The debate does go on (ssemingly endlesly), about the validity of Paul VI, and John Paul II. Here is another angle on this hot issue.

An Additional Argument

But to this we must add yet another consideration.

Even if one concludes that the Superchurch heresy and similar aberrations are not heresy but “merely” false doctrine, this still excludes the possibility that the post-Vatican II popes retained or obtained true authority. Otherwise the Church herself has defected, because her teaching authority has contradicted itself.

The issue of the New Mass leads to a similar conclusion. All traditional Catholics I know consider it evil and harmful to souls. But the authority of the Church is infallible (cannot give something that is evil or harms souls) in promulgating universal disciplinary laws. Yet at the same time, the New Mass was duly promulgated as a universal disciplinary law. (On this point, see my article “Did Paul VI ‘Illegally’ Promulgate the New Mass?” also available at www.traditionalmass.org.)

The glaring fact that the New Mass is evil and harms souls, then, excludes the possibility that the man who promulgated it and his successors possess the authority of the Church.

One could put this argument in the form of the following syllogism:

• If someone who claims to be true pope, or who has ever received a juridical election to be pope, promulgates false doctrines, false rites and/or evil disciplines to the whole Church, it is impossible that he be a true pope.

• But Paul VI, John Paul I and John Paul II have promulgated false doctrines (on the unity of the Church, ecumenism, religious liberty, collegiality), false rites (the modernist/Protestant liturgical reform) and/or evil disciplines (mortally sinful practices on intercommunion, ecumenical worship services) to the whole Church.

• Therefore, it is impossible that Paul VI, John Paul I and John Paul II be true popes.

Or put still another way: “Real men don’t eat quiche — and real popes don’t promulgate Novus Ordos.”

-- TC (Treadmill234@south.com), December 09, 2004

Answers

Comment: Here the official Vatican document, approved by John Paul II, is admitting that the words of “Eucharistic Institution” (the words of Consecration which Christ Himself instituted as necessary for the confection of the Eucharist) are not present in this Assyrian liturgy. After admitting this fact, it tries to explain it away by asserting that the words of consecration are present in a “dispersed euchological way,” which is a neat way of saying that they are not actually present at all, but are somehow accounted for in other “prayers of thanksgiving, praise and intercession” which mention nothing of them! How convenient! The words of Consecration, instituted by Christ as part of the substance of the Sacrament of the Eucharist, are accounted for in other prayers of thanksgiving, praise and intercession which don’t mention them, according to this absurd document. But the reader should see the significance of this amazing heresy. This heresy devastates all Catholic sacramental teaching; it bluntly rejects Catholic dogma on the necessity of the words of Consecration for a valid Eucharist.

Pope Eugene IV, Council of Florence, Session 8, Nov. 22, 1439, "Exultate Deo": "All these sacraments are made up of three elements: namely, things as the matter, words as the form, and the person of the minister who confers the sacrament with the intention of doing what the Church does. If any of these is lacking, the sacrament is not effected."

Pope Eugene IV, Council of Florence, Session 8, Nov. 22, 1439, "Exultate Deo" Decree: "THE FORM OF THIS SACRAMENT [THE EUCHARIST] ARE THE WORDS OF THE SAVIOR WITH WHICH HE EFFECTED THIS SACRAMENT."

Pope Eugene IV, Council of Florence, Session 11, Feb. 4, 1442, "Cantate Domino": "However, since no explanation was given in the aforesaid decree of the Armenians in respect to the form of words which the holy Roman Church, relying on the teaching and authority of the apostles Peter and Paul, has always been wont to use in the consecration of the Lord's Body and Blood, we concluded that it should be inserted in this present text. It uses this form of words in the consecration of the Lord's Body: FOR THIS IS MY BODY. And of His blood: FOR THIS IS THE CHALICE OF MY BLOOD, OF THE NEW AND ETERNAL TESTAMENT: THE MYSTERY OF FAITH, WHICH SHALL BE SHED FOR YOU AND FOR MANY UNTO THE REMISSION OF SINS.”

-- TC (treadmill234@south.com), December 09, 2004.

>When did the conciliar hierarchy leave the Catholic Church?<

Around the year 1054 the Roman Patriarchate and her "children" left the 4 other Patriarchates which for over 1000 years comprised the One Holy Catholic/Orthodox Church.

Most Christians don't know about the original Catholicism which is more often called Orthodoxy today. Most people think you're either a Protestant or a Roman Catholic and don't realize that Roman Catholicism is a branch off the trunk of the Original Church.

-- Max Darity (arrowtouch@yahoo.com), December 09, 2004.

It's interesting..,

The Roman Catholics say you are the branch that broke off.

Who to believe????

It seems more like just a split down the middle.

But Jesus said His church could not be divided. Yet division goes back to even Paul's day.

Will the real true church please stand up!!

Oh wait! Jesus said not until the end of the age....when He separates the weeds out from the wheat., will we really know just *who* is His.

-- (Faith01@myway.com), December 09, 2004.

Max

Many are aware of the schism of 1054. Catholics believe that the "Orthodoxy" broke away leaving Rome to continue the true path. I'm more simplistic, I was born Catholic (of the Roman persuasion) and can't find any reason to change. For me its hard enough as it is and my roots seem to have me in the right place. I'm too tenuous to try to move around alot without losing my balance.

Witness the comments on this and other boards. Hardly anyone changes no matter what proof is presented. The discussion and insights are interesting and informative, but not transformative.

Did that have a Sharpton ring?

-- Jim (furst@flash.net), December 09, 2004.

>The Roman Catholics say you are the branch that broke off.<

They can say what they want, but the facts speak louder than any Roman Bishop.

>It seems more like just a split down the middle.<

4 to 1 is hardly down the middle.

>Oh wait! Jesus said not until the end of the age....when He separates the weeds out from the wheat., will we really know just *who* is His.<

Then I guess there's no need to strive to define and defend true doctrine, shepherd the flocks, protect from false doctrine, etc. if there is no outward communion of churches based on Absolute Truth.

In Paul's day, he wrote letters to specific churches in certain cities. These churches were physical groups personally recognized by the Apostles as legitimate communities of Christian Faith. There still exists today these legitimate communities of Christian Faith. If the Apostles did not acknowledge a church as fully legit, then it was not fully legit. If one church is rejected as fully legit by those that are fully legit, you have to question its legitimacy.

This isn't to say that the Word of Christ does not make its way around the world in non-legit Christian communities. The Word of Christ will always be honored by the Lord, even if a false teacher weilds it in dishonor.

For example, there are truths in the Jehovah's Witnesses organization and believing in a Creator God leads to more spiritual rewards than not believing in a Creator God or in a non-bible-based god. But, just because the Truth that exists in the JW organization is honored by God does not mean the organization automatically becomes another legit sect of Christ's true Church. The Truth is honored by God, but the lies are condemned by God.

There are false prophets healing people today in the name of Jesus. The healings do not make the false prophets legit... remember Christ's words at the judgment to these false prophets... "Depart from me, for I never knew you" even though they've devoted their lives to casting out demons and even though they do all sorts of signs and wonders in the Name of Jesus. They will be condemned because they do not truly know the Lord Jesus and have led many astray with signs and wonders in the Name of Jesus. Many may come to believe in Jesus through these false prophets, but they also introduce poison along with the water of Life. If the believer is noble, he will come to recognize these lies and denounce the false prophet, but will not renounce the Lord who was preached. I honestly feel for these sorts of "orphan believers" in Jesus Christ and pray they continue to seek the Church, their mother.

-- Max Darity (arrowtouch@yahoo.com), December 10, 2004.

I appreciate the Protestant viewpoint given thus far, but where are the Catholics view onthis.

My belief, (as a Catholic) is that the day Paul 6, changed the ordination form for the priesthood, and then changed the consecration rite for a bishop, that was bye bye for the novus ordo clergy.

Mean what you say, and say what you mean. They left out those words of Christ so from there on they were only actors playing the part of clergy.

Fortunately the traditionals have true sacraments and to me at least, the words of Christ to us that He would never leave us orphans comes through at this time.

-- TC (Treadmill234@south.com), December 10, 2004.

>It seems more like just a split down the middle.<

4 to 1 is hardly down the middle.

I don't know the statistics Max, care to share?

>Oh wait! Jesus said not until the end of the age....when He separates the weeds out from the wheat., will we really know just *who* are His.<

Then I guess there's no need to strive to define and defend true doctrine, shepherd the flocks, protect from false doctrine, etc. if there is no outward communion of churches based on Absolute Truth.

I think there are outward communities of biblical Christians. I also think biblical doctrine is the only doctrine to defend.

In Paul's day, he wrote letters to specific churches in certain cities. These churches were physical groups personally recognized by the Apostles as legitimate communities of Christian Faith. There still exists today these legitimate communities of Christian Faith. If the Apostles did not acknowledge a church as fully legit, then it was not fully legit. If one church is rejected as fully legit by those that are fully legit, you have to question its legitimacy.

Could you please cite an example in the Scriptures where any church is rejected as being *not* legit?? From what I can remember just off hand, it seems to me that people are rebuked for false teachings in churhes and these churches seem to be warned that there are unbelievers among them. But even the book of Revelation shows Jesus addressing many different types of churches who were each guilty of their own bad behaviors and teachings--yet does Jesus reject them?

The only church I think of that is rejected in the end is the great Whore of Babylon--that apostate church which is sent to its destruction in verses 17-18.

This isn't to say that the Word of Christ does not make its way around the world in non-legit Christian communities. The Word of Christ will always be honored by the Lord, even if a false teacher weilds it in dishonor.

For example, there are truths in the Jehovah's Witnesses organization and believing in a Creator God leads to more spiritual rewards than not believing in a Creator God or in a non-bible-based god. But, just because the Truth that exists in the JW organization is honored by God does not mean the organization automatically becomes another legit sect of Christ's true Church. The Truth is honored by God, but the lies are condemned by God.

