Peter and the Keys, Catholicism and the Pope

[CaliforniaJosiah]

I'm always fasinated by the reality that in Catholicism, everything seems to be centered in this point: that the Church is itself.

I think I know what you mean (?). Assuming I do...let me preface everything by stating this is how we see "the Church" (however that might be defined): it IS the Body of Christ, and not just in an analogical sense. Rather in a very real way that transcends everything else, there is no distinction between the Church He founded and His Body (whether or not the Catholic Church is that Church we will set aside for the moment). In fact, by way of illustration, recall when Paul was struck on the road to Damascus. Jesus said "Saul, Saul, why are you persecuting ME?" This begs the question, when was Paul ever persecuting JESUS? Never. Paul was a small child when Jesus was persecuted and killed. But Paul was persecuting the Christian Church (and its members) at that time. Therefore, it is biblical to state that where "the Church" is - there is Christ.

We're in agreement here, my brother...

Yes, Jesus founded His church.
Yes, it is His Body.
Yes, Paul was persecuting such.

Here's where we part company: I think that the Church is Christian. And Christians are people. Thus, the Church is people.

Paul was persecuting PEOPLE - Christian people.
Christian people are - collectively - the church catholic.
Which is His Body, His Church.

I don't equate this with your denomination or mine. Or any other.
I don't equate it with me, myself, alone.
As Protestants are fond of saying, "It's not Jesus and ME, it's Jesus and WE"
I don't share the obsession of Christianity as SELF or as an IT.

I embrace that the church is (was and always will be) one, holy, catholic, NOT because there is a denomination with its HQ in Rome but because faith unites us as brothers and sisters in Christ, as the communion of saints, the mystical union of believers. The church is not an IT, the church is US.

We tend to see the church as Christians - spread out over all the continents and centuries. I'm a part, you're a part, St. Augustine is a part, Martin Luther is a part, Joseph Ratzinger is a part - all by virtue of the Holy Spirit making us so by the gift of faith (you might say by virtue of Baptism - and I'd have no argument there).

As I've mentioned to you a couple of times, in Catholicism, everything seems to come down to it's ecclesiology - that IT, in some special, unique, institutional and physical sense, is THE Church. A few other denominations do the same thing; IMHO for the same reason.

But you know all this. You know our disagreement. But, what is VERY interesting to ME (now that I'm Protestant) is that the opening poster isn't Protestant. And it's not a laymen as am I, not a part of Apostolic Succession, without any "office." No. He's Orthodox. He's an Archbishop. He shares your view of Christianity being a denominational it. You think he has Apostolic Tradition and Succession same as the Joseph Ratzinger. Now, that a LUTHERAN disagrees with you about the Papacy is one thing (we disagree about the church), but an Archbishop disagrees with you. In fact, all non-Catholics disagree. In fact, I could (but won't) quote some things LUTHER said about the papacy and contrast them to some things some Orthodox bishops have said, but I think that would just detour us.

My Point: We don't agree on this. I think Christians are PEOPLE and thus the church catholic is PEOPLE. You don't really disagree with that, I know, it's just the RCC (IMHO) makes that moot by overlaying on that it's much, much stronger view that the Church is ITself. In Catholicism, it all comes down to the remarkable claims of the RCC alone for the RCC alone. Including the issue we're discussing here.


Back to the point:

Now, if I understood, you said that the Authority of whoever happens to be the RCC bishop of the diocese of Rome is infallible and such (not only in the RCC but for all Christians) because all this is regarded as binding by "the entire universal church." I made two comments:

1. Actually, only HALF of the entire universal church acknowledges the Pope at ALL, much less as the infallible.....anything. Even the Orthodox Archbishop of North America, a man who shares Apostolic Tradition, Apostolic Succession, and YOUR view of Christianity being a denominational IT, even he disagrees. (PS He's NOT Protestant!). In fact, of the 35000 denominations some of our Catholic friends around here insist exist, 34,999 disagree with the CC on this. There's only ONE that does agree with the CC on this. It is OBVIOUS (and I think indisputable by you) that the "entire universal church" does not regard such as "binding." YOUR own requirement is clearly not met.

