Where in the Bible does it mention the Roman Catholic Church?

[Hentenza]

Where? Is there a verse that even mentions the RC? Did Jesus leave us a denomination or a Church composed of all believers? Did Jesus make a stipulation that to be saved a person has to believe in Him AND be part of the Roman Catholic Church?

Dunno:scratch: Don't see it.:doh:

[LivingWordUnity]

Where is there a verse that mentions Martin Luther or that says that anyone has the right to break off from the original Church to start their own new "church"?

The important thing is not the name of the Church but who founded it.

The Church is called catholic because the word "catholic" means "universal" which means that the Church that Jesus founded is for all nations of people everywhere. This universal mission of the Church is clear when Jesus tells the apostles to go and baptize all nations in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit.


How Old Is Your Church or denomination?

If you are a Lutheran, your religion was founded by Martin Luther, an ex- monk of the Catholic Church, in the year 1517.

If you belong to the Church of England, your religion was founded by King Henry VIII in the year 1534 because the Pope would not grant him a divorce with the right to remarry.

If you are a Presbyterian, your religion was founded by John Knox in Scotland in the year 1560.

If you are a Protestant Episcopalian, your religion was an offshoot of the Church of England founded by Samuel Seabury in the American colonies in the 17th century.

If you are a Congregationalist, your religion was originated by Robert Brown in Holland in 1582.

If you are a Methodist, your religion was launched by John and Charles Wesley in England in 1744.

If you are a Unitarian, Theophilus Lindley founded your church in London in 1774.

If you are a Mormon (Latter Day Saints), Joseph Smith started your religion in Palmyra, N.Y., in 1829.

If you are a Baptist, you owe the tenets of your religion to John Smyth, who launched it in Amsterdam in 1605.

If you are of the Dutch Reformed church, you recognize Michaelis Jones as founder, because he originated your religion in New York in 1628.

If you worship with the Salvation Army, your sect began with William Booth in London in 1865.

If you are a Christian Scientist, you look to 1879 as the year in which your religion was born and to Mrs. Mary Baker Eddy as its founder.

If you belong to one of the religious organizations known as 'Church of the Nazarene," "Pentecostal Gospel." "Holiness Church," "Pilgrim Holiness Church," "Jehovah's Witnesses," your religion is one of the hundreds of new sects founded by men within the past century.

If you are Catholic, you know that your religion was founded in the year 33 by Jesus Christ the Son of God, and it is still the same Church.

[Hentenza]

[quote=LivingWordUnity;46113753]Where is there a verse that mentions Martin Luther or that says that anyone has the right to break off from the original Church to start their own new "church"?
The original church depicted in the NT does not look like the Roman Catholic Church at all. Mmmmm......

The important thing is not the name of the Church but who founded it.
In that we can agree.

Matthew 18:20
20For where two or three come together in my name, there am I with them."

The Church is called catholic because the word "catholic" means "universal" which means that the Church that Jesus founded is for all nations of people everywhere. This universal mission of the Church is clear when Jesus tells the apostles to go and baptize all nations in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit.
Yep!!! So where does it say that the Roman Catholic Church IS the church?:scratch:


If you are Catholic, you know that your religion was founded in the year 33 by Jesus Christ the Son of God, and it is still the same Church.
The EO and others disagree with you.;)

The Roman Catholic Church was not established until the 4th century courtesy of Constantine. :idea:

[LivingWordUnity]

Hentenza,

Jesus hearing us when we pray and the question of which Church is the one true Church that was founded by Jesus are two different things. If you are a Baptist, you owe the tenets of your religion to John Smyth, who launched it in Amsterdam in 1605.

As far as the EO, to whom did Jesus give the keys? (Matt. 16:18-19) Was it to Peter or to Andrew? Did Jesus say, "on this rock I will build my Church" and "I have prayed for you that your faith may not fail" and "strengthen your brethren" and "tend my sheep" to Peter or to Andrew? Which EO Church are you talking about? Remember that they are divided based on nationality.