I do not agree that truth is found in the Jehovah Witness Cult--as the deny Jesus' divinity. What could they possible teach that would be a credit to them in face of this? To me, its all about biblical accuracy and/or deception. That cult is not of God in any way

There are false prophets healing people today in the name of Jesus. The healings do not make the false prophets legit... remember Christ's words at the judgment to these false prophets... "Depart from me, for I never knew you" even though they've devoted their lives to casting out demons and even though they do all sorts of signs and wonders in the Name of Jesus. They will be condemned because they do not truly know the Lord Jesus and have led many astray with signs and wonders in the Name of Jesus. Many may come to believe in Jesus through these false prophets, but they also introduce poison along with the water of Life. If the believer is noble, he will come to recognize these lies and denounce the false prophet, but will not renounce the Lord who was preached. I honestly feel for these sorts of "orphan believers" in Jesus Christ and pray they continue to seek the Church, their mother.

Not to get too particular, but I always saw that verse as almost being directed specifically at the Catholic Church. They are the only one religion who makes a universal claim to be the true Church of Jesus Christ. They even have a city on seven hills. There is no other purpose for this city, by-the-way. Unlike the Mormons who may be known for being really big in Salt Lake City...,yet Salt Lake City serves another purpose. It is a regular city.

What other false prophets can cast out demons or do miraculous things in Jesus name like that?

-- (faith01@myway.com), December 12, 2004.

Someone needs to close these italics for me, if I don't figure it out. I'll try it here--but I really don't know how to do it.

-- (faith01@myway.com), December 12, 2004.

Did it work! I think it did : )

-- (faith01@myway.com), December 12, 2004.

>I appreciate the Protestant viewpoint given thus far -TC<

Don't forget the Orthodox viewpoint, which would clear up lots of confusion for you if you realized the problems you're dealing with are based on a false dogma in the first place.

>I don't know the statistics Max, care to share?<

Rome was just 1 of 5 equal Patriarchates. The other 4 remained together and Rome went its own way, embracing erroneous Creed changes among other false dogmas that finally broke the unity between East and West. Rome has innovated plenty more false dogma ever since. Basically, my point was that it was not a split "down the middle" as you said, unless you meant it in a strictly geographic sense.

>Could you please cite an example in the Scriptures where any church is rejected as being *not* legit??<

There may be better examples, but this one comes to mind and serves as an example that we are to reject false doctrine and those individuals and groups which espouse false doctrine:

"For many deceivers have gone out into the world who do not confess Jesus Christ as coming in the flesh. This is a deceiver and an anti-christ... whoever transgresses and does not abide int he doctrine of Christ does not have God. He who abides in the doctrine of Christ has both the Father and the Son. If anyone comes to you and does not bring this doctrine, do not receive him into your house nor greet him." - from St. John's 2nd Epistle

If a group denies important doctrines, such as what Baptism is, the doctrine of Christ's divinity, etc. they are not legit churches and are to be excluded from communion with the legit churches of Christ. In other words, a Trinitarian Church should have nothing to do with a Jehovah's Witness Arian Church, etc. The Arian Church should be rejected. I'm sure you can accept this principle.

From what I can remember just off hand, it seems to me that people are rebuked for false teachings in churhes and these churches seem to be warned that there are unbelievers among them. But even the book of Revelation shows Jesus addressing many different types of churches who were each guilty of their own bad behaviors and teachings--yet does Jesus reject them?

The only church I think of that is rejected in the end is the great Whore of Babylon--that apostate church which is sent to its destruction in verses 17-18.

>I do not agree that truth is found in the Jehovah Witness Cult--as the deny Jesus' divinity.<

Because they have rejected Christ does not mean they do not espouse many true doctrines, for example, that there is only One God. So, you cannot say there is absolutely no truth, they've just perverted the Truth. They borrow from the true water, but have added their poison, that is, they deny Christ's divinity etc.

>What could they possible teach that would be a credit to them in face of this?<

Imagine teaching a child about God. You begin at the same point that a Muslim, a JW, a Christian, a Jew starts... there is One God who made all things. This is true, but it does not make their whole sect acceptable. My point is, just because you accept some true doctrines, that does not make your whole sect acceptable... jsut because you accept the Trinity does not make your whole sect acceptable. Just because you accept the divinity of Christ, that does not make your sect acceptable. Oneness Pentecostals claim to believe in the divinity of Christ, but their Christology is unacceptable. It rejects the Father and the Son. Again, my point was, you cannot say every sect is equally Christian and that no sect is closer to the Truth than any other. By claiming that you are in effect denying that Christ has preserved the fullness of the Truth in His Churches.

>Not to get too particular, but I always saw that verse as almost being directed specifically at the Catholic Church. They are the only one religion who makes a universal claim to be the true Church of Jesus Christ.<

Wrong. The Orthodox Church claims to be the One True Apostolic Church of Christ that has preserved the Truth through the ages.

>What other false prophets can cast out demons or do miraculous things in Jesus name like that?<

There are many today who circle the globe on evangelical missions who bring many signs and wonders in the Name of Jesus. The fact is, Jesus will honor faith in Him, even if His Word is preached by a false prophet. For example, William Branham was once a very popular evangelist in the last century (you barely hear about him today even though he was one of the most "successful" ministries ever) who performed many undeniable miracles in the Name of Jesus. Many repented and believed in Jesus because of Branham's evangelism and healings. However, Branham also introduced destructive heresy into the Churches, including denying the Trinity and other false ideas, for which he will have to answer at the judgment.

The point is, saying you believe in the Bible and in Jesus doesn't make you a legit Church. If your doctrine is different than the Church which has existed from the start, you need to question your own ability to interpret Scripture. Everyone thinks they have the proper interpretation. That doesn't make them right. Neither does performing amazing miracles etc.

-- Max Darity (arrowtouch@yahoo.com), December 12, 2004.

OK Max;

If everyone's got it wrong who has it right. Are we supposed to bumble our way into Heaven?

-- TC (Treadmill234@south.com), December 12, 2004.

>I don't know the statistics Max, care to share?<

Rome was just 1 of 5 equal Patriarchates. The other 4 remained together and Rome went its own way, embracing erroneous Creed changes among other false dogmas that finally broke the unity between East and West. Rome has innovated plenty more false dogma ever since. Basically, my point was that it was not a split "down the middle" as you said, unless you meant it in a strictly geographic sense.

Yes--I was thinking more in terms of East and West.

>Could you please cite an example in the Scriptures where any church is rejected as being *not* legit??<

There may be better examples, but this one comes to mind and serves as an example that we are to reject false doctrine and those individuals and groups which espouse false doctrine:

"For many deceivers have gone out into the world who do not confess Jesus Christ as coming in the flesh. This is a deceiver and an anti- christ... whoever transgresses and does not abide int he doctrine of Christ does not have God. He who abides in the doctrine of Christ has both the Father and the Son. If anyone comes to you and does not bring this doctrine, do not receive him into your house nor greet him." - from St. John's 2nd Epistle

This verse is not addressing a church, but individuals.

If a group denies important doctrines, such as what Baptism is, the doctrine of Christ's divinity, etc. they are not legit churches and are to be excluded from communion with the legit churches of Christ.

I would agree Max. We can tell who these churches and cults are based on whether they accept the truth in the Scriptures or not--like the verse you used shows., but still., do we see any examples of a particular body or church being rejected as legitamate in the Scriptures?

In other words, a Trinitarian Church should have nothing to do with a Jehovah's Witness Arian Church, etc. The Arian Church should be rejected. I'm sure you can accept this principle.

Absolutely. I reject any religion that denies the divinity of Jesus Christ. Even those religions who do it more subtly.

>I do not agree that truth is found in the Jehovah Witness Cult--as the deny Jesus' divinity.<

Because they have rejected Christ does not mean they do not espouse many true doctrines, for example, that there is only One God.

Yes, but this one God that the JW worship is not the God as revealed in the Bible.

The God that the Muslims worship isn't even close.

>What could they possible teach that would be a credit to them in face of this?<

Imagine teaching a child about God. You begin at the same point that a Muslim, a JW, a Christian, a Jew starts... there is One God who made all things. This is true, but it does not make their whole sect acceptable. My point is, just because you accept some true doctrines, that does not make your whole sect acceptable... jsut because you accept the Trinity does not make your whole sect acceptable.

Wouldn't this be true of your "sect" too?

Just because you accept the divinity of Christ, that does not make your sect acceptable. Oneness Pentecostals claim to believe in the divinity of Christ, but their Christology is unacceptable. It rejects the Father and the Son. Again, my point was, you cannot say every sect is equally Christian and that no sect is closer to the Truth than any other. By claiming that you are in effect denying that Christ has preserved the fullness of the Truth in His Churches.

I never made that claim. I, rather, make the claim that no *one* religion or church is the true church of Jesus Christ that we could find on the earth. His body is spiritual for now. There are church building that believers can come to, and the book of Acts gi9ves us a good picture of how this church should function. But His true body is not hold-up in any building or institution on the face of the earth.

>Not to get too particular, but I always saw that verse as almost being directed specifically at the Catholic Church. They are the only one religion who makes a universal claim to be the true Church of Jesus Christ.<

Wrong. The Orthodox Church claims to be the One True Apostolic Church of Christ that has preserved the Truth through the ages.

Do you have a universal headquarters? Ya see., Rome fits the description of "Mystery Babylon," The verse you quoted above--about false prophets does not speak about a false church--but in Revelation 17 and 18--we find the only place in Scripture where an actual religious enterprise is not only rejected by God--but destroyed in a terrible judgement.

>What other false prophets can cast out demons or do miraculous things in Jesus name like that?<

There are many today who circle the globe on evangelical missions who bring many signs and wonders in the Name of Jesus. The fact is, Jesus will honor faith in Him, even if His Word is preached by a false prophet. For example, William Branham was once a very popular evangelist in the last century (you barely hear about him today even though he was one of the most "successful" ministries ever) who performed many undeniable miracles in the Name of Jesus. Many repented and believed in Jesus because of Branham's evangelism and healings. However, Branham also introduced destructive heresy into the Churches, including denying the Trinity and other false ideas, for which he will have to answer at the judgment.

