isn't the Eastern, Orthodox part of the (universal) Catholic church
on an equal footing of being the 'true' church as much as
the Western, Apostolic part of the (universal) Catholic church ?


we know well that the holy-spirit must have long since departed the Rome based Apostolic Catholic church with all the decades long child abuse covered up by the different Diocese (and the Bishops or Monsignors' in charge, all across the USA.


Rome or old Constanipole...

Very interesting stuff. I have often wondered why Peter would do such things as form that kind of a church. As when I read that part of the bible I know that is not the kind of church Jesus was talking about.

However. I am a bit surprised and didn't agree with the part about Paul being against him etc. Rather, I would have to say Paul was one of them. Afterall, it is Paul who appeals to the Romans and that authority as well. And it is Paul they readily accept when deciding on texts for the bible.

It is interesting stuff. The New Testament Church is nothing like the Catholic Church.

The Apostles were given certain powers and abilities directly through Jesus, and then it is shown that those few select who the Apostles in turn laid hands on could likewise perform certain miraculous functions.

But when the last Apostle died, and the last person died that they directly laid their hands on died, that was the last of the abilities to heal, speak in tongues (multiple languages) and only Jesus could forgive sins.

The Christians were the priesthood. There were very specific criteria for the Bishops (congregation elders) and deacons to be selected, and they were only to see to the feeding of the flock and it's welfare.

No congregation was beholding to any other. Each was independent, each was the highest level of organization.

Then, there was that beast. He was killed, and then he rose again. Pagan Rome was destroyed, and then Papal Rome rose in its place.

All interesting stuff.