St. Peter and the Primacy of Rome

Ignatius Insigiht.com ^ | not given | Stephen K. Ray

[Salvation]

St. Peter and the Primacy of Rome | Stephen K. Ray | From Upon This Rock: St. Peter and the Primacy of Rome in Scripture and the Early Church


There is little in the history of the Church that has been more heatedly contested than the primacy of Peter and the See of Rome. History is replete with examples of authority spurned, and the history of the Church is no different. As we proceed with this overview of history, we will allow the Scriptures, the voice of the apostles, and the testimony of the early centuries of the Christian community to speak for themselves. In many quarters, over the last few centuries, the din of opposition and uninformed dissent has drowned out the voices of these ancient witnesses. Novel ideas, like a voracious flood, have tried to erode the foundations and the clear historical precedents provided by the Holy Spirit's work in the primitive Church.

History has a clear and distinct voice, but it does not force itself upon us uninvited. History is prudent and waits quietly to be discovered. Conversely, the ingenious inventions of recent theologians and innovators are loud and demanding, bursting upon our ears and minds, our lives and hearts, demanding our immediate attention and loyalties. The riches of history fall quietly aside as the prattling innovators blast their trumpets and loudly parade their followers through new streets, trampling the knowledge of the ages under their cumulative feet.

Here we will allow the voices of the past to speak again--for themselves. And what the reader will find is that the utterances of the past still resound with one voice, with clarity and force. To study those who have gone before us, following in the footsteps of the Lord Jesus, his apostles, and our Fathers in the faith is to lose interest in much of the clamor of modern notions. We find these theological innovations and ecclesiastical groups poorly devised, if not disingenuous. This is what John Henry Newman, a Protestant clergyman at the time, found as he studied the primitive Church. He concluded: "To be deep in history is to cease being a Protestant." [1] As the Protestant churches continue to fragment and lose the fervor and orthodoxy of their past reform efforts, many Evangelicals and Fundamentalists are looking to the past to hear what the early Fathers have to say today. They are beginning to listen to the unobtrusive voice of the early Church, and they are finding it is quite different from what they have been taught. Reading the writings of the early Church allows us to tap into the very heartbeat of the apostolic teaching and tradition of the primitive Church--the very Church bequeathed to us by the apostles.

Sometimes silence is more eloquent than words. This is especially true in Church history. We hear so much about what the Fathers say and so little about what they do not say. This is revealing and should play a significant role in our research. William Webster has written a book that we will refer to several times in our study. Webster is an ex-Catholic who decided to abandon the Church and cast his lot with the Fundamentalist Protestants. His book is entitled Peter and the Rock and asserts that, as the blurb on the back of the book says, "The contemporary Roman Catholic interpretation [of Peter and the rock] had no place in the biblical understanding of the early church doctors." To ascertain whether or not such an assertion is true is one of the main goals of this book. But along with what the Fathers say, we need to hear their silence as well.

While reading Webster's book, I noticed, along with his selective use of the Fathers in attempting to discredit the Catholic Church's teaching on the Papacy, that there are no citations "revealed" in his book in which a Christian, especially a Church Father, explicitly denies the Petrine primacy or the Petrine succession. Webster collects a large number of passages that are supposed to prove that the Fathers oppose Catholic teaching, yet never is there a flat-out denial of the Petrine primacy or the primacy of Rome. This is a silence that speaks volumes! We may find differing interpretations of Peter's primacy, which is what we should expect, according to John Henry Newman, yet we find no denial of that primacy.

I wrote to William Webster and asked him if he knew of any Church Father who denied the primacy of Peter or of his successors. Mr. Webster's response was very telling, and I wish he had been forthright about this matter in his book. His return E-mail stated, "No father denies that Peter had a primacy or that there is a Petrine succession. The issue is how the fathers interpreted those concepts. They simply did not hold to the Roman Catholic view of later centuries that primacy and succession were 'exclusively' related to the bishops of Rome." [2] What an extraordinary admission; what an extraordinary truth. Many of the Fathers were in theological or disciplinary disagreement with Rome (for example, Cyprian and Irenaeus), yet they never denied Rome's primacy. They may have debated what that primacy meant, or how it was to work out in the universal Church, but they never denied the primacy.

