[classyT]

Simply gathering in His name does not constitute a Church. We cannot take the phase “For where there are two or three gathered together in my name, there am I in the midst of them” found in Matthew chapter 18 as saying that a church is formed. If this was true then each time any two Christians came together a church would be constituted, which we know to be silly. If this were the case we'd have a severely schizophrenic God, telling this church one thing, this other church something else. Paraphrasing St. Cyprian we see that gathering together is predicated on orthodoxy, being compliant with the Church. To suggest that two gathered together can form a new or different church would be saying that Christ's intent was to divide the Twelve, which we know not to be the case. Matthew, chapter 18, v. 17 thru 20 tells us that Christ is actually giving authority to the Apostles and their successors binding our faith to the Church. (Cf. St. Cyprian, De Unitate Ecclesiae circa 250 A.D.)

Agreed.


Catholics hold that they too are the body of Christ, and that the Church is the Mystical Body of Christ. (Cf John 15:5-12) Catholics are bound together in a supernatural life through the Christ centered sacraments as one body with Christ as it's head. “17 For we, being many, are one bread, one body: all that partake of one bread. “ (Cf1 Cor. 10:17) There is only one Church of Jesus Christ.


I see an authority referred to in Scripture; to the Apostles He said, “teach ye all nations: baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Ghost.” (Matt 28:20)



I let you decide that for yourself.

JoeT

Joe DarlinC,

The only church I am aware of is the body of Christ which is ALL true believers. I was simply saying wherever you choose to gather to worship make sure it is to HIS name and NOT a organization. So we disagreed. But we often do! :)

Also... We don't have a schizophrenic God... we just have many people who have NO idea how to rightly divide the word of God and therefore get very very confused and trapped in wrong doctrine.

[JoeT777]

I think we all agree on that, we just don't agree that it is manifested as the "Roman Catholic Church." I realize this is one of those issues on which we'll have to agree to disagree in all likelihood but it is just a claim for which I can find no scriptural basis.

It's not a claim, rather it's scriptural. It can be shown both scripturally as well as through Tradition.

I know all the arguments; it doesn't mean we can't find salvation or that we aren't an "ecclesiastical community," we're just "separated brethren" who are a little "defective."

I never stated you couldn't find salvation. I only stated that the fullness of faith is found in the RC Church.

Doesn't scripture say a thing or two about such arrogance, such pretense, such judgmentalism?

Arrogant I can be; but I took no pretense nor did I pass judgment.

Who decided we were kind of OK, but defective anyway? Was it the sixteenth Council which declared all, even the pope were subject to the Council? Or was it say, the twentieth Council which declared the Pope's definitions were "irreformable of themselves and not from the consent of the Church? Or did that come later?

The decision was made by Christ; remember the founding of the RCC is found in Scripture as written by the Apostles. So, it is an Apostolic Church.

Didn't Peter himself give an indication of how wrongheaded such a belief is, when he declared "And God, which knoweth the hearts, bare them witness, giving them the Holy Ghost, even as he did unto us; And put no difference between us and them, purifying their hearts by faith." It doesn't matter if you're Catholic, Baptist or whatever, it only matters that your heart is "purified by faith" in Christ .

Nobody made any judgments in an attempt to determine what's in the heart; a lot has been read into what I've said that simply isn't there – a sort of subjective prejudice I suspect (now that was a judgment!). There is a difference, small on many issues, huge differences on others. If it wasn't obvious that there was a difference you wouldn't be so angry. If in fact you are saying there is no difference from one Christian religion to the next using a subjective judgment – are you discriminating on what feels good? Where did Christ say “one faith in me is as good as another?” It's my recollection he said something altogether different; “That they all may be one, as thou, Father, in me, and I in thee; that they also may be one in us; that the world may believe that thou hast sent me” (John 17:20)

JoeT

[speechlesstx]

It’s not a claim, rather it's scriptural. It can be shown both scripturally as well as through Tradition.

Please do.

I never stated you couldn’t find salvation.

I believe I acknowledged that it "doesn't mean we can't find salvation."

I only stated that the fullness of faith is found in the RC Church.

Yes, that goes with the other claims I listed, all of which are accurate according to the Vatican are they not?

Arrogant I can be; but I took no pretense nor did I pass judgment.

I've seen numerous Catholics say such things as "the fullness of faith is found in the RC Church" and the Roman Catholic Church is "the one and only church" without seeing the arrogance, the pretense and the judgment in the statements. This is the problem.

I don't go around telling my Catholic friends that they don't have the fullness of the faith, that my church is "the one and only church" or that their church is "defective." That is EXACTLY the kind of thing Jesus himself battled. That is EXACTLY what Paul - who never showed any subservience to Peter or any other - battled.

The decision was made by Christ; remember the founding of the RCC is found in Scripture as written by the Apostles. So, it is an Apostolic Church.

Right, Peter was a Roman Catholic. Please explain that one.