2. Let me repeat my General Fred comment: General Fred says that all good soldiers follow him. He defines all good soldiers as those that follow him. Therefore, he notes that all good soldiers follow him. I'm sure you realize the point I'm making vis-a-vis our little sub-discussion here. If it's true that the current bishop of the diocese of Rome is all that is claimed "when the whole, entire universal church" regards such as such, then the ONLY way that can stand if for "whole, entire universal church" to be defined as those that so regard the Pope. I'm SURE you realize the pure circle that is. I think it doesn't meet your requirement.


Thanks!


Pax!


- Josiah


PS I'm well aware that you posted MUCH here (and in other posts to me) that I've not responded to. I've carefully read it all, and may still respond, but work and school just limit my time here at CF. Life. You remind me that in Catholicism, EVERYTHING is a part of a huge, complex, whole.


.

 

[MrPolo]

There is no question that many institutions claim that they are "the Church" - so it goes without saying that merely making the claim is not the same thing as the claim actually being true. In fact, it is, in theory, possible that none of those making the claim are actually "the Church" (especially if the only basis for their claim is the claim itself). However, IF one of those making the claim happens to actually be "the Church" - yes - without question there are "a lot of ramifications" to say the least. But the claim, of and by itself, is fairly meaningless since anyone can claim anything.

A word of caution here, though. While it is understandable that many people would roll their eyes and say "Oh great, another church claiming to be 'the church' - now I know they are false"...well...they are guilty of another thing: assuming that such a claim should be equated *necessarily* with falsehood. Just as we should not be gullible and assume that any given church is "the Church" merely because they claim it, so too we should not be so cynical as to assume that no church that claims it could possibly be what it claims. Do you see what I mean?

The bottom line for me is this: any church that claims to be "the Church" may or may not be what they claim (depending on the merits of their evidence, etc...)...however any church that claims that they are NOT "the Church" or that no such thing as "the Church" could possibly exist...well...I am more than happy to take them at their word and conclude that they are most certainly NOT "the Church"

I agree 100% with these sentiments, and would like to dovetail into a parallel here. The logic you recount here suggests because there are so many candidates who claim to be the truth, we conclude that either a) none of them have the truth, or b) the real truth-speaker is unidentifiable.

I know some agnostics who by this exact logic discounts Christianity. They will say, Christians claim they are the true religion, Jews say they are, Muslims say they are, and there have been all kinds of religions, pagan and otherwise throughout history who claim to have the truth. They will even cite throughout history the varying religions of monotheism and polytheism, adding to what they see as the cloud of confusion. They will say, why shold I believe what Jesus said? Muhammed says he has the truth. Buddha too. So anyway they conclude with agnosticism.

So too, are those who deny Catholicism, on the grounds that other Christian church's also claim to be the truth-bearers, kinfolk of the agnostics. Neither these folks, nor the agnostics argue on the level of merit or evidence. I think it is important to do so, rather than go into give-up mode and say we can't know the truth, there are too many candidates claiming to have it. I can sympathize with the difficulty in identifying the true Church in this day and age, for the devil has exercised his confusion tactics quite well. However, with a little study and a prayer to the Spirit, it can certainly be done.

Finally, I agree much with the sentiment that any Church claiming there is no true Church can be ruled out immediately as Christ's Church. I would also add to this group any Church that argues that there IS a true Church, but it just can't be identified.

 

[LittleLambofJesus]

Finally, I agree much with the sentiment that any Church claiming there is no true Church can be ruled out immediately as Christ's Church. I would also add to this group any Church that argues that there IS a true Church, but it just can't be identified.

So which church do you deem as Christ's Church and what about those of us that have identified it and are in it now?

Hebrew 12:22 But ye have come-toward Zion, to a Mount and a City of God, a living Jerusalem, heavenly and to myriads of messengers,

 

[NewMan99]

Hi CJ,

We're in agreement here, my brother...

Yes, Jesus founded His church.
Yes, it is His Body.
Yes, Paul was persecuting such.

So far so good.

Here's where we part company: I think that the Church is Christian. And Christians are people. Thus, the Church is people.