The quickest way to achieve jurisdictional or doctrinal victory is to subvert or disarm the opponent. In this case it would have been as simple as proving from the Bible or from tradition that Peter, and subsequently his successors in Rome, had no primacy, no authority to rule in the Church. Yet, as even Webster freely admits, this refutation never occurred. Irenaeus may challenge the appropriateness of a decision made by Victor, but he never challenges Victor's authority to make the binding decision. Cyprian may at times disagree with a decree of Stephen's on baptism, but he never rejects the special place of the Roman See, which would have been the easiest means of winning the debate. The bishop of Rome was unique in assuming the authority and obligation to oversee the Churches. Clement and Ignatius make this clear from the first century and the beginning of the second. If the authority exercised had been illegitimate, or wrongly arrogated, it would have been an act of overzealousness at one end of the spectrum, of tyranny at the other. Yet no one ever stood up and said, "No, you have no authority. Who are you to order us, to teach us, to require obedience from us, to excommunicate us?" If the jurisdictional primacy of Rome had been a matter of self-aggrandizement, someone would have opposed it as they opposed other innovations and heresies in the Church. The silence is profound.

As doctrines develop, as authority develops, as even a family or society develops, there is discussion relating to authority and its exercise. Amazingly enough, this is also true for the canon of the New Testament, which was not finally collected and codified for almost four hundred years after the death of Christ. Does the fact that there were various interpretations of what the New Testament was, or which books it contained--a discussion, by the way, that raised its head again in the teaching of Martin Luther--in any way prove that somehow the New Testament held by the Protestant is uncertain or in doubt because there were various applications or perceptions of that canon in the early years? The faithful Christian may have believed various things about the canon, but he never denied that the Scriptures held a special place. He may have clung to a different collection of books, yet he always understood that there were "apostolic" books. In the same way, early Fathers, especially Eastern Fathers, may have defined the primacy of Peter and the supremacy of his successors in nuanced ways, yet they never denied that the primacy or authority was attached to Peter and his See in Rome.

Authority has always been an object of distrust and, very often, defiance. The nation of Israel refused to hear authority: they rejected the authority of the prophets [3] and rejected their Messiah sent by the Father. [4] The apostles themselves were abused and rejected. [5] Should it surprise us that many in our present day reject and demean the unifying authority God has ordained in his Church? In the primitive Church, as we learn from St. Irenaeus, the greatest theologian of the second century, many groups splintered off from the apostolic Church and "assembled in unauthorized meetings". [6] Rejecting the Church and spurning her shepherd is nothing new to our day.

Christians of many traditions are currently espousing recent Protestant traditions and modern schisms; yet they all claim the early Church as their own--asserting that they are the rightful heirs to the teachings of our Lord, the apostles, and the Fathers of the apostolic Church. Are they? Do they have a legitimate claim to the theology of the early Church? Was the early Church essentially "Protestant" in her theology and polity, or was she Catholic?

Much of the distinctive character of the Church through the centuries has been based on the teaching concerning Peter and his place within the apostolic company and in the Church. Was he chosen for a special position? Did Jesus separate Peter out from the Twelve? Did Peter have authority over the body of Christ, the one sheepfold? Was the position of bishop carried on by his successors? How did the first generations of Christians relate to Peter? These are questions we will try to answer as we proceed with this study. 

Holy Scripture must be interpreted, since it is not laid out simply in the form of a Church manual or textbook. One principle of proper interpretation involves studying a topic or passage within its context, both the immediate context and the context of the whole Bible. If this is neglected or done poorly, a plethora of problems arises. Historical context must also be taken into account.