Nobody made any judgments in an attempt to determine what’s in the heart; a lot has been read into what I’ve said that simply isn’t there – a sort of subjective prejudice I suspect (now that was a judgment!). There is a difference, small on many issues, huge differences on others. If it wasn’t obvious that there was a difference you wouldn’t be so angry.

First of all Joe I'm not angry and my judgment was on the claim of the RCC being "the one and only church," not you. I acknowledged first your sincerity, but that the problem is even in that sincerity those who make such claims can't see the arrogance and condescension of the claim.

If in fact you are saying there is no difference from one Christian religion to the next using a subjective judgment – are you discriminating on what feels good?

No, on what is true. The changed lives, the miraculous prayers answered, the magnificent ministries in place, completely apart from the RCC in the name of Christ give lie to any claims of exclusivity or superiority in the Catholic Church.

Where did Christ say “one faith in me is as good as another?” It’s my recollection he said something altogether different; “That they all may be one, as thou, Father, in me, and I in thee; that they also may be one in us; that the world may believe that thou hast sent me” (John 17:20)

One - in Christ - which is an impossibility if one church sees every other as lesser. Can't you see that Joe? I can hardly be one with you if you see the body of Christ I belong to as inferior.

[paraclete]

Simply gathering in His name does not constitute a Church. We cannot take the phase “For where there are two or three gathered together in my name, there am I in the midst of them” found in Matthew chapter 18 as saying that a church is formed. If this was true then each time any two Christians came together a church would be constituted, which we know to be silly. If this were the case we’d have a severely schizophrenic God, telling this church one thing, this other church something else.


For it is through Christ's Catholic Church alone, which is the universal help towards salvation, that the fullness of the means of salvation can be obtained


JoeT

I see you continue to hold to old beliefs discredited by Vatican II. If Catholics have not abandoned this "we are the only true Church" rubbish, I fear for them. God is never schitzo, only his followers exhibit this traint. How you can read the Word of God and believe the rubbish you do is beyond me. There is legitimate expression in diversity just because Jesus told us when two or three are gathered in my name there I am in the midst.

We Christians hold to the truth of Jesus Christ and his atoning sacrifice but Christ makes his home in the heart of the believer not in a building, Therefore when believers come together in Christ's name there is power irrespective of whether they are in a Church building or not. Some of the most powerful experiences I have had in God have been in a home where a prayer meeting is being conducted and not a dog collar in sight.

[JoeT777]

Joe DarlinC,

The only church I am aware of is the body of Christ which is ALL true believers.

I disagree – but we'll save the discussion for another time.

I was simply saying wherever you choose to gather to worship make sure it is to HIS name and NOT a organization. So we disagreed. But we often do! :)

I can agree in spirit – yes we should all gather together in His name.

Also... We don't have a schizophrenic God... we just have many people who have NO idea how to rightly divide the word of God and therefore get very very confused and trapped in wrong doctrine.

There is only one Truth, God's truth. There is only one reality, God's reality. It's not a subjective truth, nor is it relative to our condition of being, it is an absolute Truth. Of all the Christian churches, there is one and only one true Church, God's Church. Of all religions, Christian or otherwise, there is only one true Church, God's Church.

Bringing any two different religions together to discern which is correct and which isn't different tenets become obvious, different morals are seen, and we can find different truths held by each. If they didn't then they would be the same Church. In our discernment we see that there are only two conclusions we can draw; one is correct or they are both wrong, but we know that God's word isn't wrong because it is Truth. Therefore we can come to only one conclusion; there is only One True Church. Another truism is that Scriptures as well as the teaching of Apostles' are true. They teach that there is only One Church commissioned by Christ which is headed by Peter and his successors, it was true when uttered by Christ, it was true in the first century after Christ's ascension, it was true 400 years after Christ's ascension and it was true in 1520 as well as today. To believe otherwise would mean that there is a division being created; truth versus untruth - with both to be held equal, i.e. relativism. Our discernment can only end with the one conclusion. There is one and only One Church; to hold otherwise would mean God is schizophrenic.

JoeT

[JoeT777]

I see you continue to hold to old beliefs discredited by Vatican II. If Catholics have not abandoned this "we are the only true Church" rubbish, I fear for them.

Unitatis Redintegratio and Lumen Gentium are both Vatican II documents - I cited both. I didn’t offer you my beliefs, even still I hold to those of the RCC. As previously cited, the Roman Catholic Church holds itself as the “one and only Church of God from its very beginnings there arose certain rifts,[ Cf. 1 Cor. 11:18-19; Gal. 1:6-9; 1 Jn. 2:18-19] which the Apostle strongly censures as damnable…For it is through Christ's Catholic Church alone, which is the universal help towards salvation, that the fullness of the means of salvation can be obtained.” Can such views be classified as ‘diverse’ views when a Catholic expresses them? Or not? Or are only non-Catholic views valid?

