OK. I wrote "Roman Church", and I meant "Roman Churcn." By "Roman Church", I mean all those who consider the bishop of Rome to be the head of the Catholic Church, and are in communion with the Church of Rome. This would include some non Latin rite bodies, and would exclude some Latin rite bodies. Perhaps I have missed something, but is it not doctrine of the church headquartered at Rome that it is the Catholic Church?
Secondly, I believe that any of the posters here who are members of any of the historic, apostolic, particular churches will agree with this statement...
There you go again, using terms with the implicit assumption that everyone agrees on their meaning ... regular Baptists believe that they are historic, apostolic, and particular, and that the Roman cburch is not ...
is that they do not comprehend that there is one Church and that is that Jesus Christ is the head of that Church and is the bridegroom of that Church
The catholic or universal church, which (with respect to the internal work of the Spirit and truth of grace) may be called invisible, consists of the whole number of the elect, that have been, are, or shall be gathered into one, under Christ, the head thereof; and is the spouse, the body, the fulness of him that filleth all in all.
He installed Peter as his "prime minister," to deal with the temporal issues relating to that Church
Only the Orthodox come even close to agreeing with this doctrine, and if "that disagreement is slight", it has been been a major bone of contention in a 1000 year schism. Understanding - and disagreement.
they do not comprehend the concept of Apostolic succession
No problem with comprehension. But while Orthodox, Anglican, and Old Catholic groups agree (and claim apostolic succession themselves), none of the pre-reformation, other reformation, or post-reformation groups believes that apostolic succession is necessary or even desirable. Understanding - and disagreement.
The problem is that the private interpretation of the Bible (strongly discouraged by 2 Pet 1:20)
I assume you are aware that there is disagreement on the meaning of 2 Pet 1:20. Understanding - and disagreement.
In regard to your quotes from 2nd Timothy, there is of course diagreement over to whom they apply.
Jesus Christ is the head of the Katholikos (Universasl) Church. Of that part, I am sure we agree. You will note that in the Bible, there are two usages of the word "Church" (ekklesia) -- the first refers to the universal Church; the second refers to the particular churches in each city. Each city would have their own bishop (episcopos). The bishop would then have priests (presbuteros) and deacons (diakonos) to assist him in his ministry. There are, historically, five major patriarchies in the universal Church (my Orthodox friends can feel free to help me here): Rome, Constantinople, Antioch, Jerusalem, and Alexandria. Out of these patriarchies, Rome was given the honor of primacy. St. Peter, the original Patriarch of Rome, was given this authority by Christ, himself, in Matthew 16:19, when Jesus gave him the keys. The significance of the keys is fully explained in Isiah 22, btw. That is what I mean by the "universal" church, or the Church, for short. When you hear the words "Vicar of Christ," it has to do with the fact that the keys belong to the Bishop of Rome, as they were given to him by Christ, himself. It means his role is like one of "prime minister," not "king."
The catholic or universal church, which (with respect to the internal work of the Spirit and truth of grace) may be called invisible, consists of the whole number of the elect, that have been, are, or shall be gathered into one, under Christ, the head thereof; and is the spouse, the body, the fulness of him that filleth all in all.
Unfortunately, the London Confession also states ... neither can the Pope of Rome in any sense be head thereof, but is that antichrist, that man of sin, and son of perdition, that exalteth himself in the church against Christ, and all that is called God; whom the Lord shall destroy with the brightness of his coming. You really should have printed out Art 4 of Chap 26, it's much more fun to review. ;)
Only the Orthodox come even close to agreeing with this doctrine, and if "that disagreement is slight", it has been been a major bone of contention in a 1000 year schism. Understanding - and disagreement.
Actually, the only bone of contention that I have seen with my well informed Orthodox brethren is how the duty is executed. Again, I'm sure they can feel free to comment, but I believe that their issue is that it should be more collegial and concilliar. I further believe that the only major theological difference exists in two areas: first (the issue that caused the split), the filoque, and second, the understanding of original sin (the issue of the Immaculate Conception is necessary under the west's comprehension of Original Sin; it is unnecessary under the Orthodox's view...but that disagreement is subordinate to the understanding of Original Sin). But as far as the Primacy of the See of Peter, there is no argument. The ecumenical councils have clearly and repeatedly affirmed this (with the second place of honor going to the Patriarch of Constantinople).
No problem with comprehension. But while Orthodox, Anglican, and Old Catholic groups agree (and claim apostolic succession themselves), none of the pre-reformation, other reformation, or post-reformation groups believes that apostolic succession is necessary or even desirable. Understanding - and disagreement.
And that is simply an area where the ecclesial groups formed following the Western Schism are simply in error. Not your fault, personally, as those groups have formed their own faulty theologies to justify their error, but it is an error nevertheless. But we can discuss that back and forth for years, so I would suggest that we agree to disagree on this one and move on.
I assume you are aware that there is disagreement on the meaning of 2 Pet 1:20. Understanding - and disagreement.
2 Pe 1:20 (RSV) - First of all you must understand this, that no prophecy of scripture is a matter of one's own interpretation,
I'm sorry, I don't see where there could possibly be any disagreement as to the meaning of that verse. It seems pretty clear to me. Perhaps you could explain this disagreement to me (seriously...I didn't realize that there was disagreement as to its meaning).
In regard to your quotes from 2nd Timothy, there is of course diagreement over to whom they apply.
Well, of course there is...Catholics have had that section thrown at them improperly by (could make a really nonconstructive comment here...but won't) for years. We could agree that it likely applies to Moonies and Scientologists, though, couldn't we?
Let me throw another couple of verses at you though, that are related (all rsv):
2Pe 3:15 And count the forbearance of our Lord as salvation. So also our beloved brother Paul wrote to you according to the wisdom given him,
2Pe 3:16 speaking of this as he does in all his letters. There are some things in them hard to understand, which the ignorant and unstable twist to their own destruction, as they do the other scriptures.
2Pe 3:17 You therefore, beloved, knowing this beforehand, beware lest you be carried away with the error of lawless men and lose your own stability.
On a personal note, there is one thing you need to recognize: I had a horrible catechesis as a child and fell victim to a group of Navigators while living in a college dorm. As a result of this, I fell into the trap of being in various fundamentalist/evangelical groups for years. About 9 years ago, I was convicted by the Holy Spirit and had to come back home (when spending about a month in a hotel that was in the shadow of St. Anthony's basillica in Padova). As this conviction grew stronger, I began to study Catholic doctrine intensely...Bible in one hand, Catechism in the other. Because I knew that if the call of the Spirit to return was genuine, I would not be able to find any doctrine that was not, at least, rooted in scripture. And I certainly would find none that was offensive to scripture...if I actually studied the doctrine and actually studied the scripture, rather than studied other peoples' take on each. And, of course, when I actually understood the doctrine, I found that most of what I was deceived with first, by the Navigators, and secondly, by a host of various fundamentalist/evangelical groups, were based on rather transparent lies.
The point is that I've been where you are in my beliefs. I was sola scriptura, sola fide 100%.At one point in my life, I had a passion for 'saving' Catholics from the whore of Babylon (God forgive me). I was wrong.