The Roman Catholic Church was not established until the 4th century courtesy of Constantine.History disagrees with you because there were 32 Popes before 313AD.

Also take note of the historical fact that Emperor Constantine was not a Pope and was not even a Catholic until just before his death when he was Baptized into the Catholic Church on his death bed.

Constantine the Great (BORN between 274-288, DIED 337)
"The date of his birth is not certain, being given as early as 274 and as late as 288."

"When he was about to march against the enemy he was seized with an illness of which he died in May, 337, after receiving baptism." - New Advent Encyclopedia (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/04295c.htm)

Here is a list of the early Popes of the Catholic Church and the dates beginning with the apostle Peter and going up through the time of Emperor Constantine. I will put in bold the Popes who were Pope during the life span of Emperor Constantine:

St. Peter (32-67)
St. Linus (67-76)
St. Anacletus (Cletus) (76-88)
St. Clement I (88-97)
St. Evaristus (97-105)
St. Alexander I (105-115)
St. Sixtus I (115-125) -- also called Xystus I
St. Telesphorus (125-136)
St. Hyginus (136-140)
St. Pius I (140-155)
St. Anicetus (155-166)
St. Soter (166-175)
St. Eleutherius (175-189)
St. Victor I (189-199)
St. Zephyrinus (199-217)
St. Callistus I (217-22)
St. Urban I (222-30)
St. Pontain (230-35)
St. Anterus (235-36)
St. Fabian (236-50)
St. Cornelius (251-53)
St. Lucius I (253-54)
St. Stephen I (254-257)
St. Sixtus II (257-258)
St. Dionysius (260-268)
St. Felix I (269-274)
St. Eutychian (275-283)
St. Caius (283-296) -- also called Gaius
St. Marcellinus (296-304)
St. Marcellus I (308-309)
St. Eusebius (309 or 310)
St. Miltiades (311-14)
St. Sylvester I (314-35)
St. Marcus (336)
St. Julius I (337-52)
Source (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/12272b.htm)

[Hentenza]

Hentenza,

Jesus hearing us when we pray and the question of which Church is the one true Church that was founded by Jesus are two different things. If you are a Baptist, you owe the tenets of your religion to John Smyth, who launched it in Amsterdam in 1605.

As far as the EO, to whom did Jesus give the keys? (Matt. 16:18-19) Was it to Peter or to Andrew? Did Jesus say, "on this rock I will build my Church" and "I have prayed for you that your faith may not fail" and "strengthen your brethren" and "tend my sheep" to Peter or to Andrew? Which EO Church are you talking about? Remember that they are divided based on nationality.


History disagrees with you because there were 32 Popes before 313AD.

Also take note of the historical fact that Emperor Constantine was not a Pope and was not even a Catholic until just before his death when he was Baptized into the Catholic Church on his death bed.

Constantine the Great (BORN between 274-288, DIED 337)
"The date of his birth is not certain, being given as early as 274 and as late as 288."

"When he was about to march against the enemy he was seized with an illness of which he died in May, 337, after receiving baptism." - New Advent Encyclopedia (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/04295c.htm)

Here is a list of the early Popes of the Catholic Church and the dates beginning with the apostle Peter and going up through the time of Emperor Constantine. I will put in bold the Popes who were Pope during the life span of Emperor Constantine:

St. Peter (32-67)
St. Linus (67-76)
St. Anacletus (Cletus) (76-88)
St. Clement I (88-97)
St. Evaristus (97-105)
St. Alexander I (105-115)
St. Sixtus I (115-125) -- also called Xystus I
St. Telesphorus (125-136)
St. Hyginus (136-140)
St. Pius I (140-155)
St. Anicetus (155-166)
St. Soter (166-175)
St. Eleutherius (175-189)
St. Victor I (189-199)
St. Zephyrinus (199-217)
St. Callistus I (217-22)
St. Urban I (222-30)
St. Pontain (230-35)
St. Anterus (235-36)
St. Fabian (236-50)
St. Cornelius (251-53)
St. Lucius I (253-54)
St. Stephen I (254-257)
St. Sixtus II (257-258)
St. Dionysius (260-268)
St. Felix I (269-274)
St. Eutychian (275-283)
St. Caius (283-296) -- also called Gaius
St. Marcellinus (296-304)
St. Marcellus I (308-309)
St. Eusebius (309 or 310)
St. Miltiades (311-14)
St. Sylvester I (314-35)
St. Marcus (336)
St. Julius I (337-52)
Source (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/12272b.htm)

