RCC/Protestant Divisions

[Kurieuo]

I did not really mean to make it a matter of papal infallibility, as I understand you do not believe popes are fallible except when speaking ex-cathedra.

Just to clarify, you mean we do not believe popes are INfallible except when speaking ex-cathedra.

Must be something about the way my brain is processing and how I wrote it. As even while you pointed it out my brain kept processing what I wrote as correct two times after. But, yes, I meant infallible.

Yet, in Matthew 7:15-20 we read:

• 15“Beware of the false prophets, who come to you in sheep’s clothing, but inwardly are ravenous wolves. 16“You will know them by their fruits. Grapes are not gathered from thorn bushes nor figs from thistles, are they? 17“So every good tree bears good fruit, but the bad tree bears bad fruit. 18“A good tree cannot produce bad fruit, nor can a bad tree produce good fruit. 19“Every tree that does not bear good fruit is cut down and thrown into the fire. 20“So then, you will know them by their fruits.

One of the claims for the RCC is that they can trace themselves back to Peter through succession, and as such correct doctrine will be faithfully kept and passed on from one generation to the next through the Chuch. And yet, if one Pope is corrupt (not simply fallible as we all area), then what sustains the RCC as the one true church we should should follow during the period the RCC is lead astray? Given the corruption of even one Pope, the RCC must release its claim of authority based on succession. 2 Peter 2 is clear we are to not just follow our teachers bilnding. Furthermore, the RCC today may have correctly reformed itself, and still carry the title of the "RCC", but it would have no more claim to spiritual authority than say a Protestant church.

That's just it K, we do not believe that the RCC was lead astray even if there were one or 2 popes who were corrupt. If Christ has given authority to the church and promised that the gates of hell cannot prevail against it by the guidance of the Holy Spirit, then any pope, personally and privately corrupt or otherwise, who makes ex-cathedra pronouncements cannot possibly be leading the church astray because he would have the protection of the Holy Spirit when doing so. This is the key point that everyone keeps missing with papal infallibility. It is not some personal effort that every pope magically has. It is by virtue of Christ's proclamation that the church is the pillar of truth so no official doctrinal teaching can be 'astray'.

Ok, that is fine, let's assume the RCC is back on track, or never left the track so-to-speak regardless of what any pope did. This is still possible. However, as an ousider looking in, there is no longer a sole claim to authority the RCC can make above that of say Protestant churches (which originated due to schisms in the RCC). Both Protestant churches and the Catholic church can trace themselves back to a rich early Christian heritage.

Perhaps the Reformation was the Holy Spirit's way of further re-aligning Christendom with Himself? The Reformation afterall brought on the Counter-Reformation in the RCC. Yes, God can continue to guide the Catholic Christians post-reformation through the RCC, but God can likewise also guide Protestant Christians which were used as part of the Holy Spirits plan to bring about reformation universally to Christians. What does God do with those Christians who split off from what was previously one church? Well the Holy Spirit continues to guide them alongside the RCC.

In studying early Christian history, two main reasons become apparent to me as to why early Christianity (or the Holy Spirit) setup a strong church of their own (i.e., the RCC):

• Firstly, it was to have a theological authority to protect against false Christian doctrines whether from gnosticism or what have you, and
• Secondly to also be able to compete with the richness of the Jewish faith who were recognisable through their synagogues, traditions and practices. The institutionalisation of what we recognise as the RCC provided strong visibility to non-Christians. The importance of having a visual church should be downplayed as many Protestant Christians are likely guilty of, since even today, I have come across those who can't comprehend a Christian believing in Christ devoid of affiliating one's self with any church. They tended to think of my own beliefs as having no grounding since I do not tie myself down to any particular denomination. Due to human weaknesses, we like to "see" things or else we become suspicious of a thing's existence or validity. So I see it is important for Christianity and Christians to remain visual through churches.