Actually we do not disagree on that either. It is people insofar as those who are joined to Christ via grace and the One Flesh Covenant are, indeed, "the Church". So in a very real way we can say "(Christian) people = the Church" even though this aspect of the Church is what we Catholics call "mystical" or invisible.

But just as the Church we see in the NT likewise had this mystical element, so too it had a visible, organizational, hierarchical, structure to it. It was not just a bunch of individual believers who started their own churches, sects, denominations each with its own distinct beliefs - but all still calling themselves "Christian." Those who did that were considered heretics and/or schismatics from the one single Church founded by Christ on the Apostles.

So the Church in the NT - in its fullest expression of it - had both aspects: a mystical invisible Church of all baptized believers, and a visible UNIFIED hierarchical institution that served as a shepherd to the flock of believers.

So can I agree with you that the Church is people? Yes. Is that all that it is? No.

Paul was persecuting PEOPLE - Christian people.
Christian people are - collectively - the church catholic.
Which is His Body, His Church.

Yes - but again there was not division, sectarianism, or denominationalism either. This is why we Catholics say that you non-Catholic Christians are still part of the universal Church, but only imperfectly. It's like you have one foot in and one foot out of the fullness of what the Church really is (which is both mystical and institutional - and united as One since Jesus founded ONE Church - not lots of churches or lots of sects each believing different and contradictory things).

I don't equate this with your denomination or mine. Or any other.
I don't equate it with me, myself, alone.
As Protestants are fond of saying, "It's not Jesus and ME, it's Jesus and WE"

It's interesting you would say that. Protestantism seems to me far more "me and Jesus" in many ways than Catholicism is. The primacy of self within Protestantism is staggering at times. If you don't personally agree with a given church you attend, you either "church shop" or split off and start your own denomination. Doctrines like sola Scriptura are heavily slanted toward personal interpretation over and above submiting to an authoritative teacher, like we see in Catholicism. It's funny but I never once said "Jesus and we" in my 40 years as a Protestant. As I Catholic I say it every day.

But I am glad to see you feel a sense of familial plurality.

I don't share the obsession of Christianity as SELF or as an IT.

Nor do we Catholics. Not at all.

I embrace that the church is (was and always will be) one, holy, catholic, NOT because there is a denomination with its HQ in Rome but because faith unites us as brothers and sisters in Christ, as the communion of saints, the mystical union of believers. The church is not an IT, the church is US.

Luckily for us, there is no "denomination" with a HQ in Rome (unless it is Protestant). Notice, though, how you put this in the context of an either/or dichotomy. To you, the equation is that the Church is EITHER an "it" (which you inaccurately portray as our view) OR the Church is "us" (which you claim for your own position). This is a false dichotomy, Josiah. We believe it is a both/and. The Church is BOTH visible AND invisible. It is mystical and institutional. The Church in the NT was thus characterized - why would we believe that this should have changed particularly when the Bible speaks out so strongly against division and sectarianism? The division within modern Christianity is our greatest scandal and one reason why so many people in the world remain unconverted.

We tend to see the church as Christians - spread out over all the continents and centuries. I'm a part, you're a part, St. Augustine is a part, Martin Luther is a part, Joseph Ratzinger is a part - all by virtue of the Holy Spirit making us so by the gift of faith (you might say by virtue of Baptism - and I'd have no argument there).

Well sure. I agree.

As I've mentioned to you a couple of times, in Catholicism, everything seems to come down to it's ecclesiology - that IT, in some special, unique, institutional and physical sense, is THE Church.

That simply isn't true. Yes, our ecclesiology is an essential part of how we view the formal visible institutional aspect of the Church, but we also recognize that the mystical Church of all believers transcends ecclesiology - and it is just as valid and a part of "the Church" as the visible institutional aspect.

A few other denominations do the same thing; IMHO for the same reason.

The fact that certain sects and denominations (including the LDS which is not even Christian) do this does not mean that our claim is therefore false. Our claims stand or fall on their own merit and not just because other organizations make the same claim.