Backtracking apostolic succession is not biblical. Heck, the Pope does not even meet the requirements to be a bishop per Paul.
I Timothy 3:2-5
2A bishop then must be blameless, the husband of one wife, vigilant, sober, of good behaviour, given to hospitality, apt to teach; 3Not given to wine, no striker, not greedy of filthy lucre; but patient, not a brawler, not covetous;
4One that ruleth well his own house, having his children in subjection with all gravity;
5(For if a man know not how to rule his own house, how shall he take care of the church of God?)




None of the bishops in the RC meet Pauls requirements. How can they succeed anyone when the RC's office of Bishop is unbiblical?

[LivingWordUnity]

Backtracking apostolic succession is not biblical. Jesus breathed the Holy Spirit onto the apostles and gave them the authority to forgive sins (John 20:22-23, Matt. 9:2-8)

Jesus commanded the apostles to teach and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit. (Matt. 28:19-20)

And in order for the apostles to preach to all nations, the apostles appointed successors (Acts 1:20, 2 Tim. 2:2)

The Holy Spirit was then passed on from the apostles to their successors (bishops) by the laying on of hands (Acts 8:18)


None of the bishops in the RC meet Pauls requirements. If you mean the part about being blameless, yes we should all be holy and blameless. The Catholic Church has always taught that all Christians should always strive to be holy and blameless before God. But Peter, our first Pope, wasn’t without sin, and neither does any other Pope ever claim to be without sin.

It's kind of ironic that Protestants use a Catholic book (the New Testament) to try to argue against Catholicism.

Now please allow me to backtrack. Since your claim of the Catholic Church being founded by Emperor Constantine was debunked, will you now at least admit that the Catholic Church is the only Church founded by Jesus Christ?

[Hentenza]

Jesus breathed the Holy Spirit onto the apostles and gave them the authority to forgive sins (John 20:22-23, Matt. 9:2-8)


Jesus commanded the apostles to teach and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit. (Matt. 28:19-20)

And in order for the apostles to preach to all nations, the apostles appointed successors (Acts 1:20, 2 Tim. 2:2)

The Holy Spirit was then passed on from the apostles to their successors (bishops) by the laying on of hands (Acts 8:18)



If you mean the part about being blameless, yes we should all be blameless. The Catholic Church has always taught that all Christians should always strive to be holy and blameless before God. But Peter, our first Pope, wasn’t without sin, and neither does any other Pope ever claim to be without sin.

It's kind of ironic that Protestants use a Catholic book (the New Testament) to try to argue against Catholicism.

Now please allow me to backtrack. Since your claim of the Catholic Church being founded by Emperor Constantine was debunked, will you now at least admit that the Catholic Church is the only Church founded by Jesus Christ?

You did not address my post. The pope is not even a proper bishop based on the requirements set forth by Paul in 1 Timothy 3:2-5. The pope is not married and therefore we cannot know how he rules in his own house (verses 4&5). The pope is a RC creation.

[LivingWordUnity]

You did not address my post. The pope is not even a proper bishop based on the requirements set forth by Paul in 1 Timothy 3:2-5. The pope is not married and therefore we cannot know how he rules in his own house (verses 4&5). The pope is a RC creation.Saint Paul wasn't married (1 Corinthians 7:8), but he was commissioned by Jesus to be an apostle. And Jesus wasn't married either.

The passage that you are quoting was saying "one wife" because it was warning against polygamy.

Polygamy was common in the Middle East, and it's still a problem today if you've been following what's been happening in the news.

