Where does the Pope get his authority?

[Brakelite]

So were the Greek Orthodox. Both trace their roots to the apostles.

And the Assyrian churches of the east, and the Celtic churches of the West. All trace to the Apostles. It isn't about whether or not they had their roots in the Apostolic age. It's about the various influences and circumstances that led to the great falling away in Rome of a church once faithful to Jesus, relying on God to protect, and grow and establish the church through the work and influence of the holy Spirit, to an institution that placed its faith and trust in the emperors and kings and the rulers of this world in their use of compulsion and force of arms. No-one is denying that the church in Rome began as a faithful church. You can even call it Catholic (adj) as the early church as taught by the apostles was everywhere united in faith, doctrine, and purpose. But apostasy, literally means a divorce. One cannot be divorced unless at first there was a right relationship. So your attempts to prove the Catholic church as the only true church is meaningless. The church in Rome wasn't the only church in the world. It fell away by committing spiritual adultery with the world. That worldly relationship is still evident today with your Popes all, without exception, claiming secular authority over the world as well as spiritual. You can deny of course that such secular relationships aren't adultery, and you may like to justify that relationship for all you are worth, but not to me. Your church needs to justify it before God, and explain to Him why your church is so hell bent on establishing it's own kingdom on earth when Jesus clearly said, MY kingdom is not of this world.

 

[Jude Thaddeus]

So were the Greek Orthodox. Both trace their roots to the apostles.

The Catholic Church and Eastern Orthodox Church broke communion during the East–West Schism of 1054. While an informal divide between the East and West existed prior to the split, these were internal disputes, under the umbrella of the recognised “one, holy, catholic and apostolic Church” of the Nicene Creed. It is only after the formal schism of the 11th century that two, distinct churches are seen to exist, and thus commence relations. The split has, on both sides, been immensely lamented,[5][6] for it defeats the exhortation of Jesus Christ “that they may all be one" (John 17:21). The anguish over the past has spurred both sides, particularly in recent decades, to work towards restoring Christian unity through ecumenical efforts.

Pope Francis and Ecumenical Patriarch Bartholomew

 

[RedFan]

And the Assyrian churches of the east, and the Celtic churches of the West. All trace to the Apostles. It isn't about whether or not they had their roots in the Apostolic age. I

Sure it is. That's the test for being among the "earliest Christians" -- the only comment of Jude Thadeus I was responding to.

No-one is denying that the church in Rome began as a faithful church. You can even call it Catholic (adj) as the early church as taught by the apostles was everywhere united in faith, doctrine, and purpose.

Right. Ditto for the church in Jerusalem, and in Antioch, and In Alexandria.

So your attempts to prove the Catholic church as the only true church is meaningless

Not MY attempt. I don't consider the RCC (of which I am not a member) to be the only true church.

The church in Rome wasn't the only church in the world.

Correct. But as earlier stated, it was a PART of the only church in the world, as litmused by tracing its roots to the apostles.
That's all I have to say right now. But read my response to Jude Thadeus as well.

 

[RedFan]

The Catholic Church and Eastern Orthodox Church broke communion during the East–West Schism of 1054. While an informal divide between the East and West existed prior to the split, these were internal disputes, under the umbrella of the recognised “one, holy, catholic and apostolic Church” of the Nicene Creed.

I agree with this. What I would resist is the notion that that the "one, holy, catholic and apostolic church" at the time of the Council of NIcaea was centered in Rome. Alexandria, Antioch were co-equal Sees at that time. The canons that emerged from Nicaea themselves say so.