God is never schitzo, only his followers exhibit this traint. How you can read the Word of God and believe the rubbish you do is beyond me. There is legitimate expression in diversity just because Jesus told us when two or three are gathered in my name there I am in the midst.

You’re correct, God isn’t schizophrenic from which we can conclude that he doesn’t commission separate churches with different tenets. Whether it is legitimate to express diverse views isn’t the same as saying that those diverse views hold the same absolute Truth.

We Christians hold to the truth of Jesus Christ and his atoning sacrifice but Christ makes his home in the heart of the believer not in a building, Therefore when believers come together in Christ's name there is power irrespective of whether they are in a Church building or not. Some of the most powerful experiences I have had in God have been in a home where a prayer meeting is being conducted and not a dog collar in sight.

? I’m at a loss, what does a spying a dog collar nearby have to do with our discussion?

JoeT

[paraclete]

? I’m at a loss, what does a spying a dog collar nearby have to do with our discussion?

JoeT

Joe you know very well that when I speak of a dog collar I speak of clergy, an invention of an apostate church

[arcura]

Joe,
It should be no surprise to all that I do agree with you.
Jesus founded but one Church and appointed Peter as its leader.
The bible shows us that the other apostles went along with that.
Peace and kindness,
Fred

[JoeT777]

Right, Peter was a Roman Catholic. Please explain that one.

You're absolutely correct, Peter was the first Pope and by extension the first Catholic. I like to show this by starting with Scriptural proofs. Afterwards, I'll show historical proof.

In the Douay Rheims the verse reads as follows:

13 And Jesus came into the quarters of Cæsarea Philippi: and he asked his disciples, saying: Whom do men say that the Son of man is? 14 But they said: Some John the Baptist, and other some Elias, and others Jeremiah, or one of the prophets. 15 Jesus saith to them: But whom do you say that I am? 16 Simon Peter answered and said: Thou art Christ, the Son of the living God.

In the way of setting the scene; Caesarea Phillippi is in the valley of Lebanon below Mount Hermon as mentioned in Josh 11:17 or Baal Hemon as mentioned in Judg 3:3. Of particular interest is a land feature of a massive rock face. One of the tributaries for the Jordan River flows through the area. The area was liberated by the Maccabean revolt in 167 B.C. In 4 B.C. one of Herod the Great s three sons, Philip, built the Roman Grecian of Caesarea Philippi to honor the Roman emperor.

You can imagine Jesus with this huge rock wall as a backdrop, asking twice (not once but twice), “Whom to they say that I am?” No other disciples could give the answer but Simon. Simon confessed Jesus as being both the Messiah and the “Son of the Living God.” God had revealed to Simon what no other man on earth knew; Christ was the Second Person of the One Devine God.

17 And Jesus answering said to him: Blessed art thou, Simon Bar-Jona: because flesh and blood hath not revealed it to thee, but my Father who is in heaven. 18 And I say to thee: That thou art Peter; and upon this rock I will build my church, and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it.

I can't claim any significance to the number of times “blessed art thou” is used in the New Testament. However, it is used only three times, twice in Luke 1: 42 And she cried out with a loud voice and said: Blessed art thou among women... 45 And blessed art thou that hast believed, because those things shall be; and once in Matthew 16:17. It's only used once by Jesus. (this holds true in the NKJV as well) In my estimation, like Mary, God seats Peter in a special Chair for our salvation; the first of 266 whose “successor's gives judgment,” ( the first Vicar of Christ starts with St. Peter who is succeeded by St. Linus, St. Anacletus, St. Clement I, St. Alexander I, St. Sixtus I, St. Telesphorus, St. Hyginus… Benedict XVI)

In plain language the meaning of the verse 18 becomes: because this was revealed to you by God, I will call you Rock and on this Rock I will build my church; hell won't prevail against it.

19 And I will give to thee the keys of the kingdom of heaven. And whatsoever thou shalt bind upon earth, it shall be bound also in heaven: and whatsoever thou shalt loose on earth, it shall be loosed also in heaven.

The “keys” are the keys to the kingdom of heaven, similar to the “keys” mentioned in Isaiah 22. With the transfer of keys, one to another, power and authority is also transferred; Christ gives Peter the supreme authority over the Church and to bind and loose, both in heaven and on earth.

“In regard to the Petros Kepha argument made by some, “the play of words involved in naming Simon “Rock” is as clear in Aramaic as in English, if we use the literal translation “Rock” for the Aramaic Kepha rather than “Peter” which is derived from the Greek Petros. In Greek the noun for rock is feminine. Therefore it is unsuitable for a man's name, and Peter is named Petros while the precise word for rock is petra, making the meaning a little less clear. But Christ's words to Peter were spoken in Aramaic and first recorded in Armaic in Matthew's Gospel; furthermore, we know that Peter was later often called Kepha or Cephas as well as Petros.” “Warren H. Carroll, A History of Christendom Vol 1, 1985, pg 349 footnote 135

Mat 16:15 Jesus saith to them: But whom do you say that I am? 16 Simon Peter answered and said: Thou art Christ, the Son of the living God. 17 And Jesus answering said to him: Blessed art thou, Simon Bar-Jona: because flesh and blood hath not revealed it to thee, but my Father who is in heaven. 18 And I say to thee: That thou art Peter; and upon this rock I will build my church, and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it.

