Can anyone start a church, and call it the church founded by Jesus Christ?

[joe370]

Hey Francis…

Most Lutherans do hold to apostolic succession these days, so the same question could be asked of the Roman Catholic Church.

I understand your position. However, I do know that Martin Luther spearheaded the movement that led to the Lutheran Churches that we see today, but, other than Jesus, I do not know who started the movement that led to the church in Rome. If it’s not Jesus then please identify the man that did?

Did Romans start it?

LOL…

Both the Lutheran Church and the Roman Catholic Church claim to be founded by Jesus Christ and His apostles. Ask any informed Lutheran and they will tell you that Jesus founded it, not Luther.

I’ll ask JonNC, here at CAF; he is really well informed…

According to them, Luther merely cleaned up the “dirty” corners of Jesus’ Church.

Not so! The catholic reformation cleaned up the dirty corners of Jesus’ churchr. ML went on to do good things, no doubt about that, as well establishing his own dirty corners in His reformed church.

Did St. Thomas found a cathedral titled “St. Thomas Cathedral”? Of course not.

Don’t see the relevance. St. Thomas Cathedral is a building.

Do you believe that it is OK for anyone to start a church, and call it the church founded by Jesus Christ?
Do I believe that a random person can start a church today and claim that it is an apostolic church founded by Jesus Christ and His apostles? No.

Do I believe that a random person can start a church today without any material derived from Sacred Tradition (e.g., the Bible, the use of the Jesus’ name, the chants, hymns, vestiges, and praise songs) and call it a church founded by Jesus? No.

Seems reasonable…

Jesus founded the church in the 1st century, and only those who have some sort of continuity/connection to that church (whether by apostolic succession, or apostolic creeds and other documents, or through stories and hymns) can claim to be founded by Jesus Christ in the most minimalist sense. Otherwise, it is a church they started, not Jesus. In fact, they shouldn’t even use the name Jesus, so your question is begging from the outset.

I understand. The church to which a friend of mine belongs, which was established in the 20th century adheres to the apostolic creeds. Can he rightfully claim that the church to which he belongs was founded by Jesus circa 33 AD?

 

[placido]

I have asked this question several times and no one responds. Is it no one wants to or no one has an answer? As a Catholic I believe in the succession of Popes tracing our religion back to when Christ walked the earth. I also believe that Christ said " Simon thou art Peter and upon this rock I will build my Church" making Peter the head of his Church. Wher in the bible can we make the connection to the word CATHOLIC and when did this word originate?

I can not remember who, but I once heard someone saying "Catholic Church means Universal Church, i.e. the church throughout the world – Greek: ekklesia katholos, as stated in Acts 9:31.

placido

 

[placido]

Where in the bible does it say that a person who comits the sin of adultry ( through divorce and remarriage later ) cannot take part in the Communion? I was taught that no sin is too big to be forgiven.

Yes, but on condition that the sinner has actually repented.

Where in the bible does it say that this is the way it should be or is this just a rule imposed by the Church? Can anyone show me where to look for biblical scripture that clearly defines this issue.

Pmr3147, you identify yourself as “Catholic” and as “Catholic” you were supposed to know that the Church doesn’t teach sola scriptura.

placido

 

[joe370]

I have asked this question several times and no one responds. Is it no one wants to or no one has an answer? As a Catholic I believe in the succession of Popes tracing our religion back to when Christ walked the earth. I also believe that Christ said " Simon thou art Peter and upon this rock I will build my Church" making Peter the head of his Church. Wher in the bible can we make the connection to the word CATHOLIC and when did this word originate?

Of course, you won’t find the word catholic in the bible just as you won’t find the word protestant in the bible. Jesus left the task of naming His church up to His church leaders, in His stead, and they named it catholic (universal) - for a very good reason. It was named catholic to make the clear distinction between the true apostolic church founded by Jesus and all of the other gnostic/pseudo churches, founded by mere men claiming to be the true apostolic church. Below is a short list of early church fathers, spanning the early centuries, from the 1st century to the 5th century, (from the 5th century to the present day is patently obvious) - from the east to the west, and they all belonged to the Catholic Church to which you and I belong, and a few were actual disciples of the apostles, so, it stands to reason, if those disciples of the apostles belonged to the CC so did their predecessors, the apostles.

A good question to ask any protestant is: Is it your opinion that the following bishops all belonged to the same Church, which they referred to as the Catholic Church, but that this Catholic Church to which they belonged, is not the the Catholic Church to which I belong?

Ignatius of Antioch (Turkey) - was the third Bishop of Antioch, and was a student of John the Apostle:

Let that be deemed a proper Eucharist, which is [administered] either by the bishop, or by one to whom he has entrusted it. Wherever the bishop shall appear, there let the multitude also be; by the bishop, or by one to whom he has entrusted it. Wherever the bishop shall appear, there let the multitude also be; even as, wherever Jesus Christ is, there is the Catholic Church." Ignatius of Antioch, Epistle to the Smyrneans, 8:2 (c. A.D. 110).

