Was Paul Catholic?

micketymoc

Jonga says no...

Jonga wrote: »

i guess Paul is not a Catholic, he did mortal sins like persecuting/killing christians.

Adamantium says HELL no...

Adamantium wrote: »

Of course Paul the Apostle is not a Catholic (Roman)! Saint Paul the Apostle died even before the Roman Catholic Church existed. The Roman Catholic Church is only one of the three great branches of Christianity: Roman Catholicism, Greek Orthodoxy, and World Protestantism. But Saint Paul belongs to neither of the three branches: rather, he belongs to the root of these three branches, which is Christianity itself.

As such, Saint Paul is a Christian, an Apostle of the Church, and not just a Catholic. Saint Paul thus belongs to all Christians, both to Roman Catholic, Orthodox, and Prostestant Christians, for he is definitely not Catholic. Basically Saint Paul is a Christian, plain and simple.

nicolai says does a bear sh!t in the woods?...

nicolai_frank wrote: »

It was impossible for Paul to belong to all branches of Christianity.

Asserting this proposition is to suggest that:

1. Paul was a member of the Catholic Church who teaches that the Pope, the successor of Peter, who receives direct authority from God, who has universal jurisdiction of all Churches and who is INFALLIBLE.

2. He was also a member of the Orthodox Churches and the Protestant organizations who repudiated the universal supremacy of the Pope and declared heretical the claim of papal infallibility.

3. Paul was BOTH a member of the Catholic Church and Orthodox Churches whose grounds of teachings included the Tradition and Church and the Bible; and at the same time of the Protestant movements who declared the Bible as the sole authority in teaching.

Who's right? Who's wrong?

Jonga

i already have my answers, different answers though, truth is Paul was not a Catholic before he was a christian

satisfies both Adamantium and Nic's explanations.

now Im just wondering:
1. if Paul was a catholic after he believed in Christ (where Adam and Nic differs)
2. and if Catholic church would accept those who accepted themselves as culturally catholic, as their brethrens.
3. is there a difference between Adamantium's brand of christianity with Nic's Catholicism...or Paul is exclusive only for RC

micketymoc

I'd answer question #2 as, "who gives a sh!t?"

I don't seek approval from the Church to label myself "culturally Catholic", and I don't expect the Church to give their approval. It's a label I apply to my personal experience. It's not a label any good Catholic would recognize, so there's no point in asking that question.

Jonga

^i know, and ive read your blog post carefully, my question is on Nic not on you, just wonderin if "they would give a *****" about culturally catholic individuals.

reminded me when my friends still call me brother when i already told them ive changed

micketymoc

My guess is Nic is somewhere on the "conservative" end of the Church, but I personally know some Catholics (Jesuits among them, too) who probably would not think it was such a big deal.

roelallen

Before we begin the "threshing out" of the merits of the issues, I believe there are some procedural matters that needs addressing first.

First, we must define the terms of the thread. I would invite Jonga, Adamantium, and Nicolai Frank to define their terms first before proceeding with the merits of the "threshing out".

Will they yield to these definitions?

Paul = Saint Paul the Apostle, the great missionary to the Gentiles and the writer of the New Testament epistles;

Catholic = a member of the Roman Catholic Church as we know it today, that is, as headed by the pope and as headquartered in the Vatican.

I believe the defining of terms is in high order, for us to have a very orderly discussion in this thread. Of course, Jonga, Adamantium, and Nicolai Frank may each propose definitions of their own, but they must agree to what definition they are using, and then proceed with the debate using the same definitions that they agree upon.

The definition of the word "catholic" is specially problematic, for there are Protestant sects, chief among which is the Anglican Church, as well as some Greek Orthodox denominations, that claim that they are the rightful users and heirs of the name "catholic" as first used by Saint Ignatius of Antioch, and not the Roman Catholic Church, for the reason that their severing or separating themselves from papal Roman Catholicism was because they were in fact reverting to the more faithful and primitive Christianity of the New Testament, the Christianity from which the Roman Catholic Church through the centuries deviated from and digressed by its definitions and promulgation of certain religious dogmas that are at facial impression contrary to some of the basic tenets of primitive Christianity as found in the New Testament, and which primitive Christianity Saint Paul the Apostle was the prime member.