It also applies to divorce since Jesus says that he who divorces commits adultery. One can't be blameless if they are engaged in polygamy or adultery. That is the point of the verse.

As far as Peter being married, it is unclear whether he was actually married at the time that he was called by Jesus or if he was a widower since the Bible never introduces us to his wife. It only says that they met his mother-in-law.

Saint Paul and Jesus Himself say that celibacy is a higher calling in order to serve God. Jesus says:

"For there are eunuchs who have been so from birth, and there are eunuchs who have been made eunuchs by men, and there are eunuchs who have made themselves eunuchs for the sake of the kingdom of heaven. He who is able to receive this, let him receive it." (Matthew 19:12)

"And he said to them, 'Truly, I say to you, there is no man who has left house or wife or brothers or parents or children, for the sake of the kingdom of God, who will not receive manifold more in this time, and in the age to come eternal life.'" (Luke 18:29-30)

And Saint Paul says:

"I want you to be free from anxieties. The unmarried man is anxious about the affairs of the Lord, how to please the Lord; but the married man is anxious about worldly affairs, how to please his wife, and his interests are divided. And the unmarried woman or girl is anxious about the affairs of the Lord, how to be holy in body and spirit; but the married woman is anxious about worldly affairs, how to please her husband." (1 Corinthians 7:32-34)

So the Catholic Church's teaching on celibacy is the same teaching as Jesus and Saint Paul.

[Hentenza]

[quote=LivingWordUnity;46126575]Saint Paul wasn't married (1 Corinthians 7:8), but he was commissioned by Jesus to be an apostle. And Jesus wasn't married either.

The passage that you are quoting was saying "one wife" because it was warning against polygamy.

That is NOT what the passages are saying. Let me repeat them.
1 Timothy 3:2-5
2Now the overseer must be above reproach, the husband of but one wife, temperate, self-controlled, respectable, hospitable, able to teach, 3not given to drunkenness, not violent but gentle, not quarrelsome, not a lover of money. 4He must manage his own family well and see that his children obey him with proper respect. 5(If anyone does not know how to manage his own family, how can he take care of God's church?)

The Greek word used in verse for "must" is dei (Strongs 1163) which translates as "necessary". Paul is saying that it is necessary for a bishop to be married. Paul qualifies this in verses 4 and 5 where he gives his reasons why. A overseer must be able to manage his own family well (that includes his wife and children) or how can he take care of God's church.

So, is Paul contradicting himself? Think not.

[LivingWordUnity]

So, is Paul contradicting himself? Think not.No, Paul is not contradicting himself. But he is contradicting what you said.

[Hentenza]

No, Paul is not contradicting himself. But he is contradicting what you said.

How? You did not address my post, again.

[LivingWordUnity]

How? You did not address my post, again.You did not answer why Jesus and Saint Paul were celibate and why they both taught that celibacy is a higher calling for someone who wants to give up marriage for the sake of the kingdom of Heaven.

What's the point of showing you Bible verses which support Catholicism if all you are going to say is, "I know it says that, but it really means to say this..."?

Also, you never admitted to being wrong when I debunked your claim that Constantine founded the Catholic Church. Instead, you change the subject with this celibacy debate.

[DeaconDean]

What's the point of showing you Bible verses which support Catholicism if all you are going to say is, "I know it says that, but it really means to say this..."?

Then again, where was the very first church, the building where believers in Jesus Christ met, at?

It wasn't in Rome, or Antioch.

And Peter wasn't even the "head" of it. He wasn't the "Pope" of it.

God Bless

Till all are one.

[LivingWordUnity]

Then again, where was the very first church, the building where believers in Jesus Christ met, at?

It wasn't in Rome, or Antioch.Acts 23:11
The following night the Lord stood by him and said, "Take courage, for as you have testified about me at Jerusalem, so you must bear witness also at Rome."


And Peter wasn't even the "head" of it.Peter was appointed by Jesus as being the head earthly shepherd of all of the Church, not just bishop of a single diocese. When Jesus gave Peter authority, this authority of binding and loosing was recognized in Heaven as well as on earth. (Matt. 16:18-19)

When Jesus told Peter, "Tend my sheep", are you and I not part of this flock of sheep? How would Peter tend to us if not with a successor?

