Mary was a good person and had a sinful nature like all of us.

[Valletta]

Carson is not "my guy" and I have seen plenty of selective quotes from Catholic authors that say only as much as they want to highlight.

Protestants also "do this" but most of us believe communion is a memorial and do not hold to transubstantiation. We don't believe in "Saints" so naturally do not name them or pray to them. Our services are also not get-togethers for personal prayer. Aside from transubstantiation, the biggest difference I see is our focus on teaching the Word. Most Protestant services spend no less than 30 minutes on teaching from the Word and some far longer. My pastor goes book-by-book and verse-by-verse through the Bible. We are currently in the Book of Romans. My pastor goes in-depth. He explains the Greek, the historical background, the theology, etc. We believe in learning the Word of God in-depth and passages in context. We pray, we celebrate communion, but the biggest focus is on learning the Word. As Romans 12:1-2 says, the Word of God transforms us through the working of the Holy Spirit. That is why we take so much time to learn it. The main focus of the Mass is on the Eucharist because you believe you receive grace through it. You have 3 Scripture readings but the Homily barely scratches the surface in explaining them. Most Catholics never even open a Bible. Few know it. Even in these online forums most just quote Catholic Answers or some other Catholic apologist. Not saying all but the average Catholic does not know the Bible. I know as I grew up Catholic and have been around Catholics my entire life. It is not the emphasis of the RCC to see their members learn the Bible and be able to study it for themselves. They want their members to just believe what the church tells them it means and not test them as the Bereans tested Paul. Most Catholics I have known know more about their church than the Bible. Their focus is always on the church. Take away the church and most of them would be lost. We had one Bible in our house growing up and it was this over-sized Catholic Bible with lots of pages for writing down birthdays, first communions, etc. Never once did anyone open it and read it. Not once. That is until I did and then read it cover to cover four times. I did that on my own after praying to receive Jesus as my Lord and Savior (years after Confirmation). Then I did it because I longed to know what it said. No priest or nun or parent suggested I read the Bible. My Mom lived her entire life as a Catholic and never made it through the Bible once. I've lost track of how many times I have read the Bible and I mean the entire Bible. I don't mean that pridefully but to me that is natural. Why would I not want to be in the Word of God constantly? I love my church but my church is secondary to my personal relationship with Christ. My church does not mediate between me and God. I receive grace from God not my church. That is the major difference between Catholics and Protestants. You are all about your church.

Catholics focus on Jesus at the mass. Having a personal relationship with Jesus through prayer is key to a holy Catholic life. Without such a personal prayer life many Catholics have fallen away. For us Jesus (and his Church which teaches us about Jesus) comes first. Learning the teachings of Jesus through the oral word is ideal. But certainly Bible study is fruitful and can be an important aid to that close relationship with Jesus. As Saint Augustine recommended, learning Greek and Hebrew can be helpful. The Catholic approach, and I make it a habit, is to pray to the Holy Spirit for discernment when I pick up the Bible and get ready to read, and then I say a prayer afterwards. Besides readings from the Bible at mass we also say or sing Psalms, and as I have said before much of the liturgy is from the Bible.

 

[NotUrAvgGuy]

Catholics focus on Jesus at the mass. Having a personal relationship with Jesus through prayer is key to a holy Catholic life. Without such a personal prayer life many Catholics have fallen away. For us Jesus (and his Church which teaches us about Jesus) comes first. Learning the teachings of Jesus through the oral word is ideal. But certainly Bible study is fruitful and can be an important aid to that close relationship with Jesus. As Saint Augustine recommended, learning Greek and Hebrew can be helpful. The Catholic approach, and I make it a habit, is to pray to the Holy Spirit for discernment when I pick up the Bible and get ready to read, and then I say a prayer afterwards. Besides readings from the Bible at mass we also say or sing Psalms, and as I have said before much of the liturgy is from the Bible.

What is the "oral word?"

No one has answered my question about why the RCC departed from having elder-run churches with elders who could be married.

 

[Valletta]

What is the "oral word?"

No one has answered my question about why the RCC departed from having elder-run churches with elders who could be married.