In studying Peter and the subject of primacy, it is especially important to consider who or what makes up the foundation of the Church. The many facets of the Church are like the multiple surfaces of a diamond glistening in the sunlight. These facets are written about from different angles, and the metaphors used--foundations, builders, stones, and so on--are as varied as the gem's surfaces. In grammar school we learn not to mix metaphors. Mixing metaphors makes clear communication difficult and can lead to misunderstandings. This confusion of context is especially pronounced in much of the Fundamentalist and Evangelical Protestant understanding of the foundation of the Church. However, even George Salmon, no friend to Catholic teaching (in fact he has proven himself a hero to many opposed to the Catholic Church and wrote The Infallibility of the Church to undermine the teachings of the Catholic Church), understood the need to understand properly the metaphors used in Scripture. I provide an extended quotation from Salmon's book to lay the foundation (pun intended) for understanding the biblical and patristic references to Peter and the foundation of the Church.

It is undoubtedly the doctrine of Scripture that Christ is the only foundation [of the Church]: "other foundation can no man lay than that is laid, which is Jesus Christ" (1 Cor 3:11). Yet we must remember that the same metaphor may be used to illustrate different truths, and so, according to circumstances, may have different significations. The same Paul who has called Christ the only foundation, tells his Ephesian converts (2:20):--"Ye are built upon the foundation of the Apostles and Prophets, Jesus Christ himself being the chief corner-stone." And in like manner we read (Rev 21:14) :--"The wall of the city had twelve foundations, and on them the names of the twelve Apostles of the Lamb." How is it that there can be no other foundation but Christ, and yet that the Apostles are spoken of as foundations? Plainly because the metaphor is used with different applications. Christ alone is that foundation, from being joined to which the whole building of the Church derives its unity and stability, and gains strength to defy all the assaults of hell. But, in the same manner as any human institution is said to be founded by those men to whom it owes its origin, so we may call those men the foundation of the Church whom God honoured by using them as His instruments in the establishment of it; who were themselves laid as the first living stones in that holy temple, and on whom the other stones of that temple were laid; for it was on their testimony that others received the truth, so that our faith rests on theirs; and (humanly speaking) it is because they believed that we believe. So, again, in like manner, we are forbidden to call anyone on earth our Father, "for one is our Father which is in heaven." And yet, in another sense, Paul did not scruple to call himself the spiritual father of those whom he had begotten in the Gospel. You see, then, that the fact that Christ is called the rock, and that on Him the Church is built, is no hindrance to Peter's also being, in a different sense, called rock, and being said to be the foundation of the Church; so that I consider there is no ground for the fear entertained by some, in ancient and in modern times, that, by applying the words personally to Peter, we should infringe on the honour due to Christ alone. [7]

Our current study comprises four interrelated topics. The first two sections examine the life and ministry of the Apostle Peter from biblical and historical sources. The last two sections examine the continuing authority of Peter through the centuries, carried on through apostolic succession and the primacy of Rome. We divide the study in this way:

1. The Life and Ministry of Peter

A. Biblical study: Peter the man, the apostle, the rock: What is his place in the teachings of Jesus and in the New Testament?

B. Historical study: Did Peter travel to Rome, oversee the Church as bishop, and die a martyr's death in the city of Rome?

2. The Primacy of Peter in the Early Church

A. Earliest document study: The primacy of Rome in the earliest non-canonical writings of the Church, authored by Clement of Rome and Ignatius of Antioch.

B. Early Church study: Peter and the primacy of Rome taught and practiced throughout the first five centuries.

Certainly, it is not possible to compile every passage from the Fathers that pertains to the study of Peter and the primacy. This is true, first of all, because such passages are too abundant and, secondly, because many times the primacy is not demonstrated by written teachings per se, but by the actions of the Fathers in particular historical situations. Some Fathers write of the Petrine primacy and later change their stance as they move away from orthodoxy or from a literal understanding of Scripture or when they enter into a personal conflict with the bishop of Rome. Lately, several books have come out that are hostile to the Catholic Church's teaching on papal primacy (we will discuss these books in the course of our study). A perusal of these books shows that their inability to deal fairly with the issue stems from their tendency to "proof-text", by which they point out things that seem to support their contentions and ignore everything that does not.

