Is The Catholic Church The Church Christ Established?

[Miss Molly]

Roman Catholics insist they are the "original" church established personally by Christ with Peter as it's first pope. How does one explain that error to Catholic friends and loved ones who have been taught this from a very young age? How do we explain to them that theirs is NOT the "one true church" and that it does NOT teach and reflect faith in Christ and the Bible but is a man-made religion in complete opposition to Christ and the Bible? Where does one start?

Here are a couple of paragraphs of an article I found to be very informative and maybe it will help you as well...

"The writers of the New Testament taught that salvation came through simple faith in Jesus Christ. They taught that saving faith is an immediate experience with Christ, and that all men are capable of coming directly to Christ. There was no external institution necessary, no human priest or religious rite was required to qualify a man for coming to Christ and receiving forgiveness and eternal life. New Testament Christianity also taught that a New Testament Church was a body of persons who had been born again (read John chapter 3), had been baptized, and possessed the Spirit of Christ. All Churches were on the same level, and each possessed authority to govern its own affairs without outside interference.

But during the second and third centuries this began to be changed. Water baptism began to be considered as having some saving power. Justin Martyr, about the year 165, wrote that baptism completes salvation. Irenacus, writing about 185, boldly declared that baptism is the new birth and brings regeneration.

Irenacus' writings gave the first hint that perhaps infants were at that time subjects of baptism, which would be the natural thing to follow if water baptism brings salvation.

Ignatius wrote, about 115, that the bread and the wine of the Lord's Supper were the "medicine of immortality." perhaps speaking in symbolical language. However, by the time of Irenacus, in the last part of the century, the teaching was flatly being made that after the bread had been consecrated it was no longer common bread. They began to believe that in some way the consecrated bread was now able to convey spiritual grace to men. This had never been taught by the apostles of Christ, not by Christ Himself.

There is no indication whatever in the writings of the first century that the Church at that time considered baptism or the Lord's supper to be anything other than symbolical memorials. They were simply pictures of spiritual truths. However, when it came to be believed that baptism and the Lord's supper were the means of imparting salvation and spiritual blessing, then the pastor, or the priest, as he then came to be called, had a power over the people which he had not previously had.

The Jewish system and also the ancient pagan cults required priests and ritual as a part of their religious worship. The introduction of the need for magical words to be said over bread and wine, etc., brought the necessity to secure men as priests for the Churches who were trained and qualified to administer these "sacraments," as they were now called. It came to be believed that only the bishop, or the priests who had been trained and authorized by him, could effectively administer baptism and perform the "magic" of changing the bread and wine into the actual body and blood of Christ. This of course gave a new power to the bishops and the priests over the people.

This new conception of baptism and of the Lord's supper made a great difference in the conception of what the Church was. In the New Testament, the Church consisted of the people in a local body. The leaders were on the same level with the people, but served because they were given special gifts by the Holy Spirit. The ordinances were not magical but symbolical. This conception had now entirely changed. Also, the original equality among the various pastors, bishops, or presbyters serving in the church began to disappear.

In the New Testament Church there was no difference in office between a bishop and a presbyter, these two names describing the same office. But quite early in the second century it became common for one of the ministers to assume leadership. This was sometimes because of extra ability, strong personality, or maturity. Also, no doubt the natural impulse to advance one's self had a great part in this taking place."


http://rightdivision.com/html/it_happened_this_way.html

[MrMannn]

Not any more.

When the RCC embraced heresy, God led Martin Luther to break away from the official church. The RCC no longer preaches salvation thru Christ, but salvation thru rituals. The true Church of Christ walked away from the RCC.

The point is this: God doesn't need the RCC, the RCC needs God. Just because it was the first doesn't mean its especially blessed by God. The heresies of purgatory, praying to saints, the deification of Mary, and other abominations, have turned the catholic church into a satanic mockery of what it should have been. Christians have no obligation to revere or accept authority from the RCC. Sure it may have been first, but it also left God long ago.

I'm a former catholic. When I witness to catholics, I treat them like I would a cult member. I assume they have never heard of Christian doctrine 101. I don't argue about Marian worship or the other heresies. Instead I just love them and tell them about why Jesus died on the cross, and I ask them if they ever told God who's side they are on.
Most catholics have no idea if they are saved, and depend on a fictitious purgatory (not Christ) to save them.

Purgatory is one thing that especially angers me. How many millions will burn in hell because they trusted the RCC and its false promise of Purgatory. What a shameful legacy for the original church. Satan conquered the catholics long ago. There is no hope to reform the RCC before Jesus returns. The RCC is the "fallen church" of prophecy, and it will form the core of the one world religion in the trib.