Irenaeus (2nd century AD – 202) - was Bishop of Lugdunum in Gaul, then a part of the Roman Empire (now Lyons, France). He was an early church father and apologist, and his writings were formative in the early development of Christian theology. He was a hearer of Polycarp, who in turn was a disciple of John the Evangelist:

“Nor does it consist in this, that he should again falsely imagine, as being above this [fancied being], a Pleroma at one time supposed to contain thirty, and at another time an innumerable tribe of Aeons, as these teachers who are destitute of truly divine wisdom maintain; while the Catholic Church possesses one and the same faith throughout the whole world, as we have already said.” Irenaeus, Against Heresies, 1:10,3 (A.D. 180).

Tertullian (160 – 220 AD) - was an early Christian author from Carthage in the Roman province of Africa:

“For it is evident that those men lived not so long ago,–in the reign of Antoninus for the most part,–and that they at first were believers in the doctrine of the Catholic Church, in the church of Rome under the episcopate of the blessed Eleutherus, until on account of their ever restless curiosity, with which they even infected the brethren, they were more than once expelled.” Tertullian, On the Prescription Against Heretics, 22,30 (A.D. 200).

Polycarp (69 – 155 AD) - was a 2nd century Christian bishop of Smyrna (Anatolia) - and disciple of John the Apostle. The Island Of Patmos is located in the Aegean Sea just off the west coast of Anatolia, or Asia Minor. It was there that the The Apostle John was given to write the book of Revelation, including the letters to the The Seven Churches - Ephesus, Smyrna, Pergamum, Thyatira, Sardis, Philadelphia, and Laodicea:

“All the people wondered that there should be such a difference between the unbelievers and the elect, of whom this most admirable Polycarp was one, having in our own times been an apostolic and prophetic teacher, and bishop of the Catholic Church which is in Smyrna. For every word that went out of his mouth either has been or shall yet be accomplished.” Martyrdom of Polycarp, 16:2 (A.D. 155).

Continued…

 

[KathleenGee]

Adultery is a most grave sin and can destroy a marriage and family.

The Eucharist is a sacrament. It is the Body, Blood, Soul, and Divinity of Jesus Christ.

Only God can forgive sin. Mortal sin destroys the relationship with God and one cannot receive the Eucharist without committing a sacrilege.

The sacrament of confession in true repentance restores relationship with God, and then one is able to receive the Sacrament again in Communion.

The Church comprises of a believer who believes and professes the Creed that one’s faith is based on Jesus Christ, His life, death, and resurrection as our Savior and Redeemer.

You can have one Catholic in Spokane, Washington, and the Church will recognize that the Church still exists in Spokane, even if it regards only one believer.

Your diocese is your local church. Then you have parishes. And finally church buildings.

The entire Vatican could be brought down to the ground, the pope and his cardinals and bishops killed, many Catholics killed, but the Catholic Church would still exist on earth.

 

[joe370]

Cyprian was a bishop of Carthage, an ancient city on the northern shore of Africa (250 AD):

”Whence you ought to know that the bishop is in the Church, and the Church in the bishop; and if any one be not with the bishop, that he is not in the Church, and that those flatter themselves in vain who creep in, not having peace with God’s priests, and think that they communicate secretly with some; while the Church, which is Catholic and one, is not cut nor divided, but is indeed connected and bound together by the cement of priests who cohere with one another.” Cyprian, To Florentius, Epistle 66/67 (A.D. 254).

Cyril of Jerusalem was a theologian of the early Church (313– 386).

“Concerning this Holy Catholic Church Paul writes to Timothy, ‘That thou mayest know haw thou oughtest to behave thyself in the House of God, which is the Church of the Living God, the pillar and ground of the truth’” Cyril of Jerusalem, Catechetical Lectures,18:25(A.D.

Augustine of Hippo, (a city in the northeastern corner of Algeria):

“We must hold to the Christian religion and to communication in her Church, which is Catholic and which is called Catholic not only by her own members but even by all her enemies. For when heretics or the adherents of schisms talk about her, not among themselves but with strangers, willy-nilly they call her nothing else but Catholic. For they will not be understood unless they distinguish her by this name which the whole world employs in her regard.” Augustine, The True Religion, 7:12 (A.D. 390).

