Christ's Church

As I’ve been reading thru some of the threads we have here I have a question that has been squirreling around in my head. Let’s say (as my friends have told me) that Peter was given the Keys of the Kingdom and upon the 'Rock of Peter His Church is built. I think I’ve stated it correctly.

Now that squirreling question is what happens if, down the years, the Church strays from what God taught? Is that still the Church of God?

Please know that this is for discussion and debate and NOT for people to get angry with each other. I like a lot of what the Catholic Church teaches but I don’t think it’s the same as when Christ gave Peter the keys…

Discussion??

God Bless,

Rita

The question is moot because the Catholic Church will NEVER stray from what God has taught: “And I say to thee: That 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).

Also, “the church of the living God, the pillar and ground of the truth” (1 Timothy 3:15)

May God bless you abundantly and forever! :slight_smile:

How is the Catholic Church different now from when Christ gave St. Peter the keys, in your view? Can you provide an example?

The church is all believers where the word is preached and sacraments are administered. So even when error upon error pile up, and the church institution needs to be reformed (which it was during the Reformation), there will still be Christians present.

Personally I don’t mind this kind of question and beside, you meant it for discussion. :thumbsup:

If the Church should stray, then the word of Jesus who has given that key to Peter and upon him He built His Church, that the Gate of Hell will not prevail against His Church would come to naught. But even if the Church should stray, because of the promise of the protection against the Gate of Hell, it would be corrected and righted somehow, even in time.

I suggest you should read at least until the Gate of Hell will not prevail. :wink:

The question asked is hypothetical because if Mathew 16 according to the understanding of the Church is anything to go by, it will not happen. :slight_smile:

Reuben

Ok, I don’t want to get in trouble for this, but the question was asked and I’m giving it an answer. I’m just the messenger! I got this off gotquestions.org.

  • While Christ was on the earth, there is no mention of the papacy, worship/adoration of Mary (or the immaculate conception of Mary, the perpetual virginity of Mary, the assumption of Mary, or Mary as co-redemptrix and mediatrix), petitioning saints in heaven for their prayers, apostolic succession, the ordinances of the church functioning as sacraments, infant baptism, confession of sin to a priest, purgatory, indulgences, or the equal authority of church tradition and Scripture. So, if the origin of the Catholic Church is not in the teachings of Jesus and His apostles, as recorded in the New Testament, what is the true origin of the Catholic Church?*

In light of the above, the Catholic Church is much different now then when Christ gave St Peter the keys.

Why should all this be mentioned while Christ was on the earth? Didn’t the Holy Spirit have to come? :smiley:
Plus, there ar some things mentioned during that time, the papacy is one example, just the word pope isn’t there. But many words that many denominations use today aren’t. The same for the virginity, purgatory. Things can be understood by deduction. Again, why it has to be while Jesus was there? There was no Church, technically, before He ascended and sent the Spirit.

Worshipping Mary is certainly not found, because it is not what the Church does…

When Jesus gave Peter the authority and also proclaimed His church in the Gospel Jesus also said that the gates of hell would NOT prevail. Trusting Jesus that He established His church I think its important to trust Jesus that He also established it with people to safeguard it.
Jesus in the Gospels also gave his disciples the authorities to work in His name, and the Gospels also state that Jesus told us that he would not leave us orphans and that His Holy Spirit would guide us and especially the leaders of the church He established.
Trusting and knowing this how else could the Catholic Church still run today and is also the Largest Religion in the world today……… Did Jesus get it right or not?

Never flay the messenger.:wink: so do not take me seriously.

I would add to the list … There was also no mention of Trinity, altar call, once saved always saved or faith alone.

The Catholic councils did clear up errors from church…. Again the leaders of the Church are guided by the Holy Spirit as Jesus promised. The reformation was not liberating the church it only lead more people astray.
You would have to then say that Martin Luther was God’s new appointed man for a new established church, but you couldn’t honestly say that because God didn’t break His promise… The gates of hell will not prevail.