Another reason these opponents find it difficult to comprehend the Papacy is a perspective, inherited from the Protestant Reformation, that is essentially anti-sacramental, anti-mediational, and anti-incarnational. God's economy, however, always involves mediation. The people of God, for example, stepped back and demanded that God not speak to them directly, for they were afraid and stood at a distance. Then they said to Moses, "You speak to us, and we will hear; but let not God speak to us, lest we die" (Ex 20:19). Take another example--Paul. God could very well have "saved" him directly, but instead the great Paul was sent to the lowly Ananias for baptism and instructions. Paul later went to Peter for approval and to make sure he "was not running in vain", even though he had received revelations and had even been taken up to the "third heaven" (2 Cor 12:2). No Christian baptizes himself; this is done though the mediating agency of another person. Without an understanding of how God works through mediation, it is difficult to understand the fullness of the faith. [8]

It would take volumes to deal thoroughly with every biblical passage, every Father's writings, and every argument against the Papacy. However, we will provide ample material to establish the firm foundation of Catholic teaching and to refute the opposition. In the process we will attempt to be fair with the material, analyzing not only the Catholic position but the interpretation espoused by the opposition. Much can be said about each of these topics and detailed accounts can be read from other sources listed in the bibliography.

In our journey through the Scriptures and the primitive Church, we will consult our first brethren in Christ. We will conclude by looking at the current teaching of the Catholic Church as well as the widespread opposition. Now let us journey back in time to the New Testament period and the generations that followed in the footsteps and the teachings of Jesus and the apostles.

ENDNOTES:

[1] John Henry Cardinal Newman, An Essay on the Development of Christian Doctrine, in Conscience, Consensus, and the Development of Doctrine (New York: Doubleday, 1992), 50.

[2] E-mail from William Webster dated August 16, 1997.

[3] Mt 23:37: "O Jerusalem, Jerusalem, killing the prophets and stoning those who are sent to you! How often would I have gathered your children together as a hen gathers her brood under her wings, and you would not!"

[4] Jn 1:10-11: "He was in the world, and the world was made through him, yet the world knew him not. He came to his own home, and his own people received him not."

[5] Paul says in 2 Timothy 1: 15, "You are aware that all who are in Asia turned away from me, and among them Phygelus and Hermogenes." The Apostle John writes in 1 John 2:19, "They went out from us, but they were not really of us; for if they had been of us, they would have remained with us; but they went out, in order that it might be shown that they all are not of us."

[6] "Since, however, it would be very tedious, in such a volume as this, to reckon up the successions of all the Churches, we do put to confusion all those who, in whatever manner, whether by an evil self-pleasing, by vainglory, or by blindness and perverse opinion, assemble in unauthorized meetings; [we do this, I say,] by indicating that tradition derived from the apostles, of the very great, the very ancient, and universally known Church founded and organized at Rome by the two most glorious apostles, Peter and Paul; as also [by pointing out] the faith preached to men, which comes down to our time by means of the successions of the bishops" (Irenaeus, Against Heresies 3, 3, 2, in The Ante-Nicene Fathers, ed. Alexander Roberts and James Donaldson, rev. A. Cleveland Coxe [Grand Rapids, Mich.: Eerdmans, 1985], 1:415 [hereafter ANF]).

[7] George Salmon, The Infallibility of the Church (London: John Murray, 1914), 338-39.

[8] The objection will arise, "But we have only 'one mediator between God and men, the man Christ Jesus'" (1 Tim 2:5). To this the Catholic offers a hearty Amen! Yet we see, not four verses earlier, Paul commanding Timothy to pray for all men--to intercede (from the Latin intercedere, to intervene or go between, to mediate). Yes, Jesus is the mediator of the New Covenant, for such a unique covenant takes a unique mediator (Heb 8:6). But do we assume that, because Christ is the mediator of a better covenant, there is no longer any mediation in the Church? Prayer is mediation. We are mediating God's message to a sinful world when we preach the gospel. No finite human being can mediate an eternal covenant between God and man, but a pastor can certainly mediate God's word, and a simple soul can certainly intercede for the mighty. Mediation is alive and well as we enter into the New Covenant and participate in the mediating work of Christ.

[Catsrus]

Nor is there any record of Peter ever being in Rome. It was Paul who preached to the Romans. Anyone can twist scriptures to make them fit a particular teaching.

Your post was spot on!