Well then, did these people all come to faith in Jesus Christ-- entering the right one true church....an established religion here on earth? Or is it more importantant that they became a true believer in Jesus Christ and placed their faith in Him to save them--apart from any religious institute? You seem to be saying that it doesn't matter what church you worship in or what religion you follow, as long as you have the right faith relationship with Jesus Christ. I agree with that--but think that you stand a better chance of that--if you are in a church that preaches the Bible correctly. The Jehovah Witnesses are not likel;y to lead anyone to Christ.

The point is, saying you believe in the Bible and in Jesus doesn't make you a legit Church. If your doctrine is different than the Church which has existed from the start, you need to question your own ability to interpret Scripture. Everyone thinks they have the proper interpretation. That doesn't make them right. Neither does performing amazing miracles etc.

The problem is that the original church *ecclessia* was a called out body of believers who baptised other true believers into this ecclessia....they created a spiritual church of true believers. There is no earthly church/institution today who can claim to be the true church because division has been a problem since the begining, and Jesus said that His body cannot be divided. Therefore the obvious solution is that His Body is spiritual. There exists a true spiritual body of Christ. We are One. We are universal, and we are not divided.

If you really pay attention to the New Testament times., there was no one church that headed any others and there was no one church that was rejected, in spite of all their faults. The key was remaining true to the Scriptures.

-- (faith01@myway.com), December 12, 2004.

I did it again! I do not do well with these tags!

-- (faith01@myway.com), December 12, 2004.

>Yes--I was thinking more in terms of East and West.<

Geographic division doesn't really make a difference. If you're one of five equal Patriarchates and you decide to leave and go your own way without honoring the position of those other four, it can hardly be called a "split down the middle." Rome may have had more people under its care than any of the others, but that doesn't give it more power.

>Do you have a universal headquarters?<

No. The Orthodox Church has no "universal headquarters" like the Roman Church. Orthodoxy gives primary honor to Constantinople as "first among equals" because of convenience, not because of divine right.

>This verse is not addressing a church, but individuals.<

Perhaps, but the principles applies. If a church or group chooses to deny the truth, the true churches must reject communion with it. Again, let us use the example of a church that decides to deny Christ's divinity... should Trinitarian churches maintain communion with that church? The answer is obvious. That church should be rejected and it loses its legitimacy as a member of Christ's Churches.

>do we see any examples of a particular body or church being rejected as legitamate in the Scriptures<

I don't believe there is a specific example in the Scriptures, mainly because the scriptures were written so early and there was little time for such an apostasy of a congregation to have occurred. The Apostles were still around and no legit church would reject the Apostles. No legit Church could reject a Church the Apostle's supported.

>Yes, but this one God that the JW worship is not the God as revealed in the Bible.<

If you teach a child about God the Creator and do not get any deeper than the most simple truth (that Almighty God created all things) before the child dies, has the child been taught a lie simply because the teaching about the Creator comes from the lips of a Muslim, a JW, or a Jew? No. My point is, there are "truths" in all these various religions. That doesn't mean they worship God in Truth, though.

>The God that the Muslims worship isn't even close.<

The simple teaching that the Creator of the world is God is not false. The teachings about that Creator may be false, but that simple truth remains, even in a false Anti-Christ religion. My point is, having one doctrine right doesn't make your religion the true religion.

>Wouldn't this be true of your "sect" too?<

Yes. It's interesting that you put "quotes" around the word sect... is it because you recognize that Orthodoxy never split from any other group like every other Christian group (sect) out there? including Roman Catholics? or maybe I'm just taking advantage of the situation to make an unrelated point. ;)

>I never made that claim. I, rather, make the claim that no *one* religion or church is the true church of Jesus Christ that we could find on the earth.<

Isn't this a presupposition? It certainly isn't found in the Bible. In fact, the Bible disagrees with you and teaches that there are very true and specific local churches. Who was the messenger who delivered the Epistle from Paul to the Galatians supposed to go to if there was no actual localized community of churches of Jesus Christ in Galatia? Was the messenger just supposed to publish the letter in the newspaper and hope it reached a Christian audience somewhere in Galatia? WAIT! They didn't have a printing press back then... think about it. There HAD TO BE such thing as a true physical communion of churches that acknowledged each other, otherwise how would they know who to pass Paul's letters around to? It took lots of man-hours to copy those letters and send them out to all the other churches in the area. It took lots of miles to travel to each church, but according to you, there was no actual physical church to actually go to or have relations with... I hope you see your error without me going beyond these examples that show your idea of Christ's Church on earth is wrong.

> His body is spiritual for now.<

Since when? Is that in the Bible or is it a doctrine of men? I've already shown clearly that the Church HAD TO BE something physical in order that we even possess the Bible today. You base your beliefs on the Bible, but you reject the Organization that produced the Bible. It's truly ironic.

>His true body is not hold-up in any building or institution on the face of the earth.<

You're correct. The Body of Christ is not "contained" by any institution or building. That doesn't mean His Church is not a physical community of believers, faithful bishops, and such. Those of us who are true believers in Christ are members of the Body of Christ. Some members need to come home, to be united with the rest of His members. Some are home, within that One Communion, the One Body of Christ that exists on earth.

Well then, did these people all come to faith in Jesus Christ-- entering the right one true church....an established religion here on earth? Or is it more importantant that they became a true believer in Jesus Christ and placed their faith in Him to save them--apart from any religious institute?<

You're speaking of Branham's converts... Yes I believe many sincerely came to faith in Jesus Christ at his meetings, but I also believe many were led astray and lost faith in the true Lord Jesus Christ, not being disipled by "the pillar and ground of the truth" which is the True Church of God. (1Ti 3:15) It's only opinion, but I think many were truly born of God's Spirit through faith in Christ and continued in faith and love, though it was harder for them being apart from the True Church... and many advocated false doctrines, for which they will give an account on the last day. Only Christ can judge heretics.

Having faith in Christ does not give one free license to pervert the Holy Teachings and Apostolic Traditions. Perhaps a person has faith in Jesus Christ and maybe they will be accepted in the end at the judgment, but it's my personal opinion that much of their works will simply burn up and be unrewarded, having labored in vain by spreading their heresy and false doctrines, promoting their false churches and traditions etc. They might possibly be saved, but only "as by fire." I have heavy doubts, though, that a person who originates false doctrines and heresies from a position of leadership will be able to enter into God's Kingdom, though. Thankfully I'm not the Judge.

1Cr 3:15 "If any man's work shall be burned, he shall suffer loss: but he himself shall be saved; yet so as by fire."

>You seem to be saying that it doesn't matter what church you worship in or what religion you follow, as long as you have the right faith relationship with Jesus Christ. I agree with that<

I'm not saying that. I'm saying, there is only One True Church of Christ. There may be "stranded members" living out their lives in a false churches who may be accepted at the judgment, but for the most part, these heterodox churches are not in full communion with the True Church of God. If you are a member of a false church, you are in danger of being led astray or losing your faith altogether (which is possible) should the spirit of Anti-christ sweep through your neighborhood and deceive you. The days are coming and are already here. The false churches will be easily swayed into following the ministers of Anti-Christ. It's inevitable.

>The Jehovah Witnesses are not likel;y to lead anyone to Christ.<

I think they play their part in God's plan, though most of them will never enter heaven, being apart from God's Grace in the Church. (I could never claim all persons will be damned who are misled by the Watchtower Society, but who still hold that Jesus is the Messiah and die for that belief, as many JW's have around the world. I'm not the Judge.) I think JW's challenge the true Christians to survey their lives and beliefs, which is a good thing.

>The problem is that the original church *ecclessia* was a called out body of believers who baptised other true believers into this ecclessia....they created a spiritual church of true believers.<

The earliest believers constituted a true physical "House of God" (1Ti 3:15) and these churches had communion with each other and sent letters back and forth between each other and made copies of the scriptures for each other and sent missionaries out and sent each other money or food if needed etc. The churches even financially supported the missions of the Apostles etc. A church needs to be more than something "invisible" if it is going to do this sort of physical work.

>There is no earthly church/institution today who can claim to be the true church because division has been a problem since the begining,<

All churches are a result of division (even Romanism) or is a complete innovation within the last 100 years... all except the Holy Orthodox Church which has never divided since the Apostles.

>Therefore the obvious solution is that His Body is spiritual.<

You're inventing/advocating a new manmade dogma that is found nowhere in scripture or tradition. No church father ever held such a view and no scripture can support it. Do you realize you're forced to invent that dogma because you reject that Christ was able to preserve His Church from division? You invent that dogma because you assume "the church of the living God, the pillar and ground of the truth" (1Ti 3:15) quickly fell into division and false doctrine even before the Apostles were martyred.

>There exists a true spiritual body of Christ. We are One. We are universal, and we are not divided.<

You claim there is a "spiritual body of Christ" but you reject that any local church can ever claim to be God's Church. You reject that God preserved the full Truth in His Church on earth.

You don't realize it, but you are advocating a sort of gnostic view of the Body of Christ, that she is not really physical at all, or that she is so mutilated and disjointed on this earth, that she is totally unrecognizable to anybody... even though the Apostles ministered to her by making rounds to the churches and they gave their lives so that true doctrine would remain in her...

If you reject that Christ's Bride is physical, you can't actually claim to be a part of her. Is your body part of Christ's Body or not? Christ's Body on earth (His Bride, His People, His House) is just as physical as His Body in heaven. It is physically comprised of all true believers in Jesus Christ and can be identified by her unity.

Not to put too fine a point on it, but to reject the physical unity of the church from her beginning and the continued preservation of the Truth within her is to follow after the Spirit of Antichrist.

Something many Christians (especially Americans) hate to hear, but is one of the more sobering truths for those who claim to be Christians, is the fact that schismatics will not inherit the Kingdom of God. God hates schism and all those who pervert the teachings which were handed to the Bride of Christ. Maybe God will have mercy on some who do it out of ignorance.

-- Max Darity (arrowtouch@yahoo.com), December 13, 2004.

Max

just about every heresy in the early days originated in the East and was resolved by the West.

doesn't that say something to you?

doesn't the fact that, near the end (the final Schism), the East was effectively under Muslim control, say something to you?

the Formula of Hormisdas?

the fact that the East signed up at Florence and threw rattle out of pram, and baby out with bathwater, on account of non-theological considerations.

who's got the Keys, Max?

do you include the Russian Church in your communion? the Greek Church? these are interesting congregations in themselves.

you can't ignore the history Max.