The RCC served both purposes. However, the Reformation brought on something new which could have, and probably was, inspired by the Holy Spirit. It caused reformation outside of the RCC (with those who split off or were ousted out), and a counter-reformation inside the RCC. Minusing the conflicts, these reformations were good things to have happened. Interestingly, Protestants went on to institutionalise their own churches based on particular beliefs and subsets of beliefs. Which shows the importance of those two bullet points above to people.

But what many find hard to accept, Catholic and Protestant alike, is that Christ's Church is not tied to bricks and mortar or a particular denomination or several denominations even. They serve a good and valid purpose, but that purpose is limited to God's will and the Holy Spirit sustaining us. Christ knows who belongs to Him, and they come from various denominations and/or without any denomination, and these comprise the true universal church (cf. Jeremiah 31:31-34, Romans 2:29).

All this posting and posts has helped me to think through some crucial issues. I think the penny has dropped with what Jac was getting at, which I may have been understanding him wrongly on. As Jac points out, better to discuss differences and what we believe to be true on a personal level, then branding a particular denomination heretical and unorthodox even if their beliefs are something other than the Gospel. Each denomination will have saved and lost, some churches more correctly leading their congregation than others, however at the end of the day -- Christ's church is not tied to any one so it is wrong to try and broadstroke Catholics, Protestants, JWs, Mormons or what-have-you.

As Jac also pointed out, it generally comes down to what I believe and find acceptable. Yes, there a Catholic Christians who are saved (like Byblos). So obviously the RCC are correctly leading at least some of its congregation where it matters (i.e., with Christ). That does not mean I agree with the RCC or will allow my offspring to attend Mass which affronts my own personal, lesser essential but nonetheless important, beliefs too much. Interestingly, I am also protective in the Baptist church I attend, that is, asking my kids questions to help them think through what they're being taught rather than just accepting. I intend to continue this to ensure they're secure in Christ when they become adults.

Ok, enough blabbering from me. I've been neglecting my work.

[Byblos]

That's just it K, we do not believe that the RCC was lead astray even if there were one or 2 popes who were corrupt. If Christ has given authority to the church and promised that the gates of hell cannot prevail against it by the guidance of the Holy Spirit, then any pope, personally and privately corrupt or otherwise, who makes ex-cathedra pronouncements cannot possibly be leading the church astray because he would have the protection of the Holy Spirit when doing so. This is the key point that everyone keeps missing with papal infallibility. It is not some personal effort that every pope magically has. It is by virtue of Christ's proclamation that the church is the pillar of truth so no official doctrinal teaching can be 'astray'.

Ok, that is fine, let's assume the RCC is back on track, or never left the track so-to-speak regardless of what any pope did. This is still possible. However, as an ousider looking in, there is no longer a sole claim to authority the RCC can make above that of say Protestant churches (which originated due to schisms in the RCC). Both Protestant churches and the Catholic church can trace themselves back to a rich early Christian heritage.

I'm not sure how you can say that unless and until there is agreement and harmony on, at a minimum, essential doctrines (and here we're back to square one as to who exactly defines what is essential and what isn't). If the Holy Spirit guides the church into all truths and if there is disagreement on what this truth is then by definition the Holy Spirit either has failed in his mission or one side is in error.

Perhaps the Reformation was the Holy Spirit's way of further re-aligning Christendom with Himself? The Reformation afterall brought on the Counter-Reformation in the RCC. Yes, God can continue to guide the Catholic Christians post-reformation through the RCC, but God can likewise also guide Protestant Christians which were used as part of the Holy Spirits plan to bring about reformation universally to Christians. What does God do with those Christians who split off from what was previously one church? Well the Holy Spirit continues to guide them alongside the RCC.

And that is what we hope for every day. I am certain it will happen eventually but I don't think any time soon.