[count-your-change]

I saw #22, thanks. Point?

[Judith Anne]

Well, posts 22 and 23 directly address your post. Is that obscure to you?

[count-your-change]

Neither is obscure and neither establishes a primacy over the other apostles for Peter.
Paul said the apostles and prophets were foundation stones with Christ as the cornerstone. Peter was one of those foundation stones that the church was built upon. (Eph. 2:20)

[pgyanke]

You keep referring to Roman Catholicism as a denomination as though it were one of the 25,000 Protestant factions. No. We are the trunk of the tree, not simply a branch. We are the tree from which “denominations” took root. You use the Bible we codified. You mimic our liturgy and follow our calendar. You set up authority in episcopate structures with the seat of power in Canterbury or Billy Graham or your local pastor in recognition of the need for such an authority.

We are over a billion strong and growing. The Eastern Orthodox, who are far more like-minded to us Catholics than to Protestant theology, are another half billion. The Protestant world is approx 300 million total... and yet each denomination looks to its Mother Church and tells Her to conform... hubris!

[Diamond]

..25,000 Protestant factions...

Source?

[pgyanke]

I’ve heard greater numbers referenced before but I try to be generous when I don’t have the exact numbers at my fingertips. Due to your challenge, I did a little research to find a good source. You are correct... I was wrong...

According to World Christian Encyclopedia, there are over 33,000 denominations in 238 countries having increased in number from 8,196 in 1970.

[srweaver]

Just because the Roman Catholic church likes to jump in front of God’s parade and claim to be its originator/organizer/sustainer does not make it so. Even if the RCC currently has the “biggest” float in the parade, it does not mean it is the best, not that its adherents are all actually “believers” (true of all Christian sects).

Silly me, I though Jesus was the vine, and we are the branches (John 15:5). I didn’t realize there was the “trunk” of a “tree” between the vine and His branches.

In actuality, the only true church that really exists is comprised of the “branches” that abide in the vine, regardless of what “other” label or “communion” they associate themselves with.

[srweaver]

You quoted:
I wrote to William Webster and asked him if he knew of any Church Father who denied the primacy of Peter or of his successors. Mr. Webster’s response was very telling, and I wish he had been forthright about this matter in his book. His return E-mail stated, “No father denies that Peter had a primacy or that there is a Petrine succession. The issue is how the fathers interpreted those concepts. They simply did not hold to the Roman Catholic view of later centuries that primacy and succession were ‘exclusively’ related to the bishops of Rome.” [2] What an extraordinary admission; what an extraordinary truth. Many of the Fathers were in theological or disciplinary disagreement with Rome (for example, Cyprian and Irenaeus), yet they never denied Rome’s primacy. They may have debated what that primacy meant, or how it was to work out in the universal Church, but they never denied the primacy.

Did they deny the primacy of Paul, or James, or John?

Did they reject the superiority of Jerusalem, or Corinth, or Antioch?

Perhaps their silence is related to the non-issue of these matters in their day.

[pgyanke]

Silly you, indeed. You ridicule what you don't understand. I prefer open dialogue with my brothers and sisters in Christ. This is my watchword in these matters:

Mark 9:38 John said to Him, "Teacher, we saw someone casting out demons in Your name, and we tried to prevent him because he was not following us." 39 But Jesus said, "Do not hinder him, for there is no one who will perform a miracle in My name, and be able soon afterward to speak evil of Me. 40 "For he who is not against us is for us. 41 "For whoever gives you a cup of water to drink because of your name as followers of Christ, truly I say to you, he will not lose his reward.

I am content to let Jesus be the Shepherd of His flock. There is a communion based on the leadership and succession of the Apostles that is called the Roman Catholic Church (or simply "the Church" to those who belong). That does not mean that Christ has no other friends in this world... and the same goes for us. Anyone who professes the Name of Jesus is my friend and I will share the truth of our Faith in charity but leave it to Jesus to sort His Flock when the time comes.

[Salvation]

Do You Love Me?

“Do You Love Me?”

April 19th, 2010 by Marcellino D'Ambrosio, Ph.D.