-- Ian (ib@vertifgo.com), December 13, 2004.

don't mean to interrupt yr debate with Faith, just about all of which, apart from the references to "Romanism", i would agree with wholeheartedly.

maybe i should go back to that old thread and post this there too.

-- Ian (ib@vertifgo.com), December 13, 2004.

a retraction Max

".....apart from the references to "Romanism", i would agree with wholeheartedly. "

not true.

what i do accept is yr take on the main subject matter - ie the "visibility" or "invisibility" of the Church.

from "Mystici Corporis Christi" (para 14):

"That the Church is a body is frequently asserted in the Sacred Scriptures. "Christ," says the Apostle, "is the Head of the Body of the Church." [13] If the Church is a body, it must be an unbroken unity, according to those words of Paul: "Though many we are one body in Christ." [14] But it is not enough that the body of the Church should be an unbroken unity; it must also be something definite and perceptible to the senses as Our predecessor of happy memory, Leo XIII, in his Encyclical Satis Cognitum asserts: "the Church is visible because she is a body." [15] *****Hence they err in a matter of divine truth, who imagine the Church to be invisible, intangible, a something merely "pneumatological" as they say, by which many Christian communities, though they differ from each other in their profession of faith, are united by an invisible bond****."

the whole thing is here: http://www.papalencyclicals.net/Pius12/P12MYSTI.HTM

-- Ian (ib@vertifgo.com), December 13, 2004.

>Yes--I was thinking more in terms of East and West.< Geographic division doesn't really make a difference. If you're one of five equal Patriarchates and you decide to leave and go your own way without honoring the position of those other four, it can hardly be called a "split down the middle." Rome may have had more people under its care than any of the others, but that doesn't give it more power. I know very little about the details of this schism. All I know is that there was a division. A division is a division., no matter who left who or who was supposedly in the wrong. Just because four said it was their way, and one disagreed, doesn't make the four right just because they outnumbered the one. All I can see is that there was a problem. I wonder if all five weren't wrong and all five hadn't departed from the original gospel of Jesus Christ? How can we tell? We have to turn to the Scriptures for those answers.

>This verse is not addressing a church, but individuals.<

Perhaps, but the principles applies. If a church or group chooses to deny the truth, the true churches must reject communion with it. Again, let us use the example of a church that decides to deny Christ's divinity... should Trinitarian churches maintain communion with that church? The answer is obvious. That church should be rejected and it loses its legitimacy as a member of Christ's Churches.

The way I see it--an individual believer should not choose to worship in a church like that. No one church could possibly be the *body of Christ* in and of itself. There is no such thing as loosing legitamacy as Christ's church.

Christ's church is His body--a body of Called out believers-- ecclessia. Perhaps the confusion began when translators used the word church in place of ecclessia? I think *church* and *His Body* are two different things.

>do we see any examples of a particular body or church being rejected as legitamate in the Scriptures<

I don't believe there is a specific example in the Scriptures, mainly because the scriptures were written so early and there was little time for such an apostasy of a congregation to have occurred. The Apostles were still around and no legit church would reject the Apostles. No legit Church could reject a Church the Apostle's supported.

Yet Paul went around warning all the different churches not to accept any Scriptures that purported to be from him unless they had his signature on them or unless the teaching had been heard from his own lips. Apparently there were already some who were going around proclaiming false teachings as truth. They were trying to claim that Jesus had already returned--that the Day of the Lord had already come. They were forging Paul's name. How did Paul instruct them to be sure they had the truth? They were instructed to accept only that in his own handwriting or from his own mouth. That is good advice for us even today. Everything has been contained within the Scriptures.

>Wouldn't this be true of your "sect" too?<

Yes. It's interesting that you put "quotes" around the word sect... is it because you recognize that Orthodoxy never split from any other group like every other Christian group (sect) out there? including Roman Catholics? or maybe I'm just taking advantage of the situation to make an unrelated point. ;)

Sorry to disappoint Max. But I put "sect" in quotes to emphasize the fact that the Eastern Orthodox is just another sect like the rest of us. Yours is a sect off the original apostles teachings in every bit as much the same way as is the Roman Catholic sect.., or any of the denominations that have come along. We are all guilty of rejecting what we perceive as false teachings, and we all claim to be the ones closest to the truth.

>I never made that claim. I, rather, make the claim that no *one* religion or church is the true church of Jesus Christ that we could find on the earth.<

Isn't this a presupposition? It certainly isn't found in the Bible. In fact, the Bible disagrees with you and teaches that there are very true and specific local churches.

Right. Notice that there are churches--not one church.

Who was the messenger who delivered the Epistle from Paul to the Galatians supposed to go to if there was no actual localized community of churches of Jesus Christ in Galatia?

Who said that there weren't active churches who were preaching the gospel of Jesus Christ? I don't deny that. We see them today, too

Was the messenger just supposed to publish the letter in the newspaper and hope it reached a Christian audience somewhere in Galatia? WAIT! They didn't have a printing press back then... think about it. There HAD TO BE such thing as a true physical communion of churches that acknowledged each other, otherwise how would they know who to pass Paul's letters around to? It took lots of man-hours to copy those letters and send them out to all the other churches in the area. It took lots of miles to travel to each church, but according to you, there was no actual physical church to actually go to or have relations with... I hope you see your error without me going beyond these examples that show your idea of Christ's Church on earth is wrong.

I never claimed that there were no churches. These were the early churches of Jesus Christ. They met in homes and on mountaintops. These groups of people traveled all over--spreading the truth of the gospel of Jesus Christ and writing the New Testament for us.

> His body is spiritual for now.<

Since when? Is that in the Bible or is it a doctrine of men? I've already shown clearly that the Church HAD TO BE something physical in order that we even possess the Bible today. You base your beliefs on the Bible, but you reject the Organization that produced the Bible. It's truly ironic.

What organization is that? The Roman Catholic Church? The Jewish Pharisees?

>His true body is not hold-up in any building or institution on the face of the earth.<

You're correct. The Body of Christ is not "contained" by any institution or building. That doesn't mean His Church is not a physical community of believers, faithful bishops, and such.

I believe His body is a community of true believers, a universal body. But this body needs to come together in church. That's what they did in the early days, and that is what we do still today.

Those of us who are true believers in Christ are members of the Body of Christ. Some members need to come home, to be united with the rest of His members. Some are home, within that One Communion, the One Body of Christ that exists on earth.

See., I think you confuse the "Body of Christ" with the church as in a building or institution/religion. I think that a Christian is simply a person who has received Christ by faith. Christianity is not a religion, but a relationship with Jesus Christ through His Word. And this has manifested itself into many religions--going back to even the earliest days.

Well then, did these people all come to faith in Jesus Christ-- entering the right one true church....an established religion here on earth? Or is it more importantant that they became a true believer in Jesus Christ and placed their faith in Him to save them--apart from any religious institute?<

You're speaking of Branham's converts... Yes I believe many sincerely came to faith in Jesus Christ at his meetings, but I also believe many were led astray and lost faith in the true Lord Jesus Christ, not being disipled by "the pillar and ground of the truth" which is the True Church of God. (1Ti 3:15)

That's the very verse that Paul M from the Catholic board uses to support his claim that it is the Roman Catholic Church which is the pillar and foundation of truth.

It's only opinion, but I think many were truly born of God's Spirit through faith in Christ and continued in faith and love, though it was harder for them being apart from the True Church...

So then the true church is not really necessary?

.. and many advocated false doctrines, for which they will give an account on the last day. Only Christ can judge heretics.

Actually--the Bible says that we--His Body--sit in judgement with Him

Do you really think that God would set up such a system that would depend so much on an earthly institution? Jesus says that He can lose none that the Father has given Him. He says that His Body--not church- -His body cannot be divided. How can this be possible in an earthly institution run by mere men? Sinful men?

Having faith in Christ does not give one free license to pervert the Holy Teachings and Apostolic Traditions. Perhaps a person has faith in Jesus Christ and maybe they will be accepted in the end at the judgment, but it's my personal opinion that much of their works will simply burn up and be unrewarded, having labored in vain by spreading their heresy and false doctrines, promoting their false churches and traditions etc.

This would be true for every believer. Believers do not face judgement unto salvation because we are judged perfect in Christ and *saved* in Christ. We do have to face the judgement of our works. If our works are good, they will survive the fire and if they are not good, they will burn-up. Each believer is then rewarded accordingly. This has nothing to do with salvation.

They might possibly be saved, but only "as by fire." I have heavy doubts, though, that a person who originates false doctrines and heresies from a position of leadership will be able to enter into God's Kingdom, though. Thankfully I'm not the Judge.

What might be saved? The believers? The verse reminds us that the believer *is* saved.

That Scripture is refering to the works, not the believer. The verse only reiterates that the judging of his works will not effect his salvation. It says he is still saved. Some people apply biblical principles in their lives--others do not. But none of what we *do* has anything to do with our salvation.

1 Cor. 3:10-15

By the grace God has given me, I laid a foundation as an expert builder, and someone else is building on it. But each one should be careful how he builds. For no one can lay any foundation other than the one already laid, which is Jesus Christ. If any man builds on this foundation using gold, silver, costly stones, wood, hay or straw, his work will be shown for what it is, because the Day will bring it to light. It will be revealed with fire, and the fire will test the quality of each man's work. If what he has built survives, he will receive his reward. If it is burned up, he will suffer loss; he himself will be saved, but only as one escaping through the flames.

>You seem to be saying that it doesn't matter what church you worship in or what religion you follow, as long as you have the right faith relationship with Jesus Christ. I agree with that<

I'm not saying that. I'm saying, there is only One True Church of Christ. There may be "stranded members" living out their lives in a false churches who may be accepted at the judgment, but for the most part, these heterodox churches are not in full communion with the True Church of God. If you are a member of a false church, you are in danger of being led astray or losing your faith altogether (which is possible)...

Not according to Jesus who tells us that He will lose none of those who are His.