In studying early Christian history, two main reasons become apparent to me as to why early Christianity (or the Holy Spirit) setup a strong church of their own (i.e., the RCC):

• Firstly, it was to have a theological authority to protect against false Christian doctrines whether from gnosticism or what have you, and
• Secondly to also be able to compete with the richness of the Jewish faith who were recognisable through their synagogues, traditions and practices. The institutionalisation of what we recognise as the RCC provided strong visibility to non-Christians. The importance of having a visual church should be downplayed as many Protestant Christians are likely guilty of, since even today, I have come across those who can't comprehend a Christian believing in Christ devoid of affiliating one's self with any church. They tended to think of my own beliefs as having no grounding since I do not tie myself down to any particular denomination. Due to human weaknesses, we like to "see" things or else we become suspicious of a thing's existence or validity. So I see it is important for Christianity and Christians to remain visual through churches.

The RCC served both purposes. However, the Reformation brought on something new which could have, and probably was, inspired by the Holy Spirit. It caused reformation outside of the RCC (with those who split off or were ousted out), and a counter-reformation inside the RCC. Minusing the conflicts, these reformations were good things to have happened. Interestingly, Protestants went on to institutionalise their own churches based on particular beliefs and subsets of beliefs. Which shows the importance of those two bullet points above to people.

And if you look at it from an historical perspective, can you honestly tell me that Protestant churches resemble anything what the early church was? The RCC certainly does, from baptism, to penance, to the real presence in the Eucharist, even communion of the saints. All of which are as real to the early church (and to the current RCC) as they are foreign to Protestant churches (with varying degrees).

[jlay]

I've been reading a lot from the early church fathers. Certainly by the time of Augustine, you are seeing the things your speak of. But, the age of a tradition does not validate said tradition. Look at how early, "Against Heresies" was written.

[Byblos]

I've been reading a lot from the early church fathers. Certainly by the time of Augustine, you are seeing the things your speak of. But, the age of a tradition does not validate said tradition. Look at how early, "Against Heresies" was written.

Even if I grant you this (which I don't, because there certainly are enough ECF writings much earlier than Augustine that coincide with what the RCC still teaches to this day) but even if that is granted for the moment, then what you are suggesting is that the church was apostolic for a short period of time then went astray a mere couple hundred years after Christ until the reformation. So much for the church being the pillar of truth and the gates of hell not prevailing against it by the guidance of the Holy Spirit.

And 'Against heresies' is a perfect example of why an interpretive authority is necessary.

[jlay]

I think you are missing my point Byb.

I agree with a lot of those writings. I don't claim that everythign the RCC teaches isn't right.
In fact much of the teachings are just from proper exegitical exposition of scripture.
The church was going astray within the first 30 years, and we know this from Paul himself. Much of Paul's letters are rebukes and warnings over such things.

Again, it is a matter of how you are defining church. The church's seat of authority is in heavenly places, and the gates of hell will not prevail against it. There is no way for this to go astray. We don't have to wonder or defend Popes and any earthly institution. A person becomes part of the church when they properly receive Christ in faith. In this they are made to sit in heavenly places. And, yes, nothing shall prevail against them, no matter how many failings they have physically in this world. Crusades, inquisitions, child molesting priests, and evil Popes won't put even a dent in this church. Obviously you see the church as the hierarchy (this is the wording in the catechism) of the RCC. Of course Israel thought a similar thing, and mocked Christ when he predicted the doom of such earthly institutions. But as we know Christ spoke these things of the church prior to 70 A.D, to the covenant people Israel. And there was no reason to expect some place in Italy, or some altered earthly theocracy.

And 'Against heresies' is a perfect example of why an interpretive authority is necessary.

But we've already covered that. Interpretations go wrong. Popes make mistakes on interpretation, even if the basic doctrine is sound. Paul provides that authority is not from hierarchies but from one offering themself as a living sacrifice. When one does, they can test and APPROVE the will of God. Romans 12:1-2.

[Byblos]

I think you are missing my point Byb.