 

[Brakelite]

The Catholic Church and Eastern Orthodox Church broke communion during the East–West Schism of 1054. While an informal divide between the East and West existed prior to the split, these were internal disputes, under the umbrella of the recognised “one, holy, catholic and apostolic Church” of the Nicene Creed. It is only after the formal schism of the 11th century that two, distinct churches are seen to exist, and thus commence relations. The split has, on both sides, been immensely lamented,[5][6] for it defeats the exhortation of Jesus Christ “that they may all be one" (John 17:21). The anguish over the past has spurred both sides, particularly in recent decades, to work towards restoring Christian unity through ecumenical efforts.
View attachment 44922
Pope Francis and Ecumenical Patriarch Bartholomew

I note the studied reluctance to admit to churches outside of the purview of Rome. Why is that?

 

[Marymog]

You keep laughing @Marymog……it’s who is laughing at you that counts in the big scheme of things….you keep right on justifying the beliefs of your church, as we will all stand before the same judge. He will tell us all whether we got it right or not.…no one will be laughing then.

I don’t think we will have long to wait, judging by the state of the world and the lid that is getting lifted on the inner workings of everything in this devil-controlled system of things…..well due for destruction.
Armageddon is real….bring it on…..we’re ready.

Dear Dear Jane,

I really don't want to get into an unnecessary back and forth with you about silly things but you need to be schooled once again. I will admit that there are many Protestants that laugh at Catholics for their beliefs, practices etc. But there are many Protestants that are Catholic like and don't laugh. There are more of us Catholics than you Protestants so there are more laughing at you and your ilk than laughing at us. With that said EVERYONE (and I mean EVERYONE).....Protestant and Catholics alike....... laughs at the JW sect!! Take the log out of your eye before noticing the splinter in mine.

Yes, the state of the world is not good Jane. But your men have been lying to you about the end of it since the 1830's when they started your sect as an offshoot of another sect here in America. And that sect was an offshoot of another sect etc etc for the last 500 years since your men started protesting the teachings of The Church. In the early 1900's your sect split into many groups because they couldn't agree on things. All of them thought they were right and the other was wrong. You think that you joined the sect that was right. Right?

No, you and I won't be standing before the same judge because, as you previously said, you were "raised in Christendom and left" it. I agree with you.

 

[Marymog]

I note the studied reluctance to admit to churches outside of the purview of Rome. Why is that?

As Scripture says, Christ started One Church with One teaching and One doctrine. There are denominations (breakaways from The Church), like yours, outside of Rome but there is only One Church. Since the Protestant Revolution you Protestants think that there is more than One Church. There isn't. Your men have lied to you.

The men that you follow started their Revolution about 300 years AFTER the original Protestant Revolution when the founders of your denomination (farmers, lawyers, teachers) were sitting in the pews of other Protestant churches! * They convinced themselves and hundreds of others that many biblical truths were brought back into light thru THEM*.

*A Historic Look at the Seventh-day Adventist Church

 

[Marymog]

A trip to the catacombs is a real eye opener. Here are some observations by those who have made the journey…..

”Even though there are catacombs in many parts of the Mediterranean basin, those in Rome are the best known and also the largest—their overall length is estimated to be several hundred miles. As many as 60 have been identified, all a few miles outside the historic city center along the consular highways that connected Rome with its provinces. . . . .The greatest development took place during the third and fourth centuries; by this time, what passed for the Christian religion had been thoroughly contaminated by pagan teachings and practices. With the so-called conversion of Constantine in 313 C.E., the catacombs became the property of the Church of Rome, and some ultimately assumed colossal proportions. Altogether, the Roman catacombs could have held hundreds of thousands of tombs, if not millions. . . . .Some of those who used these places evidently had a certain knowledge of the Holy Scriptures, as a number of tombs are decorated with Bible scenes. There is no sign, however, of Mary worship or of other themes so common in later “sacred” art. . . . .We also see figures that have no connection with the Bible. “It’s true,” admits the guide. “Many scenes in these and other catacombs are borrowed from pagan art. You can find the Greco-Roman demigod and hero Orpheus; Cupid and Psyche, who represent the soul’s lot in this life and the next; the vine and the grape harvest, a well-known Dionysian symbol of ecstasy in the afterlife. Taken entirely from idolatrous art, according to one Jesuit scholar, Antonio Ferrua. . . . .