In verse 17 Christ is obviously pleased seeing that this knowledge didn't come from human reason, but rather the knowledge was a Grace from Aba (Father). Some have suggested that the re-naming of Simon to a little pebble in v. 18 is a reprimand. Consiqently they would have Jesus say, effectively, Woe to you Peter... you have not gained access, yet you have stopped those who wished to enter! But, thereafter say, I will build a church on your faith to which the gates of hell will not prevail. Excuse me for finding this impossible to swallow. It doesn't even meet the definition of “scripture interprets scripture.”

One interesting note is that in the book Revelations we see a discussion of the keys found in Matthew 16; especially the Key of David that the Holy One opens and no man shuts. Rev 3:7 “And to the angel of the church of Philadelphia write: These things saith the Holy One and the true one, he that hath the key of David, he that openeth and no man shutteth, shutteth and no man openeth: 8 I know thy works. Behold, I have given before thee a door opened, which no man can shut: because thou hast a little strength and hast kept my word and hast not denied my name.” The key of the House of David relate to the same earthly keys given Eliacim, son of Helcias. "the key of the house of David" which is conferred upon Eliacim, the son of Helcias, as the symbol of full and unlimited authority over the Kingdom of Juda. This too would be a direct reference to the Primacy of authority, a very good reason to accept St. Peter as the Prince of the Church Militant (the earthly Church). But I would suggest it wasn't the set of keys conferred on St. Peter, the keys to heaven the right to bind or loose in heaven and earth. The reason is that these keys in the book of Revelations are located in heaven, held by an angel church that is using the keys to keep open the door, presumably the door of holy righteousness. Another reason I don't think they are the same keys is because we see three sets of keys in sacred Scripture, the Keys of Heaven, the Key of the bottomless pit (hell), and the Keys of the House of David. Rev 9:1 And the fifth angel sounded the trumpet: and I saw a star fall from heaven upon the earth. And there was given to him the key of the bottomless pit. But in Revelations, where John is escorted through God's Kingdom in Heaven, we don't hear of the Key's of Heaven. Are we to presume that there are Keys to earthly kingdoms, hellish kingdoms, but no keys to heaven in heaven? The reason they're not mentioned is that the Keys to Heaven reside with the Successors of St. Peter

In addition, we find that each time the Twelve are listed in Scripture; deference most always places Peter first among equals. For these reasons, and other not mentioned Catholics hold Peter the Apostle on which Christ built his Church, the first Pope.

It's important to note, that these were the Bishops and Popes that followed Peter. They didn't need to write a book, they lived the history of Apostolic succession and knew its teaching authority first hand. To these men head of the Church was fused to the Chair of Peter since Peter's death.

I've managed to collect nearly 20 pages of various quotes from the early Church dating from the early Church, approximately 90 AD to about 400 AD. Each consistently shows that Peter was held to be the Prime Bishop, Bishop of Bishops, the Bishop of Rome the first See, holder of the keys, etc. But I will only bore you with the first two pages. It's quite clear that Peter was clearly understood to be the first Vicar of Christ.

Doctrine and authority of the bishop in Rome was then passed to Clement I, bishop of Rome (circa 90 AD rebuked the Corinthian authority. It is likely the Apostle John was still alive. Pope Clement both rebukes the schism to pull the Corinthian Church in line. Here too we see a further congealing of the Church's Apostolic and priestly structure.

We see a historical continuance the Church in the latter part of the first century. A well defined hierarchy can be clearly deduced. In The Shepherd of Hermas, Hermas wrote, “You will write therefore two books, and you will send the one to Clemens[bishop of Rome] and the other to Grapte. And Clemens will send his [authoritative letter] to foreign countries, for permission has been granted to him to do so.” It's not until 451 AD at the Council of Chalcedon do we see the primacy of Peter being challenged mostly by Greek patriarchs.

St. Ignatius holds a marked reverence for the founders of the Christian faith in Rome as well as a respect for their authority. Furthermore he seems to be deferring to Rome on several matters in his epistle to the Romans, c 110 AD. When arrested and sent to Rome to eventually be martyred sometime between 98 and 117, he entrusts his diocese in Antioch to the Roman See; twice using the term prokathetai (primacy); “has the primacy in the place of the region of the Romans” presiding in love (prokathemene tes agapes). Furthermore we find St Ignatius using phases such as 'first-seat' and the Episcopal seat, "You [the Roman bishop] have envied no one, but others have you taught. I desire only that what you have enjoined in your instructions may remain in force (Epistle to the Romans 3:1).