Jesus did not command his followers to go out and hand out Bibles. As to bishops and priests, as you know some Catholic priests are married. But it is a "discipline," not a doctrine. Compare it to fasting, the Church sometimes requires fasting. Disciplines can change. Knoe too that Jesus did not leave a detailed instruction book, for example, Jesus did not command the Apostles or anyone else to write down what He said and put it into a Bible. The Catholic Church made the decision. Likewise although the Bible talks about a bishop being only married once, Paul also talks about the positives of a single life, saying that "he who refrains from marriage will do better:"

1 Cor 7 32-38 32 I want you to be free from anxieties. The unmarried man is anxious about the affairs of the Lord, how to please the Lord; 33 but the married man is anxious about worldly affairs, how to please his wife, 34 and his interests are divided. And the unmarried woman or girl[g] 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. 35 I say this for your own benefit, not to lay any restraint upon you, but to promote good order and to secure your undivided devotion to the Lord. 36 If any one thinks that he is not behaving properly toward his betrothed,[h] if his passions are strong, and it has to be, let him do as he wishes: let them marry—it is no sin. 37 But whoever is firmly established in his heart, being under no necessity but having his desire under control, and has determined this in his heart, to keep her as his betrothed,[i] he will do well. 38 So that he who marries his betrothed[j] does well; and he who refrains from marriage will do better. RSVCE

 

[NotUrAvgGuy]

Jesus did not command his followers to go out and hand out Bibles. As to bishops and priests, as you know some Catholic priests are married. But it is a "discipline," not a doctrine. Compare it to fasting, the Church sometimes requires fasting. Disciplines can change. Knoe too that Jesus did not leave a detailed instruction book, for example, Jesus did not command the Apostles or anyone else to write down what He said and put it into a Bible. The Catholic Church made the decision. Likewise although the Bible talks about a bishop being only married once, Paul also talks about the positives of a single life, saying that "he who refrains from marriage will do better:"

1 Cor 7 32-38 32 I want you to be free from anxieties. The unmarried man is anxious about the affairs of the Lord, how to please the Lord; 33 but the married man is anxious about worldly affairs, how to please his wife, 34 and his interests are divided. And the unmarried woman or girl[g] 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. 35 I say this for your own benefit, not to lay any restraint upon you, but to promote good order and to secure your undivided devotion to the Lord. 36 If any one thinks that he is not behaving properly toward his betrothed,[h] if his passions are strong, and it has to be, let him do as he wishes: let them marry—it is no sin. 37 But whoever is firmly established in his heart, being under no necessity but having his desire under control, and has determined this in his heart, to keep her as his betrothed,[i] he will do well. 38 So that he who marries his betrothed[j] does well; and he who refrains from marriage will do better. RSVCE

Jesus commanded them, and us, to go and make disciples. The Apostles and a few of their companions wrote down what the Lord taught because they knew the importance of having a lasting written record as oral teachings often get corrupted over time (but primarily because the Holy Spirit moved them to write these things down). This was an aid to going and making disciples. There was no Catholic Church, so it was not a decision of such a church to write things down. It was individual men moved by the Holy Spirit.

I see two issues. The first is that it is not up to a priest (normally) if he wants to remain single or get married. I don't believe that is an option. Paul wrote of the advantages of being single but he never made it a requirement. Fasting was also never a requirement. The second issue is that the early church was run by a group of elders who were leading men of the community, not trained outsiders brought in. Yes, most Protestant churches have pastors who might have come from somewhere else, but they are part of a board of elders who are all local men. These are laymen who are qualified as Paul taught. The RCC assigns priests to parishes and they run the parish. There is no board of elders. There are some Protestant denominations that depart from Paul's teaching as well.

 

[Valletta]

Jesus commanded them, and us, to go and make disciples. The Apostles and a few of their companions wrote down what the Lord taught because they knew the importance of having a lasting written record as oral teachings often get corrupted over time (but primarily because the Holy Spirit moved them to write these things down). This was an aid to going and making disciples. There was no Catholic Church, so it was not a decision of such a church to write things down. It was individual men moved by the Holy Spirit.

I see two issues. The first is that it is not up to a priest (normally) if he wants to remain single or get married. I don't believe that is an option. Paul wrote of the advantages of being single but he never made it a requirement. Fasting was also never a requirement. If a ProThe second issue is that the early church was run by a group of elders who were leading men of the community, not trained outsiders brought in. Yes, most Protestant churches have pastors who might have come from somewhere else, but they are part of a board of elders who are all local men. These are laymen who are qualified as Paul taught. The RCC assigns priests to parishes and they run the parish. There is no board of elders. There are some Protestant denominations that depart from Paul's teaching as well.

