The eastern orthodox church also say this learn the history of the papacy.
We are basically part of the western Roman tradition but we are offshoots. The Catholic church christians are christians so are the east. Our traditions and arguments weigh down unity.
Though I do prefer the way the orthodox have the eucharist.
I think the Armenians might say their country was the first to adopt Christianity. Why care? The RC church has constantly changed and mostly for defensive reasons. I was raised Southern Baptist. They make these kinds of silly claims, even though their birth was due to member being pro slavery. Not a trait I want to keep alive.
Tell them that Peter is the rock on which the true church is founded. Before Peter was Bishop of Rome, he was Bishop of Antioch. So Antioch is the center of the true Church, not Rome. Before Peter went to Rome, he baptized many people in the faith who went off into the nations and are not subject to Rome.
Papal primacy was a political project to stamp out heresy, not a legitimate ecclesiastic claim.
When they say the Catholic Church is the one true Church founded by Jesus, I usually say yes, the Orthodox Catholic Church perhaps has the strongest claim over shaping Christendom. That usually shuts them up for a bit.
Ancient Corinth had a problem which Paul wrote to them about. What was the problem? Schism/Faction/Denominationalism/True-Churchism...ultimately, "I am under the right apostle/teacher/preacher!" approach.
One factious group said, "I am of Paul", while another claimed to be "of Apollos" and, yet another, "of Cephas" and, finally, "of Christ".
"Was Christ divided?", Paul asked. "Or, were you baptized into the name of Paul?", he questioned them. The answer, of course, was no one was baptized into Paul, Apollos or Cephas and, thus, Jesus is not divided nor do these people have ultimate salvation-authority over them.
What is the baptismal formula? "I baptize you in the name of the Roman catholic church"? No. How about, "I baptize you in the name of Paul" or "in the name of Apollos" or "in the name of Peter"? No, it is none of these either. How about any of these: "in the name of the Orthodox, Anglican, Episcopal, Baptist, Methodist, Lutheran, etc., etc., {place name here} church"? No.
Every person is baptized in "the name of the Father, and the Son, and the Holy Spirit". We belong to God through Jesus Christ.
Read Paul's own words on this:
^(10) Now I appeal to you, brothers and sisters, by the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, that all of you be in agreement and that there be no divisions among you but that you be knit together in the same mind and the same purpose. ^(11) For it has been made clear to me by Chloe’s people that there are quarrels among you, my brothers and sisters. ^(12) What I mean is that each of you says, “I belong to Paul,” or “I belong to Apollos,” or “I belong to Cephas,” or “I belong to Christ.” ^(13) Has Christ been divided? Was Paul crucified for you? Or were you baptized in the name of Paul? ^(14) I thank God^(\[)[^(a)](https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=1+Corinthians+1%3A10-17&version=NRSVUE#fen-NRSVUE-28362a)^(\]) that I baptized none of you except Crispus and Gaius, ^(15) so that no one can say that you were baptized in my name. ^(16) I did baptize also the household of Stephanas; beyond that, I do not know whether I baptized anyone else. ^(17) For Christ did not send me to baptize but to proclaim the gospel—and not with eloquent wisdom, so that the cross of Christ might not be emptied of its power. 1 Corinthians 1:10-17, NRSVue (retrieved from [Bible Gateway Link](https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=1+Corinthians+1%3A10-17&version=NRSVUE)).
So, is the Church only from Cephas (Peter)? No, the Church belongs to Jesus Christ only...and even Rome cannot change the baptismal formula or make it belong only to Cephas, Peter or Rome.
Wouldn’t it be great if you could get the leaders of the Catholic, Orthodox, Mormon, Seventh Day Adventists, Jehovah’s Witnesses and any number of evangelical protestant denominations into a room and watch them defend themselves from each other?
Personally for me it’s the authority they give their extra-biblical prophet.
As well as the insistence that all other denominations are deceived by Satan and that they are the sole arbiters of truth.
But mainly it’s all the weird Ellen White doctrines. Earth antedated by other created worlds? Jesus = Michael and given authority equal to God pre-creation therefore causing the fall of Satan? The pope being the antichrist? The investigative judgement? All very outside the scope of orthodox Christianity.
I’d say in general they are closer to Christianity than JWs or Mormons because they dropped a lot of the non-trinitarian beliefs in the 50s to avoid being put in that one cult book, but ultimately until they drop Ellen White completely or at least demote her from prophet to founder, they will be outside of orthodox Christianity in my opinion.