I agree with a lot of those writings. I don't claim that everythign the RCC teaches isn't right.
In fact much of the teachings are just from proper exegitical exposition of scripture.
The church was going astray within the first 30 years, and we know this from Paul himself. Much of Paul's letters are rebukes and warnings over such things.

First I don't agree that 'the church' was going astray. Certainly some churches due to various heretical influences (e.g. arianism) that needed to be brought back in the fold of apostolic teaching. In fact, Paul's rebukes were continued after he was gone and long before Augustine. Look no further than Ignatius of Antioch and Irenaeus as but 2 examples.

Again, it is a matter of how you are defining church. The church's seat of authority is in heavenly places, and the gates of hell will not prevail against it. There is no way for this to go astray. We don't have to wonder or defend Popes and any earthly institution. A person becomes part of the church when they properly receive Christ in faith. In this they are made to sit in heavenly places. And, yes, nothing shall prevail against them, no matter how many failings they have physically in this world. Crusades, inquisitions, child molesting priests, and evil Popes won't put even a dent in this church. Obviously you see the church as the hierarchy (this is the wording in the catechism) of the RCC. Of course Israel thought a similar thing, and mocked Christ when he predicted the doom of such earthly institutions. But as we know Christ spoke these things of the church prior to 70 A.D, to the covenant people Israel. And there was no reason to expect some place in Italy, or some altered earthly theocracy.

And yet all we see is division and disagreement on most fundamental issues concerning salvation. You don't think this is leading people astray and has done so a mere 30 years after Christ as you contend? How many souls were lost because of these divisions and disagreements? And Christ most certainly did not condemn ALL earthly institutions, he specifically condemned Israel for its unbelief. That's a far cry from condemning all earthly institutions.

And 'Against heresies' is a perfect example of why an interpretive authority is necessary.

But we've already covered that. Interpretations go wrong. Popes make mistakes on interpretation, even if the basic doctrine is sound. Paul provides that authority is not from hierarchies but from one offering themself as a living sacrifice. When one does, they can test and APPROVE the will of God. Romans 12:1-2.

You would be correct without divine intervention, then it's a free-for-all in terms of interpretation. But if the claim (you know what I mean by this) of divine intervention is valid (i.e. Christ established a church to act as an interpretive authority guided by the Holy Spirit) then there can be no mistakes in interpretation. Is this like having a cake and eating it too? Perhaps, but then it would be how Christ intended it. It's the only way to break an impasse.

[Kurieuo]

That's just it K, we do not believe that the RCC was lead astray even if there were one or 2 popes who were corrupt. If Christ has given authority to the church and promised that the gates of hell cannot prevail against it by the guidance of the Holy Spirit, then any pope, personally and privately corrupt or otherwise, who makes ex-cathedra pronouncements cannot possibly be leading the church astray because he would have the protection of the Holy Spirit when doing so. This is the key point that everyone keeps missing with papal infallibility. It is not some personal effort that every pope magically has. It is by virtue of Christ's proclamation that the church is the pillar of truth so no official doctrinal teaching can be 'astray'.

Ok, that is fine, let's assume the RCC is back on track, or never left the track so-to-speak regardless of what any pope did. This is still possible. However, as an ousider looking in, there is no longer a sole claim to authority the RCC can make above that of say Protestant churches (which originated due to schisms in the RCC). Both Protestant churches and the Catholic church can trace themselves back to a rich early Christian heritage.

I'm not sure how you can say that unless and until there is agreement and harmony on, at a minimum, essential doctrines (and here we're back to square one as to who exactly defines what is essential and what isn't). If the Holy Spirit guides the church into all truths and if there is disagreement on what this truth is then by definition the Holy Spirit either has failed in his mission or one side is in error.

What do you see as essential doctrines - would it not be only those that would faithfully bring someone to Christ?