Actually, I don't mind it when others make that claim (even though they are wrong). If a given organization really is what it claims to be - I would expect it to say so. And as I said before, when other organzations claim that they are NOT "the Church", I will take them at their word and agree that they are not. Why would anyone want to belong to a sect that is unwilling to say that they are a place where Truth is found without error? Why would I belong to a churh where they imply that some of their teachings might be wrong? This is what I don't understand about Protestants who get so bent out of shape just because the Catholic Church claims for itself the corner on Truth. Don't Protestants do the same thing when they evangelize Christianity to non-Christians? Don't we Christians say to pagans (atheists, Muslims, Jews, JWs, Mormons, whatever...) that they need to convert to Christianity because it is the only True faith? And don't we reject relativistic objections when potential converts say that all religions point to the same god (or God) so therefore it doesn't really matter if a person becomes a Christian or not? The reason we Catholics say that we are "the Church" in its fullest expression (both mystical and institutional) is because that is what was Revealed to us and handed down to us since Apostolic times.

But you know all this. You know our disagreement. But, what is VERY interesting to ME (now that I'm Protestant) is that the opening poster isn't Protestant. And it's not a laymen as am I, not a part of Apostolic Succession, without any "office." No. He's Orthodox. He's an Archbishop. He shares your view of Christianity being a denominational it.

Actually neither the Archbishop nor I believe that Christianity or "the Church" is "denominational" - nor do we reduce it down to merely an institutional "it" as if the mystical Church doesn't exist. You have mischaracterized our beliefs and then argued against that.

You think he has Apostolic Tradition and Succession same as the Joseph Ratzinger.

Yes - although I would appreciate it if you would please call him by his proper name and title: Pope Benedict. But sure, they can both trace their Holy Orders to the Apostles.

But then we can say the same thing about Bishop Arius who founded the Arian heresy and Bishop Nestorius who began the Nesotorian heresy and so on. So just because someone has Apostolic Succession does not mean they will remain in the fold. Now, that being said, I am not comparing the Archbishop to those heretics. Eastern Orthodoxy is not heretical - we would consider them to be schismatic (as they would consider us).

My point is that people who share Apostolic Succession are still capable of losing communion with each other.

Now, that a LUTHERAN disagrees with you about the Papacy is one thing (we disagree about the church), but an Archbishop disagrees with you. In fact, all non-Catholics disagree.

Sure - and all non-Catholics are wrong. Just because a bunch of people disagree with us does not make them right. All non-Christians disagree with Christianity too. Does that make them right?

In fact, I could (but won't) quote some things LUTHER said about the papacy and contrast them to some things some Orthodox bishops have said, but I think that would just detour us.

There's no need. I have already read plenty of them. Our Eastern Orthodox brothers are very right on a great many things. When it comes to the papacy - they happen to be wrong (at least in our opinion).

My Point: We don't agree on this. I think Christians are PEOPLE and thus the church catholic is PEOPLE. You don't really disagree with that,

I am fine with that. But the Catholic Church is MORE than just people.

I know, it's just the RCC (IMHO) makes that moot by overlaying on that it's much, much stronger view that the Church is ITself.

No - you mischaracterize our views. You, too, are part of the Catholic Church, but imperfectly. The Church is MORE than just "it" - just the institution.

In Catholicism, it all comes down to the remarkable claims of the RCC alone for the RCC alone. Including the issue we're discussing here.

Sorry - not quite.

Continued...

 

[MamaZ]

we are the Body of Christ, but as St.Paul said his letter to the Corinthians, if every part was an ear, where would the sense of sight be? we all have differant roles in the Church and the position of episkopos is a biblical role. The fact that so many differant doctrines are around in modern Christianity seem to state that even though we are in communion with God through the Holy Spirit and joined as the Body of Christ, this is not enough, by itself, for correct doctrine. If it was, we would all agree on these issues

Why is it not enough? There are many gifts of Gods Spirit within the body but these gifts do not give the man who moves in these gifts any more authority over another part of the body who moves in other gifts. For there is only one who is over the full of the body and that is Christ.

 

[LittleLambofJesus]

In Catholicism, it all comes down to the remarkable claims of the RCC alone for the RCC alone. Including the issue we're discussing here.

Sorry - not quite.

Continued...