As I said, disciplines of the Catholic Church can change. I agree that fasting or not fasting or celibacy or marriage was not a requirement for Paul. Paul never made a requirement about attending a seminary but the Catholic Church requires a priest to attend a seminary. How much time do you spend criticizing Protestant religions that require their pastors to attend a seminary? A decision that the Catholic Church makes that Paul neither requires nor does not require is hardly "departing from Paul's teaching." Not by a long shot. I don't think you realize your eagerness nor extent you go to in some of your arguments to paint virtually anything Catholic as somehow going against the Bible. In the NT the Koine Greek words for elder and bishop are used somewhat interchangeable. Protestants have every right to appoint to whomever they want, I never claimed to say they did not nor would I make a criticism of such. Since most of the Apostles did not write anything down it seems indeed some realized the importance since it appeared the world might go on. But there is nothing in the Biblical writings of even the first Catholic bishops about taking books and creating a Bible. If you look at some of the letters included in the Bible those letters were to specific audiences for specific purposes. I see no indication any of the writers had a clue that the Catholic Church would some day compile a Bible. I know we disagree and that you believe some unnamed individuals, not recorded by history, somehow decided on the Bible, putting letters for specific audience in with the Gospels and other books. It seems clear to me from the historical record that the Catholics were working on the canon, for example, Constantine ordered 50 Bibles to be produced by a bishop named Eusebius of Caesare in 331 A.D. Athanasius, a Doctor of the Catholic Church, is credited with coming up with the final NT list just decades later. There is no record of your unnamed men in history, and not even a hint of such in the Bible.

 

[NotUrAvgGuy]

As I said, disciplines of the Catholic Church can change. I agree that fasting or not fasting or celibacy or marriage was not a requirement for Paul. Paul never made a requirement about attending a seminary but the Catholic Church requires a priest to attend a seminary. How much time do you spend criticizing Protestant religions that require their pastors to attend a seminary? A decision that the Catholic Church makes that Paul neither requires nor does not require is hardly "departing from Paul's teaching." Not by a long shot. I don't think you realize your eagerness nor extent you go to in some of your arguments to paint virtually anything Catholic as somehow going against the Bible. In the NT the Koine Greek words for elder and bishop are used somewhat interchangeable. Protestants have every right to appoint to whomever they want, I never claimed to say they did not nor would I make a criticism of such. Since most of the Apostles did not write anything down it seems indeed some realized the importance since it appeared the world might go on. But there is nothing in the Biblical writings of even the first Catholic bishops about taking books and creating a Bible. If you look at some of the letters included in the Bible those letters were to specific audiences for specific purposes. I see no indication any of the writers had a clue that the Catholic Church would some day compile a Bible. I know we disagree and that you believe some unnamed individuals, not recorded by history, somehow decided on the Bible, putting letters for specific audience in with the Gospels and other books. It seems clear to me from the historical record that the Catholics were working on the canon, for example, Constantine ordered 50 Bibles to be produced by a bishop named Eusebius of Caesare in 331 A.D. Athanasius, a Doctor of the Catholic Church, is credited with coming up with the final NT list just decades later. There is no record of your unnamed men in history, and not even a hint of such in the Bible.

14 Therefore, beloved, since you look for these things, be diligent to be found by Him in peace, spotless and blameless, 15 and regard the patience of our Lord as salvation; just as also our beloved brother Paul, according to the wisdom given him, wrote to you, 16 as also in all his letters, speaking in them of these things, in which are some things hard to understand, which the untaught and unstable distort, as they do also the rest of the Scriptures, to their own destruction. (2 Peter 3:14-17)

Peter refers to Paul's writings as Scripture. Yes, he wrote those letters to specific audiences but they had broad applicability which is why they were copied and circulated. Peter viewed them as Scripture even though there was not a NT collection as we know it. Clearly these men knew what they were writing would be an addition to the OT Scriptures. We may not have a command to write these letters recorded from Jesus, and I don't think he instructed them to write these things down (but don't know) but the Holy Spirit inspired them to do so. It wasn't a church telling them to write. That Peter was calling Paul's writings Scripture indicates he knew there would be an eventual collection of such writings although he didn't know what all would be included. Some of his writings were as we know. We believe Mark got the material for his Gospel from Peter so Peter was no doubt aware of what Mark was doing. Since Paul visited the other Apostles in Jerusalem they may have also learned of Luke efforts. They certainly had a sense that they were creating new Scripture.

I never said the individuals who helped compile the canon were unknown. Obviously, we don't know who all of them were, but we know some. I deny they were Catholics. I see them as Christian men before the RCC began. I realize the RCC claims to have begun with Peter but I reject that. I believe the Christian church began at Pentecost and spread and grew. Eventually, when the Bishop of Rome gained power and prominence, Rome started organizing and creating a more formal church. What came before was not IMHO Catholicism. Not as we know it today. That they later claimed an unbroken line back to Peter means nothing to me. I don't believe Peter was the head of the church as Roman Catholics do.