The role of the Holy Spirit is not to maintain 100% truth on every single issue amongst Christians, is it? I see that as impossible for God to do, due to our sinful natures and the freedom God chooses for us to have. God cannot draw a square circle just because we ask him to draw nonsense. Rather, the role of the Holy Spirit is to remain with us, to work with us, sustain and preserve. There is a level of tolerance the Holy Spirit provides. He allows some Pentecostal Catholics and Protestants alike their own beliefs, and works with them to bring about good and reach out to others who are very emotional and heartfelt. He allows more rational Catholics and Protestants their beliefs (including no doubt many wrong beliefs), and works with them to bring about good and reach out to those who are very rational. At the end of the day, what we have in common is a belief in Christ, forgiveness and redemption, and being adopted into God's family.

How much tolerance, that is, how far astray will God allow us to go before intervening? We see it over and over again with Israel in the OT, and I believe we see it over and over again today throughout more recent history that a major turn of events seems to happen amongst God's people. God worked with Israel, but Israel was in all sorts of turmoil. Did God fail there? No. God brought good from a bad situation, and was able to bring about His will being born into His chosen people and providing an attainable way of forgiveness and redemption to all. With the corruption in the RCC, the Reformation happened followed by a Counter-Reformation in the Catholic Church. And even on a more personal level, the Holy Spirit works with us in varying and personal ways.

Perhaps the Reformation was the Holy Spirit's way of further re-aligning Christendom with Himself? The Reformation afterall brought on the Counter-Reformation in the RCC. Yes, God can continue to guide the Catholic Christians post-reformation through the RCC, but God can likewise also guide Protestant Christians which were used as part of the Holy Spirits plan to bring about reformation universally to Christians. What does God do with those Christians who split off from what was previously one church? Well the Holy Spirit continues to guide them alongside the RCC.

And that is what we hope for every day. I am certain it will happen eventually but I don't think any time soon.

I'm not sure I understand?

In studying early Christian history, two main reasons become apparent to me as to why early Christianity (or the Holy Spirit) setup a strong church of their own (i.e., the RCC):

• Firstly, it was to have a theological authority to protect against false Christian doctrines whether from gnosticism or what have you, and
• Secondly to also be able to compete with the richness of the Jewish faith who were recognisable through their synagogues, traditions and practices. The institutionalisation of what we recognise as the RCC provided strong visibility to non-Christians. The importance of having a visual church should be downplayed as many Protestant Christians are likely guilty of, since even today, I have come across those who can't comprehend a Christian believing in Christ devoid of affiliating one's self with any church. They tended to think of my own beliefs as having no grounding since I do not tie myself down to any particular denomination. Due to human weaknesses, we like to "see" things or else we become suspicious of a thing's existence or validity. So I see it is important for Christianity and Christians to remain visual through churches.

The RCC served both purposes. However, the Reformation brought on something new which could have, and probably was, inspired by the Holy Spirit. It caused reformation outside of the RCC (with those who split off or were ousted out), and a counter-reformation inside the RCC. Minusing the conflicts, these reformations were good things to have happened. Interestingly, Protestants went on to institutionalise their own churches based on particular beliefs and subsets of beliefs. Which shows the importance of those two bullet points above to people.

And if you look at it from an historical perspective, can you honestly tell me that Protestant churches resemble anything what the early church was? The RCC certainly does, from baptism, to penance, to the real presence in the Eucharist, even communion of the saints. All of which are as real to the early church (and to the current RCC) as they are foreign to Protestant churches (with varying degrees).

How early should one go? Even the RCC does not resemble the earlist forms of Christianity. The majority of early Christian theologians were also largely Eastern and not Western (of which Rome belonged to Western Christianity). Augustine, a Western theologian, came onto the scene in the 4th century. Rome did not gain authority of Christendom until the 4th century, and not everyone agreed with the authority of the church in Rome (naturally), but what could they do when the the Roman empire is so great and Christianity becomes established as the religion of the empire?

