Replies

I've seriously looked into the Orthodox church. It's the only church other than RC who can claim any historical ancestry to the early church.

I know as a Roman Catholic you probably won't agree, but all Protestant churches claim an "historical ancestry" to the early church. The earliest reformers of the 16th Century sincerely sought using the best scholarship of the day, to return the Church to its earliest theological and organizational roots--which by 1500 was very different from AD 100. Those first reformers were thrown out of the Roman church by the very corrupt leadership of the time (the corruption of which is now fully acknowledged by scholars, Roman or not...) and yet they sought hard to REFORM not revolutionize Jesus' Church.

While it is true organizationally only the Orthodox (and perhaps the Egyptian Copts too...) can trace an unbroken lineage of "apostolic succession" like the Roman church... it WAS broken, from Rome...just like those Protestants were later. Even the apostolic succession thing isn't totally exclusive--as recall that Henry VIII's Anglican church kept the same people in power taken from Rome--and can be said to have had that apostolic succession ever since.

St. Augustine's arguments against the Donatists ca. AD 400 pretty well eliminated the vital importance of succession anyway--proving all believers receive grace from Christ Himself--and an unbroken line of godly priests (however desirable that may be...) is not required for our salvation.

I certainly agree that members of the RC church haven't always acted godly, but I find it hard to understand how a "broken" RC church jibes with Jesus promises regarding his church and him being with it always (unfortunately, most of us Catholics don't have the Bible memorized, so I can't quote the verse verbatim). I don't look to the priestly hierarchy so much as to the faithful. If the RC church was broken so badly that it needed to be essentially abolished (maybe marginalized is a better word?), lets say sometime before the first Inquisition, that means the faithful were essentially out of luck for 500 years until the Reformation. That's a lot of generations.

If the faithful during that time period didn't need the/a church, then why did Jesus have to come and establish it in the first place? It seems that he could have just sent a couple of prophets and steered the Jews in the right direction and been done with it. Jesus' teachings didn't toss out the OT as much as supplement it.

Seems to me that the only major church other than RC that doesn't leave Christians out in the cold for half a millenium is the Orthodox church.

I'm not saying that this makes Protestant churches invalid somehow. Its just that, the more I've learned about Orthodoxy, the more I wonder about the impetus behind the Reformation. Orthodoxy didn't have the supposed baggage of the RC church. Why didn't the reformers look in that direction first before forming the myriad flavors of Christianity we have now? Perhaps the RC church was wrong on a couple of points, besides the fact that it has certainly changed and incorporated much of what the reformers wanted, what Protestantism has resulted in is a spectrum of faiths that is so broad as to be nearly meaningless, with no flavor being able to really assert the truthfulness of its beliefs. The only thing they seem to agree on is that Jesus existed and the RC church is wrong on just about everything. ; )

There's no evidence that Peter ever even went to Rome; the word Peter [small rock] is a different Greek word from "this rock" [huge stratum of rock]. Christ is the rock, not Peter. Besides, if the current Pope was a direct descendant of Peter physically, if he condones heresy, then he should be rejected.

Matt.21:42 Jesus said to them, "Have you never read in the Scriptures: `The stone which the builders rejected Has become the chief cornerstone. This was the Lord's doing, And it is marvelous in our eyes'? 43 "Therefore I say to you, the kingdom of God will be taken from you and given to a nation bearing the fruits of it. 44 "And whoever falls on this stone will be broken; but on whomever it falls, it will grind him to powder."

Acts 4:10 "let it be known to you all, and to all the people of Israel, that by the name of Jesus Christ of Nazareth, whom you crucified, whom God raised from the dead, by Him this man stands here before you whole. 11 "This is the `stone which was rejected by you builders, which has become the chief cornerstone .' 12 "Nor is there salvation in any other, for there is no other name under heaven given among men by which we must be saved."

Rom.9:33 As it is written: "Behold, I lay in Zion a stumbling stone and rock of offense, And whoever believes on Him will not be put to shame."

1Cor.10:1 Moreover, brethren, I do not want you to be unaware that all our fathers were under the cloud, all passed through the sea, 2 all were baptized into Moses in the cloud and in the sea, 3 all ate the same spiritual food, 4 and all drank the same spiritual drink. For they drank of that spiritual Rock that followed them, and that Rock was Christ.

[tell us, Peter, who is THE ROCK on whom the church is built]1Pet.2:4 Coming to Him [as] [to] a living stone , rejected indeed by men, but chosen by God [and] precious...6 Therefore it is also contained in the Scripture, "Behold, I lay in Zion A chief cornerstone, elect, precious, And he who believes on Him will by no means be put to shame." 7 Therefore, to you who believe, [He] [is] precious; but to those who are disobedient, "The stone which the builders rejected Has become the chief cornerstone," 8 and "A stone of stumbling And a rock of offense." They stumble, being disobedient to the word, to which they also were appointed.