After Peter went to Rome (his remains are there to this day), he became the Bishop of Rome but also the chief earthly shepherd of the universal (catholic) Church.

The Pope has the same role today as Peter had then when Jesus told him to "strengthen your brethren." (Luke 22:32)

[DeaconDean]

Let us examine that certain text this one member uses to justify Peter being the "rock" Jesus would build His church on.

"And I say also unto thee, That thou art Peter, and upon this rock I will build my church; and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it." -Matt. 16:18 (KJV)

What does the Greek say:

"kagw de soi legw oti su ei petroV, kai epi tauth th petra oikodomhsw mou thn ekklhsian, kai pulai adou ou katiscusousin authV." -Matt. 16:18 (GNT)

Look at two words:

"petroV" -Peter, a stone, in the NT the Greek rendering of the surname Cephas, given to the Apostle Simon"

The New Analytical Greek Lexicon, Wesley J. Perschbacher, Hendrickson Publishing, Peabody, Mass., 01962, Copyright 1990, petros, p. 326

"petra" 1) a rock, Matt. 7:24, 25; et. al., met. Rom. 9:33; 1 Pet. 2:8; clifts, crags, Rev. 6:15; stoney ground, Lk. 8:6,13.

Ibid, p. 326

One of the rules for Greek gramer is that nouns that modify each other must agree in gender. How come "petra" is feminine, and "petros" is masculine?

Some disagreement here. Hum...

The word "rock" obviously stands for foundation. A solid foundation is vitally important (Matt. 7: 24-27. Lk. 6: 46-49). A rock foundation was the ultimate, lasting foundation. Notice that this rock was to be the foundation for the church Jesus would build. Since the church is no better than its foundation, the right foundation was imperative.

http://www.bibletruths.net/Great%20Truths/GT15.htm

The book of Psalms says:

"The stone which the builders refused is become the head stone of the corner." -Psa. 118:22 (KJV)

Jesus even said this Himself in Matt. 21:

"Jesus saith unto them, Did ye never read in the scriptures, The stone which the builders rejected, the same is become the head of the corner:" -Mt. 21:42 (KJV)

Some contend Peter was the rock upon "which" Jesus would build his church. The word "Peter" (petros) does mean stone. Peter was a mere man. Peter stood in the way of Jesus’ sacrificial offering, denied the Lord, and sinned publicly (Matt. 16: 21-23, 26: 69-75, Gal. 2: 11-14). Does the church rest on Peter, a man? Back to "upon this rock." When Jesus said, "upon this rock I will build my church…," he used a different word in the original ("rock" here is petra). W.E. Vine comments on Petros ("Peter") and petra: "Petra denotes a mass of rock, as distinct from petros, a detached stone or boulder, or a stone that might be thrown or easily moved..." (Expository Dictionary of New Testament Words). Petros and petra also differ in grammar, petros (Peter) is masculine, referring to Peter and petra (upon this "rock") is feminine gender. Jesus did not build his church on a stone which could be easily thrown away (petros, Peter), but on a mass of rock (petra)...Jesus is the proper foundation for the church. The Father was well pleased with Jesus (Matt. 3: 17), we are to hear Jesus (Matt. 17: 5, Acts 3: 22, 23), and Jesus is the mediator between God and man (I Tim. 2: 5). Moreover, Jesus is the perfect sacrifice (Heb. 9: 27, 28), great shepherd (I Pet. 5: 4), and the sinless one who offered perfect obedience (Heb. 4: 15, 5: 8, 9). "Upon this rock," then, identifies Jesus as the foundation of the church, not man, any man! Jesus is also the head of the church and the savior of the body (Eph. 5: 23).

http://www.bibletruths.net/Great%20Truths/GT15.htm

The Apostle Paul taught:

"For other foundation can no man lay than that is laid, which is Jesus Christ." -1 Cor. 3:11 (KJV)

The same Greek word, "petra" (rock) is the topic in 1 Cor. 10:4, and Paul specifically says that the "petra" was Jesus Christ:

"And did all drink the same spiritual drink: for they drank of that spiritual Rock that followed them: and that Rock was Christ." -1 Cor. 10:4 (KJV)

Peter's confession that Jesus Christ was the Son of the Living God, was the "petra" (rock) on which the church stands, not on the man Peter, but his confession of who Jesus was.