...should the spirit of Anti-christ sweep through your neighborhood and deceive you. The days are coming and are already here. The false churches will be easily swayed into following the ministers of Anti- Christ. It's inevitable.

According to Scripture--it is people who are in danger of being deceived. The only false church I see mentioned is the apostate church of Revelation...called *Mystery Babylon.*

>The Jehovah Witnesses are not likel;y to lead anyone to Christ.<

I think they play their part in God's plan, though most of them will never enter heaven, being apart from God's Grace in the Church.

What they are separated from is Jesus Christ. Not a church.

(I could never claim all persons will be damned who are misled by the Watchtower Society, but who still hold that Jesus is the Messiah and die for that belief, as many JW's have around the world. I'm not the Judge.) I think JW's challenge the true Christians to survey their lives and beliefs, which is a good thing.

But they reject Jesus the Christ as being God in the flesh.

>The problem is that the original church *ecclessia* was a called out body of believers who baptised other true believers into this ecclessia....they created a spiritual church of true believers.<

The earliest believers constituted a true physical "House of God" (1Ti 3:15) and these churches had communion with each other and sent letters back and forth between each other and made copies of the scriptures for each other and sent missionaries out and sent each other money or food if needed etc. The churches even financially supported the missions of the Apostles etc. A church needs to be more than something "invisible" if it is going to do this sort of physical work.

I agree. I still do not see how we can determine which religion/church today is part of the original church which was the apostles themselves. I think it was clear to even them--that this church would remain as one--in only one way. Spiritually.

Here is how they stated the foundation of this church in the following verses in 1Timothy 3:16...

Beyond all question, the mystery of godliness is great: He appeared in a body, was vindicated by the Spirit, was seen by angels, was preached among the nations, was believed on in the world, was taken up in glory.

>There is no earthly church/institution today who can claim to be the true church because division has been a problem since the begining,<

All churches are a result of division (even Romanism) or is a complete innovation within the last 100 years... all except the Holy Orthodox Church which has never divided since the Apostles.

I know this is what you claim. However--can you prove it?

>Therefore the obvious solution is that His Body is spiritual.<

You're inventing/advocating a new manmade dogma that is found nowhere in scripture or tradition. No church father ever held such a view and no scripture can support it. Do you realize you're forced to invent that dogma because you reject that Christ was able to preserve His Church from division?

No, actually. I think He did preserve His body from division by sticking to His Word which tells us that his body is spirit for now, but that he will return for us on that last day and take us to be at home with Him..

You invent that dogma because you assume "the church of the living God, the pillar and ground of the truth" (1Ti 3:15) quickly fell into division and false doctrine even before the Apostles were martyred.

Paul said this to be true, himself.

>There exists a true spiritual body of Christ. We are One. We are universal, and we are not divided.<

You claim there is a "spiritual body of Christ" but you reject that any local church can ever claim to be God's Church. You reject that God preserved the full Truth in His Church on earth. No Max. I simply believe that there are many churches who do preserve God's truth as found in the Scriptures and I am not at all convinced that God ever meant to establish one hierarchy that would reign over all churches. Only Christ is the head as revealed in His Word. If a church is in in keeping with Scripture--it has the truth and it it should preach it to all the world.

You don't realize it, but you are advocating a sort of gnostic view of the Body of Christ, that she is not really physical at all, or that she is so mutilated and disjointed on this earth, that she is totally unrecognizable to anybody... even though the Apostles ministered to her by making rounds to the churches and they gave their lives so that true doctrine would remain in her...

And we have the Scriptures because of their mission work. We can and do raise up churches in keeping with apostolic teaching.

If you reject that Christ's Bride is physical, you can't actually claim to be a part of her. Is your body part of Christ's Body or not? Christ's Body on earth (His Bride, His People, His House) is just as physical as His Body in heaven. It is physically comprised of all true believers in Jesus Christ and can be identified by her unity.

Christ's bride is still being prepared and she is still waiting for her groom.

Not to put too fine a point on it, but to reject the physical unity of the church from her beginning and the continued preservation of the Truth within her is to follow after the Spirit of Antichrist.

This is your opinion, Max. The Scriptures say that the spirit of antichrist rejects that Jesus is come in the flesh. It says that the antichrist deceives us by immitation--counterfeit Jesus' and Marys' come to mind. Great signs of wonder and miracles are listed, and I think of the doctrine of Transubstantiation. Things that cannot be confirmed in the Scriptures are the doctrines of devils.

Something many Christians (especially Americans) hate to hear, but is one of the more sobering truths for those who claim to be Christians, is the fact that schismatics will not inherit the Kingdom of God. God hates schism and all those who pervert the teachings which were handed to the Bride of Christ. Maybe God will have mercy on some who do it out of ignorance.

Jesus told us that there are weeds among the wheat in His kingom. He says he allows these weeds to grow up with the wheat so as not to destroy the good in removing the bad. He says that He knows who are His. This tells me that His Body is not as clear as you would like to believe. I think that this is because it is spiritual in nature for now. I think the *church* is something else.

Jesus says that His kingdom--which is to be inherited by His body--is not of this world.

-- (faith01@myway.com), December 13, 2004.

"Rome was just 1 of 5 equal Patriarchates."

St. Peter was not equal with St. James, St. John, St. Andrew, and the rest of the Apostles. St. Peter was the Prince of the Apostles, the Leader of the Apostles, and Supreme over All the Apostles because Jesus Christ Himself instituted St. Peter's Primacy and Infallibility over all the Apostles and the entire Church. St. Peter was the Bishop of Rome; and the Bishop of Rome was Supreme over all the other Bishops. Thus, the Successor of St. Peter is Supreme over all the other Bishops and Patriarchs. The Council of Constantinople (381 A.D.) affirmed the Primacy of the Bishop of Rome over the Patriarch of Constantinople.

The Eastern Roman Empire was a breeding ground for the Arian, Monophysite, Monothelete, and Iconoclast Heresies. The original author of the Eastern Schism was the Arian Eusebius of Nicomedia who sought to undo the work of the Council of Nicaea (325 A.D.). The Eastern Schism was ushered in by Patriarch Photius of Constantinople (9th Century) who was excommunicared by Pope St. Nicholas I for accepting consecration from an excommunicated Bishop. The Eastern Schism was finalized when Patriarch Cerularius of Constantinople was excommunicated by Pope St. Leo IX on 16th of July, 1054 for ordering the Sacred Host to be trodden under foot among other impertinences. The succeeding Eastern Patriarchs refused to submit to the Divine Authority of the Pope in Rome. They finally got the autonomy they have long desired in the form of Schism.

Member,
The 2000-Year-Old Holy Catholic Church, the Ark of Salvation, Producer of the Holy Bible (4th Century) : 1 Supreme and Infallible Pope [St.] John Paul II, Successor of St. Peter, the Rock, the Vicar of Jesus Christ, the Shepherd on earth, under the Guidance of the Holy Spirit; 4649 Bishops, Successors of the Twelve Apostles; 405067 Priests; 29204 Deacons; 54970 Brothers; 792317 Sisters; 1.1 BILLION MEMBERS on earth unified in the Sovereign Pontiff. 1 Flock, 1 Shepherd. "All roads lead to Rome."

-- Joseph (jtg878@hotmail.com), December 13, 2004.

Joseph,

Can you cite even one verse where all the other disciples are even remotely aware of Peter's supposed authority over them?

I'll wait.....

-- (faith01@myway.com), December 13, 2004.

Early church fathers were aware of Peter's primacy:

Clement of Alexandria

"[T]he blessed Peter, the chosen, the preeminent, the first among the disciples, for whom alone with himself the Savior paid the tribute [Matt. 17:27], quickly grasped and understood their meaning. And what does he say? ‘Behold, we have left all and have followed you’ [Matt. 19:27; Mark 10:28]" (Who Is the Rich Man That Is Saved? 21:3–5 [A.D. 200]).

Tertullian

"For though you think that heaven is still shut up, remember that the Lord left the keys of it to Peter here, and through him to the Church, which keys everyone will carry with him if he has been questioned and made a confession [of faith]" (Antidote Against the Scorpion 10 [A.D. 211]).

"[T]he Lord said to Peter, ‘On this rock I will build my Church, I have given you the keys of the kingdom of heaven [and] whatever you shall have bound or loosed on earth will be bound or loosed in heaven’ [Matt. 16:18–19]. . . . Upon you, he says, I will build my Church; and I will give to you the keys, not to the Church" (Modesty 21:9–10 [A.D. 220]).

The Letter of Clement to James

"Be it known to you, my lord, that Simon [Peter], who, for the sake of the true faith, and the most sure foundation of his doctrine, was set apart to be the foundation of the Church, and for this end was by Jesus himself, with his truthful mouth, named Peter, the first fruits of our Lord, the first of the apostles; to whom first the Father revealed the Son; whom the Christ, with good reason, blessed; the called, and elect" (Letter of Clement to James 2 [A.D. 221]).

Origen

"If we were to attend carefully to the Gospels, we should also find, in relation to those things which seem to be common to Peter . . . a great difference and a preeminence in the things [Jesus] said to Peter, compared with the second class [of apostles]. For it is no small difference that Peter received the keys not of one heaven but of more, and in order that whatsoever things he binds on earth may be bound not in one heaven but in them all, as compared with the many who bind on earth and loose on earth, so that these things are bound and loosed not in [all] the heavens, as in the case of Peter, but in one only; for they do not reach so high a stage with power as Peter to bind and loose in all the heavens" (Commentary on Matthew 13:31 [A.D. 248]).

Cyprian of Carthage

"The Lord says to Peter: ‘I say to you,’ he says, ‘that you are Peter, and upon this rock I will build my Church.’ . . . On him [Peter] he builds the Church, and to him he gives the command to feed the sheep [John 21:17], and although he assigns a like power to all the apostles, yet he founded a single chair [cathedra], and he established by his own authority a source and an intrinsic reason for that unity. Indeed, the others were that also which Peter was [i.e., apostles], but a primacy is given to Peter, whereby it is made clear that there is but one Church and one chair. So too, all [the apostles] are shepherds, and the flock is shown to be one, fed by all the apostles in single-minded accord. If someone does not hold fast to this unity of Peter, can he imagine that he still holds the faith? If he [should] desert the chair of Peter upon whom the Church was built, can he still be confident that he is in the Church?" (The Unity of the Catholic Church 4; 1st edition [A.D. 251]).