As we continue our visit, the influence exerted by unscriptural devotion to the dead becomes ever clearer. Many desired to be buried close to the tomb of someone considered to be a martyr, with the idea that from his position in heavenly bliss, the martyr could intercede, helping the lesser one to obtain the same reward.

Can these be the remains of true Christianity? Hardly. The Scriptures prophesied that shortly after the death of the apostles, a contamination of the doctrines taught by Jesus and his disciples would arise. (2 Thess 2:3, 7) Indeed, the evidence we have seen, of the cult of the dead and of the martyrs and of the idea of an immortal soul, is eloquent testimony, not of faith based on the teachings of Jesus, but rather of the strong pagan influence already present among apostate Roman Christians in the second to the fourth centuries of our Common Era.”

Lol...Hold on!! HOLD ON Janie!!!

You quote a JW to prove the JW's right?

 

[Marymog]

The principle reason for opposing Catholicism is its teachings regarding the nature of God, and the gospel of salvation.
The pagan connections, its history of persecution, the ritualism, and relics, statuary and icon reverence are but incidental evidence thereof,and the inevitable fruits of the falsehood of its theology.

Let me see if I have your theory correct Brakelite.

The principal reason you and your ilk oppose Catholic teachings is because of its teachings regarding the nature of God, and the gospel of salvation. Even though those teachings of The Church mirror Scripture and what the students of the Apostles taught.....YOUR men (who lived in the 1,800's) who were not students of the Apostles allegedly have the correct teachings regarding the nature of God and the gospel of salvation?

The students of the Apostles were wrong but YOUR MEN, 1,800 years later were right? How does that make any sense?

 

[Brakelite]

Even though those teachings of The Church mirror Scripture and what the students of the Apostles taught

Do they? Please elucidate how someone is danger according to your church. Using scripture of course.

As Scripture says, Christ started One Church with One teaching and One doctrine.

He did. And there were only a little over 100 members. By 70AD, there were thousands. But yes, still united in doctrine and faith. After 70AD, the 'church' which escaped Jerusalem before it was destroyed, settled throughout the surrounding cities... Syria particularly. Antioch, and stay is now Jordan, Pella, and other cities of Syria known today as the 'silent cities'.

As Scripture says, Christ started One Church with One teaching and One doctrine.

Before all this of course, Paul in particular had helped to begin a church in Rome he and throughout Asia minor, appointing elders in each as far as we know, and writing letters of counsel and reproof. These churches grew. How did they grow? Through the work of last members who Paul and others had discipled. They became missionaries, sharing the gospel wherever they travelled. Galatia was a known settlement of Celts, do had immigrated some 300 years previous. These Celts had constant trade and communication with like settlements in northern Italy, southern France, and Britain. The Celtic church flourished in all those districts, even from the second century. This was at a time when the church in Rome was still struggling to survive under a hail of persecution and opposition, from not only pagan Rome, but also Jews and pagans. Rome was not organised sufficiently as an institution to seem He missionaries anywhere until a few hundred years later. Augustine was surprised when he went to Britain as to how developed and strong the Celtic church was. Patrick of course was well known as a leader in that church, his father being a deacon before Patrick was converted, so even before Patrick was converted, the Celtic church was strong and influential, but not only in Britain, but across the continent. As I said in the post you quoted, Catholics seem reluctant to talk about them.

There are denominations? (breakaways from The Church),

Now all of a sudden you take a massive leap from 200ad, to the 15th century! Did you know there were Christian churches throughout Persia during a large portion of that time span? Did you know that Rome had very little contact, and even less influence with those churches? Did you know that the church of Milan and Turin, for centuries, was independent of any Roman authority? They weren't 'denominations ', nor had they broken away from the one true faith Jesus began. They grew naturally from that one church.