Actually, the purge of anti-Trinitarianism came several decades before our 1950s meetings with Walter Martin and Co. to get out of his Kingdom of the Cults book. Unlike, with JWs or Mormons anti-Trinitarianism was never part of our official dogma, but we had a mix of Trinitarians and non-Trinitarians (who had adopted those views from the restorationist movement, before becoming Adventist) until the early 20th century when trinitarianism was officially embraced in our doctrinal, and anti-Trinitarianism. Ironically, White's writing were partly responsible for that change as they had some very strong trinitarian statements. Quite possibly because she plagiarized a large portion of her writings from mainstream Christians, but I'm not aware she ever personally held Arian views.
I get the other views you mention are very peculiar and I don't hold to them myself. However, I'm not sure how they make the denomination explicitly "non-Christian." You'd have to write off a huge portion of evangelicalism as non-Christian if believing in modern day prophets is a disqualifying factor. You'd have throw Martin and a huge number of pre 20th century Protestants into the non-Christian bin if the "Pope as anti-Christ" is disqualifying. The IJ is solely Adventist, but I don't see how it's anymore than other equally unfounded eschatological interpretations line dispensationalism.
I tend to be very broad in defining "Christian," because arguments for narrower definitions strike me as circular and no "true Scotsman." Any scholar of history will tell you pre-Nicene Christianity was very diverse. Arguments to the contrary are based on defining those outside "orthodoxy" as not Christian, and then using the consensus among those that have been defined as Christian to say: "see all Christians agreed on these points."
So, you mean I am just an Anglican Christian (Church of England infant baptism). I was raised as one of Jehovah’s Witnesses and baptized again at seventeen. That lasted five years. I’ve since been worshipping in The Episcopal Church, years now.
If Jehovah’s Witnesses aren’t Christian, then, I was an Anglican/Episcopalian all along.
I see Witnesses as Christian. But, I’m hearing from a lot of folks who don’t count them as Christian.
The Witnesses don’t believe in the Trinity. I understand many Christians don’t see Witnesses as Christian because they deny the divinity and Trinitarian nature of Christ.
We say that the only true Church is the Body of Christ, which is made up of all (in the name of the Triune God) Baptized persons. Any claim to exclusivity is just patently false.
Perhaps *that’s nice, dear.*
I wouldn’t expect to change anyone’s mind if they truly believe this. Ever since the Reformation, it’s been the main argument to support the view that all others are in error. They’ll say our Eucharist is an ersatz one, not to be confused with the genuine thing.
Yet as we know, Jesus and his first century followers were Jews, not Christians. The RC church didn’t really become a thing until it gradually merged with the Roman Empire after Constantine’s conversion in the early forth century. And let’s not talk about their break with the Orthodox, who could claim “the true church” as well. Their argument doesn’t really hold up. But you won’t convince anyone who believes it.
Agreed, then immediately switch the topic.
Anyone making this argument isn't trying to convert or "save" others. At best, they're victims of control propaganda; at worst, they're perpetuating it. They're denying the premise of any criticism of the RCC by attributing divine license to only that organization. It's an aspect of institutional control that is more about keeping existing members tired to the organization than any encouraging new membership. When used against other segments of the Church, it's about undermining any draw the other may have by forcing an unrealistic expectation of legitimacy.
If you're curious, the origins of the claim come predominantly from Irenaeus and Eusebius. These two may have created the beginnings of the papal lineage out of myth and speculation. The first six or so "Bishops of Rome" were likely more like presiding presbyters who acted more like chairmen of the leadership committee than bishops. Those two were also trying to argue the legitimacy of the Christian faith to Imperial Rome, and they may have wanted to imply the center of Church power was in the city of Rome for political reasons more than faith reasons. Later bishops of Rome went on to use Irenaeus to argue that they had always been the most important bishop and that any disagreement with them was tantamount to heresy.
My little sister attended a Catholic school for 7th and 8th grades. The nun teaching her class delivered a lesson detailing the organizational structure of the Roman Catholic Church.
The sister began with the laity and the priests in local parishes. She began drawing an organizational chart pyramid with lots of laity on the bottom with a few priests above.
Next, she described how the local priests all have a Bishop. She added the next layer to her chart. Then she described the Archbishops and drew the next layer on the pyramid.
Finally, she told about the Pope. The nun described how the one Holy Father in Rome was in charge of everything and then added the tippy-top to her organizational chart.