On many occasions I’ve heard non-Catholics object to the papacy.  Often, they say something like this: “I just can’t believe that one man on earth, the Pope, is holier than everyone else.”  So who ever said that being sinless is either a prerequisite or a consequence of being named Pope?

For the Pope, the bishop of Rome, is the successor of Peter, who spent the last years of his life leading the Christians of the eternal city.  And here is an interesting fact.  None of the four  canonical gospels (not to mention Acts and Galatians) try to hide the fact that Peter sinned often and sinned big.  By the way, if the “patriarchal, controlling” leaders of the early Catholic Church altered the story about Jesus as the DaVinci Code suggests, don’t you think they would have “fixed” these embarrassing stories?

Yet while all agree Peter was weak and imperfect, they all also agree that he was given a unique responsibility.   Only Peter got a name-change from Jesus himself (from Simon to “Peter” meaning rock).  Only Peter was told by Christ on Holy Thursday night “I have prayed for you that your faith never fail and when you’ve repented, go and strengthen your brethren” (Lk 22: 31-32).  And when Jesus, after the resurrection, cooked a fish breakfast for the apostles (Jn 21), it was only to Peter that Jesus put the question, “Do you love me?”

But why did Jesus ask him the same question three times?  Perhaps Peter needed to atone for his three-fold denial of Christ by a three-fold profession of love.  Perhaps, given Peter’s track record of getting it wrong, the Lord really wanted to be sure he got it right this time.  Here’s the point–

“Peter, your way of expressing penance for your sin and love for me will be to feed my sheep.  Remember, they are not your sheep, but mine.  Take care of them for me.  Do for them what I did for them.  Don’t just feed them.  Protect them.  Lay down your life for them if necessary.”

Peter’s role as a Shepherd is, in a way, unique because it is universal.  Despite his human frailty, he is given care of all the Churches.  And, if we take Luke 22:31-32 seriously, he is called to be the shepherd of all the shepherds.  That’s a big responsibility.  In fact, it is a crushing burden which he could never fulfill on his own power.  That’s why we pray for the Pope (meaning “Papa” or father) in every Catholic Eucharist across the globe — He needs the grace of the Holy Spirit to fulfill his role.  The bit about Peter stretching out his hands with others leading him where he does not want to go does not just refer to his crucifixion under Nero, but to the daily laying his life down for his flock, the “white martyrdom” that we can saw so clearly in the weary but relentless witness of John Paul II.

In another way, though, Peter’s role as a Shepherd is not unique.  It is exemplary for all of us sheep who are called to become ourselves shepherds and leaders, despite our own frailty and sinfulness.  Some are called to be bishops, successors of the apostles, entrusted with pastoral care of a portion of Christ’s flock.  Some are called to be priests and deacons, who assist a bishop in his apostolic mission.  Some are called to be catechists, youth ministers and teachers, who also play a role in the feeding of the sheep.

And most of us are called to be parents, shepherds of what the Second Vatican Council calls “the domestic church.”  Parents, say St. Thomas Aquinas and John Paul II, have a pastoral role much like that of a parish priest.  In fact, John Paul II, in his letter Familiaris Consortio, said that the Catholic parent exercises “a true ministry of the Church.”

On whatever level, the call to feed and care for the sheep is a call to sacrifice, not privilege.  It has its moments of exaltation and profound satisfaction, but it has its moments of agony as well.  But if we’ve learned anything from the passion, it’s that suffering is the true and necessary test of love, as well as love’s most authentic and powerful expression.   So let us not be afraid to be shepherds.  The Good Shepherd will empower us with His Spirit.  And let’s pray with gratitude and compassion for those who shepherd us.

 

Dr. D'Ambrosio studied under Avery Cardinal Dulles for his Ph.D. in historical theology and taught for many years at the University of Dallas. He now directs www.crossroadsinitiative.com, which offers Catholic resources for RCIA and adult and teen faith formation, with a special emphasis on the Eucharist, the Theology of the Body, the early Church Fathers, and the Sacrament of Confirmation.

(This article originally appeared in Our Sunday Visitor and is used by permission of the author.)