God Bless

Till all are one.

[LivingWordUnity]

Here we go again with, "I know it says that, but it really means this..."

If I wanted to do it, I could show you an argument of the original languages to refute your point of view about when Jesus changed Simon's name to Peter (the rock). But that would be a waste of my time and energy because you would still retain your point of view anyway.

A person's theology will always influence how they translate and interpret the Bible. But the interpretation that I go by is how the Church had always interpreted the Bible over the past 2,000 years, not anyone's modern interpretation.


But I will ask you this question again:

When Jesus told Peter, "Tend my sheep", are you and I not part of this flock of sheep? How would Peter tend to us if not with a successor?

[cubanito]

Peter cou ld.not have been the first leader of the Church @ Rome. Long before either Paul or Peter ever got there, a Curch was already established. Peter Wassent to the Jews, NOT gentiles. Paul was the 1St Apostle there,O

[FundamentalistJohn]

Here we go again with, "I know it says that, but it really means this..."

If I wanted to do it, I could show you an argument of the original languages to refute your point of view about when Jesus changed Simon's name to Peter (the rock). But that would be a waste of my time and energy because you would still retain your point of view anyway.

A person's theology will always influence how they translate and interpret the Bible. But the interpretation that I go by is how the Church had always interpreted the Bible over the past 2,000 years, not anyone's modern interpretation.


But I will ask you this question again:

When Jesus told Peter, "Tend my sheep", are you and I not part of this flock of sheep? How would Peter tend to us if not with a successor?

Seems to me that the Orthodox would very much disagree that the Church has always interpreted this Scripture in this manner.

FJ

[FundamentalistJohn]

Peter cou ld.not have been the first leader of the Church @ Rome. Long before either Paul or Peter ever got there, a Curch was already established. Peter Wassent to the Jews, NOT gentiles. Paul was the 1St Apostle there,O
It is interesting that there is more evidence that Peter was the leader of the Church at Antioch before Peter ever saw Rome. So why isn't the Patriarch at Antioch not considered the successor of Peter?

[twistedsketch]

Jesus breathed the Holy Spirit onto the apostles and gave them the authority to forgive sins (John 20:22-23, Matt. 9:2-8)

Jesus commanded the apostles to teach and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit. (Matt. 28:19-20)

And in order for the apostles to preach to all nations, the apostles appointed successors (Acts 1:20, 2 Tim. 2:2)

The Holy Spirit was then passed on from the apostles to their successors (bishops) by the laying on of hands (Acts 8:18)
There were also corrupt leaders in the church as early as before the Apostle John died (Diotrephes, 3 John v.9, and possibly Jezebel, Revelation 2:20). Succession alone is not infallible.

It's kind of ironic that Protestants use a Catholic book (the New Testament) to try to argue against Catholicism.
Well, maybe if Catholics followed it better, that would never have happened. Luther had some pretty good points.

[twistedsketch]

When Jesus told Peter, "Tend my sheep", are you and I not part of this flock of sheep? How would Peter tend to us if not with a successor?
[/FONT]
This was a charge made to Peter when he was here on earth, a mission for the rest of his life. That's long over, now. Any succession Peter had would have related to disciple making, which is not unique to Peter, but it was given to the Eleven (Matthew 28:16-20). But what's really interesting is that 2 Peter, his goodbye letter to the church, made no mention of the possibility of a specific successor to his office. It would make sense not to name Linus during a persecution, but no hints or codes are even dropped that ANYONE would be taking his place. You guys would have a better case for the papacy if you claimed Paul as your first pope, he wrote most of the New Testament and wrote two letters to Timothy, with the second one not being shy about Timothy taking over where Paul left off.