[HeIsEnough]

No Mr. Mannn, it never was the church God started. It wasn't the first, the second nor the third.

The one He "started" had about three thousand souls on its day of birth on Pentecost AD 33, and it included the original disciples. It was all Jewish. The truth of this church, and all churches, is that one cannot make oneself a member, only God makes one a member of His church.

Later, local fellowships developed in various cities around the Greek world, with the one in Rome being just one of those.

Failing to acknowledge these simple facts, and the church's Jewish roots, shows they deceive themselves.

That they refuse to abandon their quest on being preeminent in everything, makes me disregard anything they have to say.

[MrMannn]

Thank you, that is correct.

[HeIsEnough]

I know thats what you were trying to say, Mr. Mannn.

[Hootmon]

The truth of this church, and all churches, is that one cannot make oneself a member, only God makes one a member of His church.

[dramama]

NO! Never was! HeIsEnough

[Miss Molly]

My experience is that Catholics seem to confuse religion with faith. They are so hung up on the traditions and teachings of their religion they have put their faith in them and forgotten, or never knew, the Bible.

[God's Trombone]

Is The Catholic Church The Church Christ Established?

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Roman Catholics insist they are the "original" church established personally by Christ with Peter as it's first pope. How does one explain that error to Catholic friends and loved ones who have been taught this from a very young age? How do we explain to them that theirs is NOT the "one true church" and that it does NOT teach and reflect faith in Christ and the Bible but is a man-made religion in complete opposition to Christ and the Bible? Where does one start?

Here are a couple of paragraphs of an article I found to be very informative and maybe it will help you as well...

The article in the OP is very good and brngs out important truths about what happened back there in the early years of the "church" but does it clarify the distinction of the Body of Christ?

There is something missing that I believe is crucial, and if it were more widely understood, might have kept the truth from being all but lost over time.

I refer to the simple mistake of regarding the "Church" Christ spoke of during His earthly (in the flesh) ministry as being the church we are part of today. It is not, because we are members of the Body of Christ and He never spoke of this Body until He spoke from heaven to Paul. It is from the words of Christ to Paul, not Peter, that the church, the Body of Christ derives.

Then HIE wrote:

No Mr. Mannn, it never was the church God started. It wasn't the first, the second nor the third.

The one He "started" had about three thousand souls on its day of birth on Pentecost AD 33, and it included the original disciples. It was all Jewish. The truth of this church, and all churches, is that one cannot make oneself a member, only God makes one a member of His church.

Later, local fellowships developed in various cities around the Greek world, with the one in Rome being just one of those.

Failing to acknowledge these simple facts, and the church's Jewish roots, shows they deceive themselves.

That they refuse to abandon their quest on being preeminent in everything, makes me disregard anything they have to say.

True enough as far as it goes; however, this post also fails to distinguish that "all Jewish church" from us, The Body of Christ. We derive from the mystery, the Gospel revealed by the resurrected Christ to Paul.

[His Bride]

NO! Never was! HeIsEnough

[Mountain Girl]

[QUOTE]

It is from the words of Christ to Paul, not Peter, that the church, the Body of Christ derives.

Excellent point!

[Chris]

http://www.gracethrufaith.com/ask-a-...r-and-the-rock

Peter And The Rock
Ask a Bible Teacher

Q. I was raised Catholic, and came to faith in Jesus Christ about 2 years ago. Most of my friends and family are Catholic. I frequently am in situations where Catholic beliefs are discussed. None of my Catholic family or friends are bible literate, but have had exposure to some scripture through the Mass etc. One passage frequently quoted to support the belief that the Catholic Church is the one and only true church, and that salvation can not be achieved outside of it, is Matthew 16:15-20.

The Catholic interpretation of this passage is that Christ named Peter as the rock upon which he would build his church (verse 18). Christ also named Peter as the authority over this church (verse 19) and thereby created the first "pope". Christian interpretations of the passage that I have read indicate that if one refers to the original language, Greek I think, it is clear that Christ was referring to the "rock" of truth that Jesus is the Christ (Peter's statement) and it is on the basis of that truth (that He is Christ) that Jesus would build His church. I have read a variation on this that the "rock" referenced is Christ himself, and it is therefore on Christ himself that Christ would build His church, not Peter. Can you shed some light on this passage given your understanding of the original language? I understand of course that you come from the Protestant tradition, but I trust you to support your view with the facts of the text. Thanks again. I know God has blessed you greatly, and in turn has blessed us all with continued insight into who it is we worship.