Ahhh. Can't wait to hear this
​

 

[MamaZ]

The Apostles were sent out for the purpose of preaching and teaching what is to be held on to as truth. We have their written accounts of these truths we are to hold on to and so therefore the succession is not in man but in the teaching.

 

[Standing Up]

Standing up,



Okay - I see where you are going now. Sorry, I misunderstood before. Your original comment was that the "RCC" has supposedly always tried to restore Judaism. My response should have been more clear. It is true that the Apostles (and hence the Catholic Church, since, of course, we Catholics believe Christ gave us the Catholic Church through the Apostles) originally sought to restore Judaism, but as time went by they came to a deeper understanding of their true mission, which is a "completion" of what Judaism pointed to. Jesus said that He did not come to abolish the law but to "fulfill" it.

But aside from that initial period - those few years - the Catholic Church never meant to "restore" Judaism, per se (which is why there was a significant split from Rabbinic Judaism and Christianity was forced to become an underground illegal organization/movement).



No - I don't see how it would change my argument.

Of course not. I'll spell out your argument for you; you tell me if and where I am wrong.

The apostles initially tried to restore Judaism. That was their job, but it was complicated by two things, Paul and rejection of Messiah. So, God revealed new information, they were to go to the Gentiles.

The 12 apostles were similar to the 12 tribes, but because we are mainly Gentiles, we don't yet "get it" (nominal only were your words). Still, we all trace our lineage back to one (maybe more) of the 12 apostles. The RCC is the Levitical priesthood, theirs is the rod that budded (Peter with the Keys, the Rock, the Chair).

They were neither dumb not incompetent. They merely didn't know everything all at once. If they knew everything all at once, then why would they need to convene in Jerusalem in Acts 15 to hash out the whole circumcision controversy? They needed time because Jesus actually had not *directly* taught them the answers to this new question (should Gentiles enter into the covenent via the Mosaic Law, i.e., circumcision). Jesus HAD taught them the answers through various principles laid out, but it took some time and guidance by the Holy Spirit (plus a vision or two) for them to grasp the truly world-wide aspect of their mission.

If they knew from Pentecost onward that the mission included Gentiles then why would Peter and the rest of the Church be so surprised when he had the vision in Acts 10? If they knew everything, then why did they wonder for a period of time if the Judaizers had a point or not?

When I have a question, opening scripture always helps. Acts 15 certain men entered in. They taught erroneous things. Paul defended the faith. They appealed to Jerusalem, thinking perhaps they would get a more favorable audience, after all, those were RCC trying to restore Judaism (whoops, ignore that last phrase). Anyway, they didn't, and peace and unity were restored.

I don't see how.



There were Jews in every nation. They could easily have understood Jesus to mean they should baptize all the Jews throughout the world. Again, if they "knew" what you claim, then why were the Apostles and the rest of the Church so confounded about the whole issue of Gentiles and how they were to enter into the Church? Until Peter had his vision in Acts 10 they didn't even really evangelize Gentiles to begin with, did they? No. Why not? Because they didn't know.

That's okay though, we see where new Revelation continued throughout the Apostolic era. New Revelation ended with the last Apostle, but from Pentecost until John drew his last breath, there were plenty of things taught to the Church that came as news to everybody.


God's Peace,

NewMan

No. Scripture tells us otherwise right from the beginning.

Mt. 28:19 Go ye therefore, and teach all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost:

Here's Vines on the definition of nations:
Gentiles:
whence Eng., "heathen," denotes, firstly, "a multitude or company;" then, "a multitude of people of the same nature or genus, a nation, people;" it is used in the singular, of the Jews, e.g., Luk 7:5; 23:2; Jhn 11:48, 50-52; in the plural, of nations (Heb., goiim) other than Israel, e.g., Mat 4:15; Rom 3:29; 11:11; 15:10; Gal 2:8; occasionally it is used of gentile converts in distinction from Jews, e.g., Rom 11:13; 16:4; Gal 2:12, 14; Eph 3:1.

Your argument is based on an erroneous foundation. Therefore, it should be rejected.

 

[LittleLambofJesus]

Your argument is based on an erroneous foundation. Therefore, it should be rejected.