 

[Valletta]

14 Therefore, beloved, since you look for these things, be diligent to be found by Him in peace, spotless and blameless, 15 and regard the patience of our Lord as salvation; just as also our beloved brother Paul, according to the wisdom given him, wrote to you, 16 as also in all his letters, speaking in them of these things, in which are some things hard to understand, which the untaught and unstable distort, as they do also the rest of the Scriptures, to their own destruction. (2 Peter 3:14-17)

Peter refers to Paul's writings as Scripture. Yes, he wrote those letters to specific audiences but they had broad applicability which is why they were copied and circulated. Peter viewed them as Scripture even though there was not a NT collection as we know it. Clearly these men knew what they were writing would be an addition to the OT Scriptures. We may not have a command to write these letters recorded from Jesus, and I don't think he instructed them to write these things down (but don't know) but the Holy Spirit inspired them to do so. It wasn't a church telling them to write. That Peter was calling Paul's writings Scripture indicates he knew there would be an eventual collection of such writings although he didn't know what all would be included. Some of his writings were as we know. We believe Mark got the material for his Gospel from Peter so Peter was no doubt aware of what Mark was doing. Since Paul visited the other Apostles in Jerusalem they may have also learned of Luke efforts. They certainly had a sense that they were creating new Scripture.

I never said the individuals who helped compile the canon were unknown. Obviously, we don't know who all of them were, but we know some. I deny they were Catholics. I see them as Christian men before the RCC began. I realize the RCC claims to have begun with Peter but I reject that. I believe the Christian church began at Pentecost and spread and grew. Eventually, when the Bishop of Rome gained power and prominence, Rome started organizing and creating a more formal church. What came before was not IMHO Catholicism. Not as we know it today. That they later claimed an unbroken line back to Peter means nothing to me. I don't believe Peter was the head of the church as Roman Catholics do.

You are jumping to a lot of conclusions based on your own personal interpretation. A number of other interpretations exist.
You haven't provided the names on the non-Catholic Christians who you maintain developed the canon. How many were there and what are the names of those you know?

 

[NotUrAvgGuy]

You are jumping to a lot of conclusions based on your own personal interpretation. A number of other interpretations exist.
You haven't provided the names on the non-Catholic Christians who you maintain developed the canon. How many were there and what are the names of those you know?

What on what I wrote do you consider my own interptetation or a conclusion I jumped to?

You are jumping to a lot of conclusions based on your own personal interpretation. A number of other interpretations exist.
You haven't provided the names on the non-Catholic Christians who you maintain developed the canon. How many were there and what are the names of those you know?

As for the development of the Canon, that took place over 3 centuries with different people coming up with different lists. No doubt you will consider all those men Catholics, but I will disagree. There was no RCC early on. I believe there were Christian churches scattered throughout that part of the world (some say Thomas made it to India). Initially, there were all independent churches. In time, as the church grew, in the bigger cities, they began to call or elect some men as bishops, which meant the lead minister in a large church or perhaps over a city. These men were locally appointed as yet there was no central authority approving or making such appointments. Later, after Constantine became Emperor and the church was not so openly persecuted, some churches, like the church in Rome, took on more prominence simply due to their size and being in the most important city in the world at that time (later the same thing happened in Constantinople to where Constantine moved himself). That is why the Roman Catholic church came to be led from Rome whereas the later Orthodox churches started in the east in Constantinople and eventually broke with Rome primarily over the issue of the headship of the Roman bishop. Even though the Christians in Constantinople came from the very same background as the western Christians, they did not understand a successor to Peter to be in charge of all Christians. Their claim to have come from the teaching of the Apostles is just as strong as Roman Christianity but they had a different understanding.

What became known as the RCC evolved over centuries as doctrines were added or made official. Things like transubstantiation were not universally agreed upon initially. The Dominicans and Franciscans argued over it. In the 3rd century, all bishops were called popes as that title was not yet associated with "the vicar of Christ." It wasn't until the 6th century that the title was reserved for the bishop of Rome, and even then, it was not an official title. So when did the RCC start?

Catholics will say with the Apostles and say it was the Eastern Orthodox and later the Protestants who broke away. Others, like myself, will say what we had in the first 300+ years was neither Catholic, Orthodox, or Protestant. You just had "the church." The men who met and made formal the canon were just Christians. They weren't Catholics. Some may have espoused views that would later be associated with Roman Catholicism (e.g., transubstantiation), but not all did. It was well into the 4h century before an organized church began to take shape in Rome. To claim that such a church already existed, but in hidden form due to persecution, is an argument of convenience. There is simply no convincing historical data to support the claim. You can read for yourself the names of some of the men who met when the canon was declared but I don't call those men Catholics or consider that declaration an act of the RCC. Roman Catholicism evolved, and it was some time before it really asserted authority over all Christians.