I do believe that Luther was anointed by God to be the one to bring in the reform of the church, but not a new church, a continuation of it. That’s why we Lutherans are called evangelical Catholics.

Well, there was no Church when Jesus walked the earth, so that part is cleared up. The Church was born (or started) on Pentacost, in the Upper Room. Doctrine has developed. The Church, however, is the same Church that our Lord founded. The teachings of the Catholic Church are based on Scripture, Tradition, and the Magisterium.

The above is a hypothetical that doesn’t work for Catholics, obviously (if you are intending to say that it is the Catholic Church that has strayed or has the possibility of straying from God). Of course we don’t believe that, if that’s what you’re insinuating. Not sure what the point is, exactly, in asking the question. Can you elaborate?

But how can a continuation result in denying the Tradition and the Magisterium, and come with the teaching of Sola Sciptura?
On Luther’s anointing, what does that mean in an optic of revelation?

I would make the difference between the reforms made by Saint Francis and Luther, since the pope approved the first and rejected the others. This wouldn’t be important to Protestants, but again, the Pope is infallible on this, by the power given by Christ. So being rejected by the pope on such things is quite a hint in direction of heresy, thus a separation, not a continuation.

Because Luther didn’t come up with anything. All the teachings of The Augsburg Confession were present in the church and accounted for before Luther. Luther and Melanchthon simply synthesized them into a confession.

On Luther’s anointing, what does that mean in an optic of revelation?

I don’t understand the question.

I would make the difference between the reforms made by Saint Francis and Luther, since the pope approved the first and rejected the others. This wouldn’t be important to Protestants, but again, the Pope is infallible on this, by the power given by Christ. So being rejected by the pope on such things is quite a hint in direction of heresy, thus a separation, not a continuation.

I don’t think that the pope is infallible so his opinion regarding Luther or anything while interesting is not binding on me.

  1. And how can a man, modify the confession of faith of the Church? Even if anointed, the Church would have had to accpet it, because both the Church and the Reform would have come from God;

  2. If Luther was called to reform the Church, this would have been private revelation, which no one is bound to hold for true as long as the Church did not say it is. So the only wa to know that Luther was really meant to do that for God and the best of th Church, the Church itself would have accepted it, like the reforms made by some friar named Francis…but the Church didn’t accept Luther’s propositions, making this reforms not a continuation, but a separation from the very Church he had received the ordination from;

  3. That is what I said: this is irrelevant for a Protestant, but then why was the early church so different from protestantism (hierarchy, veneration of saints, real presence)? A reform is not meant to change the beliefs and the Tradition.

So… You’re taking their word for it?

There are NUMEROUS Biblical explainations of all of these practices. Please look around the vast number of threads here that cover ALL of those issues. A little reading and effort on your part should give you the CATHOLIC side (left out of your very one-sided post) of the story, so to speak.

You have also cited the address of a blatently ANTI-Catholic website. A serious violation of this forum’s rules.

Usually, the best way to do this is to cut and paste; and say that you got it from a non-Catholic website (or anti-Catholic website as is the case here) without giving the address. I am sure you weren’t trying to give them any more publicity than they have already, or entice Catholics to visit that website by posting the address; but they are very misinformed and ignorant about Catholicism and certainly shouldn’t have a “LOOK HERE” sign posted on the busiest Catholic forum on the internet.

I took the liberty of NOT re-posting the website’s address.

God bless.

In John 16:12, Our Lord said to the disciples at the Last Supper:

“I have much more to tell you, but you cannot bear it now.”

Exactly! :thumbsup:

Again, it looks like there is no consideration of the Holy Spirit coming, and simply Church history.

DISCLAIMER: The views and opinions expressed in these forums do not necessarily reflect those of Catholic Answers. For official apologetics resources please visit www.catholic.com.