Peter NOT the 1st pope and the keys of the kingdom

It's not enough to just be anti-Catholic, everything must be measured against God's word. Eastern Orthodox prides itself for breaking from Rome; but, when you put its teachings and practices up against God's word it fails miserably.

Eastern Orthodox considers itself the one true church on earth, even truer than Catholicism. Extraordinary claims like this demand extraordinary evidences, but I don't see it. They address their priests as "father" and their churches are littered with icons of Mary and saints, to whom they pray for intercession.

It's not enough to just be anti-Catholic, everything must be measured against God's word. Eastern Orthodox prides itself for breaking from Rome; but, when you put its teachings and practices up against God's word it fails miserably.

Eastern Orthodox considers itself the one true church on earth, even truer than Catholicism. Extraordinary claims like this demand extraordinary evidences, but I don't see it. They address their priests as "father" and their churches are littered with icons of Mary and saints, to whom they pray for intercession.

There were and are churches that have largely kept a pure faith seperate from catholicism and didn't need to reform.

Research the Waldenses who fled persecution from mother church organization into the French alps. They claimed to be successors to the early churches. Robert Waldo is a famous leader among them, hence the Waldenses name.. but they also had the nick name Men of the Valleys.. Vallenses.

Other churches that were closely related to them were the Paulicians and Donatists. Some writers looked at the similarities between these groups and concluded they are the same line of churches that go back to the apostles.

They got the nick name ana-baptists for re baptizing by immersion believers
from those larger mother church organizations.

The Puritans I think we're part of this line also.

It isn't possible to prove absolutely complete unbroken line if succession.. but there are markers of biblical churches that were related to each other, going back through to the apostolic times.

Orthodox church?

Isn't that another kind of catholicism? Aka Greek orthodox?

Matthew 16 analysis - Peter being the first so-called pope and provided with the keys of the kingdom

MATTHEW 16:15-19 -
Catholics erroneously use these verses, and primarily verse 19, as rationale and justification for claiming Peter was established thereby as the first pope. However, when you read and study these scriptures closely along with others related thereto, you clearly find that is not the case nor is the logic sound.

When linked with Matthew 18:18, Acts 2, Acts 10, and Acts 11, you get the complete and true understanding of the aforementioned Matthew 16 verses. Note Matthew 16:15-19 below:

15He saith unto them, But whom say ye that I am? 16And Simon Peter answered and said, Thou art the Christ, the Son of the living God. 17And Jesus answered and said unto him, Blessed art thou, Simon Barjona: for flesh and blood hath not revealed it unto thee, but my Father which is in heaven. 18And I say also unto thee, That thou art Peter, and upon this rock I will build my church; and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it. 19And I will give unto thee the keys of the kingdom of heaven: and whatsoever thou shalt bind on earth shall be bound in heaven: and whatsoever thou shalt loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven.

ESTABLISHMENT OF THE CHURCH, THE EARTHLY KINGDOM -
First of all in the above scripture, notice it says "keys of the kingdom of heaven" and not "to the kingdom of heaven" which is of significance and often glossed-over by most, with "to" being superimposed for “of”. The word "of" means, 'origin', 'connected to', 'belonging to', from' or "pertaining to', whereas 'to' infers 'direction', 'going toward' or 'entry into'; "to" therefore would imply entry into the kingdom whereas "of" would imply the keys are not for entry, but rather, originating from, for, or emanating and/or coming from the kingdom; the origin of the keys being the kingdom of heaven.

Peter was entrusted with the "keys of the kingdom of heaven”, not 'keys to’ the kingdom of heaven or simply for the means of entry into it, and was empowered or sanctioned by heaven as confirmed by the Holy Ghost (Acts 2 and 10), with authority to bind his actions as well. The same words almost verbatim are used in Matthew 18:18-19, providing all of the Lord's disciples with authority likewise to bind on earth, however the reasons were different for this authority which excluded the "keys of the kingdom", and the authority was provided to all the disciples (ye, in the original Greek) as opposed to just Peter (thee per the original Greek) in Matthew 16.