Perhaps just a few

Roman church errors and inventions - Christian Forums
Roman church errors and inventions

 

[NewMan99]

Continued...

Back to the point:

Now, if I understood, you said that the Authority of whoever happens to be the RCC bishop of the diocese of Rome is infallible and such (not only in the RCC but for all Christians) because all this is regarded as binding by "the entire universal church." I made two comments:

No - that is NOT at all what I said. A given papal teaching is not infallible by virtue of how it is "regarded" or if is accepted. It is infallible if the teaching is bound to all two dozen Catholic Churches as a matter of faith and/or morals. Whether or not individuals within the Church accept it or regard it as infallible is entirely beside the point.

1. Actually, only HALF of the entire universal church acknowledges the Pope at ALL, much less as the infallible.....anything. Even the Orthodox Archbishop of North America, a man who shares Apostolic Tradition, Apostolic Succession, and YOUR view of Christianity being a denominational IT, even he disagrees. (PS He's NOT Protestant!). In fact, of the 35000 denominations some of our Catholic friends around here insist exist, 34,999 disagree with the CC on this. There's only ONE that does agree with the CC on this. It is OBVIOUS (and I think indisputable by you) that the "entire universal church" does not regard such as "binding." YOUR own requirement is clearly not met.

No - that is not my requirement. You are putting that in my mouth. It doesn't matter how the teaching is regarded or accepted. How it is promugated matters - how it is received does not. Something is objectively True whether it is believed or not.

And I am not a fan of the X-number of denomination argument which is so popular among my fellow Catholic apologists. The truth is we don't really know how many there are. But the point is that any number larger than ONE is too many. That is the point.

2. Let me repeat my General Fred comment: General Fred says that all good soldiers follow him. He defines all good soldiers as those that follow him. Therefore, he notes that all good soldiers follow him. I'm sure you realize the point I'm making vis-a-vis our little sub-discussion here. If it's true that the current bishop of the diocese of Rome is all that is claimed "when the whole, entire universal church" regards such as such, then the ONLY way that can stand if for "whole, entire universal church" to be defined as those that so regard the Pope. I'm SURE you realize the pure circle that is. I think it doesn't meet your requirement.

Of course that is a circle - but it is not MY requirement nor is it my circle. That is a circle and a requirement you are putting in my mouth.

Our belief is not circular. We don't say that a teaching is infallible BECAUSE it is bound to the whole Catholic Church and that the Catholic Church is bound to the given teaching because it is infallible. That would be circular. Nor do we say it is infallible merely because it is "regarded" as infallible and it is regarded as infallible because it is infallible.

Rather, our belief springs out of the Revelation that the Person of Christ is Truth itself ("I am the way, the truth, and the life")...and that the Church IS the Body of Christ Who IS Truth itself. It flows out of the Revelation that the Church is ONE and undivided and that a house set against cannot stand. It flows out of the Revelation that the Spirit of Truth continues to guide the Church perpetually and protect the flock from error, even though false teachers will always beset us and lead individual sheep astray IN OPPOSITION to the ONE TRUTH from the ONE BODY of Christ. So therefore when an organ of the Church (read: those in Communion with the Holy See) teaches something, whether it be through a council of Bishops (as per Acts 15) binding the flock under its authority or if it is the Pope acting as Head of the Church and Key-bearer doing likewise, we know that the Spirit will guide the Church in a way that protects us from error. Otherwise we would be saying that Christ is not really Truth, but rather He was Truth at one point in time, but later mixed in some error as His Body divided against itself. It is far more reasonable and rational to believe that Christ is not divided and that His Truth remains protected for His flock (and yes I know that His Truth is found in the Bible...but as soon as all Christian Churches stop having contradictory beliefs and start interpreting the Bible the same, then I will start to listen to them more), and that any divisions among us are from sheep who have left the fold to follow false teachers who have led them astray.

God's Peace,

NewMan

 

[LittleLambofJesus]

Continued...No - that is NOT at all what I said. A given papal teaching is not infallible by virtue of how it is "regarded" or if is accepted. It is infallible if the teaching is bound to all two dozen Catholic Churches as a matter of faith and/or morals. Whether or not individuals within the Church accept it or regard it as infallible is entirely beside the point. ......................................