A. Technically the Greek words for Peter (petros) and rock (petra) are different, although derived from the same root. Petros is used 162 times in the New Testament and all but once is translated Peter. The other time it's translated stone. This leads scholars to conclude that it's being used in its metaphorical sense, to describe a hard and unyielding soul, when referring to Peter.

Petra is used 16 times and is always translated rock. Literally, it means a large rock or cliff.

Common sense tells us that if the Lord had intended to say that Peter was the rock upon which He was going to build His church, then He would have used the same word in both instances. Since He didn't, He must have been referring to the unequivocal nature of Peter's answer, "You are the Christ, the Son of the Living God" in response to His question. This view is further supported by the fact that Jesus explained that Peter's answer hadn't come from his own deduction but had been supernaturally given to him by God.

Finally, the foundation rock on which Christianity stands, and without which it would topple, is the fact that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of the Living God. Peter was indeed instrumental in building the Church on earth, though probably not as much so as Paul. But if Jesus had turned out to be someone other than the Son of God, Christianity would have long ago been exposed as a lie.

As for giving Peter the keys to the Kingdom and telling him that whatever he bound on Earth would be bound in Heaven, etc. there are two instances when Peter is seen to have opened the Kingdom, one on Pentecost to the Jews, and one in Acts 10, to the Gentiles. To see this as giving the Catholic Church, through Peter, sole authority on Earth is an incorrect interpretation. And in Matt. 18:18-19 we read that the authority to bind and loose was meant to apply to anything that two or more of the disciples agreed upon. Some believe that the same authority is available to believers today meaning that anything that two or more of us agree upon will be done for us.

Given all this, it seems clear that the Catholic treatment of Matt. 16:15-20 is inconsistent with the Lord's intent as revealed in related scriptures.

[european]

The Orthodox Catholic church is the oldest in the world, Roman Catholic comes second. Lamentably, in 1054, the Pope of Rome broke away from the other four Apostolic Patriarchates (which include Constantinople, Alexandria, Antioch and Jerusalem), by tampering with the Original Creed of the Church, and considering himself to be infallible.

[Hootmon]

The Orthodox Catholic church is the oldest in the world, Roman Catholic comes second. Lamentably, in 1054, the Pope of Rome broke away from the other four Apostolic Patriarchates (which include Constantinople, Alexandria, Antioch and Jerusalem), by tampering with the Original Creed of the Church, and considering himself to be infallible.

Yeah.

Ive always found the RCC's claim of being 'the church Christ started' a bit amusing because of that.

Not that I believe that the Orthodox church qualifies either, but it does have a better claim than the RCC does.

[HeIsEnough]

True enough as far as it goes; however, this post also fails to distinguish that "all Jewish church" from us, The Body of Christ. We derive from the mystery, the Gospel revealed by the resurrected Christ to Paul.

Lets not go there again GT. This wouldn't even remotely be the right place to do it anyway.

[His Bride]

When you are told a lie often enough it begins to sound like the truth. And so people who are raised in the RCC believe the lie. It takes the Holy Spirit to plant seeds in catholics hearts and minds before we begin to think and read the bible and talk to true christians. That questioning is what brings us to Jesus. And praise God that He shows us His mercy and grace which brings us to born again salvation. That's what makes former Roman Catholics so passionate to share the truth and to point out the lies.

[God's Trombone]

Lets not go there again GT. This wouldn't even remotely be the right place to do it anyway.

I don't understand that HIE. Why do so many try to refute the Roman claims by twisting Christ's words to Peter rather than rightly dividing the scripture and show that Peter and the 11 were apostles for Israel, and will one day judge the nation of Israel in the millennial reign?

What is the big problem with just believing what Paul wrote about us in the Body of Christ?

[HeIsEnough]

Why do you persist in not doing what I request? Stay out of this thread or I'll remove you hence forth from it...

Do you understand that GT?

[Buzzardhut]

Yeah.

Ive always found the RCC's claim of being 'the church Christ started' a bit amusing because of that.

Not that I believe that the Orthodox church qualifies either, but it does have a better claim than the RCC does.

The older a church is the more apostasy it accumulates

[tenBoomFriend]

I found proof that Peter was not the leader of the Catholic church. Paul wrote in Galatians chapter 2 verse 7 that the gospel to the uncircumcised (Gentiles, anyone not Jews) was committed to Paul. The gospel to the circumcised (Jewish) was committed to Peter. Since most of us including the Catholic church is Gentiles the leader was Paul not Peter. I believe Paul taught this in other passages but this one is in my memory. ---Peter's statement of Jesus is the Christ is the Rock that Jesus church is built on, not Peter himself.