I believe Nicolai Frank proceeds from the definition that "catholic" = "Roman Catholic"; I don't know about Jonga and Adamantium.

I would invite them to define their terms first.

nicolai_frank

We have to bear in mind that since the apostolic era, there was no other Christian Church existing on earth other than the one founded by Christ. This Christian Church was persecuted by Saul who was later converted to her. The same Church was later called Catholic by St. Ignatius. There was no other church. Protestanism was never heard of until 1517. Orthodox Churches became known when the Eastern part broke its ties with the Pope of Rome.

The term Roman Catholic, on the other hand, was a Protestant invention, a pejorative term along with Papist Church, Popish Rome.

St. Paul was a member of the Church founded by Christ. The same Church which was then called Catholic by Ignatius. By name, Paul was not a member of the Catholic Church but by essence, he was.

Adamantium

Nicolai Frank's rejoinder is rather full of statements that are at best self assertions, and that can only be described as heavily pregnant with ideas some of which may not yet be established as factually true, but as still highly debatable, thus:

nicolai_frank wrote: »

We have to bear in mind that since the apostolic era, there was no other Christian Church existing on earth other than the one founded by Christ.

Au contraire, the fact is that since the Apostolic Era, there have sprouted literally hundreds of dependent, semi-independent, and independent various Christian churches of various hues and colours. I would surmise and it is my belief that the Lord Jesus Christ founded the religion that is now called Christianity, and this religion that is called Christianity that He founded on Pentecost Sunday in the 1st Century is now generally divided into three wonderful and glorious branches, each with its own peculiarity and goodness: the Roman Catholic branch, the Greek Orthodox branch, and the World Protestantism branch. There is thus only one religion, Christianity, that Jesus Christ founded. But this one religion has three equal branches. I would not rather utilise nor accept Nicolai's phrasing that Jesus Christ founded a particular Christian church. Rather, He founded a religion, albeit this religion is oftentimes called in the New Testament writings as a "church".

This Christian Church was persecuted by Saul who was later converted to her.

This Christian movement and religion was persecuted indeed by Paul the Apostle when he was not yet converted to the same.

The same Church was later called Catholic by St. Ignatius.

I would posit that Saint Ignatius of Antioch first called the Church catholic not as an appellation of the same but as a description of it, but I also posit that Saint Ignatius did not denote this appellation to a particular church during his time, for it is apparent that during his time there are already many Christian churches, so that Saint Paul the Apostle in several of his epistles often commands the addressee Church to greet the "churches of Christ". There is thus the Church in Rome, the Church in Jerusalem, the Church in Antioch, the Church in Philippi. These are the Churches of Christ, several and many, and these collectively are called "catholic" by Saint Ignatius, but the term is by no means nomenclatured on the Church in Rome alone, neither on the Church in Philippi, nor on the Church in Corinth, alone.

There was no other church.

Rather, there was no other religion. But there were many different Churches.

Protestanism was never heard of until 1517.

This is still highly debatable, for there never existed a time in the history of the Christian religion where one particular sect or part of it is not in protest against the whole Christian religion. Thus there was the Arian protest, the Albigensian protests, Wycliffe's protests, against the central members of the Christian religion. These are all before Luther's protest, which is properly called now Protestantism and the Reformation.

Orthodox Churches became known when the Eastern part broke its ties with the Pope of Rome.

Who broke ties from whom? This particular statement by Nicolai is rather highly debatable and controversial. Orthodox apologists would reject this statement, and would aver that the Greek Orthodox Church and the Roman Catholic Church separated one from another as equals, so that they each of them even excommunicated one from the other, so that what happened is not called separation, but rather division, and this is now called by religious historians as the Great Schism.