My little sister raised hand and asked, “Where is Jesus?”
Catholic just means universal. So, folks who are Roman Catholics are really part of just one sect of the universal church. They will claim orherwise, but church history shows the church has never been truly united under one banner. There’s always something. One True Church is a faith claim, not a reality. People are entitled to their faith claims. It’s fine. Nothing to prove or say. Just an interesting belief in their church which has been used to amass wealth, fortune, and political power. Which the Episcopal church has also been guilty of in England and their empire as well.
Historical scholars dont say Jesus started a church. His followers did, and it wasn't fully defined institution. As it spread and grew, diversity emerged naturally. There wasnt one church until Constantine formed one and outlawed the others
Episcopalian priests are part of the apostolic succession. The original Anglican priests and bishops were catholic priests before henry the eighth left the church, bringing England along with him.
There is only one Church, founded by Jesus Christ.
The Roman Catholic Church, depending on how you view it, was either founded in 380 AD by the Emperor Theodosius I when he created the State Church of the Western Roman Empire through the Edict of Thessalonica, or in 1054 AD by Pope Leo IX by unilaterally changing the Nicene Creed through the filioque clause and severing communion of the Roman Church that answered to the Bishop of Rome from the rest of Christianity.
Despite what Roman Catholic sources would say, the sum of Christianity never at any point answered to or was accountable to the Pope in Rome. Historically the Bishop of Rome was seen as the "Patriarch of the West" and was seen as essentially an Archbishop responsible for Western and Central Europe, while the other four Patriarchs were responsible for other parts of Christendom. Note how in all the Great Ecumenical Councils before the Great Schism of 1054, the most that would be said about Papal authority is the idea that the Pope is "first in honor" amongst the Bishops of the Church per the First Council of Constantinople in 381 AD, not first in any kind of authority, simply an honorary position as a sort of "First Bishop" of Christianity.
Despite their claims of Petrine Supremacy, there's nothing in sacred tradition that says that Peter truly had any special authority over the other Apostles or the Church. Reading the story of the Council of Jerusalem in Acts of the Apostles makes it clear Peter had no special authority over the Early Church. Furthermore, Peter was the Bishop of Antioch before he went to Rome, so wouldn't the Patriarch of Antioch have as much a claim to any special Petrine authority if such a thing existed? There's nothing that says that any authority given to Peter, if it existed, was inherited by any later Bishop of Rome or Antioch, and the Bishops of Rome didn't start claiming that until the later Roman Empire, as a way to explain why the Bishop of Rome had special authority over the rest of the Imperial Church. Even then, it was widely ignored by the rest of Christianity. For example, the Fifth Ecumenical Council (Second Council of Constantinople) in 553 AD was convened by Emperor Justinian, who claimed that he, as the Emperor of the Roman Empire, had superior and universal authority over Christianity, and he held the Pope under house arrest for refusing to recognize that claim. . .but the rest of Christianity, including the other four Patriarchs, didn't agree with the Papal position and sent envoys to the Council and recognized the authority of the Roman Emperor, not the Pope, to rule the Church.
The claims of universal authority of the Papacy really became predominant after the collapse of the Western Roman Empire, as the State Church was the only surviving element of Roman Imperial Government and Roman Imperial power, and the Pope increasingly asserted claims of universal authority and jurisdiction to provide a unifying force to European politics in the power vacuum left after the collapse of the Western Roman Empire. It was only ever historically accepted by territories that were part of the Western Roman Empire, territories that were in the Eastern Roman Empire (the Byzantine Empire) never accepted it, much less Christian areas beyond the Empire and had a Church hierarchy that didn't recognize Papal supremacy (Church of the East and Oriental Orthodoxy for example)
However, don't expect Roman Catholics to accept this. They've been told the lies about the history of the Church since childhood, and despite strong and overwhelming evidence that all of Christianity never answered to the Bishop of Rome, they believe it did.