When you consider or link Matthew 16 as relates to Peter and "the keys of the kingdom" with the book of Acts, you find that Peter was the one responsible for establishing the church, the earthly kingdom, first amongst the Jews at Jerusalem (Acts2), and then amongst the Gentiles commencing with the conversion of Cornelius (Acts 10), which action he then defended to the council at Jerusalem in Acts 11. Peter being the one that established the early church, is therefore validation of Matthew 16 and the Lord’s unique statement to him, creating the setting and providing him with the opportunity, wherewithal, and confirmation by heaven via the Holy Ghost to do so (collectively, “the keys”). Note too, that the Holy Ghost falling on individuals uniquely as it did on both occasions, were the only times recorded in the bible for such happening in the manner it did. Both events, that of Acts 2 and Acts 10, were done with heavenly power and authority as noted above, since in both cases, the Holy Ghost demonstrated said power and authority by its physical presence, falling on individuals in both cases as a sign to those present, giving validity to, and substantiation from heaven of Peter’s actions, consistent with the use of the word “of” in Matthew 16:19.

THE ROCK -
In Matthew 16:18, it's obvious that Peter isn't the rock but rather Christ is, since he is recognized as being the chief cornerstone and/or foundation per the scriptures (Ephesians 2:20, Psalm 118:22-23, Isaiah 28:16, Matthew 21:42-44, 1Cor 3:11, Acts 4:11). Also, Peter in Greek is 'Petros' Πέτρος or Cephas, [masculine gender in the Greek meaning a stone or boulder (Strong's), or rock, individual stone, more insecure or moveable], and the “rock” in Matthew 16:18 is “petra”, πέτρα (feminine gender in the Greek), being rock, cliff, solid formation, solid foundation, bedrock, large rock formation, immoveable and enduring. Also, the church is referred to as being the “bride”, “chaste virgin”, “her” (feminine), etc., and Christ being the bridegroom, which further substantiates the use of “petra” rather than “petros”. If Christ's intent was to build his church upon Peter, why wouldn't he have said "and upon you I will build my church", or “upon petros, or you, Petros I will build my church” and not "upon this rock" (petra)? Also note that if Peter was established as the so-called first pope and head of the church (as erroneously claimed by Catholics), 1. Why did the Lord say “get thee behind me Satan” to him in Matthew 16:23? and 2. Why did the disciples quarrel amongst themselves (Luke 9:46) as to who would be the greatest among them, which occurred AFTER Peter’s statement as to who Jesus was (Luke 9:20 and parallel verse Mat 16:16)? and 3. Why was there contention between Peter and Paul as recorded in Acts 15:2 and Gal 2:11-14 if Peter was the head of the church? and 4. Why did the council at Jerusalem send Peter and John to Samaria (Acts8:14) if Peter was the head of the church, yet taking direction from the council at Jerusalem? Also note that no man (in a religious sense, Mat 23:8-9), is to be called father on earth, yet the pope is commonly referred to as the “Holy Father”. And too, Christ is the head of the church which is his body, not Peter (Eph 5:23, Col 1:18)

Orthodoxy doesn't have a Magisterium that tells people how God's word is to be interpreted, as in Catholicism. The Catholic catechism reigns supreme for Catholics; however, in Orthodoxy, scripture and tradition are equal to one another. In other words, you can't simply follow God's word, you have to follow tradition as well; and by tradition they mean Orthodox tradition.

Orthodox church?

Isn't that another kind of catholicism? Aka Greek orthodox?

I agree, this line is better and probably represents a more faithful lineage than Orthodoxy or Catholicism either one.

If your interested, these are the differences between the Orthodox Church and the Roman Church.

Roman Catholics deem the Pope as infallible, while Greek Orthodox believers don’t.

Roman Catholics believe that Mary is free from original sin, while Greek Orthodox believers don’t.

Roman Catholic priests cannot marry, while priests in the Greek Orthodox can marry before they are ordained.

Latin was the main language used during Roman Catholic services (1700 years), while Greek Orthodox churches use native languages.

Roman Catholics venerate statues as much as Greek Orthodox believers venerate icons.

Doctrines can be changed in Roman Catholicism, as opposed to Greek Orthodox.

Unlike Roman Catholics, Greek Orthodox believers do not accept the concepts of purgatory and Stations of the Cross.

Very informative.

If your interested, these are the differences between the Orthodox Church and the Roman Church.

Roman Catholics deem the Pope as infallible, while Greek Orthodox believers don’t.

Roman Catholics believe that Mary is free from original sin, while Greek Orthodox believers don’t.

Roman Catholic priests cannot marry, while priests in the Greek Orthodox can marry before they are ordained.