So are we talking 4th century early church, or earlier? That said, 2nd and 3rd centuries were by no means great. A lot of reasoning and discussions were happening over various topics leading to all sorts of fall outs. Within the lifetime of the Apostles perhaps? Heck, there even seems to be a falling out between Paul and Peter, most likely given Peter's dream something along the lines of Christ being for the Gentiles just as well as the Jews and issues like clean/unclean foods, circumcision/uncirumcision all those other issues that make a Gentile an unclean non-Jew.

However, in all this disunity, Christians are united in Christ. As your priest rightly responded to you about Protestants that any means someone comes to Christ is good. This acknowledges that Christians are not united under a church whether Protestant or the RCC, but rather under Christ. So except for Christ, everything else is non-essential and up for grabs as I see it.

[RickD]

Matthew 16:18 "And I say to thee. thou art Peter, and upon this rock I will build my Church, and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it." Matthew 16:18

The question is, who is the rock that the church is built upon? Christ, or Peter? The article in this link shows that some interpret the rock as Christ, and some, mainly the Catholic Church, interpret the rock as Peter. If Matthew 16:18, is taken in context with all of scripture, it seems pretty clear that Christ is the rock. The article has plenty of scripture that shows the term "rock" is used to describe Christ.
http://www.mountainretreatorg.net/bible/rock.html

Is the true church(all that place their trust in the efficacious work of Christ) Built on Christ, who is fully God? Or built on a mere person?

[Byblos]

What do you see as essential doctrines - would it not be only those that would faithfully bring someone to Christ?

The points of contention often center around the methods by which a person is brought to Christ. There are commonalities of course, such as evangelization. It goes downhill from there as to what is essential. Look no further than recent threads on baptism, penance, assurance of salvation, and what constitutes 'works'.

The role of the Holy Spirit is not to maintain 100% truth on every single issue amongst Christians, is it? I see that as impossible for God to do, due to our sinful natures and the freedom God chooses for us to have. God cannot draw a square circle just because we ask him to draw nonsense. Rather, the role of the Holy Spirit is to remain with us, to work with us, sustain and preserve. There is a level of tolerance the Holy Spirit provides. He allows some Pentecostal Catholics and Protestants alike their own beliefs, and works with them to bring about good and reach out to others who are very emotional and heartfelt. He allows more rational Catholics and Protestants their beliefs (including no doubt many wrong beliefs), and works with them to bring about good and reach out to those who are very rational. At the end of the day, what we have in common is a belief in Christ, forgiveness and redemption, and being adopted into God's family.

Obviously Christians disagree so they can't all be simultaneously guided by the Holy Spirit. The Holy Spirit's role is to guide the Church into all truths, which is why it was proclaimed to be the pillar of truth, so that when Christians disagree they can refer to a divine authority to settle disputes. I see that as an essential role of the church.

How much tolerance, that is, how far astray will God allow us to go before intervening? We see it over and over again with Israel in the OT, and I believe we see it over and over again today throughout more recent history that a major turn of events seems to happen amongst God's people. God worked with Israel, but Israel was in all sorts of turmoil. Did God fail there? No. God brought good from a bad situation, and was able to bring about His will being born into His chosen people and providing an attainable way of forgiveness and redemption to all. With the corruption in the RCC, the Reformation happened followed by a Counter-Reformation in the Catholic Church. And even on a more personal level, the Holy Spirit works with us in varying and personal ways.

In the OT they had the law which was designed precisely to showcase their inadequacy to follow it. We are no longer under a debt system but under a system of grace. Corporate redemption (the new Israel, i.e. the church) is no longer being sought, that was already accomplished on the cross (it is finished) so God is no longer testing the new israel. Individual salvation is now under a new and everlasting covenant so we either abide by the covenant or we don't.