Cyril of Jerusalem

"The Lord is loving toward men, swift to pardon but slow to punish. Let no man despair of his own salvation. Peter, the first and foremost of the apostles, denied the Lord three times before a little servant girl, but he repented and wept bitterly" (Catechetical Lectures 2:19 [A.D. 350]).

"[Simon Magus] so deceived the city of Rome that Claudius erected a statue of him. . . . While the error was extending itself, Peter and Paul arrived, a noble pair and the rulers of the Church, and they set the error aright. . . . [T]hey launched the weapon of their like- mindedness in prayer against the Magus, and struck him down to earth. It was marvelous enough, and yet no marvel at all, for Peter was there—he that carries about the keys of heaven [Matt. 16:19]" (ibid., 6:14).

"In the power of the same Holy Spirit, Peter, both the chief of the apostles and the keeper of the keys of the kingdom of heaven, in the name of Christ healed Aeneas the paralytic at Lydda, which is now called Diospolis [Acts 9:32–34]" (ibid., 17:27).

Ambrose of Milan

"[Christ] made answer: ‘You are Peter, and upon this rock will I build my Church. . . .’ Could he not, then, strengthen the faith of the man to whom, acting on his own authority, he gave the kingdom, whom he called the rock, thereby declaring him to be the foundation of the Church [Matt. 16:18]?" (The Faith 4:5 [A.D. 379]).

Pope Damasus I

"Likewise it is decreed . . . that it ought to be announced that . . . the holy Roman Church has been placed at the forefront not by the conciliar decisions of other churches, but has received the primacy by the evangelic voice of our Lord and Savior, who says: ‘You are Peter, and upon this rock I will build my Church, and the gates of hell will not prevail against it; and I will give to you the keys of the kingdom of heaven . . . ’ [Matt. 16:18–19]. The first see, therefore, is that of Peter the apostle, that of the Roman Church, which has neither stain nor blemish nor anything like it" (Decree of Damasus 3 [A.D. 382]).

Jerome

"‘But,’ you [Jovinian] will say, ‘it was on Peter that the Church was founded’ [Matt. 16:18]. Well . . . one among the twelve is chosen to be their head in order to remove any occasion for division" (Against Jovinian 1:26 [A.D. 393]).

"Simon Peter, the son of John, from the village of Bethsaida in the province of Galilee, brother of Andrew the apostle, and himself chief of the apostles, after having been bishop of the church of Antioch and having preached to the Dispersion . . . pushed on to Rome in the second year of Claudius to overthrow Simon Magus, and held the sacerdotal chair there for twenty-five years until the last, that is the fourteenth, year of Nero. At his hands he received the crown of martyrdom being nailed to the cross with his head towards the ground and his feet raised on high, asserting that he was unworthy to be crucified in the same manner as his Lord" (Lives of Illustrious Men 1 [A.D. 396]).

Augustine

"Among these [apostles] Peter alone almost everywhere deserved to represent the whole Church. Because of that representation of the Church, which only he bore, he deserved to hear ‘I will give to you the keys of the kingdom of heaven’" (Sermons 295:2 [A.D. 411]).

"Some things are said which seem to relate especially to the apostle Peter, and yet are not clear in their meaning unless referred to the Church, which he is acknowledged to have represented in a figure on account of the primacy which he bore among the disciples. Such is ‘I will give unto you the keys of the kingdom of heaven,’ and other similar passages. In the same way, Judas represents those Jews who were Christ’s enemies" (Commentary on Psalm 108 1 [A.D. 415]).

"Who is ignorant that the first of the apostles is the most blessed Peter?" (Commentary on John 56:1 [A.D. 416]).

Council of Ephesus

"Philip, presbyter and legate of [Pope Celestine I] said: ‘We offer our thanks to the holy and venerable synod, that when the writings of our holy and blessed pope had been read to you . . . you joined yourselves to the holy head also by your holy acclamations. For your blessednesses is not ignorant that the head of the whole faith, the head of the apostles, is blessed Peter the apostle’" (Acts of the Council, session 2 [A.D. 431]).

"Philip, the presbyter and legate of the Apostolic See [Rome] said: ‘There is no doubt, and in fact it has been known in all ages, that the holy and most blessed Peter, prince and head of the apostles, pillar of the faith, and foundation of the Catholic Church, received the keys of the kingdom from our Lord Jesus Christ, the Savior and Redeemer of the human race, and that to him was given the power of loosing and binding sins: who down even to today and forever both lives and judges in his successors’" (ibid., session 3).

-- Andrew (andyhbk96@hotmail.com), December 14, 2004.

Faith,

aside from the fact that ONLY HE was given the Keys to the Kingdom....

....., in the New Testament St. Peter is always listed first (Mt. 10:14; Mk. 3:16-19; Lk. 6:14-1 5; Acts 1:13) and is sometimes the only one mentioned (Lk. 9:32). He speaks for the Apostles (Mt. 18:21; Mk. 8:28; Lk. 12:41; Jn. 6:69).

When our Lord selects a group of three for some special event, such as the Transfiguration, St. Peter is in the first position. Our Lord chose to teach from St. Peter's boat.

At Pentecost St. Peter preached to the crowds and told of the mission of the Church (Acts 2;14-40).

He performed the first miraculous healing (Acts 3:6-7).

St Peter also received the revelation that the Gentiles were to be baptized (Acts 10:9-48) and sided with St. Paul against the need for circumcision (Acts 15).

extracted (with little modification) from here: http://www.catholic-pages.com/pope/peter.asp

presumably, Faith, the other Apostles thought that this was just a coincidence -- and had no clue that St Peter was "special"?!?!?!

for a more comprehensive account, see here: http://www.scripturecatholic.com/primacy_of_peter.html

-- Ian (ib@vertifgo.com), December 14, 2004.

Not good enough.

Give me Scriptural support for the claim that Peter was head over any other disciple.

There is no such support.

Peter himself seems unaware:

1 Peter 5:1-4

To the elders among you, I appeal as a fellow elder, a witness of Christ's sufferings and one who also will share in the glory to be revealed: Be shepherds of God's flock that is under your care, serving as overseers–not because you must, but because you are willing, as God wants you to be; not greedy for money, but eager to serve; not lording it over those entrusted to you, but being examples to the flock. And when the Chief Shepherd appears, you will receive the crown of glory that will never fade away.

He makes no unique claim for himself--but takes his place with the other disciples:

2 Peter 1:16-18

We did not follow cleverly invented stories when we told you about the power and coming of our Lord Jesus Christ, but we were eyewitnesses of his majesty. For he received honor and glory from God the Father when the voice came to him from the Majestic Glory, saying, “This is my Son, whom I love; with him I am well pleased.” We ourselves heard this voice that came from heaven when we were with him on the sacred mountain.

Actually. the other disciples seem completely unaware of his supposed leadership as well, best evidenced in this:

Paul Opposes Peter Galatians 2:11-14

When Peter came to Antioch, I opposed him to his face, because he was clearly in the wrong. Before certain men came from James, he used to eat with the Gentiles. But when they arrived, he began to draw back and separate himself from the Gentiles because he was afraid of those who belonged to the circumcision group. The other Jews joined him in his hypocrisy, so that by their hypocrisy even Barnabas was led astray.

When I saw that they were not acting in line with the truth of the gospel, I (Paul) said to Peter in front of them all, “You are a Jew, yet you live like a Gentile and not like a Jew. How is it, then, that you force Gentiles to follow Jewish customs?

Is that the proper way to talk to the pope?

And why would Peter be afraid and revert back to Jewish tradition to the degree that Paul had to rebuke him?

Certainly Peter did not behave like a pope, nor was he treated as one.

-- (faith01@myway.com), December 14, 2004.

"Not good enough.

Give me Scriptural support for the claim that Peter was head over any other disciple."

Faith, i've just given you a tonne of the stuff.

as i said, is it ***coincidence*** that:

(A) in the New Testament, St. Peter is always listed first (Mt. 10:14; Mk. 3:16-19; Lk. 6:14-1 5; Acts 1:13)

(B) in the New Testament, St. Peter is sometimes the only one mentioned (Lk. 9:32)

(C) in the New Testament, St. Peter speaks for the Apostles (Mt. 18:21; Mk. 8:28; Lk. 12:41; Jn. 6:69).

(D) in the New Testament St. Peter is in the first position when our Lord selects a group of three for some special event, such as the Transfiguration

(E) in the New Testament, Our Lord chose to teach from St. Peter's boat.

(F) in the New Testament, St. Peter preached at Pentecost to the crowds and told of the mission of the Church (Acts 2;14-40).

(G) in the New Testament, St. Peter performed the first miraculous healing (Acts 3:6-7).

(H) in the New Testament, St Peter also received the revelation that the Gentiles were to be baptized (Acts 10:9-48) and sided with St. Paul against the need for circumcision (Acts 15).

Faith, which other Apostle even comes close?

-- Ian (ib@vertifgo.com), December 14, 2004.

Ian.,

The Scripture verses you quote claiming that they show Peter speaking for the other apostles are surely not good examples. Did you look them up?

And as far as Peter siding with Paul against the need for circumcision in Acts 15--do I need to point out the fact that Paul initiated that gathering of the apostles and elders. There were, by- the-way, no church hierarchy at this meeting in Jerusalem., no delegates from afar.

And I would add that it was James, not Peter who took the leadership at that gathering. While Peter made an important statement--it was not doctrinal--it was mainly a summation of his experience in first bringing the gospel to the Gentiles.

James, however, drew upon the Scriptures and argued from a doctrinal point of view. Moreover--it was James who said., "Wherefore my sentence (judgement) is..." and it was his declaration that became the basis of the official letter sent back to Antioch.

There is no evidence that Peter intimidated anyone--yet James intimidated Peter. Fear of James and his influence and leadership caused Peter to revert to Jewish traditional separation from Gentiles.