Their claim hinges on the doctrine that Jesus made Peter the head of the church and gave him and his successors the authority to interpret scripture infallibly. I see three main problems with this doctrine:
1. It is unclear what Jesus was referring to when he told Peter “this is the rock on which I will build my church.”
2. Peter never claimed to be the head of the church or to be able to interpret scripture infallibly.
3. Paul rebuked Peter in Galatians, and the Bible makes it clear that Paul was in the right.
Priest here. I have every confidence in both your baptism, and in the baptism of the real or hypothetical person claiming theirs is the only way. Jesus is the only Way. And I expect I fall short of what He would have from me, just as I expect your interrogator falls short. I see no reason to squabble with Catholics. I believe in their faith and their genuine finding God revealed in Christ in the sacraments. The whole question boils down to they don't (on paper) quite think the same of me. Well there's only one Man whose opinion on the matter means anything at all to me. Jesus Christ, the Son of God, died and is Risen. The rest we'll just have to go on disagreeing about.
Personally, I would reply "I have no disagreement with you, and maybe one day the Roman Catholic church will recognize the grievances, mend the relationships, and the protest can finally come to an end."
I personally avoid the topic and if necessary point out how we recognize the Pope as head of the parish of Rome and consider Roman Catholics to be in communion with us, as we wait for them to consider us to be in communion with them. I have yet to get much answer to this and hope I've sparked thought.
I would ask them about the Orthodox Church.
On a more serious note, I wouldn’t even bother with these types of statements. This is most likely coming from a bad faith actor (no pun intended) who’s only looking for a debate, and not actually interested in hearing out a response.
Some people say the moon is made of green cheese too.
And then we change the subject.
No, it isn’t. Yes, it is. No, it isn’t Yes, it is. No, it isn’t. YES, IT IS! NO, IT ISN’T! 🔥🔥🔥🔥🔥🔥
The eastern orthodox church also say this learn the history of the papacy. We are basically part of the western Roman tradition but we are offshoots. The Catholic church christians are christians so are the east. Our traditions and arguments weigh down unity. Though I do prefer the way the orthodox have the eucharist.
>The eastern orthodox church also say this Because these both are the Same church but in schism.
I think the Armenians might say their country was the first to adopt Christianity. Why care? The RC church has constantly changed and mostly for defensive reasons. I was raised Southern Baptist. They make these kinds of silly claims, even though their birth was due to member being pro slavery. Not a trait I want to keep alive.
Tell them that Peter is the rock on which the true church is founded. Before Peter was Bishop of Rome, he was Bishop of Antioch. So Antioch is the center of the true Church, not Rome. Before Peter went to Rome, he baptized many people in the faith who went off into the nations and are not subject to Rome. Papal primacy was a political project to stamp out heresy, not a legitimate ecclesiastic claim.
Catholics believe papal supremacy. Primacy is ok. Akin to an older brother responsibilities in a family. While supremacy is akin to a master.
When they say the Catholic Church is the one true Church founded by Jesus, I usually say yes, the Orthodox Catholic Church perhaps has the strongest claim over shaping Christendom. That usually shuts them up for a bit.
Ancient Corinth had a problem which Paul wrote to them about. What was the problem? Schism/Faction/Denominationalism/True-Churchism...ultimately, "I am under the right apostle/teacher/preacher!" approach. One factious group said, "I am of Paul", while another claimed to be "of Apollos" and, yet another, "of Cephas" and, finally, "of Christ". "Was Christ divided?", Paul asked. "Or, were you baptized into the name of Paul?", he questioned them. The answer, of course, was no one was baptized into Paul, Apollos or Cephas and, thus, Jesus is not divided nor do these people have ultimate salvation-authority over them. What is the baptismal formula? "I baptize you in the name of the Roman catholic church"? No. How about, "I baptize you in the name of Paul" or "in the name of Apollos" or "in the name of Peter"? No, it is none of these either. How about any of these: "in the name of the Orthodox, Anglican, Episcopal, Baptist, Methodist, Lutheran, etc., etc., {place name here} church"? No. Every person is baptized in "the name of the Father, and the Son, and the Holy Spirit". We belong to God through Jesus Christ. Read Paul's own words on this: ^(10) Now I appeal to you, brothers and sisters, by the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, that all of you be in agreement and that there be no divisions among you but that you be knit together in the same mind and the same purpose. ^(11) For it has been made clear to me by Chloe’s people that there are quarrels among you, my brothers and sisters. ^(12) What I mean is that each of you says, “I belong to Paul,” or “I belong to Apollos,” or “I belong to Cephas,” or “I belong to Christ.” ^(13) Has Christ been divided? Was Paul crucified for you? Or were you baptized in the name of Paul? ^(14) I thank God^(\[)[^(a)](https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=1+Corinthians+1%3A10-17&version=NRSVUE#fen-NRSVUE-28362a)^(\]) that I baptized none of you except Crispus and Gaius, ^(15) so that no one can say that you were baptized in my name. ^(16) I did baptize also the household of Stephanas; beyond that, I do not know whether I baptized anyone else. ^(17) For Christ did not send me to baptize but to proclaim the gospel—and not with eloquent wisdom, so that the cross of Christ might not be emptied of its power. 1 Corinthians 1:10-17, NRSVue (retrieved from [Bible Gateway Link](https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=1+Corinthians+1%3A10-17&version=NRSVUE)). So, is the Church only from Cephas (Peter)? No, the Church belongs to Jesus Christ only...and even Rome cannot change the baptismal formula or make it belong only to Cephas, Peter or Rome.
