count?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by JoeT777

I don't worship a book; I'll quote whoever I please.

---

Then I will quote Luther with as much authority.

Quote:

---

All that's been seen thus far from the book-only crowd is empty air. You might want to show, using biblical verse – your rules, just who what and where the Church is. Have you noticed, that I have been the only one that has offered 'Scriptural' proof thus far – is there some sort of problem?

---

I have more than once in other similar threads. In this one, you stepped right over it.

Quote:

---

How is it not? Let's see there was only one Church in Rome, it was the same Church in 0 A.D. as it is today; how then is it not the Roman Catholic Church?

---

In 0 A.D. Hmmmm. Now you're really reaching.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Wondergirl

This doesn't count?

---

No, it doesn’t count. It’s not a condemnation. If you see it that way, you’ll need to explain how because I don't see it?

JoeT

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by JoeT777

See: [url]]

I don't worship a book; I'll quote whoever I please.

---

So then if you can't "prove" what you say from the Bible you will prove it from another source

Quote:

---

The only Church that existed from the time of Christ's ascension till 1520, till now the only True Church, has been the Catholic Church.

---

I'm sure those in orthadox churches would be interested to debate this idea

Quote:

---

How is it not? Let's see there was only one Church in Rome, it was the same Church in 0 A.D. as it is today; how then is it not the Roman Catholic Church?



JoeT

---

In your rush to prove your argument you have got a little carried away Joe. There was only paganism in Rome in 0 AD. Are you implying that the RCC is a pagan expression of Christianity?This may be closer to the truth than you know.

Joe to get away from all this emotive nonsense and get back to facts. Have you read the Books written by Peter? Nowhere in these books does he tell us that he is called to lead the Church. He is at great pains to contend with us to believe in Christ and not the fabricated doctrines of men. Nowhere does he talk about this great collective, the Church, in fact, I think he makes it plain that there are Christians in various places who are not connected by a common leadership other than the Holy Spirit..

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Wondergirl

Then I will quote Luther with as much authority.

---

Ok, that'll be fun.

Quote:

---

I have more than once in other similar threads. In this one, you stepped right over it.

---

Most of the time, it is the Evangelist or the Protestant (non-Catholics) who complain that Catholics don't use verse to support their position; that we quote doctrine or other Catholics. This time I did both, I explained my view what a 'Church' is and used verse to support it. So, now we should not quote the Bible?

In which of your posts, 28,27,24,21, and 17 did you quote scripture? Among indignations you happened to mentioned Acts – was that meant to be significant?

Quote:

---

In 0 A.D. Hmmmm. Now you're really reaching.

---

Technically, you might say that. I think most peg the birth date of Christ between 6 B.C and 6 A.D. The authors I'm familiar with would suggest 5-6 B.C.

JoeT

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by JoeT777

Ok, that’ll be fun.

---

Luther certain has as much authority as the guys you quoted.

Quote:

---

In which of your posts, 28,27,24,21, and 17 did you quote scripture? Among indignations you happened to mentioned Acts – was that meant to be significant?

---

The one in which I quoted Jesus.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by paraclete

So then if you can't "prove" what you say from the Bible you will prove it from another source

---

I don't believe the statement was made in relationship to making proof. My point was that I'm not restricted to 'bible-only'. You maybe, inhisservice maybe are restricted to bible-only but I'm not. But, to think of it, I haven't seen much more than complaints, at least little verse to prove or show any other Church.

Quote:

---

I'm sure those in Orthodox churches would be interested to debate this idea

---

I'm sure.

Quote:

---

In your rush to prove your argument you have got a little carried away Joe. There was only paganism in Rome in 0 AD. Are you implying that the RCC is a pagan expression of Christianity? This may be closer to the truth than you know.

---

Talk about 'emotive nonsense.'

Quote:

---

Joe to get away from all this emotive nonsense and get back to facts. Have you read the Books written by Peter? Nowhere in these books does he tell us that he is called to lead the Church. He is at great pains to contend with us to believe in Christ and not the fabricated doctrines of men. Nowhere does he talk about this great collective, the Church, in fact, I think he makes it plain that there are Christians in various places who are not connected by a common leadership other than the Holy Spirit..

---

Why would Peter be worried about the fabrication of doctrine if there was no Church to recognize a doctrine? If each congregation was free to believe as they willed, how or why would Peter be concerned with doctrine at all? Why would Peter expect anybody to listen to him if he didn't think he had the authority to write? These letters (among others) are called 'Catholic' because they are not addressed to a single congregation, but to the corporate Church. If no corporate Church existed who would he be writing to? If it were a friend or associate, it would be addressed to Peter's friend, wouldn't it?

But, let's look at 1st, 2nd, and 3rd century writers who knew and studied under the contemporaries of Peter.

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

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

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


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


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


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

All of these knew Peter's role in the Church. I'm more than willing to provide any additional information you might need. But, the issue here isn't Peter.

JoeT

Come on with the Luther quotes, since he accepted Peter's authority, ( Keys of the Kingdom teaching)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by JoeT777

It doesn’t matter which Church we walk into? Do you mean to imply that one Church is as good as another? Then we can say the Catholic Church is in every way, at the very least, ‘equal’ to your Church?

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by JoeT777

No, it doesn’t count. It’s not a condemnation. If you see it that way, you’ll need to explain how because I don't see it?

---

If it's not a condemnation, what is it? You are saying, "The RCC is the only True Church. All others are not worth consideration."