The term Roman Catholic, on the other hand, was a Protestant invention, a pejorative term along with Papist Church, Popish Rome.

This is of course debatable, but granting without admitting that the appellation "Roman Catholic" is a Protestant pejorative invention, still the Protestant's reason will still be that they are just reverting back to the true and original catholicism of primitive New Testament Christianity, a catholicism that the Catholic Church centred in Rome spurned with her proclamation of several teachings and dogmas that at facial value contradict the basic tenets of New Testament primitive catholic Christianity.

St. Paul was a member of the Church founded by Christ.

No doubt he was, and he is.

The same Church which was then called Catholic by Ignatius.

I believe so, too.

By name, Paul was not a member of the Catholic Church but by essence, he was.

Saint Paul the Apostle, as I posted earlier above, was and is a member of the Christian religion. Now, this Christian religion has three great brother branches: Roman Catholicism, Greek Orthodoxy, and World Protestantism. Saint Paul did not become a member of any of these three, because when he died, these three branches which grew out of the one root that is Christianity did not yet exist. What existed then when he died as an Apostle was the one Christian religion. The three branches were not yet existing. As such, Saint Paul the Apostle technically did not become a member of any of these three branches, but he was a member of the root which is the Christian religion, from which root the three great Christian branches did sprout. However, this does not mean that the Roman Catholic Church, or the Greek Orthodox Church, or the Protestant Churches, cannot own and claim the great Apostle as his or their own, for they being after all the three component great branches of Christianity, they still partake of Paul's membership in the Christian religion that is their root. So that both technically and allegorically also, Saint Paul may be considered a member of each or of all of these three great branches of Christianity.

Jonga

roel wrote:

I would invite them to define their terms first.

beats me, for all i know there is only one Catholic Church, and that is the Roman Catholic Church

nic wrote:

St. Paul was a member of the Church founded by Christ. The same Church which was then called Catholic by Ignatius. By name, Paul was not a member of the Catholic Church but by essence, he was.

so is it also correct to say that "in essence", Paul was also a member of the "other" christian religions?

nicolai_frank

Adamantium wrote: »

Nicolai Frank's rejoinder is rather full of statements that are at best self assertions, and that can only be described as heavily pregnant with ideas some of which may not yet be established as factually true, but as still highly debatable, thus:

Adamantium wrote: »

Au contraire, the fact is that since the Apostolic Era, there have sprouted literally hundreds of dependent, semi-independent, and independent various Christian churches of various hues and colours. I would surmise and it is my belief that the Lord Jesus Christ founded the religion that is now called Christianity, and this religion that is called Christianity that He founded on Pentecost Sunday in the 1st Century is now generally divided into three wonderful and glorious branches, each with its own peculiarity and goodness: the Roman Catholic branch, the Greek Orthodox branch, and the World Protestantism branch. There is thus only one religion, Christianity, that Jesus Christ founded. But this one religion has three equal branches. I would not rather utilise nor accept Nicolai's phrasing that Jesus Christ founded a particular Christian church. Rather, He founded a religion, albeit this religion is oftentimes called in the New Testament writings as a "church".

This is quite untrue. It is not true that the Church founded by Christ has three branches for claiming this is to argue that what Jesus founded had three conflicting bodies.

The Catholic Church teaches that its supreme head is the Pope. The Orthodox Churches do not believe this, in fact, they declare this doctrine. The same case in the Protestant world.

The Catholic Church acknowledges the Magisterium as the authority in amtters of faith and morals. Orthodox Churches are independent from one another and have no central authority in matters of faith and morals. And so with the Protestants.

The Catholic Church declares the Bible, the Tradition and the Church as the bases in the Catholic faith. Orthodox Churches also believe such but the Protestants claim that it is the Bible alone upon which their faith is grounded.