I think there was then a period of centuries where it was pretty much the only church but not everyone agreed on everything. Finally, the eastern Christians broke away and later the Protestants who felt the RCC was not sticking to Scripture and did not see them as having the authority to teach otherwise. To say they left because they wanted to follow their own interpretations is misleading. They genuinely believed the church was departing from Scripture and this is what led to them leaving. In their eyes, it was the RCC that departed but from the path of Scripture. They felt they were staying on the path. It was centuries from the time of the Apostles that the bishop of Rome began to assert he was the successor of Peter and as such had universal authority. Earlier bishops of Rome did not assert that. The power of the Pope grew over time. Eventually, many popes strayed into politics and raised armies and certainly went beyond what one would consider the head of the church doing.

I believe, as do many others, that Peter was called to lead the Apostles after Pentecost but not in an official capacity and not in an office that would have successors. The reference to "keys" was not to grant him some ruling authority despite OT references and other things Catholics have come up with. I believe the "key" Peter, and all the Apostles and even us, was to proclaim the Gospel that Jesus Christ is the Son of the Living God which is the confession Peter made. Knowing that and teaching that is "the key" to bringing people into the kingdom. We all have that commission although the Apostles were especially empowered for it. I don't believe Jesus was appointing Peter to a perpetual office. Not only am I not convinced by the verses cited but I see nothing in the rest of the NT to confirm it. Peter never mentions having such a role. Mark's Gospel, which came from Peter's accounts, did not even mention Jesus calling Peter "the rock" and speaking of binding and loosing and keys. Paul never says anything about Peter having such a role. Nor do any other NT writers. It is hard for me to imagine such an important thing getting no mention beyond a couple of verses in one out of four Gospels. They all contain the account of Peter making his confession of faith, but only Matthew added those words. That doesn't mean they weren't spoken but I don't believe they meant what Roman Catholicism takes them to mean.

So I do not agree the RCC created the canon of Scripture.

 

[Valletta]

What on what I wrote do you consider my own interptetation or a conclusion I jumped to?

As for the development of the Canon, that took place over 3 centuries with different people coming up with different lists. No doubt you will consider all those men Catholics, but I will disagree. There was no RCC early on. I believe there were Christian churches scattered throughout that part of the world (some say Thomas made it to India). Initially, there were all independent churches. In time, as the church grew, in the bigger cities, they began to call or elect some men as bishops, which meant the lead minister in a large church or perhaps over a city. These men were locally appointed as yet there was no central authority approving or making such appointments. Later, after Constantine became Emperor and the church was not so openly persecuted, some churches, like the church in Rome, took on more prominence simply due to their size and being in the most important city in the world at that time (later the same thing happened in Constantinople to where Constantine moved himself). That is why the Roman Catholic church came to be led from Rome whereas the later Orthodox churches started in the east in Constantinople and eventually broke with Rome primarily over the issue of the headship of the Roman bishop. Even though the Christians in Constantinople came from the very same background as the western Christians, they did not understand a successor to Peter to be in charge of all Christians. Their claim to have come from the teaching of the Apostles is just as strong as Roman Christianity but they had a different understanding.

What became known as the RCC evolved over centuries as doctrines were added or made official. Things like transubstantiation were not universally agreed upon initially. The Dominicans and Franciscans argued over it. In the 3rd century, all bishops were called popes as that title was not yet associated with "the vicar of Christ." It wasn't until the 6th century that the title was reserved for the bishop of Rome, and even then, it was not an official title. So when did the RCC start?

Catholics will say with the Apostles and say it was the Eastern Orthodox and later the Protestants who broke away. Others, like myself, will say what we had in the first 300+ years was neither Catholic, Orthodox, or Protestant. You just had "the church." The men who met and made formal the canon were just Christians. They weren't Catholics. Some may have espoused views that would later be associated with Roman Catholicism (e.g., transubstantiation), but not all did. It was well into the 4h century before an organized church began to take shape in Rome. To claim that such a church already existed, but in hidden form due to persecution, is an argument of convenience. There is simply no convincing historical data to support the claim. You can read for yourself the names of some of the men who met when the canon was declared but I don't call those men Catholics or consider that declaration an act of the RCC. Roman Catholicism evolved, and it was some time before it really asserted authority over all Christians.

I think there was then a period of centuries where it was pretty much the only church but not everyone agreed on everything. Finally, the eastern Christians broke away and later the Protestants who felt the RCC was not sticking to Scripture and did not see them as having the authority to teach otherwise. To say they left because they wanted to follow their own interpretations is misleading. They genuinely believed the church was departing from Scripture and this is what led to them leaving. In their eyes, it was the RCC that departed but from the path of Scripture. They felt they were staying on the path. It was centuries from the time of the Apostles that the bishop of Rome began to assert he was the successor of Peter and as such had universal authority. Earlier bishops of Rome did not assert that. The power of the Pope grew over time. Eventually, many popes strayed into politics and raised armies and certainly went beyond what one would consider the head of the church doing.