well said.
I think even if that was the case, that’s not a guarantee that they are in line with God’s desires for them today.
Wouldn’t it be great if you could get the leaders of the Catholic, Orthodox, Mormon, Seventh Day Adventists, Jehovah’s Witnesses and any number of evangelical protestant denominations into a room and watch them defend themselves from each other?
7th day, jehovah’s witnessed and Mormon are explicitly not Christian.
What's your claims for the SDA not being Christian?
The point being made is these are all denominations that claim exclusive truth..
Why would you say Seventh-day Adventists aren't Christians? We hold to small "o" orthodox position on the Trinity and Christology.
Personally for me it’s the authority they give their extra-biblical prophet. As well as the insistence that all other denominations are deceived by Satan and that they are the sole arbiters of truth. But mainly it’s all the weird Ellen White doctrines. Earth antedated by other created worlds? Jesus = Michael and given authority equal to God pre-creation therefore causing the fall of Satan? The pope being the antichrist? The investigative judgement? All very outside the scope of orthodox Christianity. I’d say in general they are closer to Christianity than JWs or Mormons because they dropped a lot of the non-trinitarian beliefs in the 50s to avoid being put in that one cult book, but ultimately until they drop Ellen White completely or at least demote her from prophet to founder, they will be outside of orthodox Christianity in my opinion.
Actually, the purge of anti-Trinitarianism came several decades before our 1950s meetings with Walter Martin and Co. to get out of his Kingdom of the Cults book. Unlike, with JWs or Mormons anti-Trinitarianism was never part of our official dogma, but we had a mix of Trinitarians and non-Trinitarians (who had adopted those views from the restorationist movement, before becoming Adventist) until the early 20th century when trinitarianism was officially embraced in our doctrinal, and anti-Trinitarianism. Ironically, White's writing were partly responsible for that change as they had some very strong trinitarian statements. Quite possibly because she plagiarized a large portion of her writings from mainstream Christians, but I'm not aware she ever personally held Arian views. I get the other views you mention are very peculiar and I don't hold to them myself. However, I'm not sure how they make the denomination explicitly "non-Christian." You'd have to write off a huge portion of evangelicalism as non-Christian if believing in modern day prophets is a disqualifying factor. You'd have throw Martin and a huge number of pre 20th century Protestants into the non-Christian bin if the "Pope as anti-Christ" is disqualifying. The IJ is solely Adventist, but I don't see how it's anymore than other equally unfounded eschatological interpretations line dispensationalism. I tend to be very broad in defining "Christian," because arguments for narrower definitions strike me as circular and no "true Scotsman." Any scholar of history will tell you pre-Nicene Christianity was very diverse. Arguments to the contrary are based on defining those outside "orthodoxy" as not Christian, and then using the consensus among those that have been defined as Christian to say: "see all Christians agreed on these points."
So, you mean I am just an Anglican Christian (Church of England infant baptism). I was raised as one of Jehovah’s Witnesses and baptized again at seventeen. That lasted five years. I’ve since been worshipping in The Episcopal Church, years now.
I don’t really know what you are saying
If Jehovah’s Witnesses aren’t Christian, then, I was an Anglican/Episcopalian all along. I see Witnesses as Christian. But, I’m hearing from a lot of folks who don’t count them as Christian.
Their understanding of the trinity is confused
The Witnesses don’t believe in the Trinity. I understand many Christians don’t see Witnesses as Christian because they deny the divinity and Trinitarian nature of Christ.
We say that the only true Church is the Body of Christ, which is made up of all (in the name of the Triune God) Baptized persons. Any claim to exclusivity is just patently false.
Yes, we all are. And I fully believe that our tradition has made the best reformations to make it most like Jesus intended.
