No doubt. The question is when?
Revelation of Jesus Christ given to John, to write letters to the seven Churches in Asia Minor, is widely agreed by theologians to be around 95 AD, after the destruction of Jerusalem, where John is imprisoned on the Island of Patmos.
You're right, Jesus did tell John to address those 7 churches under his bishopric.
Yes, Jesus did address his Church, that is, the Church, but not Rome.
I never said one of those letters was to Rome, but why did it need to be?
Why does the letter containing the Revelation of Jesus Christ, not required to be addressed to the alleged RCC Vicar and his seven Notaries at the time? Do you sincerely believe that Jesus failed to address his entire Church? A Yes or a No.
I don't believe that you will answer with a Yes.
So, the question is why did Jesus leave out Rome, if Rome, as it claims had a Vicar of Christ, who was supposed to be honoured by Jesus as the Pope to deliver the message on his behalf. Not forgetting that there is claimed by the RCC, that seven Notaries existed in Rome at the time, alongside the alleged Vicar of Christ.
So do you sincerely think that Jesus forgot to mention and to honour the RCC claim of it being THE Church? Or is it a question of why he deliberately did not mention it at the time?
Remembering that Rome claimed that it had succession well before the Revelation of Jesus Christ was written, so the claim existed according to RCC well before the Revelation of Jesus was given to John.
Again, why did Jesus deliberately leave out Rome and snub His alleged Vicar?
It really depends on when Revelation was written, and to whom it was to be addressed.
This is a circular argument and you know it. Why do you do it? God sees the heart and you ought to be inclined to embrace the truth in this matter. Having said that, regardless of when John was given the Revelation of Jesus Christ, it was after the RCC claim of succession and their claim of it being THE Church.
Most importantly Jesus delivered his Revelation to his entire Church and the seven Churches symbolised the Minorah of God and there is no justification on your part to imply that Rome was left out, for the implied reason that it was not meant to be addressed by Jesus, had Jesus at the time considered it as THE Church. There are no churches running in parallel here my friend.
I urge you to come to the light of the truth in the matter and understand that the entire Church of Christ Jesus was being personally addressed by him, without exception.
Where does it say ANYWHERE that the only Churches in existance were those in Asia Minor? Fact is, it doesn't. At the time of Revelation's writing, there were Patriarchates in Antioch, Rome, and Alexandria already, and Peter had already left for Rome. John was, in our Tradition, the bishop of Ephesus, and included the other 6 in his diocese.
I did not say that other churches did not exist in Europe, so don't spin that please. I simply said that the seven Notaries/Bishops, who represented Christ's entire Church in Asia Minor were addressed and were the recepients of the letter. The fact is, there was no Bishop in this respect that was left out from being directly the recipient of Christ's evaluation and chastisement, this means that those churches in Europe reported to several of the Bishops in Asia Minor.
Where is the RCC's honoured Vicar of Christ in this situation and respect? This is the important question and why hasn't he been addressed by Jesus?
Don't assume that Jesus didn't speak to all the leaders of his entire Church, because the onus is on you to try and discredit Jesus and to make a claim that the Revelation of Jesus was written before RCC claims of it being the Church and/or that they were not the recepients to the letter, which implies Jesus did not address his Church?
The claim that Jesus did not address His Church, which is THE Church is therefore discrediting Jesus.
Do you see your delima my friend.
The Catholic Church isn't a denomination, Rome is a diocese of the Catholic Church (As is Ephesus and Antioch). Every diocese is its own entity, though an Archdiocese would have some say over dioceses in its domain.
You are welcome to claim anything you want, it does not mean that the titles of these compartmentalised dioceses the RCC gives are those that Jesus gives to his Church.
But to the "Roman" Catholic Church, it is really the Latin Rite Catholic Church as opposed to the Eastern Rite (though both are in communion with the Pope).
You see, there it is, the term Communion.
There is ONE Communion Biblically speaking, the Communion is with the Spirit of Christ Jesus. So in this RESPECT AND regard I would have to declare onto you, that my Communion is with my Pope Jesus Christ.
Obviously, one of us must be wrong, right?
Which one?