God's Peace,

NewMan

What do you mean by "2 dozen Catholic Churches"?

 

[NewMan99]

So Standing up, your argument is what? That the Apostles started evangelizing the Gentiles from day one? I don't understand where you are going with this.

 

[Joachim]

But again, Christians have NO need today to appeal to your pope. How many times do we have to keep saying that.

http://www.christianforums.com/t7287910/
Can Christianity survive without the Pope?

You can say it as many times as you want. It is your choice to go against the will of God and God won't hold you responsible because he only holds those responsible with full knowledge and intent and clearly you haven't grasped what the true church is, and why God called the pope to lead his church and so you will not be sent to hell for it or anything. Still doesn't change the fact that you're wrong.


Once again, why was Simon renamed Peter if Jesus did not have a special office for him already planned?

 

[LittleLambofJesus]

So Standing up, your argument is what? That the Apostles started evangelizing the Gentiles from day one? I don't understand where you are going with this.

Romans 11:25 For not I am willing ye to being ignorant brothers of the mystery, this, that no ye may be beside yourselves wise.
That a hardening/pwrwsiV <4457> from part/merouV <3313> to-the Israel has become until which the filling/plhrwma <4138> of-the Nations may be entering; [Mark 9:322 Peter 2:12/]

 

[LittleLambofJesus]

You can say it as many times as you want. It is your choice to go against the will of God and God won't hold you responsible because he only holds those responsible with full knowledge and intent and clearly you haven't grasped what the true church is, and why God called the pope to lead his church and so you will not be sent to hell for it or anything. Still doesn't change the fact that you're wrong.


Once again, why was Simon renamed Peter if Jesus did not have a special office for him already planned?

Edit to add: I wanted to quote the above for future reference and response. As I suspected, the RCs are here to tell us non-RCs how much error and how ignorant we are.

 

[MamaZ]

You can say it as many times as you want. It is your choice to go against the will of God and God won't hold you responsible because he only holds those responsible with full knowledge and intent and clearly you haven't grasped what the true church is, and why God called the pope to lead his church and so you will not be sent to hell for it or anything. Still doesn't change the fact that you're wrong.


Once again, why was Simon renamed Peter if Jesus did not have a special office for
him already planned?

Because Peter means Stone and we see Peter showing us what Jesus taught Him..
1Pe 2:1 Therefore, putting aside all malice and all deceit and hypocrisy and envy and all slander,
1Pe 2:2 like newborn babies, long for the pure milk of the word, so that by it you may grow in respect to salvation,
1Pe 2:3 if you have tasted the kindness of the Lord.
1Pe 2:4 And coming to Him as to a living stone which has been rejected by men, but is choice and precious in the sight of God,
1Pe 2:5 you also, as living stones, are being built up as a spiritual house for a holy priesthood, to offer up spiritual sacrifices acceptable to God through Jesus Christ.
1Pe 2:6 For this is contained in Scripture: "BEHOLD, I LAY IN ZION A CHOICE STONE, A PRECIOUS CORNER stone, AND HE WHO BELIEVES IN HIM WILL NOT BE DISAPPOINTED."
1Pe 2:7 This precious value, then, is for you who believe; but for those who disbelieve, "THE STONE WHICH THE BUILDERS REJECTED, THIS BECAME THE VERY CORNER stone,"
1Pe 2:8 and, "A STONE OF STUMBLING AND A ROCK OF OFFENSE"; for they stumble because they are disobedient to the word, and to this doom they were also appointed.
1Pe 2:9 But you are A CHOSEN RACE, A royal PRIESTHOOD, A HOLY NATION, A PEOPLE FOR God's OWN POSSESSION, so that you may proclaim the excellencies of Him who has called you out of darkness into His marvelous light;
1Pe 2:10 for you once were NOT A PEOPLE, but now you are THE PEOPLE OF GOD; you had NOT RECEIVED MERCY, but now you have RECEIVED MERCY.

 

[MamaZ]

It is your choice to go against the will of God

What is the will of God for LLOJ? Do you know?

 

[LittleLambofJesus]

What is the will of God for LLOJ? Do you know?