[LivingWordUnity]

This was a charge made to Peter when he was here on earth, a mission for the rest of his life. That's long over, now.The Bible doesn't say that.

Why would Jesus tell Peter to tend His sheep only for the rest of Peter's life? If no successor to Peter were needed, then there would also be no reason for Jesus to put Peter in charge of His sheep in the first place.

So are you saying that there was no reason why Jesus put Peter in charge of His flock? That would make no sense.

[twistedsketch]

The Bible doesn't say that.
The Bible doesn't say that Peter was going to have a successor either.


[FONT=Arial][SIZE=3]Why would Jesus tell Peter to tend His sheep only for the rest of Peter's life? If no successor to Peter were needed, then there would also be no reason for Jesus to put Peter in charge of His sheep in the first place.
Not so. As the book of Acts shows, Peter was the Lord's chosen instrument to unlock the Gospel to the Jews (in Acts 2:14-41) and then to the Gentiles (Acts 10). Thus, the prophesy that "on this rock I will build my church" was fulfilled, and Peter did his binding and loosing - which again, is not unique to Peter, but the other apostles had this charge as well (Matthew 18:18).

[LivingWordUnity]

The Bible doesn't say that Peter was going to have a successor either.I'm not the one who claims to go by the Bible alone. So you're the one who has to keep what you say strictly limited to what is said word for word in the Bible, not me. And what you said is not what the Bible says.

But having said that, the Bible says that Judas had a successor. So if Judas had one why wouldn't Peter have one? And history shows that Peter did have a successors.

Today's Pope is the 266th successor to Peter. Every Pope going all the way back to Peter is accounted for. No one else but the Catholic Church even tries to make this claim because they know that only the Catholic Church can make the claim of having the successor to the apostle Peter and back it up with history.


Not so. As the book of Acts shows, Peter was the Lord's chosen instrument to unlock the Gospel to the Jews (in Acts 2:14-41) and then to the Gentiles (Acts 10). Thus, the prophesy that "on this rock I will build my church" was fulfilled, and Peter did his binding and loosing - which again, is not unique to Peter, but the other apostles had this charge as well (Matthew 18:18).Do all of the Jews and Gentiles today accept the message of the Gospel? No. Then why would the mission of the apostles end with the death of the apostles?

It doesn't say in the Bible that "on this rock I will build my Church" was completed when Peter preached to the Jews and the Gentiles. Jesus told Peter and the apostles to preach to all nations. How could they do that if they wouldn't have chosen successors to continue in their ministry?

But the Bible says that the apostles did choose successors and they did it by the laying on of hands (Acts 8:18).

[FreeinChrist]

Where? Is there a verse that even mentions the RC? Did Jesus leave us a denomination or a Church composed of all believers? Did Jesus make a stipulation that to be saved a person has to believe in Him AND be part of the Roman Catholic Church?

Dunno:scratch: Don't see it.:doh:
It's not there. There is only those that follow Christ.

[LivingWordUnity]

The straw man is back. :eek:

[cubanito]

There is a confounding of two terms: Apostle and Bishop

An apostle proximally means "one who is sent" and within the context of THE Apostles refers exclusively to those men who saw the ressurected Christ AND were specially endowed by the Spirit to perform miracles, speak and/or write what would become the New Testament (Scripture), in order to firmly establish the nascent Church not merely by arguments and clever speech, but also by power, signs and miracles. We know that there are no more Apostles because Paul specifically calls himself the last one, that there are only 12 chairs for them mentioned in Revelations, and a few other less direct inferences. There was no requirement for Apostles to their marital status, Peter being married and Paul either a widower or never married. Indeed, it was NOT required that they be "blameless and above reproach" in a public sense. In fact, Mathew was a former tax collector, Peter was identified as a hypocrite by Paul, and Paul himself speaks of the Apostles as being numbered among the dregs of humanity for the sake of the elect. There is not a single Apostle that in the Bible is identified as a Bishop -though it is entirely possible that some Apostles did become overseers.

