THE TRUE CHURCH

It shall not be so among you; but whoever would be great among you must be your servant, and whoever would be first among you must be your slave; even as the Son of Man came not to be served, but to serve, and to give His life as a ransom for many. (Matthew 20:25-28)

We then who are strong ought to bear with the scruples of the weak, and not to please ourselves. Let each of us please his neighbor for his good, leading to edification. For even Christ did not please Himself; but as it is written, "The reproaches of those who reproached You fell on Me." For whatever things were written before were written for our learning, that we through the patience and comfort of the Scriptures might have hope. Now may the God of patience and comfort grant you to be like-minded toward one another, according to Christ Jesus, that you may with one mind and one mouth glorify the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ.

Therefore receive one another, just as Christ also received us, to the glory of God.

Romans 15:1-7

Peter founded the church at Antioch before he supposedly went to Rome. I have always wondered why the Antiochian church is not the rock which those in your church claim to be the foundation for the church.

It is a body of believers

No great surprise to you I suppose, but I agree with your post. We even used this last year as a Sunday school lesson for my class of 5 year olds. We had them color people and paste them on a picture of a church, and the theme of the lesson was that the church is people.

Much love to you as always.

"What does Baptism signify? "

Of the Spirit, or by water?

"What sacraments exist? "

Good question

"Are sacraments necessary for slavation? "

I guess if you're a "slave" to sacraments they would be necessary for "slavation"(Is saliva necessary for salivation?)

"Is there an ordained priesthood? "

actually two. one ordained by Christ and one ordained by man

"Is homosexuality an acceptable lifestyle? "

seems to be in the priesthood ordained by man

"Is divorce acceptable? "

Would make the selling of anulnments kind of foolish if it wasn't

"Does life begin at conception? "

Some early Catholic Theologians and Popes believed it started at day 40

"Is praying in tongues (glossolalia) necessary, or even desirable? "

I stand on my corner with a cardboard sign saying "Will talk in tongues for food" For me it's necessary as a way of survival.

"Is Jesus present in the Eucharist? "

Scripture states that Jesus abides and dwells in all his believers. Does that make me a Eucharist?

"Is it proper to baptize babies? "

Maybe we should ask the babies? We might find the answer to the first question

"Should women be pastors? "

I could think of 100 snide remarks for this one but refuse until my asbestos suit returns from the dry cleaners... (I've been away from FR so long I forgot HTML)

No, Mar, I'm not ;) I'm Christian. That is to say I cut my teeth on scripture - not on philosophy. That is an irritation to the professional and casuel religianity crowds who seek religion to fill the emptiness in their lives instead of letting God do it. I am a Christian that knows scripture. I've studied religion and archeology as a hobby since 1988. All but 6 months of that time has been spent figuring out the Roman sect. That may seem excessive; but, when you understand how convoluted, contradictory and confusing Romanism is, it becomes more understandable why it has taken so much time.

I'll give you an example that may help clarify so as to remove a question as it were. When one begins to study anything, I was taught through school up to college to hit the books. And that I did. I established a rough outline of what I wanted to know and went through 50 books in quick order. With specific topics in mind, I went through each book and wrote down what each author had to say. I didn't digest it right away, I was merely being a recorder as it were. I soon learned from a priest to rely on books marked with the Nihil obstat and Imprimitur seals. These were to garauntee that what is written in the sealed volume was "doctrinally free of error". So, I relied upon that and went through several sorts of history. When I began digesting it and organizing my notes by topic instead of by the book they came from, my 500 pages of handwritten notes, typed documents, photocopies and drawings revealed what I wasn't prepared for - even Rome has no idea what it's teaching. The Nihil obstat and imprimitur are not actually a garauntee of freedom from error. It turns out that these seals mean the work is ok for Catholics to read and draw from to the exclusion of anything else. It took debating numerous Catholics at different sites over the last 4 years to see just how bad the situation is. Romanists don't know scripture and what they believe depends on which one you ask.