The council of Nicea called by Constantine, comprised of 318 bishops from across the Roman Empire, were invited to the Turkish town of Nicea, in an attempt to find common ground on what historians now refer to as the Arian Controversy. It was the first ever worldwide gathering of Jesus’ Church, which was called the Catholic Church at the council of Nicea:

“Concerning those who call themselves Cathari, if they come over to the Catholic and Apostolic Church, the great and holy Synod decrees that they who are ordained shall continue as they are in the clergy. But it is before all things necessary that they should profess in writing that they will observe and follow the dogmas of the Catholic and Apostolic Church; in particular that they will communicate with persons who have been twice married, and with those who having lapsed in persecution have had a period [of penance] laid upon them, and a time [of restoration] fixed so that in all things they will follow the dogmas of the Catholic Church…” Council of Nicaea I (A.D. 325). Council of Nicea

 

[KathleenGee]

Joe, this post you just shared is a keeper.

Now let’s see how many deny it…

The Lord is calling us to be one…not spend our life denying and dissenting from the Truth.

 

[Matthew_P_Muehl]

Joe, this post you just shared is a keeper.

Now let’s see how many deny it…

The Lord is calling us to be one…not spend our life denying and dissenting from the Truth.

To be deep in history is to cease being a protestant! I believe Cardinal Newman made that statement. All we can do is Pray to The Holy Spirit to open the hearts and minds of those who reject historical Facts…

Matthew…

 

[LaymanX]

I understand. The church to which a friend of mine belongs, which was established in the 20th century adheres to the apostolic creeds. Can he rightfully claim that the church to which he belongs was founded by Jesus circa 33 AD?

That depends what you mean by “rightfully.” Each church would define this term differently. I supposed you mean a church which has obediently remained under the authority of the bishop of the See of Rome and all those in submissive communion with him through the centuries. And by that definition, of course he cannot! There is only one church that has such a definition, and that is the church with doctrine of papal infallibility.

Regards,

Francis

 

[placido]

That depends what you mean by “rightfully.” Each church would define this term differently.

You sound too relativist … each one can have his or her own definition and that is just okay.

I supposed you mean a church which has obediently remained under the authority of the bishop of the See of Rome and all those in submissive communion with him through the centuries.

I would say “loving communion” instead of “submissive communion”. Why? Because the word “submissive” is used here as an emotional trap, to imply an involuntary, forced communion …

And by that definition, of course he cannot! There is only one church that has such a definition, and that is the church with doctrine of papal infallibility.

And that is exactly the only Church founded by Christ.

placido

 

[LaymanX]

Where in the bible does it say that a person who comits the sin of adultry ( through divorce and remarriage later ) cannot take part in the Communion? I was taught that no sin is too big to be forgiven. Where in the bible does it say that this is the way it should be or is this just a rule imposed by the Church? Can anyone show me where to look for biblical scripture that clearly defines this issue.

The issue has to be looked at from a disciplinary point of view (cf. Matthew 18:15-18). Being excluded from the Eucharist is a form of “excommunication.” Here is the reason why a person who is “remarried” cannot partake of the Eucharist.

First, of all, marriage is once and for all. Some like to use the exception clause in Matthew 19:9 to justify divorce, but there is overwhelming evidence from other Gospels that it is once and for all. If you include the story of Genesis and the book of Hosea (in regards to forgiveness), a good case can be made that adultery is never an excuse for divorce. Plus, recent biblical commentators have noticed that the word ‘porneia’ in Matt. 19:9 may be referring to the same kind of pre-marital sex which Blessed Mary was accused of in the beginning of Matthew.

Anyways, if one accepts this interpretation, then your remarriage isn’t even a remarriage. There can be no remarriage in the Catholic faith. You can only be married to one person, and the “second” marriage is actually a form of adultery to your true spouse. Therefore, if one does not end the “second” marriage, one is continually being unrepentant and therefore must be excluded from the Eucharist. The options are really simple for someone who is “remarried.” (1) Remain in that rebellious state and do not partake in the Eucharist, (2) break it off and remain separated and partake in the Eucharist, or (3) try to reconcile the previous marriage and partake in the Eucharist.

There is also the option of seeking an annulment according to the canons 1055-1165 of the CIC (Catholic Canon Law). If you qualify for annulment, then you may “remarry” although this would technically be your first marriage, since the one prior is not valid. This last option can wreck havoc on your conscience, since the lines between a truly invalid marriage and a marriage that has been voided by playing with the system (like the Pharisees). I recommend the other three options listed above unless absolutely necessary.

Regards,

Francis

 

[LaymanX]

You sound too relativist … each one can have his or her own definition and that is just okay.

I apologize if I sounded relativistic, but the phrasing itself was ambigious. Not everyone affirms the Catholic faith in this particular forum (i.e., “Non-Catholic Religions”). We cannot assume the reader holds the same presuppositions.