[Salvation]

**If you wanted to “focus” on some of the material in the text/footnotes for discussion that would be helpful.**

LOL! I posted the entire chapter so that people could see that you were taking one line “OUT OF CONTEXT”.

YOPIOS — you only look at the scripture you want to use to slame Catholics, St. Peter, in this case, and in doing so — you elevate St. Paul above Jesus Christ. I don’t think St. Paul would approve of your YOPIOS.

[srweaver]

So how does your lengthy post address the fact that James, Jesus’ half brother, was the leader of the Jerusalem church, and Paul rebuked Peter for hypocrisy.

The issue addressed was Peter’s lack of primacy in his own day, in his own spheres of influence.

And which “line” did I take out of context? My original post referenced the whole chapter (Galatians 2), so those interested could look it up and read it for themselves...”in context.”

Are you affirming that Peter had primacy over James and Paul during his lifetime? If so, you should produce the scriptures that attest to that.

[srweaver]

You posted: “you only look at the scripture you want to use to slame Catholics...”

Actually, you started this discussion entitled “St. Peter and the Primacy of Rome” on a public discussion forum. I assume this was/is because you wanted to discuss it publicly, including with people who disagree with Catholic dogma.

If that is not the case, there are other ways/places to post on FreeRepublic...and elsewhere.

[BenKenobi]

[quote]
they start promoting their denomination over Christ
[/quote]

How do you make sense of Ephesians when Paul talks about Christ and his Church? Christ isn’t a bigamist. There’s just one wife just as there is one Church. We don’t ‘worship Rome’, we follow the Church as established by Christ himself.

[srweaver]

It appears you think Jesus is already married to an institution, the RCC.

Actually, He is not married “yet,” and His bride will be those who have chosen/continued in a personal relationship with Him through faith, not those who have aligned themselves with a temporal institution.

Jesus will marry his bride (Revelation 19) after the angels separate the wheat from the tares (Matthew 13).

[Diamond]

Due to your challenge, I did a little research to find a good source. You are correct... I was wrong...

I was not right or wrong about anything. I didn't make any assertion or claim. I just asked for the source of your statistic of 25,000 Protestant "factions".

I did a little research to find a good source... According to World Christian Encyclopedia, there are over 33,000 denominations in 238 countries having increased in number from 8,196 in 1970.

Here you use the word, "denominations" instead of "factions". The 2001 edition of your source has it at 8,973 Protestant "denominations", not 25,000 or 33,000.

Also, according to your own source, included in that total of 33,000 "denominations" are Orthodox (781) and Roman Catholics (242)

Cordially,

[Terabitten]

Seems to me that it’s a lot easier to believe in the spiritual authority of the papacy now, when the men who’ve occupied that position have been undeniably good, holy men.

It’d be a LOT harder to make that argument if we had a Pope like Alexander VI.

It’d be interesting to do a correlation study between “good” popes (those who were pious, humble believers) and “bad” popes and the oppostion to Rome.

[BenKenobi]

Jesus created his Church.

“His bride will be those who have chosen/continued in a personal relationship”.

I don’t see ‘personal relationship’ anywhere in scripture. Jesus isn’t your boyfriend.

He does say that he created His Church and that the gates of hell will not prevail against it.

“with a temporal institution.”

That’s just it. His Church exists for all times. It is not a temporal institution. Christ founded the Catholic church.

[srweaver]

You can keep making your circular argument all you want, but that doesn’t make it biblical.

Jesus died so men can be saved, with two conditions — repentance and faith, which brings one into a “personal relationship” with God, or results in conversion or new birth. If you need, let me know, and I will clarify further and reference scripture.

No, Jesus isn’t my boyfriend, but He is my creator, my brother, my savior and my master, and His Father is my Dad. One day, along with the rest of those who have a personal relationship with Christ, I will constitute His bride, as I now (along with the rest of those who have a personal relationship with Him) constitute His body.

I don’t recall the Bible teaching that Jesus came to found the Roman Catholic church. I do recall it teaching that He came to save men from their sins, and the conditions for that to take place.

You are correct, “the gates of hell will not prevail against Jesus’ church” — those who have a personal relationship with Him.