I believe, as do many others, that Peter was called to lead the Apostles after Pentecost but not in an official capacity and not in an office that would have successors. The reference to "keys" was not to grant him some ruling authority despite OT references and other things Catholics have come up with. I believe the "key" Peter, and all the Apostles and even us, was to proclaim the Gospel that Jesus Christ is the Son of the Living God which is the confession Peter made. Knowing that and teaching that is "the key" to bringing people into the kingdom. We all have that commission although the Apostles were especially empored for it. I don't believe Jesus was appointing Peter to a perpetuation office. Not only am I not convinced by the verses cited but I see nothing in the rest of the NT to confirm it. Peter never mentions having such a role. Mark's Gospel, which came from Peter's accounts, did not even mention Jesus calling Peter "the rock" and speaking of binding and loosing and keys. Paul never says anything about Peter having such a role. Nor do any other NT writers. It is hard for me to imagine such an important thing getting no mention beyond a couple of verses in one out of four Gospels. They all contain the account of Peter making his confession of faith, but only Matthew added those words. That doesn't mean they weren't spoken but I don't believe they meant what Roman Catholicism takes them to mean.

So I do not agree the RCC created the canon of Scripture.

What on what I wrote do you consider my own interptetation or a conclusion I jumped to?

As for the development of the Canon, that took place over 3 centuries with different people coming up with different lists. No doubt you will consider all those men Catholics, but I will disagree. There was no RCC early on. I believe there were Christian churches scattered throughout that part of the world (some say Thomas made it to India). Initially, there were all independent churches. In time, as the church grew, in the bigger cities, they began to call or elect some men as bishops, which meant the lead minister in a large church or perhaps over a city. These men were locally appointed as yet there was no central authority approving or making such appointments. Later, after Constantine became Emperor and the church was not so openly persecuted, some churches, like the church in Rome, took on more prominence simply due to their size and being in the most important city in the world at that time (later the same thing happened in Constantinople to where Constantine moved himself). That is why the Roman Catholic church came to be led from Rome whereas the later Orthodox churches started in the east in Constantinople and eventually broke with Rome primarily over the issue of the headship of the Roman bishop. Even though the Christians in Constantinople came from the very same background as the western Christians, they did not understand a successor to Peter to be in charge of all Christians. Their claim to have come from the teaching of the Apostles is just as strong as Roman Christianity but they had a different understanding.

What became known as the RCC evolved over centuries as doctrines were added or made official. Things like transubstantiation were not universally agreed upon initially. The Dominicans and Franciscans argued over it. In the 3rd century, all bishops were called popes as that title was not yet associated with "the vicar of Christ." It wasn't until the 6th century that the title was reserved for the bishop of Rome, and even then, it was not an official title. So when did the RCC start?

Catholics will say with the Apostles and say it was the Eastern Orthodox and later the Protestants who broke away. Others, like myself, will say what we had in the first 300+ years was neither Catholic, Orthodox, or Protestant. You just had "the church." The men who met and made formal the canon were just Christians. They weren't Catholics. Some may have espoused views that would later be associated with Roman Catholicism (e.g., transubstantiation), but not all did. It was well into the 4h century before an organized church began to take shape in Rome. To claim that such a church already existed, but in hidden form due to persecution, is an argument of convenience. There is simply no convincing historical data to support the claim. You can read for yourself the names of some of the men who met when the canon was declared but I don't call those men Catholics or consider that declaration an act of the RCC. Roman Catholicism evolved, and it was some time before it really asserted authority over all Christians.

I think there was then a period of centuries where it was pretty much the only church but not everyone agreed on everything. Finally, the eastern Christians broke away and later the Protestants who felt the RCC was not sticking to Scripture and did not see them as having the authority to teach otherwise. To say they left because they wanted to follow their own interpretations is misleading. They genuinely believed the church was departing from Scripture and this is what led to them leaving. In their eyes, it was the RCC that departed but from the path of Scripture. They felt they were staying on the path. It was centuries from the time of the Apostles that the bishop of Rome began to assert he was the successor of Peter and as such had universal authority. Earlier bishops of Rome did not assert that. The power of the Pope grew over time. Eventually, many popes strayed into politics and raised armies and certainly went beyond what one would consider the head of the church doing.