I would say “loving communion” instead of “submissive communion”. Why? Because the word “submissive” is used here as an emotional trap, to imply an involuntary, forced communion …

The word ‘submit’ is used in the book of Ephesians 5 and Colossians 3 regarding wives. Submission is only “bad” for those who do not see submission/obedience as a virtue. So, in one sense you are correct; many readers may have negative, emotional reactions to this word. However, to accuse me of intentionally employing an emotional “trap” seems unjustified. Nevertheless, I stand corrected. Perhaps “loving sumission” would be a better compromise.

Regards,

Francis

 

[placido]

I apologize if I sounded relativistic, but the phrasing itself was ambigious. Not everyone affirms the Catholic faith in this particular forum (i.e., “Non-Catholic Religions”). We cannot assume the reader holds the same presuppositions.

Yes, disagreement means either that we are all wrong or that some of us are wrong. To say it doesn’t matter (like you suggested) is relativistic.

The word ‘submit’ is used in the book of Ephesians 5 and Colossians 3 regarding wives. Submission is only “bad” for those who do not see submission/obedience as a virtue.

In other words those who are 'submissive to Rome" are virtuous. Thank you.

So, in one sense you are correct; many readers may have negative, emotional reactions to this word.

And those “many readers” are exactly whom I referred to.

However, to accuse me of intentionally employing an emotional “trap” seems unjustified.

Oh, I am sorry!

Nevertheless, I stand corrected. Perhaps “loving sumission” would be a better compromise.

placido

 

[LaymanX]

Yes, disagreement means either that we are all wrong or that some of us are wrong. To say it doesn’t matter (like you suggested) is relativistic.

From what I recall, I never said “it doesn’t matter”? I think there was a misunderstanding.

First of all, I never said “it doesn’t matter.” Neither did I say “everything is relative.” What I was trying to say was that your wording (when you posed the question) was ambiguous. Therefore, I had no choice, but to give you an ambiguous response. I will have to bounce the ball back onto your court and say that you were using ambiguously, relativistic words! You are the relativist, not me!

Francis

P.S. I’m just messing with ya. I know what you mean~

 

[placido]

First of all, I never said “it doesn’t matter.”

Okay, but you said: Each church would define this term differently.
Now, does that fact that “each church defines the term differently” matter to you? If yes, then I misunderstood you; if not, then you are relativist.

placido

 

[LaymanX]

Okay, but you said: Each church would define this term differently.
Now, does that fact that “each church defines the term differently” matter to you? If yes, then I misunderstood you; if not, then you are relativist.

placido

Just because each church defines the term differently does not mean that I believe they are all correct. I do believe there can only be one holy and apostolic church. However, I have neither the IQ nor the time to prove or discount every one of the different ways in which each theological school defines it. To think that I can know what each tradition thinks of itself after reading a few books and talking to a few people here and there is seriously problematic. I value the attitude of humility when it comes to new truths, and obedience when it comes to truths of my apostolic mentors.

Therefore, I refrain from making statements that lack respect for the views of others. But that does not mean I accept theirs. I just choose to remain agnostic towards many of their views, because they are very foreign. I can only justify my own understanding of my faith and if someone proposes a more robust understanding, I will see how that understanding fits with all the knowledge that have been passed down to me by my apostolic superiors and decide whether it is acceptable and worthy of my attention.

In sum, my statement about each church “defining their terms differently” reflects an attitude of humility towards other theological traditions, while not jeopardizing my own tradition. The only person that can make such radical claims about other theological traditions should be someone with God’s perspective (i.e., one with infallibility). I am just a young, amateur scholar, who barely knows the depths of his own faith. So I try my best to refrain from speaking like I am the Magisterium that has deeply reflected upon the theological traditions of other schools of thought in communion with the pope. I leave that to my apostolic superiors.

Peace and grace,

Francis

 

[placido]

Just because each church defines the term differently does not mean that I believe they are all correct.

Good!

I do believe there can only be one holy and apostolic church.

Great!

However, I have neither the IQ nor the time to prove or discount every one of the different ways in which each theological school defines it. To think that I can know what each tradition thinks of itself after reading a few books and talking to a few people here and there is seriously problematic. I value the attitude of humility when it comes to new truths, and obedience when it comes to truths of my apostolic mentors.

Your apostolic mentors? And they are agnostic just like you?

Therefore, I refrain from making statements that lack respect for the views of others. But that does not mean I accept theirs.

That is fair enough!

placido

 

[LaymanX]

Your apostolic mentors? And they are agnostic just like you?

Not agnostic, I guess a better word is open, but cautious. And they would probably ask me to stop being so curious about all the “new” ideas out there and stick to the books I was assigned to read! Already late on my thesis. Ack!

 

[ImChristian]

A genuine question for my non-Catholic friends, with absolutely zero flippancy intended: Can anyone (like myself for example) - start a church, just as so many have done for the last 500 years, and call his or her new church the church founded by Jesus Christ?

Of coarse they can. Anyone can do that. The part that matters if it was ACTUALLY founded by Jesus Christ.