Who can believe that these three branches with different doctrines came from one founder? Certainly, not all these branches are telling the truth.

nicolai_frank

Adamantium wrote: »

I would posit that Saint Ignatius of Antioch first called the Church catholic not as an appellation of the same but as a description of it, but I also posit that Saint Ignatius did not denote this appellation to a particular church during his time, for it is apparent that during his time there are already many Christian churches, so that Saint Paul the Apostle in several of his epistles often commands the addressee Church to greet the "churches of Christ". There is thus the Church in Rome, the Church in Jerusalem, the Church in Antioch, the Church in Philippi. These are the Churches of Christ, several and many, and these collectively are called "catholic" by Saint Ignatius, but the term is by no means nomenclatured on the Church in Rome alone, neither on the Church in Philippi, nor on the Church in Corinth, alone.

The churches you were referrng to were LOCAL Churches. I do not disagree that there were several local churches then but Jesus only founded ONE universal Church.

When St. Ignatius called "Catholic" the Church founded by Christ, he was not referring to the local Churches but to the WHOLE Christian Church.

nicolai_frank

Adamantium wrote: »

This is still highly debatable, for there never existed a time in the history of the Christian religion where one particular sect or part of it is not in protest against the whole Christian religion. Thus there was the Arian protest, the Albigensian protests, Wycliffe's protests, against the central members of the Christian religion. These are all before Luther's protest, which is properly called now Protestantism and the Reformation.

Yes there were several heretics who opposed the authority of the Church. But take note, Protestantism was never coined to them. The term "Protestant" was first coined to the Lutheran princes who protested the decision of the Diet of Speyer.

nicolai_frank

Adamantium wrote: »

Who broke ties from whom? This particular statement by Nicolai is rather highly debatable and controversial. Orthodox apologists would reject this statement, and would aver that the Greek Orthodox Church and the Roman Catholic Church separated one from another as equals, so that they each of them even excommunicated one from the other, so that what happened is not called separation, but rather division, and this is now called by religious historians as the Great Schism.

The Catholic Church considered the Eatern Church as apostolic but SCHISMATICS. They are separated from the bosom of the Catholic Church. The Orthodox likewise declared the Catholic Church as separated from the Orthodox faith.

Schismatics are separatists.

Adamantium wrote: »

This is of course debatable, but granting without admitting that the appellation "Roman Catholic" is a Protestant pejorative invention, still the Protestant's reason will still be that they are just reverting back to the true and original catholicism of primitive New Testament Christianity, a catholicism that the Catholic Church centred in Rome spurned with her proclamation of several teachings and dogmas that at facial value contradict the basic tenets of New Testament primitive catholic Christianity.

I would like to hear from you what these several teachings and dogmas are.

Adamantium wrote: »

Saint Paul the Apostle, as I posted earlier above, was and is a member of the Christian religion. Now, this Christian religion has three great brother branches: Roman Catholicism, Greek Orthodoxy, and World Protestantism. Saint Paul did not become a member of any of these three, because when he died, these three branches which grew out of the one root that is Christianity did not yet exist. What existed then when he died as an Apostle was the one Christian religion. The three branches were not yet existing. As such, Saint Paul the Apostle technically did not become a member of any of these three branches, but he was a member of the root which is the Christian religion, from which root the three great Christian branches did sprout. However, this does not mean that the Roman Catholic Church, or the Greek Orthodox Church, or the Protestant Churches, cannot own and claim the great Apostle as his or their own, for they being after all the three component great branches of Christianity, they still partake of Paul's membership in the Christian religion that is their root. So that both technically and allegorically also, Saint Paul may be considered a member of each or of all of these three great branches of Christianity.

So St. Paul was a member of three conflicting, warring branches?

nicolai_frank

Jonga wrote: »

so is it also correct to say that "in essence", Paul was also a member of the "other" christian religions?

No. Paul was member of the Catholic Church. He could not be a Protestant, that is for sure. When I say Protestant, I mean any member of an organization claiming to be Christian which came to exist after Martin Luther and who is not a Catholic.

Casta Diva

nicolai_frank wrote: »

This is quite untrue. It is not true that the Church founded by Christ has three branches for claiming this is to argue that what Jesus founded had three conflicting bodies.