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Fr_Chuck

Come on with the Luther quotes, since he accepted Peter's authority, ( Keys of the Kingdom teaching)

---

I LOVE that the nuns have returned!!

Luther did not acknowledge that Peter was the first pope.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Wondergirl

If it's not a condemnation, what is it? You are saying, "The RCC is the only True Church. All others are not worth consideration."

---

Quote:

---

It doesn't matter which Church we walk into? Do you mean to imply that one Church is as good as another? Then we can say the Catholic Church is in every way, at the very least, 'equal' to your Church?

---

The quote is taken out of context in the sense that it was a response to comments made by paraclete. Also it is mischaracterized by your paraphrase – I didn't imply, or ask, if the others were, or were, not worth consideration. I ask if the RCC could be taken as an equal to his Church. I don't think it's worth going through all the details here and I still don't understand why you find it offensive. Nonetheless, you have my assurances it was never intended to be offensive to anybody.

JoeT

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by JoeT777

The quote is taken out of context in the sense that it was a response to comments made by paraclete. Also it is mischaracterized by your paraphrase – I didn’t imply, or ask, if the others were, or were, not worth consideration. I ask if the RCC could be taken as an equal to his Church. I don’t think it’s worth going through all the details here and I still don’t understand why you find it offensive. Nonetheless, you have my assurances it was never intended to be offensive to anybody.

JoeT

---

Well Joe it's nice to know you never intended to be offensive but telling other Christians they are excluded from the true church is offensive. I regard all Christian Churches who hold to a common doctrine of salvation through Jesus Christ alone as equal parts of the body of Christ

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by paraclete

Well Joe it's nice to know you never intended to be offensive but telling other Christians they are excluded from the true church is offensive. I regard all Christian Churches who hold to a common doctrine of salvation through Jesus Christ alone as equal parts of the body of Christ

---

I excluded nobody from the One True Church of Jesus Christ. The doors are always open; do go in if you want.

The terms 'to believe in Christ alone', 'to believe the Lord alone, or 'to believe in Jesus alone' do not appear in Scripture in relationship to salvation. In fact, to have eternal life, i.e. salvation, at the very least there are two divine precepts required of an individual who are morally responsible and who aren't ignorant (we aren't talking intellect). First is Baptism (Cf. John 3:3-7) and the second is found in John 6:54-55, Christ said, “Except you eat the flesh of the Son of man, and drink his blood, you shall not have life in you. He that eateth my flesh, and drinketh my blood, hath everlasting life: and I will raise him up in the last day.” Any Christian can baptize another in the name of the 'Father, Son and Holy Spirit,' but the consecrated Eucharist can only be found in the Catholic Church.

If we understand ourselves to be adopted sons of God, then we are bond in a spiritual brotherhood. Christ commands, “That they all may be one, as you, Father, in me, and I in you; that they also may be one in us: that the world may believe that you have sent me.” (John 17:21)

There can be but One faith, One Church, a unity of faith:

• Speaking of His Church, the Saviour called it a kingdom, the kingdom of heaven, the kingdom of God (Matthew 13:24, 31, 33; Luke 13:18; John 18:36);

• He compared it to a city the keys of which were entrusted to the Apostles (Matthew 5:14; 16:19),

• to a sheepfold to which all His sheep must come and be united under one shepherd (John 10:7-17);

• to a vine and its branches,

• to a house built upon a rock against which not even the powers of hell should ever prevail (Matthew 16:18).

• Moreover, the Saviour, just before He suffered, prayed for His disciples, for those who were afterwards to believe in Him — for His Church — that they might be and remain one as He and the Father are one (John 17:20-23); and

• He had already warned them that "every kingdom divided against itself shall be made desolate: and every city or house divided against itself shall not stand" (Matthew 12:25).

• Schism and disunion he brands as crimes to be classed with murder and debauchery, and declares that those guilty of "dissensions" and "sects" shall not obtain the kingdom of God (Galatians 5:20-21).

• Hearing of the schisms among the Corinthians, he asked impatiently: "Is Christ divided? Was Paul then crucified for you? or were you baptized in the name of Paul?" (1 Corinthians 1:13).

• And in the same Epistle he describes the Church as one body with many members distinct among themselves, but one with Christ their head: "For in one Spirit we are all baptized into one body, whether Jews or Gentiles, whether bond or free" (1 Corinthians 12:13).

• To show the intimate union of the members of the Church with the one God, he asks: "The chalice of benediction, which we bless, is it not the communion of the blood of Christ? And the bread, which we break, is it not the partaking of the body of the Lord? For we, being many, are one bread, one body, all that partake of one bread" (1 Corinthians 10:16-17).

• Again in his Epistle to the Ephesians he teaches the same doctrine, and exhorts them to be "careful to keep the unity of the Spirit in the bond of peace", and he reminds them that there is but "one body and one spirit-one Lord, one faith, one baptism, one God and Father of all" (Ephesians 4:3-6).

• Already, in one of his very first Epistles, he had warned the faithful of Galatia that if anybody, even an angel from heaven, should preach unto them any other Gospel than that which he had preached, "let him be anathema" (Galatians 1:8).
Bullet Source: CATHOLIC ENCYCLOPEDIA: Unity (As a Mark of the Church)

JoeT

JoeT777

In your post number 1020 you have worked under the continuous assumption that Peter has been given authority by Jesus Christ when I have proved that that is false. Then you still keep explaining that there was a Church established at the time of Jesus Christ but not giving any evidence that it was the RC. All you want to do is to state your blind beliefs over and over time and again.