I believe, as do many others, that Peter was called to lead the Apostles after Pentecost but not in an official capacity and not in an office that would have successors. The reference to "keys" was not to grant him some ruling authority despite OT references and other things Catholics have come up with. I believe the "key" Peter, and all the Apostles and even us, was to proclaim the Gospel that Jesus Christ is the Son of the Living God which is the confession Peter made. Knowing that and teaching that is "the key" to bringing people into the kingdom. We all have that commission although the Apostles were especially empowered for it. I don't believe Jesus was appointing Peter to a perpetual office. Not only am I not convinced by the verses cited but I see nothing in the rest of the NT to confirm it. Peter never mentions having such a role. Mark's Gospel, which came from Peter's accounts, did not even mention Jesus calling Peter "the rock" and speaking of binding and loosing and keys. Paul never says anything about Peter having such a role. Nor do any other NT writers. It is hard for me to imagine such an important thing getting no mention beyond a couple of verses in one out of four Gospels. They all contain the account of Peter making his confession of faith, but only Matthew added those words. That doesn't mean they weren't spoken but I don't believe they meant what Roman Catholicism takes them to mean.

So I do not agree the RCC created the canon of Scripture.

The 300s and Constantine is convenient for anti-Catholics because it is when Christians were allowed to worship freely, and of course Catholics didn't just build churches, but started holding councils and openly discussing theological matters. The particular key in question given to Peter was not given to any other Apostle. Jesus used words paralleling Isaiah 22, which Jews of the time would have recognized. In Isaiah, the king gives the key of the House of David to the prime minister as a sign of authority for when the king is absent. Of course, someone has to make decisions when there is disagreement. In Isaiah you will find that when the office of prime minister is vacant a new prime minister is chosen. The Gospels should and do focus on Jesus, not Peter. Peter is mentioned more times in the Gospels than any other Apostle, and I say this because you seem to put emphasis on such things.

 

[NotUrAvgGuy]

The 300s and Constantine is convenient for anti-Catholics because it is when Christians were allowed to worship freely, and of course Catholics didn't just build churches, but started holding councils and openly discussing theological matters. The particular key in question given to Peter was not given to any other Apostle. Jesus used words paralleling Isaiah 22, which Jews of the time would have recognized. In Isaiah, the king gives the key of the House of David to the prime minister as a sign of authority for when the king is absent. Of course, someone has to make decisions when there is disagreement. In Isaiah you will find that when the office of prime minister is vacant a new prime minister is chosen. The Gospels should and do focus on Jesus, not Peter. Peter is mentioned more times in the Gospels than any other Apostle, and I say this because you seem to put emphasis on such things.

While it is true the church prior to the 300s was persecuted that doesn't prove it would have had a strong central leader or held those same discussions. We simply cannot say.

We have discussed the Isaiah 22 passage before. The mention of Isaiah 22 is known as the Eliahim Typological Argument. The problem with the Eliakim Typological Argument is that Eliakim prefigures Christ, not Peter. In Isaiah 22:22 Eliakim is given “the key of the house of David.” This corresponds with the description of Jesus in Revelation 3:7: “who is holy and true, who holds the key of David.”

Further, Isaiah 22:22 says concerning Eliakim, “What he opens no one can shut, and what he shuts no one can open.” This, too, is applied to Jesus in Revelation 3:7: “What he opens no one can shut, and what he shuts no one can open.” The blessing of Eliakim in Isaiah 22 should be read in light of Revelation 3, not Matthew 16.

We also don't have recorded for us what happened after Jesus spoke his words in Matthew 16. He may have further explained them to the Apostles. Maybe the keys extended to all the Apostles, as did the binding and loosening. Keys are used to unlock doors, and the key to unlocking the door to heaven is the profession of faith Peter gave. That fits the context as much or more than a supposed parallel back to Isaiah 22. I believe the Isaiah passage prefigures Christ, not Peter. Only Jesus sits on the throne of David. Not Peter. If such a significant proclamation was made about Peter, why is it not repeated in the three other Gospels (especially Mark's Gospel)? Why does Peter not mention it in his epistles or Paul in his? Peter might be mentioned more times, although we have many more stories about Paul, and if we count Paul's self-references, then he is probably mentioned more times. Paul was not one of the 12 and was not mentioned in the Gospels, as his story begins in Acts. He is most significant figure from Acts on. Why is it that far more of Paul's writings made it into Scripture and not more of Peters? Paul was the great theologian of the Apostolic church not Peter. We don't hear much about Peter after the Gospels. Nearly all of our early church accounts do not mention him. I am not saying Peter was not a leader nor involved. However, I don't believe he had authority over the other Apostles or the church as a whole. All the Apostles were leaders and together they led the church. Often they were apart and preaching in different places. Each led where he was. Back in Jerusalem, it was James who became the first bishop there. If Peter was in some authoritative role over the entire church we sure don't read about it.