The case and point after setting this up is the explanation of the "eucharist". One source says it is a continuation of Christ's sacrifice on the cross. One says it's not a continuation but merely a figure of it. One says it's not a figure of it, but an actual recreation brought about by the priest. There are literally enough different versions of it that it is impossible to nail down the actual belief.
If you question Romanists on this, which version you get depends on a number of factors. One being, whether you know your stuff or not. Each position has a flaw in logic that is evident. And in a room full of Roman Catholics, it is literally possible, as I found out, to shoot through all the iterations in less than 20 minutes, shoot them all down and be left in the same position of not having a solid, viable answer that is without flaw. Essentially, It's like being blind folded, handed a rifle on a boat in rough seas and commanded to hit a target at range no bigger than a postage stamp while moving past it. Or it's like nailing jello to the wall. Take your pick.

Having taken 20 minutes to answer a seeming simple question, I hope I've given you a thourough enough answer to be clear not only as to my belief but as to how I have learned what I have. I'm about 4 chapters into my 3rd rewrite of a book on the subject and debating the worth of the effort and whether it might not be as well to web publish so it's free to any who want it. Or you can go read the Neverending story threads. I don't wish that on anyone; but, I recommend it to anyone who wants a birds eye view of what I've just described. When I brought up the decretals there, you'd have thought I'd castrated all the Roman Catholics in the room with a spoon. The shrieks are still a little amusing, though bruising at the time. Being a Christian in a Room full of Roman Catholic apologists is the nearest thing you'll come to understanding what Uriah felt when his troops fell back and left him surrounded. With that, I'll leave you to ask of me what you will or just snicker and nod ;)

I'll do you one better:

1 Corinthians 1:12 Now this I say, that every one of you saith, I am of Paul; and I of Apollos; and I of Cephas; and I of Christ.

[13] Is Christ divided? was Paul crucified for you? or were ye baptized in the name of Paul?

[14] I thank God that I baptized none of you, but Crispus and Gaius;

[15] Lest any should say that I had baptized in mine own name.

[16] And I baptized also the household of Stephanas: besides, I know not whether I baptized any other.

[17] For Christ sent me not to baptize, but to preach the gospel: not with wisdom of words, lest the cross of Christ should be made of none effect.

[18] For the preaching of the cross is to them that perish foolishness; but unto us which are saved it is the power of God.

Paul literally and forcefully rejects preimminance of Any apostle in this passage - rebuking the congregation and telling them that such carnal thinking shows they have not progressed spiritually and are not ready to be taught the deep things of God as they are yet carnally minded. It becomes apparent that Rome hadn't read the scriptures when they made their grab for power. It left them with a blind spot a mile wide wherein anyone who knows scripture could broadside them.

Peter was commanded with the other remaining original apostles to evangelize the lost sheep of the house of Israel.

Matthew 10:2 Now the names of the twelve apostles are these; The first, Simon, who is called Peter, and Andrew his brother; James [the son] of Zebedee, and John his brother;

[3] Philip, and Bartholomew; Thomas, and Matthew the publican; James [the son] of Alphaeus, and Lebbaeus, whose surname was Thaddaeus;

[4] Simon the Canaanite, and Judas Iscariot, who also betrayed him.

[5] These twelve Jesus sent forth, and commanded them, saying, Go not into the way of the Gentiles, and into [any] city of the Samaritans enter ye not:

[6] But go rather to the lost sheep of the house of Israel.

[7] And as ye go, preach, saying, The kingdom of heaven is at hand.

The house of Israel is very specific as is the reference to the "lost sheep". These are the scattered tribes of the earlier Diaspora who were taken captive and then scattered into Media, to Babylon, to India, Burma, ect. The old testament tells where they went and archeology esp. recently has managed to confirm this. The scattering paints a picture of where these apostles would be charged to preach - it leads them away from Rome, not into it. which is why Paul is commissioned. Paul's primary ministry was to the Gentile.