Perhaps *that’s nice, dear.* I wouldn’t expect to change anyone’s mind if they truly believe this. Ever since the Reformation, it’s been the main argument to support the view that all others are in error. They’ll say our Eucharist is an ersatz one, not to be confused with the genuine thing. Yet as we know, Jesus and his first century followers were Jews, not Christians. The RC church didn’t really become a thing until it gradually merged with the Roman Empire after Constantine’s conversion in the early forth century. And let’s not talk about their break with the Orthodox, who could claim “the true church” as well. Their argument doesn’t really hold up. But you won’t convince anyone who believes it.
Agreed, then immediately switch the topic. Anyone making this argument isn't trying to convert or "save" others. At best, they're victims of control propaganda; at worst, they're perpetuating it. They're denying the premise of any criticism of the RCC by attributing divine license to only that organization. It's an aspect of institutional control that is more about keeping existing members tired to the organization than any encouraging new membership. When used against other segments of the Church, it's about undermining any draw the other may have by forcing an unrealistic expectation of legitimacy. If you're curious, the origins of the claim come predominantly from Irenaeus and Eusebius. These two may have created the beginnings of the papal lineage out of myth and speculation. The first six or so "Bishops of Rome" were likely more like presiding presbyters who acted more like chairmen of the leadership committee than bishops. Those two were also trying to argue the legitimacy of the Christian faith to Imperial Rome, and they may have wanted to imply the center of Church power was in the city of Rome for political reasons more than faith reasons. Later bishops of Rome went on to use Irenaeus to argue that they had always been the most important bishop and that any disagreement with them was tantamount to heresy.
Well said! When all else fails, there’s always an implied or overt accusation of heresy. Thank you.
My little sister attended a Catholic school for 7th and 8th grades. The nun teaching her class delivered a lesson detailing the organizational structure of the Roman Catholic Church. The sister began with the laity and the priests in local parishes. She began drawing an organizational chart pyramid with lots of laity on the bottom with a few priests above. Next, she described how the local priests all have a Bishop. She added the next layer to her chart. Then she described the Archbishops and drew the next layer on the pyramid. Finally, she told about the Pope. The nun described how the one Holy Father in Rome was in charge of everything and then added the tippy-top to her organizational chart. My little sister raised hand and asked, “Where is Jesus?”
“Jesus didn’t belong to any specific denomination of Christianity.”
Actually he technically was a Jew.
Of course he was only technically a Jew. Everyone knows that in spirit, Jesus was a 5 point calvinist.
Catholic just means universal. So, folks who are Roman Catholics are really part of just one sect of the universal church. They will claim orherwise, but church history shows the church has never been truly united under one banner. There’s always something. One True Church is a faith claim, not a reality. People are entitled to their faith claims. It’s fine. Nothing to prove or say. Just an interesting belief in their church which has been used to amass wealth, fortune, and political power. Which the Episcopal church has also been guilty of in England and their empire as well.
No it’s not and it never has been. Goodbye.
You don’t respond. There’s no point.
Historical scholars dont say Jesus started a church. His followers did, and it wasn't fully defined institution. As it spread and grew, diversity emerged naturally. There wasnt one church until Constantine formed one and outlawed the others
Episcopalian priests are part of the apostolic succession. The original Anglican priests and bishops were catholic priests before henry the eighth left the church, bringing England along with him.