Marching through time we find St. Irenaeus of Lyon, writing around 180 AD, " 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 preeminent authority, that is, the faithful everywhere, inasmuch as the tradition has been preserved continuously by those [faithful men] who exist everywhere.

St. Irenaeus describes St. Victor's excommunication of the Asian Churches from the Universal Church in other writings. Equally important was the fact that no one challenged St. Victor's authority in the excommunication. St. Victor was the bishop of Rome, 189-19. St. Irenaeus wrote to him and pleaded with him not to do it, for the sake of the peace of the Church, and St. Victor relented.

St. Clement of Alexandria (between 190-210 AD), in Clement, On the Rich Man, writes, " Therefore on hearing those words, the blessed Peter, the chosen, the pre-eminent, the first of the disciples, for whom alone and Himself the Saviour paid tribute, Matthew 17:27 quickly seized and comprehended the saying. And what does he say? Lo, we have left all and followed You. “

Tertullian (c. 200 AD) refers to the Pope as the first bishop of bishops, “ Let them produce the original records of their churches; let them unfold the roll of their bishops, running down in due succession from the beginning in such a manner that [that first bishop of theirs ] bishop shall be able to show for his ordainer and predecessor some one of the apostles or of apostolic men” From which we can also deduce that it was important to trace the heredity of the bishop to the Apostles. "

Tertullian also wrote, " What man, then, of sound mind can possibly suppose that they were ignorant of anything, whom the Lord ordained to be masters (or teachers), keeping them, as He did, inseparable (from Himself) in their attendance, in their discipleship, in their society, to whom, when they were alone, He used to expound all things Mark 4:34 which were obscure, telling them that to them it was given to know those mysteries, Matthew 13:11 which it was not permitted the people to understand? Was anything withheld from the knowledge of Peter, who is called the rock on which the church should be built, who also obtained the keys of the kingdom of heaven, with the power of loosing and binding in heaven and on earth?." Depeictied here is the knowledge that Christ ordained his Apostles, establish His Church in them, commissioned them to teach with Christ's authority symbolized in the keys.


Tertullian writes further, "Come now, if you would indulge a better curiosity in the business of your salvation, run through the apostolic Churches in which the very thrones [cathedrae] of the Apostles remain still in place; in which their own authentic writings are read, giving sound to the voice and recalling the faces of each. Achaia is near you, so you have Corinth. If you are not far from Macedonia, you have Philippi. If you can cross into Asia, you have Ephesus. But if you are near to Italy, you have Rome, 'whence also our authority derives'. How happy is that Church, on which Apostles poured out their whole doctrine along with their blood, where Peter endured a passion like that of the Lord, where Paul was crowned in a death like John's [the Baptist], where the Apostle John, after being immersed in boiling oil and suffering no hurt, was exiled to an island."

[JoeT777]

Joe you know very well that when I speak of a dog collar I speak of clergy, an invention of an apostate church

I’ve seen and done quite a few things in my life; some good, some not so good. I’ve always spoken straight forward and up front - its been taken wrong and misunderstood a number of times. But I hope this type of disrespect cannot be counted among my sins; I find it distasteful.

JoeT

[JoeT777]

Joe,
It should be no surprise to all that I do agree with you.
Jesus founded but one Church and appointed Peter as its leader.
The bible shows us that the other apostles went along with that.
Peace and kindness,
Fred

Thanks Fred, I never doubted where you stood.

JoeT

[JoeT777]

not a dog collar in sight.

Maggie 3: do you really agree with disrespecting the clergy when they wear a Roman collar? I knew we didn't often agree, but surly you don't agree with this? Have I misjudged you?

JoeT

[arcura]

JoeT777,
Very well done.
Thanks,
Fred

[speechlesstx]

No other disciples could give the answer but Simon.

Please explain how "no other disciple could give the answer but Peter." That sure seems like a mighty grand assumption.

In plain language the meaning of the verse 18 becomes: because this was revealed to you by God, I will call you Rock and on this Rock I will build my church; hell won’t prevail against it.

And yet somehow every time this discussion comes up the rest of the passage is ignored. The parts where Jesus asked all of his disciples who he was and the part immediately following he charged all of his disciples "that they should tell no man that he was Jesus the Christ," as if Peter was the only who got who He was. And then there's that part where Jesus called Peter an "offense" to Him. Even Peter, as does the rest of scripture makes clear that Jesus Christ Himself is the foundation of the church, not any man. The only Rock on which the church is built is Christ Himself, as Peter acknowledged.

The “keys” are the keys to the kingdom of heaven, similar to the “keys” mentioned in Isaiah 22. With the transfer of keys, one to another, power and authority is also transferred; Christ gives Peter the supreme authority over the Church and to bind and loose, both in heaven and on earth.

How can you take one brief passage, where Christ was speaking to all of His disciples, and conclude He gave "supreme authority" over the church to Peter - particularly when as I mentioned earlier Peter himself was rebuked by Paul for his dissension from the gospel?