As a result--Paul, who, by-the-way, wrote far more of the New Testament than Peter and whose ministry was obviously much broader-- publicly rebuked Peter for his error. You didn't address this so I thought I would redirect you back to this most important little fact.

-- (faith01@myway.com), December 14, 2004.

I agree 95 % with you on this one, faith.

Except that Paul did not gather them. Paul and Barnabas tried to clarify things.

The Cristian Yahwist

-- Elpidio Gonzalez (egonval@yahoo.com), December 14, 2004.

Mounting evidence points to the fact that according to secular, governmental, and ecclesial documentation, the election of Cardinal Angelo Roncalli - and Giovanni Montini five years later and subsequent elections after that - were invalid, and that is exactly what the Freemasons were counting on to assure their men would not be protected by the Holy Ghost in the Modernists', Masons', and Communists' efforts to destroy the last remaining obstacle to their godless globalization agenda: The One True Church founded by Christ!

"This, my dear friends, is what I think Our Lady of La Salette meant by the Church being eclipsed. The True Pope is not being seen. He is there, fully visible (= able to be seen), but he is not known and not seen by most. Like the sun during a solar eclipse, the True Pope, and thus the True Church, is there and visible, but blocked from vision. Still, a faint outer corona can be seen for those who look hard enough. I believe that the entire Novus Ordo Church with its hierarchy and "Popes" is blocking the vision of the True Church and the True Pope. This can finally explain what has happened to the Church, how all of this can take place, and why there were serious problems with the conclaves of 1958 and 1963. The Catholic Church is eclipsed, eclipsed by an apostate body of clergy who are bringing upon the world the Great Apostasy."

-- TC (Treadmill234@south.com), December 14, 2004.

Who is your pope TC?

Can you find proof of such a seat in the Scriptures (Please don't cite Matt 16--there is great theological disagreement with that verse).

However--such an important seat should be seen in more places in Scripture-- if such a seat was to even exist.

Do the Eastern Orthodox churches have a pope? Max?

-- (faith01@myway.com), December 14, 2004.

I'll address the other points ASAP. Just wanted to throw this point in...

You can lean on Peter all you want, there's nothing that says that the keys were transferrable to any other party, that the "keys party" should henceforth remain in Rome, that Peter does not possess the keys today, that only Peter received the keys (scripture shows otherwise)... etc.

Also, what was the point in ever having Ecumenical Councils where much debate and discussion took place before any final decisions were issued if Rome could have saved everyone time and money and simply announced its doctrine by letter and save everyone a long, hard, and very unsafe journey? Get the point? Papal dogma as it's understood today was a development over time, not something that existed from the start. If it were a divine doctrine from the get-go, the Oriental Orthodox and Copts would have stayed in communion with Rome long ago. The fact that the dogma is even questioned shows it has never been truly Universally accepted.

Yikes, typed too much!

-- Max Darity (arrowtouch@yahoo.com), December 14, 2004.

Faith

you have addressed points (C) and (H) - though i see problesm with yr responses.

i'll happily respond to those when you also address points (A), (B), (D), (E), (F) and (G). each of (A) - (G) is in and of itself suggestive of St Peter's primacy amongst the Apostles. together, it becomes an extremely strong suggestion.

as for the incident when St Paul rebukes St Peter, i will happily address that too:

"And as far as Peter siding with Paul against the need for circumcision in Acts 15--do I need to point out the fact that Paul initiated that gathering of the apostles and elders."

you don't because (i) i know already and (ii) its irrelevant.

"There were, by- the-way, no church hierarchy at this meeting in Jerusalem, no delegates from afar. "

mmmm. depends what you mean by "hierarchy". a Council in and of itself suggests hierarchy. St Paul's need for a Council suggests hierarchy. St James, the local bishop, delivering the closing statement, suggests hierarchy. St Peter delivering the answer that St James uses as his closing statement, suggests hierarchy. an official letter from the Council, that included St Peter, and delegates, from the local bishop, suggests hierarchy.

"And I would add that it was James, not Peter who took the leadership at that gathering."

see above.

"While Peter made an important statement--it was not doctrinal--it was mainly a summation of his experience in first bringing the gospel to the Gentiles."

he gave the fundamental principle that St James summarised in his "judgment".

"James, however, drew upon the Scriptures and argued from a doctrinal point of view."

mmm. did he follow St Peter or not?

"Moreover--it was James who said., "Wherefore my sentence (judgement) is..." and it was his declaration that became the basis of the official letter sent back to Antioch."

see above.

"There is no evidence that Peter intimidated anyone--"

why should there be? that's not the Pope's job. what made you think this?!?!

"yet James intimidated Peter. Fear of James and his influence and leadership caused Peter to revert to Jewish traditional separation from Gentiles."

from the NAB: In any case, the new Christians whom St Paul is addressing [in Galatians] were converts from paganism (Gal 4:8-9) who were now being enticed by other missionaries to add the observances of the Jewish law, including the rite of circumcision, to the cross of Christ as a means of salvation.

what a marvellous way to assure them that circumcision was a hing of the past. the key is context.

"As a result--Paul, who, by-the-way, wrote far more of the New Testament than Peter and whose ministry was obviously much broader-- publicly rebuked Peter for his error. You didn't address this so I thought I would redirect you back to this most important little fact. "

i now have.

to concude, Faith, there is an overwhelming case that St Peter had primacy.

-- Ian (ib@vertifgo.com), December 15, 2004.

Max

"You can lean on Peter all you want, there's nothing that says that the keys were transferrable to any other party,.."

or non-transferable

".. that the "keys party" should henceforth remain in Rome,"

or not

".. that Peter does not possess the keys today,"

...or that he does, but why would he needs them?!?!

"or [] that only Peter received the keys (scripture shows otherwise)... etc. "

disagree. but show me the Scripture.

"Also, what was the point in ever having Ecumenical Councils where much debate and discussion took place before any final decisions were issued if Rome could have saved everyone time and money and simply announced its doctrine by letter and save everyone a long, hard, and very unsafe journey?"

not true. we all know that the most effective form of communication is face to face, the most durable teams are those that are managed inclusively.

just look at the number of inteligent, well-meaning people that read the bible assiduously, yet arrive at conflicting, and false, conclusions. question: would the congreagtions have been expected to read dogma produced by councils, or would they have relied upon the message received from the pulpit? surely, the dogma would be written down by the lawyers, but communcated orally for the better part by the priests etc.

" Get the point?"

do you!?!?

"Papal dogma as it's understood today was a development over time, not something that existed from the start."

prove it.

"If it were a divine doctrine from the get-go, the Oriental Orthodox and Copts would have stayed in communion with Rome long ago."

aren't you presuming a world of faxes, emails, phone calls, vidoe- cons, jet planes, couriers etc. time and again we saw the East fall into mortal heresy. why were they wrong - corrected by Rome -- but other heresies right - corrected by Rome but Rome ignored?

"The fact that the dogma is even questioned shows it has never been truly Universally accepted."

not true. if EVERYONE in the entire world knew the Dogma, there would be no need for Councils, let alone Papal Infallibility.

all Dogma was known at the time of the Apostles. that does not mean that it was handed down the chain every time exactly right. that does not mean that clever, well-meaning theologians have not sought to review or contradict dogma.

-- Ian (ib@vertifgo.com), December 15, 2004.

I sincerely wish I could go point-by-point in response to both Faith01 and Ian, but let me just address a few important points from each of you.

First, Orthodoxy doesn't reject the historic primacy of Rome per se, just the understanding of what that primacy is. Where Roman Catholics currently view Rome's power as juridical, set up over the churches of the world as a ruler whose power is conceived through legalistic categories of power of jurisdiction... Orthodoxy views the primacy of Rome (historically and in a reintegrated Christendom) as serving the unity of the Church in love.

This was the tradition from the beginning until Rome progressively broke with it and took too much power to herself. Rome has taken horribly wrong turns ever since as well (indulgences, etc.) and her word is not to be viewed as the final word. Only the findings of a true Ecumenical Council can be infallible.

Interesting to note, Rome essentially trampled the holy sacredness of an early Ecumenical Council by unilaterally adding the Filioque clause to the Universal Creed, but that's a whole different topic.

Rome was not instituted by the Lord as the Everlasting Apostolic See with absolute power over all jurisdictions on earth. Otherwise, where was this supposed infallible Apostolic See when Peter was in Antioch? Jerusalem? etc. There were several successors of Peter, for he sat as Bishop in different churches. Just because he was martyred in Rome doesn't mean the next Bishop of Rome automatically took his Universal Apostolic mantle. If Peter weren't martyred in Rome, but ended up being martyred in Alexandria, would that be where this fictional "Infallible See" resided forever? The Roman dogma is based on a huge assumption that doesn't hold any weight as a divine institution.

Faith, I wish I could respond to every point you made, but it looks like it'd multiply into a million topics... I'll address one...

>No Max. I simply believe that there are many churches who do preserve God's truth as found in the Scriptures and I am not at all convinced that God ever meant to establish one hierarchy that would reign over all churches. Only Christ is the head as revealed in His Word. If a church is in in keeping with Scripture--it has the truth and it it should preach it to all the world.<

I agree with your last point... Christ is the head of the Churches on Earth... not any one Pope or Bishop. I also agree that if a church is in keeping with Scripture (rightly interpreted) it has the Truth.

However, I also believe in that Church which produced the Bible. I believe in that One Holy Church which held onto the Bible and died for the Bible. That Church still exists today. She's the one who defined the Trinity against the heretics, defined Christ's two natures against the heretics, and preserved the Scriptures through the ages. You can reject her all you want, but it's like a child rejecting her mother while accepting the food she cooked (pure doctrine, pure scriptures, holy traditions, holy symbols, etc.)

Remember the part of the Gospels where the disciples are perplexed at some other preachers they've never seen before who are out preaching in the name of Jesus? They ask Jesus if they should tell them to stop... Jesus says no. So, I would not say all "Bible-believing" Christians who are not in direct communion with the Apostolic Churches are going to hell. I'd say they're fulfilling their mysterious part in God's plan, but that the ideal is One Holy Church in unity - both in doctrine and communion, and that the Holy Orthodox Church is the actual historic continuation through the ages of that One Ancient Apostolic Church of Jesus Christ.