Perhaps the Reformation was the Holy Spirit's way of further re-aligning Christendom with Himself? The Reformation afterall brought on the Counter-Reformation in the RCC. Yes, God can continue to guide the Catholic Christians post-reformation through the RCC, but God can likewise also guide Protestant Christians which were used as part of the Holy Spirits plan to bring about reformation universally to Christians. What does God do with those Christians who split off from what was previously one church? Well the Holy Spirit continues to guide them alongside the RCC.

And that is what we hope for every day. I am certain it will happen eventually but I don't think any time soon.

I'm not sure I understand?

The hope is that one day we will be united in agreement.

In studying early Christian history, two main reasons become apparent to me as to why early Christianity (or the Holy Spirit) setup a strong church of their own (i.e., the RCC):

• Firstly, it was to have a theological authority to protect against false Christian doctrines whether from gnosticism or what have you, and
• Secondly to also be able to compete with the richness of the Jewish faith who were recognisable through their synagogues, traditions and practices. The institutionalisation of what we recognise as the RCC provided strong visibility to non-Christians. The importance of having a visual church should be downplayed as many Protestant Christians are likely guilty of, since even today, I have come across those who can't comprehend a Christian believing in Christ devoid of affiliating one's self with any church. They tended to think of my own beliefs as having no grounding since I do not tie myself down to any particular denomination. Due to human weaknesses, we like to "see" things or else we become suspicious of a thing's existence or validity. So I see it is important for Christianity and Christians to remain visual through churches.

The RCC served both purposes. However, the Reformation brought on something new which could have, and probably was, inspired by the Holy Spirit. It caused reformation outside of the RCC (with those who split off or were ousted out), and a counter-reformation inside the RCC. Minusing the conflicts, these reformations were good things to have happened. Interestingly, Protestants went on to institutionalise their own churches based on particular beliefs and subsets of beliefs. Which shows the importance of those two bullet points above to people.

And if you look at it from an historical perspective, can you honestly tell me that Protestant churches resemble anything what the early church was? The RCC certainly does, from baptism, to penance, to the real presence in the Eucharist, even communion of the saints. All of which are as real to the early church (and to the current RCC) as they are foreign to Protestant churches (with varying degrees).

How early should one go? Even the RCC does not resemble the earlist forms of Christianity. The majority of early Christian theologians were also largely Eastern and not Western (of which Rome belonged to Western Christianity). Augustine, a Western theologian, came onto the scene in the 4th century. Rome did not gain authority of Christendom until the 4th century, and not everyone agreed with the authority of the church in Rome (naturally), but what could they do when the the Roman empire is so great and Christianity becomes established as the religion of the empire?

So are we talking 4th century early church, or earlier? That said, 2nd and 3rd centuries were by no means great. A lot of reasoning and discussions were happening over various topics leading to all sorts of fall outs. Within the lifetime of the Apostles perhaps? Heck, there even seems to be a falling out between Paul and Peter, most likely given Peter's dream something along the lines of Christ being for the Gentiles just as well as the Jews and issues like clean/unclean foods, circumcision/uncirumcision all those other issues that make a Gentile an unclean non-Jew.

We (Catholics) contend that it is the same church that traces its roots to apostolic time. It has to be, otherwise the claim of interpretive authority and infallibility is meaningless. But you're right in so much as the early church was Eastern. I mentioned this elsewhere that I am part of this Eastern Antiochian church (to which I was derided by he who shall remain nameless ( J ), that traces its roots to apostolic age and to Peter himself (so much for him going against an organized church). This Eastern church was established and grew virtually autonomously from its western counterpart for hundreds of years and yet we see them today in full communion.

However, in all this disunity, Christians are united in Christ. As your priest rightly responded to you about Protestants that any means someone comes to Christ is good. This acknowledges that Christians are not united under a church whether Protestant or the RCC, but rather under Christ. So except for Christ, everything else is non-essential and up for grabs as I see it.

And that is why I am hopeful that our unity in Christ will bring us closer together than pull us further apart.