“In regard to the Petros Kepha argument made by some.. "

Word play is not needed to make the case.

One interesting note is that in the book Revelations we see a discussion of the keys found in Matthew 16; especially the Key of David that the Holy One opens and no man shuts. Rev 3:7 “And to the angel of the church of Philadelphia write: These things saith the Holy One and the true one, he that hath the key of David.

How can you use the example of Christ, "the Holy One and the true one, he that hath the key of David," the One who Himself gave them "a door opened, which no man can shut" as a "very good reason" to accept the primacy of Peter? In the passage Christ has the key, Christ opened the door, and no man can shut it. To every church in Revelation Christ was the one speaking. Where exactly did Peter come in here?

Are we to presume that there are Keys to earthly kingdoms, hellish kingdoms, but no keys to heaven in heaven? The reason they’re not mentioned is that the Keys to Heaven reside with the Successors of St. Peter

I'm not presuming or assuming anything. Scripture is clear as clear can be that no man needs the successors of Peter to enter the gates of heaven. I'm sorry, but I believe it is an affront to God to assume that no one can enter the kingdom of heaven without going through the successors of Peter. I have the keys to the kingdom of heaven in scripture, where the only specific requirement given is to believe in Christ.

Paul, in writing to the Roman church (why was it Paul and not Peter?) declared "For I am not ashamed of the gospel of Christ: for it is the power of God unto salvation to every one that believeth; to the Jew first, and also to the Greek. For therein is the righteousness of God revealed from faith to faith: as it is written, The just shall live by faith."

He then goes on to say even so, even though the gospel is the power of God unto salvation, everyone is without excuse because "that which may be known of God is manifest in them; for God hath showed it unto them." Where is Peter here?

In addition, we find that each time the Twelve are listed in Scripture; deference most always places Peter first among equals.

Again, what is Paul's place in this? Why did Paul pen most of the New Testament? Why did Paul write to the Roman church with a most thorough exposition on the doctrines of salvation and grace? Why did Paul rebuke Peter if he should have given him deference? Why did Christ use John to reveal things to come in the church and not Peter?

It’s not until 451 AD at the Council of Chalcedon do we see the primacy of Peter being challenged mostly by Greek patriarchs.

But when do we first see the primacy of Peter clearly established in these historical writings?

founded and organized at Rome by the two most glorious apostles, Peter and Paul

Peter and Paul? The "two most glorious apostles?"

For it is a matter of necessity that every Church should agree with this Church, on account of its preeminent authority, that is, the faithful everywhere, inasmuch as the tradition has been preserved continuously by those [faithful men] who exist everywhere.

I can't argue with that, it supports my position entirely.

" Therefore on hearing those words, the blessed Peter, the chosen, the pre-eminent, the first of the disciples, for whom alone and Himself the Saviour paid tribute, Matthew 17:27 quickly seized and comprehended the saying. And what does he say? Lo, we have left all and followed You. “

I see nothing contradictory with my position here.

" What man, then, of sound mind can possibly suppose that they were ignorant of anything, whom the Lord ordained to be masters (or teachers), keeping them, as He did, inseparable (from Himself) in their attendance, in their discipleship, in their society, to whom, when they were alone, He used to expound all things Mark 4:34 which were obscure, telling them that to them it was given to know those mysteries, Matthew 13:11"

"Masters," teachers," "them," "their," "they." Joe, I don't deny some early authority in the Roman church, I don't deny apostolic succession, I don't deny a hierarchy in the church. But I don't see any clear declaration of Peter's supreme authority over the entire church of Christ. Tertullian seems to have come closest, but even he concludes your argument with praise of the work and sacrifice for that church by Peter, Paul and John. I wholeheartedly recognize the same. But I do not see any justification anywhere that I have to go through the Roman Catholic Church in any way to get through the gates of heaven.

[JoeT777]

Please explain how "no other disciple could give the answer but Peter." That sure seems like a mighty grand assumption.

Tweren’t no assumption atall. Christ tells us why, ” Blessed art thou, Simon Bar-Jona: because flesh and blood hath not revealed it to thee, but my Father who is in heaven.” (Matt 16:15-17)

And yet somehow every time this discussion comes up the rest of the passage is ignored. The parts where Jesus asked all of his disciples who he was and the part immediately following he charged all of his disciples "that they should tell no man that he was Jesus the Christ," as if Peter was the only who got who He was.

I’m not sure what significance this plays, except that the Apostles did as they were told. It was known to all of the Apostles; the verses 13-15 tell us they were involved in the conversation. Furthermore, verse 20 uses the plural of ‘disciple’ telling us that all the disciples knew.

And then there's that part where Jesus called Peter an "offense" to Him. Even Peter, as does the rest of scripture makes clear that Jesus Christ Himself is the foundation of the church, not any man. The only Rock on which the church is built is Christ Himself, as Peter acknowledged.