The more you know, the more the truth interferes with the fiction that has been created via philosophy and the ramblings of vain men seeking power. Peter was in Babylon for the writing of his first epistle. Paul reveals this by showing he isn't in Rome, much less in Italy when he wrote it. It is revealed in understanding that II Timothy and I Peter were written at the same time. Paul sent word to Ephesus, to Timothy to track down Mark and bring him to Rome. At the time, Mark was in Peter's employ as a scribe - writing I Peter. If we map Peter's travels and where scripture tells us he was before and after this, It very quickly becomes apparent that Peter may have had narrow opportunity to ever go to Rome; but, that the likelyhood given his ministry is highly dubious and greatly impractical. Given that the Roman Emperor literally evicted the Israelites from Rome in the latter time when it is argued he went to Rome in one of their versions of the tale, it begs the question of what in the world he'd be doing there in violation of his ministerial duty assigned him by Christ. By the time Peter was to have been there in Rome for many years, Paul states that the Jewish rabbis in Rome had heard about Christianity; but, didn't know what it was about and invited Paul to tell them. The upshot of this is blatent. If Peter was in Rome, there was no evidence that he was ministering to anyone else the Rabbis would have long since been offended and taken him to task.
So we can largely and quickly rule out the earlier years too. And all without having to leave scripture.

Matthew was misread, misinterpreted and mistaught to one end - to prop up Rome's vacant claims of singular or "primary" authority over the whole church in contravention of the order setup by Christ. Christ ordained teachers to carry on after he left - to raise up leaders that would answer to Christ - not to answer to a man here on earth. Christ gave equal authority to all the apostles - none greater than the others as you've noted.
And he assigned them specific charges. And none of it matches what Rome teaches any more than the Orthodox view matches that of Rome. If they'd learned Greek and scripture before defrauding everyone, they might have come up with something better; but, power corrupts and it's pursuit maddens. Sin is impatient. Idle feet move quickly to destruction and thus, in the lusted heat of the moment, they betrayed themselves for their own ignorance. The only reason they pulled it off to begin with is that the people back then did not have the access to written scripture that we have today - they didn't know any better. The only ones who did know better were the leaders of the different churches and even many of them were duped. Already blinded by their dabblings with philosophy, they gave ear to philosophy and it captured them. The Greeks weren't defrauded because they knew the language the scriptures were penned in. Rome couldn't so easily decieve them. The west fell. They still have a number of things wrong through their dabblings. But, that's another story.

So to answer your question properly, it is only necessary to know the saying "necessity is the mother of invention".
The inventing process though is not always pristine and when people ignorant of their subject attempt invention, - well, I'm sure you've seen the old newsreels of the men who early on attempted flight before the Wright brothers did it correctly. Imagine if they'd tried to take over China and Budhism instead of the Roman empire and Catholicism. They'd think themselves Shaulin masters for wearing orange robes and knowing a few "enlightened passages. The difference is that the Budhists were better versed and would have destroyed them. Grasshopper would have not only taken the stone from their hand, he'd have whupped 'em with it.. lol

OK, from your various snide comments, I see you don't agree with the Catholic Church's position. Fine, my point is that everyone knows what it is, or can at least find out.

>>>>"Is homosexuality an acceptable lifestyle? "
>>seems to be in the priesthood ordained by man

But really, that's a cheap shot, and a lie.

But really, that's a cheap shot, and a lie.

It's the truth. Rome doesn't have any spiritual sense and abrogated responsibility for spiritual matters to secular psychiatry instead of following scripture. Philosophy has in the opinion of the Roman clergy, supplanted God's word on the matter. Rome will neither admit it's error nor take responsibility for the damage caused by it. But it's only symptomatic of a bigger problem. It isn't the problem. And that is the betrayal. The congregations have been betrayed. But, bottom line, Rome teaches that a sinful lifestyle is acceptable .. to the extent not only of defying God's word on the fact that it's a sin; but, to the extent also of ignoring God's word on the requirements of ministers. Rome doesn't know what Christianity is to begin with. It's no shocker that they should mess this up any more than it is that they've messed so many other things up. The shocker is that people are so ignorant of scripture that they don't see the underlying truth.