-- Max Darity (arrowtouch@yahoo.com), December 15, 2004.

Well that all sounds great Max, and to be honest--I wish there were such a church and that it was undeniably clear.

But the truth is, the apostolic church survived in the Scriptures only--and those Scriptures are our guide and authority.

Jesus said that his church could not be divided--yet, that is all that has taken place since then.

If I had to choose between your religion and the Roman Catholic religion--I'd probably choose yours because you seem to make a lot of sense for the most part.

But I do not believe that the church is caught up in any religious institution on the face of the earth. We are all gone astray to some degree or another.

What convinces me most is that jesus Himself tells us in His parables that the weeds are mixed in with the wheat and that it will be at the time of judgement that He separates us out. He says that His kingdom is *not* of this world and that His kingdom will never be won with a sword.

Can you tell me that your religion has never been involved in earthly war or politics or anything like that? I honestly do not know the history behind your church. I always thought you were very much like Roman Catholics.

-- (faith01@myway.com), December 15, 2004.

Max

"I sincerely wish I could go point-by-point in response to both Faith01 and Ian, but let me just address a few important points from each of you."

#####thanks for the time that you are putting in here. i'm going to follow up, if you don't mind, because these points are of great interest. respond if you can. no matter, if you can't.

"First, Orthodoxy doesn't reject the historic primacy of Rome per se, just the understanding of what that primacy is."

#######fair do's. primacy is crystal clear in Scripture.

but the nature of that primacy is also clear, imho, but that's me. i reason: there is one donee of the Keys (clear in Latin texts and old English texts that differentiate between singular and plural "you"), and the meaning of holding the Keys is pretty clear. that they should be transferable makes sense, though i know you do not accept that.

"Where Roman Catholics currently view Rome's power as juridical, set up over the churches of the world as a ruler whose power is conceived through legalistic categories of power of jurisdiction..."

#######i think most people overstate Papal Infallibly.

he is "juridical" in the sense that he resolves dogmatic disputes as they arise - but he is never inventing Dogma. it has always existed. His Infallibility allows him to protect the Deposit of Faith. when theologians disagree, as is common, he can put an end to the uncertainty.

nor is he a ruler in the sense that i understand that word.

All of St. Cyprian, St. Athanasius, St. Augustine, St. Jerome and St Robert Bellarmine clealry consider there to be limits on the powers of the Pope. if he preaches heresy, he's out. he binds us on matters of faith and morals. he is to be respected. he's not the Head of the Mystical Body of Christ - that's Jesus.

"Orthodoxy views the primacy of Rome (historically and in a reintegrated Christendom) as serving the unity of the Church in love. "

#######yes, indeed; but wouldn't you say that Unity needs leadership. not wishing to cast stones, but can you really identify Unity amongst the plethora of leaderless protestant denominations, who have no "Supreme Court" and, frankly, no Deposit of Faith to protect. surely, Unity implies something more than a shared belief in the Divinity of Christ and the Trinity - beliefs that they have inherited from the organised, early Church? at least we seem to agree that Unity is essential, and that one set of beliefs is Unity - and that organised religion is the way to achieve that.

"This was the tradition from the beginning until Rome progressively broke with it and took too much power to herself."

########not sure that's right. it might have been a perception from the East. it might have reflected the earlier times when polite diplomacy was enough to preserve Unity.

"Rome has taken horribly wrong turns ever since as well (indulgences, etc.)..."

#########mmmm. that's a subject in itself. but, in a nutshell, why shouldn't personal sacrifice reduce time in Purgatory. are there other "horrible turns"?

".. and her word is not to be viewed as the final word. Only the findings of a true Ecumenical Council can be infallible."

########..where we disagree - ie "only".

"Interesting to note, Rome essentially trampled the holy sacredness of an early Ecumenical Council by unilaterally adding the Filioque clause to the Universal Creed, but that's a whole different topic."

#########a whole subject in itself, as you say.

"Rome was not instituted by the Lord as the Everlasting Apostolic See with absolute power over all jurisdictions on earth. Otherwise, where was this supposed infallible Apostolic See when Peter was in Antioch? Jerusalem? etc."

#########perhaps, you might wonder if St Peter had decided to live in New Zealand instead of heading for Rome, that would have been the location of his See. we know that, when the Popes lived in Avignon, that was the Holy See. if, as many predict, the Vatican moves house to Portugal, that will be the location of the Holy See. ditto, if it relocates to the moon.

the fact that St Peter did head for Rome, the entre of the known is not a surprise, and is of great significance - because it was the battleground where Christianity took on the evil empire and won. that's simply remarkable, because they had spears and swords, and we had martyrs.

"There were several successors of Peter, for he sat as Bishop in different churches. Just because he was martyred in Rome doesn't mean the next Bishop of Rome automatically took his Universal Apostolic mantle."

#######well, by analogy, if the Pope visited San Diego, he would not become Bishop of San Diego. he would be Pope. the Bishop of San Diego would still be in his job.

"If Peter weren't martyred in Rome, but ended up being martyred in Alexandria, would that be where this fictional "Infallible See" resided forever? The Roman dogma is based on a huge assumption that doesn't hold any weight as a divine institution."

####### a fair point, but the fact remains that we, Catholic and Orthodox, believe St Peter to have been martyred in Rome. that is the basis on which Orthodoxy considers the Roman bishopric to be "primus inter pares", i understand: the City stained with the blood of Ss Peter and Paul.

-- Ian (ib@vertifgo.com), December 16, 2004.

Ian, I believe you have a good grasp on history, probably better than I do in many areas. We agree on many points. However, I disagree that Rome has always held the sort of power over the Churches of Christ that is claimed. I understand the need for proper discipline of churches and that a centralized "court" to resolve disputes is necessary for uniformity. I don't accept that God chose Rome to remain that center for all time because she has fallen into error and remains in error on various points.

When Rome reforms and recognizes that her position is subject to the consent of the Universal Church, then a reunion between East and West might be possible - after major theological differences are hammered out as well. The likelihood of Rome submitting to the Universal Church is zip.

In my personal view, the Apostasy in the End includes the falling away of most of Christendom, including the majority of the Bishops of Protestantism, Roman Catholicism, and Orthodoxy. There will be such amazing demonstrations of signs and wonders in the churches across the world by the hands of false prophets that the elect will even come close to apostasy.

Personally, I believe (and this is not based on anything concrete, just an impression of the Spirit) that when the time comes that unity becomes a reality between East and West and the Roman Bishop still retains his power as head of the church, then we'll know the Apostasy is right around the corner. For many, this unity of the church will be a triumph, but for the true elect saints of God, it will be crunch time.

-- Max Darity (arrowtouch@yahoo.com), December 16, 2004.

"Personally, I believe (and this is not based on anything concrete, just an impression of the Spirit) that when the time comes that unity becomes a reality between East and West and the Roman Bishop still retains his power as head of the church, then we'll know the Apostasy is right around the corner."

Max

i will surprise you by saying that you might be right - with one small change.

when that "merger comes", it seems unlikely that the Pope wil be anything other than "primus inter pares" - as the Orthodox Church seem willing to accept.

IOW, the Orthodox Church will not be asked to accept Papal Infallibility - the Catholic Church will bury it.

look at the debacle over the Pope's announcement - as solemn as they get - that women can never be ordained. Ratzinger rushed, when questioned as to the infallibility of this most solemn definition, to point out that it was a constant teaching of the Church and had merely been clarified by the Pope. the basis of its Infallibility was the Ordinary Magisterium, not the Pope.

did he do that to keep you guys on board? i wonder.

the teaching is an Infallible Papal teaching, clarifying misunderstandings deliberately brought into the Church by liberals. but the Church wants to paint it as something else.

bear in mind, all the hard work has already be done by Vatican II. most Catholics are now pretty indifferent about the practice of the Faith.

our hope is in the young priests and the lay faithful - and in prayer.

-- Ian (ib@vertifgo.com), December 20, 2004.

btw Max, ecumenism is not just a Catholic thing. as i understand it, the Orthodox Church is buddying up with the Anglo Catholics - or is it the Anglicans. watch this space.

-- Ian (ib@vertifgo.com), December 20, 2004.

And there are scores of devoted young men becoming priests today, and there are scores of young people who are excited about their faith. There are young women, like Emily, who are being called out of Protestantism into the Church.

Oh, there are many positive results of Vatican II, and they are just beginning to be seen. Is there a battle? Yes, there is and it's a big one. But the Word of God is strong for pulling down strongholds, and He will. Have there been mistakes made since Vatican II? Of course there have been. So what? There have been mistakes made all throughout history. . . people are human.

Gail

-- Gail (rothfarms@socket.net), December 20, 2004.

Gail,

slugging it out on the generalities of VII can, i accept, be fruitless.

so let's take the example that i gave to Max. read "Ordinatio Sacerdotalis". then read Ratzinger's letter arguing that the Pope had not issued a solemn definition because he didn't need to.

Pope and Ratzinger accept that the bar on female ordination is Dogmatic and based upon faith and morals - its a constant and universal teaching of the Church from the start.

however, so were the Immaculate Conception and the Assumption when they were Papally Defined. or to put it another way, a Truth is a Truth is a Truth - ex cathedra does not add Truth - it guides us to the Truth. it separates the Truth from conflicting lies.

but why the desire to bury the notion of Papal Infallibility -- especially given the numbers of liberals and feminist groups lobbying for female ordination, isn't this when the Pope is supposed to provide the formal solemn definition [which he did, though the Vatican denies it]?!?!?!?!

read this: http://www.ewtn.com/library/ISSUES/ORDIN.TXT

its been put up for public consumption by those terribly unorthodox, heretical folks at EWTN!!! imho, it's a real eye-opener.

now, is this the fault of VII?

**imho**, the causal link is ecumenism aka VII. you might argue it's just a coincidence - it would have happened anyway even without VII. but do you really believe that? before VII, we did not ecumenise. as odd as it now sounds, a Catholic was not even allowed to recite the Our Father in the presence of protestants.

-- Ian (ib@vertifgo.com), December 20, 2004.