I begin by referring to earlier on in Jesus's third year of ministry, where He asked His disciples: "Who do you say that I am?". The significance behind Peter's answer was God the Father directly revealed it only to him, and Peter understood and accepted that reply (Mt. 16:16). Additionally, because he believed Jesus was the Christ since he first saw Him, and his faith was never shaken, that is why Jesus called him "Peter" ["Cephas" or ''kēp̄ā'' in Aramaic. "Petros" or "Πετρος" in Ancient Greek], meaning "stone, rock", and chose him to build His church upon (Mt. 16:18).Rian wrote:The Christian church was built on and by Christ Jesus...
After Jesus's resurrection, but before His ascension to Heaven, He asked Peter three times if he loved Him. After the first two responses, Jesus commanded: "Feed my lambs", on the third it was: "Feed my sheep" (Jn. 21:15-17). It was then Peter's treble profession of love cancelled his treble denial, making him completely pure, thus ready to begin his mission, as the first among equals in shepherdship.
Peter, nor his successors, are greater than Jesus, but in any organism a hierarchy is required, so that it may be truly active and wholesome, that is, someone who commands, another who transmits orders, and those who obey. This happens in courts of kings and religions. From the Hebrew religion to others, even if they're so impure, there's always a chief, his ministers, the servants of the ministers, and the believers.
I'm not sure how many ways "breakaway" can be taken. The protestant Churches broke away from the larger Church as a whole, now being separated from it. Regarding "sect", when used within the context of religion, it is often associated with heretical groups. Perhaps some would prefer "un-orthodox", "non-conformist", or "apostate", but regardless of preference, the reality is that there are many Churches not in communion with Rome anymore. And, what was once whole is now sectioned and scattered, with adherents from these now rival Churches calling the others "non-Christian". An outcome that the LORD warned us against.Rian wrote:I would agree that other Christian churches are breakaway sects, but only "breakaway" in a technical sense and "sect" in a non-heretical sense.
How can we call out the important differences as being wrong or blasphemous, if we do not have clear lines drawn when it is necessary? Do we accept all Churches calling themselves Christian? Jehova's Witnesses don't believe Christ is divine. Is that considered to be outside of the basic requirements for a "Christian" Church?
Jesus has a problem with that, because it's not what He advocates: "And other sheep I have, that are not of this fold: them also I must bring, and they shall hear my voice, and there shall be one fold and one shepherd." (Jn 10:16).Rian wrote:I think they rightly broke away because of how the Catholic church grew worse and worse, and into some truly horrific abuses of power. Personally, I have no problem with the idea of different Christian churches with slightly different doctrine. Also, I think the multi-Christian-church model is good because I think it's safer to have authority distributed among different Christian church groups so that if one group goes really bad, there are plenty of other healthier ones available. Plus so many people come to Christ from so many different backgrounds that I think it's great to have a lot of different churches so people can find what ministers best to them at the particular place they're in at the time (as long as the basics are there).
None of the breakaway sects run short of sinners and sin, but due to the Church's longevity, certainly its history of offenses against the LORD runs the deepest. Would it shock you to learn Satan has a hand in that? Since its inception, there has been more of a spiritual attack on the leaders within, and he'll only fight harder the closer Jesus's return approaches. While we know the gates of hell shall not prevail against the Church (Mt. 16:18), it does not mean there won't be damage. This is why it's essential to pray for those in positions of authority (1 Ti. 2:1-3), they are held more accountable (Jm. 3:1), as well as reprove, and forgive them (Lk. 17:3).
Alas, the Church is divided, and unwise to leave it as it is: "Now I beseech you, brethren, by the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, that you all speak the same thing, and that there be no schisms among you; but that you be perfect in the same mind, and in the same judgment." (1 Co. 1:10).
The "moving out" analogy applies better to the non-Roman Rite Catholic Churches, e.g. Eastern Rite Catholics. Protestants are more like the members who condemn and cut themselves off from the family.Rian wrote:You bring up the concept of family; well, I don't live with my parents, although we are still family. My husband doesn't live with his parents, either. When we married, we left our parents, as the Bible describes, and made our own family. I think that is an accurate picture of how the Christian church as a whole operates.
The Church, or Catholic Church, was built upon Peter by Jesus.Rian wrote:I, along with many Catholics, belong to the Church founded by and on Christ Jesus, and since I have some pretty major issues with some Catholic doctrine, I will not join the Catholic church...
You know not what you do.
At least give credit where credit's due, because the Church is responsible for the following:
- Carrying on of apostolic traditions from the time of Jesus.
- Creation and compilation of the Bible as you have it -- minus some of the books protestants deemed unimportant because...reasons.
- Rights and rituals that protestants have taken with them. Or, at least the ones that they haven't almost entirely turned their backs on.
To summarize, the concept of one fold, under one shepherd, and the primacy of Peter, was clearly established by Jesus.
The promotion of multi-Christian sects flies in the face of these truths.