Peter’s offenses or sins merely show his humanity. Catholics is a community of both the holy and the sinner. There is a building technique used today when the founding soils are too soft to support the building. This technique ‘stresses’ the soils to consolidate it into loadbearing mass. I often think of Peter’s offenses in the same way – stressing the foundation on which Christ builds a great Church.

Most all buildings are built and named after the founder (the ‘authority’ that caused the construction). The foundation is that which supports the founder’s wishes. Thus we have Christ the “founder” (the authority) designating Peter to the task of supporting the founder’s Church; primarily because of his faith was bequeathed by God, i.e. Peter is the Foundation of the Church.


The founder is Christ, the foundation is Peter as designated by Christ the founder. Seems straight forward to me; as you read scripture the sense is Christ is the founder, and Peter is the foundation.

It seems to me that breaking down Matthew 16:16-19 into their essential elements we have the following bits of fact:

1. Christ is the authority, the founder of the Church. It is His name that the Roman Church bears.
2. Christ knew Peter’s revelation that Jesus was God, recognizing the supernatural source of his faith
3. Christ named Simon Bar-Jona to “Rock” The title of Peter's office.
4. Peter was handed the authority and designated as the “foundation” on which Christ builds his Church.
5. The gates of hell won’t prevail against the Church
6. The keys to bind and loosen where given to Peter.

In this we see the classic transfer of power from a more authoritative source to a lesser authority. Christ has the authority to give Peter a subservient role. In so doing, Peter is given a title, “the Rock” on which He can ultimately rely on. The only thing left is the wherewithal to accomplish the goal, the building a Church. This is done with the keys. In the keys are the powers with which Peter needs to accomplish his assigned goals; the power to bind and loosen – in heaven or on earth. Any authority must designate who has power, the extent of that power, and must provide the wherewithal to accomplish the goals. We see all of this in Matthew 16.

Thus, Peter was given a title of for his office, a mission to accomplish, and the wherewithal to achieve his goal. Only the most convoluted logic can come to any other conclusion from this passage. Peter the first Pope.

How can you take one brief passage, where Christ was speaking to all of His disciples, and conclude He gave "supreme authority" over the church to Peter - particularly when as I mentioned earlier Peter himself was rebuked by Paul for his dissension from the gospel?

You don’t take one passage. But if you take the entire New and Old Testaments it can be shown that Christ’s mission on earth had several facets. One was fulfillment of the Old Testament, another was performing miracles, important here is that Christ established his Kingdom on Earth, i.e. the Church. Without establishing a Kingdom, Christ could never be the messianic savior promised in the Old Testament.

How can you use the example of Christ, "the Holy One and the true one, he that hath the key of David," the One who Himself gave them "a door opened, which no man can shut" as a "very good reason" to accept the primacy of Peter? In the passage Christ has the key, Christ opened the door, and no man can shut it. To every church in Revelation Christ was the one speaking. Where exactly did Peter come in here?

The point was that in Revelations the Key that “openeth and no man shutteth” is in heaven. The Key of Eliacim is the Key of authority of Juda. So, two of the three keys are accounted for. The third Key, the Key to Bind an loose is not mentioned in Revelations. Where is it? Who has it if Peter or his successor doesn’t? Where are the missing Keys? The point is that the Keys were important symbols of authority in antiquity, and Peter was given the Keys to bind and loosen. Thus we hold that the authority Christ vested in Peter remains in his successors.

I'm not presuming or assuming anything. Scripture is clear as clear can be that no man needs the successors of Peter to enter the gates of heaven. I'm sorry, but I believe it is an affront to God to assume that no one can enter the kingdom of heaven without going through the successors of Peter. I have the keys to the kingdom of heaven in scripture, where the only specific requirement given is to believe in Christ.

I would suggest that the Scriptures can only be clear when we look at Christ as the Messianic King establishing his Kingdom on Earth. Only then is the New Testament in harmony from book to book, chapter to chapter as well as being in harmony with the Old Testament. That Kingdom is known today as the Roman Catholic Church.

JoeT

[speechlesstx]

Tweren’t no assumption atall. Christ tells us why, ” Blessed art thou, Simon Bar-Jona: because flesh and blood hath not revealed it to thee, but my Father who is in heaven.” (Matt 16:15-17)

Joe, I'm not going to continue to argue, I said from the beginning we would end up agreeing to disagree. But that absolutely does not give ANY indication that "no other disciple could give the answer but Peter.

That Kingdom is known today as the Roman Catholic Church.

And I asked, and you never answered, how in God's name can the church be "one" if you consider us defective? I acknowledge the history of the early church, but the Roman Catholic Church is a far cry from that church.

[galveston]

The OP title, "hypocrites and haters" are words that are often thrown at anyone who dares to say that the lifestyle of the one using these terms is wrong.

Telling someone he is wrong is not hatred.

It is only hypocritical if the person pointing out the sin is just as guilty andis making no effort to change his/her own behavour.