[Byblos]

Matthew 16:18 "And I say to thee. thou art Peter, and upon this rock I will build my Church, and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it." Matthew 16:18

The question is, who is the rock that the church is built upon? Christ, or Peter? The article in this link shows that some interpret the rock as Christ, and some, mainly the Catholic Church, interpret the rock as Peter. If Matthew 16:18, is taken in context with all of scripture, it seems pretty clear that Christ is the rock. The article has plenty of scripture that shows the term "rock" is used to describe Christ.
http://www.mountainretreatorg.net/bible/rock.html

Is the true church(all that place their trust in the efficacious work of Christ) Built on Christ, who is fully God? Or built on a mere person?

I've read many different interpretations for Matthew 16:18 all to try to avoid the implication that Peter (which actually means rock) is the visible church upon which Christ intends to build his earthly church. A visible church on earth most certainly does NOT negate Christ's role as the bridegroom to his bride (the universal church).

[RickD]

I've read many different interpretations for Mathhew 16:18 all to to try to avoid the implication that Peter (which actually means rock) is the visible church upon which Christ intends to build his earthly church. A visible church on earth most certainly does NOT negate Christ's role as the bridegroom to his bride (the universal church).

Byblos, isn't this where the difference lies, between what Catholics believe about the succession of popes from Peter, and what non-Catholic Christians believe? It comes down to biblical interpretation, correct?

[Byblos]

I've read many different interpretations for Mathhew 16:18 all to to try to avoid the implication that Peter (which actually means rock) is the visible church upon which Christ intends to build his earthly church. A visible church on earth most certainly does NOT negate Christ's role as the bridegroom to his bride (the universal church).

Byblos, isn't this where the difference lies, between what Catholics believe about the succession of popes from Peter, and what non-Catholic Christians believe? It comes down to biblical interpretation, correct?

It's actually a matter of authority since it was the church who compiled what we now call scripture. How did the early church know which is scripture and which isn't? So no, before biblical interpretation comes into the picture, the issue of what constitutes scripture must be answered first and, more importantly, by what authority did this entity that decided what constitutes scripture was actually able to do so.

[RickD]

It's actually a matter of authority since it was the church who compiled what we now call scripture. How did the early church know which is scripture and which isn't? So no, before biblical interpretation comes into the picture, the issue of what constitutes scripture must be answered first and, more importantly, by what authority did this entity that decided what constitutes scripture was actually able to do so.

Lemme go out on a limb here. The pope told the church what constitutes scripture?

[Byblos]

It's actually a matter of authority since it was the church who compiled what we now call scripture. How did the early church know which is scripture and which isn't? So no, before biblical interpretation comes into the picture, the issue of what constitutes scripture must be answered first and, more importantly, by what authority did this entity that decided what constitutes scripture was actually able to do so.

Lemme go out on a limb here. The pope told the church what constitutes scripture?

Rick, are we having a conversation here or just snide remarks? The church councils that had to sift through tons of garbage to find the gems that we call scripture today, by what authority did they do this? Is it by the power of their reason only? If that's the case we are still at an impasse because other interpretations are also based on reason but differ in their conclusions. So again I ask, if we agree that what we call scripture today is the inspired Word of God and NO OTHER, by what authority were these councils able to determine that?

[RickD]

Rick, are we having a conversation here or just snide remarks?

Byblos, there was no snideness intended. My point was that what you've been saying all along. The Catholic church recognizes the Infallibility of the pope, as the ultimate authority, when it comes to interpretation of scripture, correct. That is where the disagreement lies, and I really don't see any way to escape that. Catholics hold to the pope as the final authority, and non-Catholics do not recognize his authority. How can Catholics and non-Catholics come to agreement here?
Correct me if I'm not accurate here. In your belief, the pope is the final authority. In non-Catholic Christians beliefs, the pope was not, and is not the final authority.