The Lord Jesus Christ founded one religion, Christianity, and when He founded it it was one, primitive New Testament Christianity. However, after His death, subsequently, afterwards, there branched out from the one root three branches, Roman Catholicism, Greek Orthodoxy, and World Protestantism. As such, you sound inaccurate and misleading when you say that "what Jesus founded had three conflicting bodies" ^, when in truth and in fact what Jesus founded was just one religion, but which, after His death, branched out into three bodies. The Lord surely during Pentecost did not found a religion having already "three conflicting bodies". Such an event, the branching into three, surely did not happen during his founding of the Christian religion at Pentecost, but centuries later.

The Catholic Church teaches that its supreme head is the Pope. The Orthodox Churches do not believe this, in fact, they declare this doctrine. The same case in the Protestant world.

The Catholic Church acknowledges the Magisterium as the authority in amtters of faith and morals. Orthodox Churches are independent from one another and have no central authority in matters of faith and morals. And so with the Protestants.

The Catholic Church declares the Bible, the Tradition and the Church as the bases in the Catholic faith. Orthodox Churches also believe such but the Protestants claim that it is the Bible alone upon which their faith is grounded.

You stress differences when in fact all of these three great branches all have that desire and will to the unity of the Church of Christ. Ecumenism is not just a mantra, but is the final end of Christianity. Furthermore, the Pope is, I believe, not the "supreme head" of the Roman Catholic Church. For the supreme head of any of these three branches is none other than the Lord Jesus Christ Himself. The Pope is but the "servant of the servants" of God.

Who can believe that these three branches with different doctrines came from one founder? Certainly, not all these branches are telling the truth.

My explanations above has the necessary implication that these three branches of Christianity did not come from its one founder, Jesus Christ. Rather, these three branches of Christianity came from one religion, Christianity, which religion has just one founder, the Lord Jesus Christ. So there is no contradiction.

It's a matter of viewing things. You seemed to have immersed yourself, and consequently prejudiced yourself, into the divisiveness, exclusiveness, and incompatibility in the differences side of things, rather than on their unity and oneness.

I view things more on their unity and oneness, rather than on their incompatible differences, and more so when what I view are Roman Catholicism, Greek Orthodoxy, and World Protestantism.

micketymoc

Off-topic lang sandali... magkakilala kaya sina Casta Diva at Adamantium? Pareho silang taga-Northern Samar eh. La lang, sige, back to the discussion...

nicolai_frank

Casta Diva wrote: »

The Lord Jesus Christ founded one religion, Christianity, and when He founded it it was one, primitive New Testament Christianity. However, after His death, subsequently, afterwards, there branched out from the one root three branches, Roman Catholicism, Greek Orthodoxy, and World Protestantism. As such, you sound inaccurate and misleading when you say that "what Jesus founded had three conflicting bodies" ^, when in truth and in fact what Jesus founded was just one religion, but which, after His death, branched out into three bodies. The Lord surely during Pentecost did not found a religion having already "three conflicting bodies". Such an event, the branching into three, surely did not happen during his founding of the Christian religion at Pentecost, but centuries later.

It is not my argument that the religion founded by Christ had three conflicting bodies. This is Adamantium's (yours?).

It is impossible that these three warring branches are both coming from Christ.

Casta Diva wrote: »

You stress differences when in fact all of these three great branches all have that desire and will to the unity of the Church of Christ. Ecumenism is not just a mantra, but is the final end of Christianity. Furthermore, the Pope is, I believe, not the "supreme head" of the Roman Catholic Church. For the supreme head of any of these three branches is none other than the Lord Jesus Christ Himself. The Pope is but the "servant of the servants" of God.

That is what the Catholic Church is teaching; the Pope has universal jurisdiction over all Catholic Churches. The Protestants do not agree, the Orthodox declared this to be heretical.