Pointing out someone's error or sin can very well be tough love.

Now a question:

Acts 19:1-2
1 And it came to pass, that, while Apollos was at Corinth, Paul having passed through the upper coasts came to Ephesus: and finding certain disciples,
2 He said unto them, Have ye received the Holy Ghost since ye believed? And they said unto him, We have not so much as heard whether there be any Holy Ghost.
(KJV)

That question is just as pertinent today as it was then.

How could the Apostles tell that believers had received the Holy Ghost?

Acts 2:4
4 And they were all filled with the Holy Ghost, and began to speak with other tongues, as the Spirit gave them utterance.
(KJV)

Acts 10:45-47
45 And they of the circumcision which believed were astonished, as many as came with Peter, because that on the Gentiles also was poured out the gift of the Holy Ghost.
46 For they heard them speak with tongues, and magnify God. Then answered Peter,
47 Can any man forbid water, that these should not be baptized, which have received the Holy Ghost as well as we?
(KJV)

Acts 19:6
6 And when Paul had laid his hands upon them, the Holy Ghost came on them; and they spake with tongues, and prophesied.
(KJV)

Acts 8:18-19
18 And when Simon saw that through laying on of the apostles' hands the Holy Ghost was given, he offered them money,
19 Saying, Give me also this power, that on whomsoever I lay hands, he may receive the Holy Ghost.
(KJV)

In this case something happened that was immediately obvious. If not speaking with tongues, then what?

No one will ever convince me that having a wafer placed on your tongue and being patted on the cheek equals being filled with the Holy Ghost.

The Church of the Book of Acts is plainly a Holy Ghost Church. When did that change into an institution founded on form and ceremony? This question should be seriously considered by all denominations.

[classyT]

Also... I would like to note that Paul was the apostle to the Gentiles. AND... the mystery of the "church" wasn't revealed UNTIL Paul Through Paul by the Lord Jesus Christ. During Christ ministry... poor ol Peter had NO clue of what was going to happen. He had no clue Christ had to die... he had no clue gentiles were going to be included. He didn't even know what the church really was. ( the bride of Christ) Even when he spoke to the Jews in the book of Acts and 3000 Jews were saved.. he didn't understand the plan of salvation. Because it still had not been revealed! Which by the way is believing in the death burial and resurrection of the Lord and accepting it by faith. He was waiting for the Lord Jesus to return and set up His earthy Kingdom.

Give me the verse that the KINGDOM is the Roman Catholic church! I'd LOVE to see THAT in the word of GOD.

Don't get me wrong.. Peter is one of my favorite apostles but Paul had to "get on him" so to speak for going back to legalism.

There is NOTHING in the epistles to suggest that the little assemblies being started were Roman Catholic. QUITE the contrary.

[JoeT777]

And I asked, and you never answered, how in God's name can the church be "one" if you consider us defective? I acknowledge the history of the early church, but the Roman Catholic Church is a far cry from that church.

One Church or one church in Unity is the first of four marks of the Church i.e. One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic. What it’s not is a ordered military unit that marches in step with everybody expressing themselves the same, or holding identical understanding of Scripture. In fact, a Catholic is free to interpret the vast majority of Scripture in any reasonable fashion he wants.

The True Church is marked with an internal and external spirit of unity. It is united with Christ and each of its members in its doctrine, reception of the sacraments, and obedience to its authority. It is not the duty of the Catholic to adhere ‘religiously’ out of fear, but rather to conforming both reason and the heart to the will of God and thereby the will of the Church. Unity is adherence to an objective and absolute truth revealed by God.

We find this unity in Scripture and tradition. The following are scriptural evidence of Unity.

• 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).

Unity References by St. Paul.
• 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).
• CATHOLIC ENCYCLOPEDIA: Unity (As a Mark of the Church)

JoeT

[galveston]

One Church or one church in Unity is the first of four marks of the Church i.e. One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic. What it’s not is a ordered military unit that marches in step with everybody expressing themselves the same, or holding identical understanding of Scripture. In fact, a Catholic is free to interpret the vast marjority of Scripture in any reasonable fashion he wants.

The True Church is marked with an internal and external spirit of unity. It is united with Christ and each of its members in its doctrine, reception of the sacraments, and obedience to its authority. It is not the duty of the Catholic to adhere ‘religiously’ out of fear, but rather to conforming both reason and the heart to the will of God and thereby the will of the Church. Unity is adherence to an objective and absolute truth revealed by God.

We find this unity in Scripture and tradition. The following are scriptural evidence of Unity.

• 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).

Unity References by St. Paul.
• 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).
• CATHOLIC ENCYCLOPEDIA: Unity (As a Mark of the Church)

JoeT

Lots of good Scripture here.

So why has the RC departed from the pattern and practices clearly established by Peter, Paul, John, James and the rest of that first Church during its earliest years?

You accuse us of being divisive, but what we recognize as "Church" is much closer to the original than the one you support.