 

[Valletta]

While it is true the church prior to the 300s was persecuted that doesn't prove it would have had a strong central leader or held those same discussions. We simply cannot say.

We have discussed the Isaiah 22 passage before. The mention of Isaiah 22 is known as the Eliahim Typological Argument. The problem with the Eliakim Typological Argument is that Eliakim prefigures Christ, not Peter. In Isaiah 22:22 Eliakim is given “the key of the house of David.” This corresponds with the description of Jesus in Revelation 3:7: “who is holy and true, who holds the key of David.”

Further, Isaiah 22:22 says concerning Eliakim, “What he opens no one can shut, and what he shuts no one can open.” This, too, is applied to Jesus in Revelation 3:7: “What he opens no one can shut, and what he shuts no one can open.” The blessing of Eliakim in Isaiah 22 should be read in light of Revelation 3, not Matthew 16.

I don't know how many times I have stated that in Isaiah the king gives the key of the House of David to his prime minister as a sign of authority for when the king is absent. Jesus is the KING, not the prime minister. While Jesus holds all power and glory Jesus can give the key to Peter or any other pope or person as he wishes. The king does not LOSE authority just because he may be absent. And Jesus does not have a master who gives Him authority for when the master is absent.

 

[RileyG]

I agree. Anyway, if Mary had to be sinless in order for Jesus to be sinless, then Mary's parents would have had to be sinless for her to be sinless, so would her grandparents, her great-grandparents, and so on.

No. It was a special grace given to Mary ALONE.

 

[RileyG]

Because all else is uncertain and the words of men who cam be corrupt or mistaken. I will only trust the words of the Apostles written down. They would not contradict themselves so all other oral tradition must be tested by the written Word. The Apostles were not Roman Catholics. They were the first Christians and spoke and wrote as Christians, not as Catholics. There was yet no Catholic church. Just the church universal.

...uhh church universal literally means Catholic Church, bud.

 

[David Lamb]

No. It was a special grace given to Mary ALONE.

But that doesn't make any sense at all. If,as you say, Mary was given special grace to be totally sinless without having sinless parents, why does the birth of Jesus the sinless Saviour, Whose Father is God Himself, require a perfectly sinless mother in order to remain sinless Himself?

 

[David Lamb]

...uhh church universal literally means Catholic Church, bud.

Certainly the word catholic means universal, but that doesn't make the Roman Catholic Church universal.

 

[Valletta]

But that doesn't make any sense at all. If,as you say, Mary was given special grace to be totally sinless without having sinless parents, why does the birth of Jesus the sinless Saviour, Whose Father is God Himself, require a perfectly sinless mother in order to remain sinless Himself?

It is not required. God is not bound by requirements. God could have chosen the most prolific sinner on earth, or just a moderate sinner. Likewise for the Ark of the Covenant God could have used blemished wood. But God chose the salvation plan He did.

 

[David Lamb]

It is not required. God is not bound by requirements. God could have chosen the most prolific sinner on earth, or just a moderate sinner. Likewise for the Ark of the Covenant God could have used blemished wood. But God chose the salvation plan He did.

That doesn't explain why, in your view, Mary had to be sinless. Your view seems to say (and please correct me if I'm mistaken on this) that Mary was born of two parents who were not sinless, yet Mary herself was sinless, but for Jesus to be born sinless, He needed two sinless parents, God and in your view Mary.

 

[Valletta]

That doesn't explain why, in your view, Mary had to be sinless. Your view seems to say (and please correct me if I'm mistaken on this) that Mary was born of two parents who were not sinless, yet Mary herself was sinless, but for Jesus to be born sinless, He needed two sinless parents, God and in your view Mary.

You're mistaken on my view. Jesus was to be born sinless whether His mother was a sinner or not. God chose not. Eve too came into the world sinless.

 

[David Lamb]

You're mistaken on my view. Jesus was to be born sinless whether His mother was a sinner or not. God chose not. Eve too came into the world sinless.

I am sorry I made a mistake representing your view. I hesitate to write any more, because I have already said several times that as far as I am aware the bible doesn't teach that Mary (or anyone apart from Jesus Christ) was born sinless.

 

[Valletta]

I am sorry I made a mistake representing your view. I hesitate to write any more, because I have already said several times that as far as I am aware the bible doesn't teach that Mary (or anyone apart from Jesus Christ) was born sinless.

I was just expressing my viewpoint that I would not limit what God can do. While, like the Holy Trinity and so many other things, the Bible does not explicitly state it, a thorough understanding of the entire Word of God supports that truth. That Mary was without sin is an important part of God's plan of salvation. Also, as I have pointed out, it is an error to state that the Bible teaches Mary sinned.