Latin was the main language used during Roman Catholic services (1700 years), while Greek Orthodox churches use native languages.

Roman Catholics venerate statues as much as Greek Orthodox believers venerate icons.

Doctrines can be changed in Roman Catholicism, as opposed to Greek Orthodox.

Unlike Roman Catholics, Greek Orthodox believers do not accept the concepts of purgatory and Stations of the Cross.

, although God was gracious to answer my prayers of 30 years that God would save him, 5 months before he died!

Beautiful Angela...
This encourages me to keep praying for my unsaved children...
...xox...

Ok, so since the discussion has turned to the Orthodox Church, here's a brief history: for the first 1000 years, in both East and West, there was only One Church. In the Nicene Creed, Universally Accepted, it was professed that the Church is "One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic". The word Catholic means Universal. Then, in 1054 A.D. a minor controversy broke out about Unleavened Bread. The Greek Churches use Leavened Bread. The Latins use Unleavened. A very minor issue. Both Churches share the fundamentally same believe that the Eucharist is the real Body and Blood of Christ, and not a mere symbol, as John 6, 1 Cor 10 and 11 also imply. Finally, both Churches recognize the Bishops and Presbyters (Priests) are distinct Orders.

Anyway, Pope Francis and Patriarch Bartholomew (leader of the Greek Orthodox Church) agreed to hold some kind of Council in Nicaea in 2025, inviting all Christians to join. See: https://www.commonwealmagazine.org/nicea-iii-2025 Nicaea I was in 325 A.D. and this is to commemorate that. Nicea defended the Divinity of Christ against Arians who denied it and the Trinity.

Now, let's come back to the Papacy: Even a cursory glance at the Church Fathers of the First Millenium (when there was no East-West/Catholic-Orthodox Schism, but only One Universal Church in both East and West) shows they did recognize that the Chair or See of Peter in Rome has a special authority and that all the Bishops of the Church should be in communion.

Some examples: observe how the Fathers of both East and West agree in exegeting Mat 16:18 about the Chair of Peter.

St. Augustine (Latin/Western): “Number the Bishops from the Chair of Peter itself. And in that order of Fathers see who succeeded whom, That is the Rock against which the gates of hell do not prevail.” Psalmus contra partem Donati, 18 (A.D. 393).

St. Jerome (Latin/Western): My words are spoken to the successor of the fisherman, to the disciple of the cross. As I follow no leader save Christ, so I communicate with none but your blessedness, that is with the chair of Peter. For this, I know, is the Rock on which the Church is built! (Letter 15, para 2). See source online here: https://www.newadvent.org/fathers/3001015.htm

St. Theodore (Greek/Byzantine): "Order that the declaration from old Rome be received, as was the custom by Tradition of our Fathers from of old and from the beginning. For this, O Emperor, is the highest of the Churches of God, in which first Peter held the Chair, to whom the Lord said: Thou art Peter ...and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it." (Theodore, Bk. II. Ep. 86)

If anyone wants to read more such sources, from the East, please see: https://www.fisheaters.com/easternfathers.html

Study the History of the First Millenium and you will see that, while, sure, a few mistakes were made here and there, on the whole Christianity flourished greatly and did very well. How, after all, did almost all of Europe become Christian? Take the e.g. of Ireland. You will see it was Rome, under Pope Celestine, that sent St. Patrick to Ireland. At his arrival, almost the whole nation was pagan/polytheist/unbaptized. At his death, nearly the entire was Christian/Monotheist/Trinitarian. This is a very well known fact. Now, take another e.g. Great Britain. Did Angels perhaps come from Heaven and make it Christian to begin with? Not at all, again it was Pope St. Gregory the Great that sent St. Augustine of Canterbury there, with 40 monks. By prayer and preaching, fasting and sacrifices etc, virtually the entire nation was converted to Jesus Christ. Similar instances happen with St. Remy in France and St. Boniface in Germany. Virtually always, the Church of Rome was at the centre of Evangelism of new areas for Jesus Christ, and also, being in Europe herself, kept Europe and the Entire Church, Greek, Latin, Syrian etc, united in One Universal Church. Unfortunately, in the Second Millenium, some divisions broke out.

God Bless.

You cannot justify wrong by time or the amount of people that adhere to it.

Because there was a significant amount of time that had or has elapsed, and tradition established thereby doesn't justify what was going on if in fact it was wrong and inconsistent with God's word.