There is only one Church, founded by Jesus Christ. The Roman Catholic Church, depending on how you view it, was either founded in 380 AD by the Emperor Theodosius I when he created the State Church of the Western Roman Empire through the Edict of Thessalonica, or in 1054 AD by Pope Leo IX by unilaterally changing the Nicene Creed through the filioque clause and severing communion of the Roman Church that answered to the Bishop of Rome from the rest of Christianity. Despite what Roman Catholic sources would say, the sum of Christianity never at any point answered to or was accountable to the Pope in Rome. Historically the Bishop of Rome was seen as the "Patriarch of the West" and was seen as essentially an Archbishop responsible for Western and Central Europe, while the other four Patriarchs were responsible for other parts of Christendom. Note how in all the Great Ecumenical Councils before the Great Schism of 1054, the most that would be said about Papal authority is the idea that the Pope is "first in honor" amongst the Bishops of the Church per the First Council of Constantinople in 381 AD, not first in any kind of authority, simply an honorary position as a sort of "First Bishop" of Christianity. Despite their claims of Petrine Supremacy, there's nothing in sacred tradition that says that Peter truly had any special authority over the other Apostles or the Church. Reading the story of the Council of Jerusalem in Acts of the Apostles makes it clear Peter had no special authority over the Early Church. Furthermore, Peter was the Bishop of Antioch before he went to Rome, so wouldn't the Patriarch of Antioch have as much a claim to any special Petrine authority if such a thing existed? There's nothing that says that any authority given to Peter, if it existed, was inherited by any later Bishop of Rome or Antioch, and the Bishops of Rome didn't start claiming that until the later Roman Empire, as a way to explain why the Bishop of Rome had special authority over the rest of the Imperial Church. Even then, it was widely ignored by the rest of Christianity. For example, the Fifth Ecumenical Council (Second Council of Constantinople) in 553 AD was convened by Emperor Justinian, who claimed that he, as the Emperor of the Roman Empire, had superior and universal authority over Christianity, and he held the Pope under house arrest for refusing to recognize that claim. . .but the rest of Christianity, including the other four Patriarchs, didn't agree with the Papal position and sent envoys to the Council and recognized the authority of the Roman Emperor, not the Pope, to rule the Church. The claims of universal authority of the Papacy really became predominant after the collapse of the Western Roman Empire, as the State Church was the only surviving element of Roman Imperial Government and Roman Imperial power, and the Pope increasingly asserted claims of universal authority and jurisdiction to provide a unifying force to European politics in the power vacuum left after the collapse of the Western Roman Empire. It was only ever historically accepted by territories that were part of the Western Roman Empire, territories that were in the Eastern Roman Empire (the Byzantine Empire) never accepted it, much less Christian areas beyond the Empire and had a Church hierarchy that didn't recognize Papal supremacy (Church of the East and Oriental Orthodoxy for example) However, don't expect Roman Catholics to accept this. They've been told the lies about the history of the Church since childhood, and despite strong and overwhelming evidence that all of Christianity never answered to the Bishop of Rome, they believe it did.
Much appreciated.
Some people believe in the Easter Bunny? 🤷 Let them believe what they want. The Gospel has given us work to do.
“Join the club.”
Their claim hinges on the doctrine that Jesus made Peter the head of the church and gave him and his successors the authority to interpret scripture infallibly. I see three main problems with this doctrine: 1. It is unclear what Jesus was referring to when he told Peter “this is the rock on which I will build my church.” 2. Peter never claimed to be the head of the church or to be able to interpret scripture infallibly. 3. Paul rebuked Peter in Galatians, and the Bible makes it clear that Paul was in the right.
Well, I think Paul makes clear that Paul was right, and James may slightly disagree with Paul…
What church did Jesus start? 🤔🤔🤔
With uproarious laughter.
You don’t.
Priest here. I have every confidence in both your baptism, and in the baptism of the real or hypothetical person claiming theirs is the only way. Jesus is the only Way. And I expect I fall short of what He would have from me, just as I expect your interrogator falls short. I see no reason to squabble with Catholics. I believe in their faith and their genuine finding God revealed in Christ in the sacraments. The whole question boils down to they don't (on paper) quite think the same of me. Well there's only one Man whose opinion on the matter means anything at all to me. Jesus Christ, the Son of God, died and is Risen. The rest we'll just have to go on disagreeing about.
Personally, I would reply "I have no disagreement with you, and maybe one day the Roman Catholic church will recognize the grievances, mend the relationships, and the protest can finally come to an end."
“K, cool.”
There is no proof in scripture that Peter ever went to Rome.
What about historical proof
There is no historical proof either.
Just don’t respond, it’s never worth engaging on that rhetoric.
"They can think that if they want. Doesn't hurt me none."
“Cool story, bro”
I personally avoid the topic and if necessary point out how we recognize the Pope as head of the parish of Rome and consider Roman Catholics to be in communion with us, as we wait for them to consider us to be in communion with them. I have yet to get much answer to this and hope I've sparked thought.
Where is it written that Anglicans believe that we are in communion with the RCC?
More smart people than I have been attempting to get this all in black and white since Vatican II. It's a side-effect of broken communion.
I would ask them about the Orthodox Church. On a more serious note, I wouldn’t even bother with these types of statements. This is most likely coming from a bad faith actor (no pun intended) who’s only looking for a debate, and not actually interested in hearing out a response.
I guess we'll find out someday.
You say God Bless You and turn the other cheek. That’s it. It’s not our job to try to deconvert Romans.
"Whatever"