Casta Diva wrote: »

My explanations above has the necessary implication that these three branches of Christianity did not come from its one founder, Jesus Christ. Rather, these three branches of Christianity came from one religion, Christianity, which religion has just one founder, the Lord Jesus Christ. So there is no contradiction.

Christ built one Church and the faith is one. Our task now is to determine which of these three branches can we find the fullness of faith.

Casta Diva wrote: »

It's a matter of viewing things. You seemed to have immersed yourself, and consequently prejudiced yourself, into the divisiveness, exclusiveness, and incompatibility in the differences side of things, rather than on their unity and oneness.

I view things more on their unity and oneness, rather than on their incompatible differences, and more so when what I view are Roman Catholicism, Greek Orthodoxy, and World Protestantism.

You missed the point. What I have been pointing out is the fact that these three branches have different doctrines and therefore it is entirely untrue that these came from one founder.

Casta Diva

nicolai_frank wrote: »

It is not my argument that the religion founded by Christ had three conflicting bodies. This is Adamantium's (yours?).

Methinks you are the one that misses the point. Neither is it my argument that the religion founded by the Lord Jesus Christ had three conflicting bodies. My argument is this, and I repeat it:

The religion founded by the Lord Jesus Christ before His ascension to heaven is just one, and that religion is primitive New Testament Christianity. When He founded it, it was just one; it was not composed of three conflicting parts or components. When He founded it, it was just one religion, primitive New Testament Christianity. After His ascension to heaven, and many centuries later after that, this one religion that He founded branched out into three distinct but not necessarily conflicting branches, and these branches are Roman Catholicism, Greek Orthodoxy, and World Protestantism.

Now, does this religion Christianity now having these three branches (I will not use your adjective "conflicting" because I will not use it to describe the varieties between these three great Christian religious bodies) mean that the Lord Jesus Christ founded a Church that is composed of three different and conflicting branches/bodies? The answer must be in the negative, for in all honesty when the Lord founded His Church He founded just one religion, and that is primitive New Testament Christianity. The latter branching out of this one root into three different but also quite similar branches centuries after the Ascension of the Lord into heaven cannot simply be boiled down to the Lord also founding a religion that was already composed by three different branches when He founded it in the 1st Century before His Ascension. These are very different things.

It is impossible that these three warring branches are both coming from Christ.

How many times do I have to tell you that these three "warring" branches did not proceed from/come from the Lord Jesus Christ? They did come from/proceed from the one religion that He founded, primitive New Testament Christianity. Or do I have to make a diagramme to you just for you to understand this? The Lord Jesus Christ founded just one Church and religion, and this is primitive New Testament Christianity. Centuries later, after His ascension, this one religion that He founded branched out into three distinct and different but also quite similar bodies/branches. You always seem to interpret this, and to conclude thus, that because of this latter branching out, the Lord ergo founded a religion that is composed of three different, "warring" branches inside it. This conclusion is, I repeat, not sound, nor is it acceptable.

That is what the Catholic Church is teaching; the Pope has universal jurisdiction over all Catholic Churches. The Protestants do not agree, the Orthodox declared this to be heretical.

What the Roman Catholic Church teaches is immaterial. The Roman Catholic Church may even declare as dogma in the future that the Blessed Virgin Mary was co-Redemptress with the Lord Jesus Christ. But will this affect the single truth that the Lord Jesus Christ just founded one religion, primitive New Testament Christianity, and that Centuries later on after His Ascension this one religion that He founded branched out into three great religious bodies? Not in the least, at least for purposes of our discussion here.

Christ built one Church and the faith is one. Our task now is to determine which of these three branches can we find the fullness of faith.

Similarly, this statement is not quite accurate. Your first statement is true: the Lord did indeed build one Church and religion, and the Faith He founded is just one. This one is primitive New Testament Christianity. But your second statement is highly problematic. It proceeds from the erroneous premiss that one of these three great branches is essentially the root religion that the Lord Jesus Christ founded. In this our discussion, may I remind you that I am talking about five very distinct entities:

1. the Founder, the Lord Jesus Christ Himself;

2. the thing He founded, primitive New Testament Christianity;

3. the three branches that later on after His ascension branched out of this one root:

a. Roman Catholicism

b. Greek Orthodoxy

c. and World Protestantism.