I heard a little voice whispering to me about His will

2 Corin 6:17 wherefore come-forth out of midst of them! and be being separated! is saying Lord

Revelation 18:4 And I hear another voice out of the heaven saying "come forth! out of Her the People of Me that no ye may being together-partaking/sugkoinwnhshte <4790> (5661) to the Sins of Her

 

[NewMan99]

What do you mean by "2 dozen Catholic Churches"?

The Catholic Church is made up of approximately two dozen Churches - each of them run as distinct organizations. They are all in communion because they are all in Communion with the Bishop of Rome.

One of the Churches is in the West. It is the Roman Church and is sometimes called the Latin Rite Church or the Western Church.

All of the other Churches are in the East. They are generally called "Eastern Rite Catholic" Churches. But they are Churches unto themselves in that the Roman Church is NOT their "boss" and does NOT tell them how to run their own affairs. The only time the Bishop of Rome exercises authority over them is when matters pertaining to unity or orthodoxy is in jeopardy...and even then it is usually only after they appeal to him for help. Rarely does the Pope ever just step in and start throwing his ecclesial weight around.

So...the two dozen or so Catholic Churches are these:

1. The Patriarchal Latin Catholic Church
Rite: Latin
Membership: 1,070,315,000

2. The Patriarchal Armenian Catholic Church
Rite: Armenian
Membership: 368,923

3. The Patriarchal Coptic Catholic Church
Rite: Alexandrian
Membership: 242,513

4. The Ethiopian Catholic Church
Rite: Ge’ez
Membership: 196,853

5. The Patriarchal Antiochian Syrian Maronite Catholic Church
Rite: West Syrian Maronite
Membership: 3,106,792

Unique among the Eastern Churches, the Maronite Church is entirely Catholic with no corresponding Orthodox Church; it has never broken union with Rome.

6. The Patriarchal Chaldean Catholic Church
Rite: East Syrian
Membership: 382,637

7. The Syro-Malabar Catholic Church
Rite: East Syrian
Membership: 3,752,434

8. The Patriarchal Syrian Catholic Church
Rite: West Syrian
Membership: 123,376

9. The Syro-Malankara Catholic Church
Rite: West Syrian
Membership: 404,052

10. The Patriarchal Melkite Catholic Church
Rite: Byzantine
Membership: 1,340,913

11. The Italo-Albanian Catholic Church
Rite: Byzantine
Membership: 60,448

12. The Ukrainian Catholic Church
Rite: Byzantine
Membership: 4,321,508

13. The Ruthenian Catholic Church
Rite: Byzantine
Membership: 497,704

14. The Byzantine Catholic Church USA (Rusyn - Ruthenian - Slovak)
Rite: Byzantine
Membership: 100,000


15. The Romanian Catholic Church
Rite: Byzantine
Membership: 746,000

16. The Greek Catholic Church in Greece
Rite: Byzantine
Membership: 2,345

17. The Greek Catholic Church in former Yugoslavia
Rite: Byzantine
Membership: 76,670

18. The Bulgarian Catholic Church
Rite: Byzantine
Membership: 10,000

19. The Slovak Catholic Church
Rite: Byzantine
Membership: 225,136

20. The Hungarian Catholic Church
Rite: Byzantine
Membership: 268,935

21. The Russian Catholic Church
Rite: Byzantine
Membership: 20 parishes worldwide

22. The Belarusian Catholic Church
Rite: Byzantine
Membership: 100,000

23. The Albanian Catholic Church
Rite: Byzantine
Membership: 3,000

24. The Georgian Catholic Church
Rite: Byzantine
Membership: 7,000

 

[LittleLambofJesus]

16. The Greek Catholic Church in Greece
Rite: Byzantine
Membership: 2,345

17. The Greek Catholic Church in former Yugoslavia
Rite: Byzantine
Membership: 76,670

Ahhh....I have a unique fondness for the Greeks but not so much for the Romans ehehe.

Reve 9:11 and they are having over them a king, the messenger of the abyss, name to him to-Hebrew, abaddwn <3>, and in the Greecian name he is having apo-lluwn <623>. [Exodus 12:23/Luke 21:28]