Bishops, proximally meaning overseers, in context refers to those that make decisions for a local Church. They were generally PLURAL, and thus most logically would be similar to the elders of a local Church today. However, I would not quarrel w anyone that would say that among the local Bishops, one was "first among equals" and point to James, the biological brother of JC, as an example of such an example. In either case, it was indeed REQUIRED that Bishops be married by Scripture. Interestingly, Peter COULD have been both Bishop and Apostle, as Peter was married. However, wether Peter was or not the first Bishop of Jerusalem, by the time of the Jerusalem council a decade or so later, Peter clearly was not the "head Bishop" at Jerusalem.

Furthermore, long before Peter ever visited Rome, there was a Church there. Thus, if Peter ever was a Bishop of Rome, he clearly could NOT have been the first.

Now a word about succesional lists: they are retrospective, as on various occasions Roman "Popes" were later excised and calle "anti=Popes." Had one lived during the end of the Avignon Papacy, a time sometime referred to the "Great Schism" by some, one would have had to choose between one of 3 different concurrent individuals who each claomed to be THE one and only "Pope" and excommunicated all followers of the other 2.

Hindsight is a pretty thing, especially when accompanied by amnesia and a mighty large eraser. But the historical reality is that succession lists are sanitised constructions of much later generations.

Just ask an "Old Catholic"

JR

[LivingWordUnity]

An apostle proximally means "one who is sent"Jesus was sent by the Father. Then the apostles were sent by Jesus. Then the bishops were sent by the apostles. Then other bishops were sent by those bishops until we have the bishops in the Catholic Church today.

The Bible tells us that this succession was done with the Holy Spirit by the laying on of hands (Acts 8:18).

If I traced back who sent who starting with the Catholic bishops of today and working my way as far back as I could go, it would lead ultimately back to Jesus and the apostles. Can you say the same about your pastor?

[Hentenza]

If I traced back who sent who starting with the Catholic bishops of today and working my way as far back as I could go, it would lead ultimately back to Jesus and the apostles. Can you say the same about your pastor?
Strawman!!!!!

[LivingWordUnity]

Strawman!!!!!I will take that as a "no". ;)

[PaladinGirl]

[QUOTE]
The original church depicted in the NT does not look like the Roman Catholic Church at all. Mmmmm......


In that we can agree.

Matthew 18:20
20For where two or three come together in my name, there am I with them."


Yep!!! So where does it say that the Roman Catholic Church IS the church?:scratch:



The EO and others disagree with you.;)

The Roman Catholic Church was not established until the 4th century courtesy of Constantine. :idea:

Actually, if you ask me, the church described in Acts resembles the Catholic Church quite closely.

[Christopher1020]

Paul, being an apostle and saying that celibacy is a higher calling to live by gives us the light by which we can interpret the passage in Timothy. While Paul talks about celibacy he clearly states that it is the preffered state for caring about the things of God. The passage does not say he must be the husband of at least one wife, nor does it say he must be the husband of only one wife. So is it the min or max? Let Paul's own word interpret. As for verse 5 it is in context to verse four. If you have a family it must be ruled well. It is also important to note that Paul also forbids the forbidding of marriage.

Why, if celibacy is a preferred calling, would we choose our Bishops from less dedicated Christians? Celibacy does not invalidate apostolic succession. Celibacy is hard and I am an Old Catholic because I could not live up to it. But I respect those that do. EO and even some Anglicans have celibate men and women serving God. Celibacy is a calling from God and I have the highest reverence for it. But to be clear your positions are both well founded and I also deeply respect the work of the Lutheran Church and these posters.

[Christopher1020]

I would agree as well Paladin Girl

[Hentenza]

Actually, if you ask me, the church described in Acts resembles the Catholic Church quite closely.

How would you know?

[BigNorsk]

So Peter was a second level, less dedicated Apostle because he had a wife? Is this the normal teaching of the RCC? Should God have passed him by and picked a more dedicated person?