Please do not confuse these five entities, for their distinction is vital to our discussion. When Entities Nos. 1 and 2 (forgive me for using the term "Entity" for the Lord Jesus Christ and His Church, but this is very useful for this discussion; may I not take His name in vain) existed during the 1st Century, Entities Nos. 3a, 3b, and 3c did not yet exist.

When Saint Paul the Apostle yet bodily existed in this earth as a Christian, of the above five entities only Entity No. 2 existed. Entity No. 1 already ascended to heaven; Entities Nos. 3a, 3b, and 3c did not yet exist, but only Entity No. 2. As such, no historian nor theologian in his right mind would even assert that Saint Paul the Apostle was a member of Entity No. 3a. The argument that the famous Saint may not be a member of Entity No. 3a in name, but he is in essence, is a cop out, an alibi by Catholic apologists to explain further what is not there, and to extend a string that can no longer be further elongated.

You missed the point. What I have been pointing out is the fact that these three branches have different doctrines and therefore it is entirely untrue that these came from one founder.

Again, how many times do I have to point out in this thread that these three branches that have different doctrines one from another (albeit they also have similarities) did not proceed from one Founder? As I diagrammed above, there is only one entity that proceeded out of the Founder, and that is primitive New Testament Christianity. The three differing branches, Entities Nos. 3a, 3b, and 3c, did not proceed from one Founder, Entity No. 1, but did proceed/come out of one religion/Church, Entity No. 2. Is it so hard to understand this?

The errors of your logic are these:

Premiss 1. Difference in doctrines of religions exclude each other.

Premiss 2. Such exclusion cannot proceed/come out of one Founder.

Premiss 3. Roman Catholicism, Greek Orthodoxy, and World Protestantism have differing doctrines.

Conclusion: Ergo, Roman Catholicism, Greek Orthodoxy, and World Protestantism did not and cannot come out/proceed from one Founder.

Premiss 1 is highly problematic. It smacks upon the face of global Christian ecumenism. If that is so, then why is the Pope making out public declarations with the Archbishop of Canterbury and the Ecumenical Patriarch of Constantinople desiring for their eventual future unity, acknowledging that their religions have just one Founder? Unless you make these highly respectable people hypocrites, then your first and second premiss must necessarily fail.

Premisses 2 and 3 evinces your separatist, exclusivist, ultramontanist stance that is quite highly problematic and unacceptable. The trend in future Christianity is the oneness of these three different branches of Christianity, and not their division and separation. The ecumenical papers of the Vatican and the declarations of Vatican Council II simply negate your exclusivistic and separatistic contentions. These deserve the scantest of considerations if we Christians are to pursue a global ecumenistic trend in the future, "ut unum sint", that we may all be one.

As to the conclusion, it simply misses the point, and is off track from its premisses. The three branches differing one from the other is of no moment, and will not smack upon the integrity of its Founder, for they proceeded/came out of the thing the He founded, and not from Him Himself.

Your premisses being unsound, the implications of your conclusion, that Saint Paul must necessarily be a member of only one of these three branches, must necessarily fail also.

sophion

Anyone who thinks that Paul belongs to a Brand Name Christianity is an idiot. He predated all of that. He did not believe in Perpetual Virginity. He did not believe in OSAS. He did not believe in Manalo. He did not believe in Jehova. He did not believe in Papal Infallibility. He was just a Christian and nothing more.

Jonga

^essence daw e, i was really waiting about what it means when you say "catholic in essence", furthermore, is it also called catholic in essence or similar when you say culturally catholic. of course in the RC point of view.

christians nowadays are preoccupied with who's the "right" church, when it is clear their leader ought them to be preoccupied in building up their church.

sophion

Jesus was also a "Muslim in Essence". Its all BS.