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

[rainman10]

Catholics claim that jesus founded their church through Peter. Also I dont understand why everyone is saying “mormons are brainwashing” when the catholics baptize their babys and the babys know nothing about the religion and cant choose. In the LDS church they wait until 8 to see if they really believe in that church before being baptized.

I think that waiting for a child to be 8 years old before being baptized is really not much better than baptizing a baby. It is true that an 8 year old does know the difference between right and wrong, but most 8 year olds do not really understand what this baptism is all about. I was baptized in the Mormon religion at 8 years old and I had no clue what I was agreeing to. I was just following what I thought was the right thing to do and trying to please my parents. Most of my 8 year old friends were the same. We all were just following blindly because we knew that was the tradition in the Mormon church and it was expected of us, but we did not know much of anything else. At least when baptizing an infant, we have more certainty of that baby going to heaven if something should happen and the baby should die.

 

[rainman10]

Catholics claim that jesus founded their church through Peter. Also I dont understand why everyone is saying “mormons are brainwashing” when the catholics baptize their babys and the babys know nothing about the religion and cant choose. In the LDS church they wait until 8 to see if they really believe in that church before being baptized.

Also, Mormons believe that their church was re-established through Joseph Smith. Do you find this more credible than Jesus founding the Catholic Church through Peter? And to make things even worse, Joseph Smith had to create an “addendum” to the Bible, the Bood of Mormon", to make his claim credible!! According to Smith, the Bible is incorrect and the BOM is the most credible book ever written!! That is a direct insult to the Holy Spirit.

 

[JohnnyReb]

A public entity. In an individual, private, theological capacity the Pope and bishops are fallible in their opinions (theologumen). The charism of infallibilty applies when the Pope speaks ex cathedra in the public and official office of chief shepherd. This charism may also come into effect when the Pope is united with all the world’s bishops under the auspices of the Universal Magisterium. In the Ordinary Magisterium an individual pope speaks in a non-infallible capacity even when referring to an infallible truth taught by the Church that has yet to be defined and declared as dogma.

As far as I know, and you can correct me if I am misinformed, the Pope has only spoken Ex-Cathedra a few times in 2000 years, so its not something that is being invoked all time everyday. That would be odd if it was.

I have thought about this the last couple of days. There are only two options out there-the Sola Ecclesia of Catholicism and Sola Scriptura of Protestantism. When I joined the Catholic church, it was because I saw SS as inherently flawed. When I came to disagree with Rome, I had no choice but either conclude that I had to find another infallible church, or resort to some form of SS that was easier to swallow. I chose the latter embracing the Wesleyan quadrilateral, an adaptation of the Anglican triangle.

Like Paul, they mean works under the law - not in the system of grace. I’ll send you more explicit quotes later when I get home from work.

You are welcome to do so. I look forward to it. But the quotes I provided also said we are saved by faith. Of course, Rome is going to interpret their words in light of their beliefs. I suppose I may be doing the same thing, but those quotes do explicitly point to faith as the means of salvation.

The scriptures are ambiguous. Hence the numerous heresies that have arisen by faulty interpretations that contradict Sacred Tradition and the orthodox teachings of the Church.

PAX :heaven:

There is no doubt they have their ambiguous parts to them. That is where tradition is helpful. We both value tradition, just disagree on the interpreting authority of the Church and the overall role of tradition. That comes as no shock to me, Catholics and Anglicans share so much in common, but disagree on this very sticky point.

 

[Good_Fella]

You are certainly entitled to your subjective opinion regarding the reformers. Meanwhile, many in the early church taught Sola Fide:

1. Clement of Rome (c. 30–100): And we [Christians], too, being called by His will in Christ Jesus, are not justified by ourselves, nor by our own wisdom, or understanding, or godliness, or works which we have wrought in holiness of heart; but by that faith through which, from the beginning, Almighty God has justified all men; to whom be glory for ever and ever. Amen.
2. Ignatius of Antioch (c. 50–115): His cross, and his death, and his resurrection, and the faith which is through him, are my unpolluted muniments [legal titles]; and in these, through your prayers, I am willing to be justified.
3. Polycarp (c. 69–155): I know that through grace you are saved, not of works, but by the will of God, through Jesus Christ.
4. Justin Martyr (d. 165): No longer by the blood of goats and of sheep, or by the ashes of a heifer . . . are sins purged, but by faith, through the blood of Christ and his death, who died on this very account.
5. Didymus the Blind (c. 313-398): This does not mean that works can be put before faith, because a person is saved by grace, not by works but by faith.
6. Hilary of Poitiers (c 315-67): Wages cannot be considered as a gift, because they are due to work, but God has given free grace to all men by the justification of faith.

l. "Seeing, therefore, that we are the portion of the Holy One, let us do all those things pertaining to holiness, avoiding all evil speaking, all abonimable and impure embraces, together with all drunkeness, seeking after change, all abonimable lusts, detestable adultery, and execrable pride…Let us cleave, then, to those to whom grace is given by God. Let us clothe ourselves with concord and humilty, ever exercising self-control, standing far off from all whispering and evil speaking, being justified by our works, and not our words."
Clement of Rome, Epistle to the Corinthians, 30 [A.D. 98]

ll. “As stewards of God, and of his Household, and His servants, please Him and serve Him, that ye may receive from Him the wages [rewards] promised…Let your baptism be as your armour, and faith as a spear, and love as a helmet, and patience as a panoply. Let your treasures be your good works, that ye may receive the gift of God, as is just.”
Ignatius of Antioch, To Polycarp, 6 [c.A.D. 110]

lll. “But He who raised Him up from the dead will raise up us also, if we do His will, and walk in His commandments, and love what he loved, keeping ourselves from all unrighteousness, covetousness, love of money, evil speaking, falsewitness, not rendering evil for evil…but being mindful of what our Lord said in His teaching.”
Polycarp of Smyrnea, To the Philippians, 2 [A.D. 135]

lV. “We have learned from the prophets, and we hold it to be true, that punishments, and chastisements, and good rewards, are rendered to the merit of each man’s actions…they who choose the good have worthy rewards, and they who choose the opposite have their merited awards.”
Justin Martyr, First Apology, 6 [A.D. 155]

V. “It is undoubtedly true that the spirit is nobler than the body, but this does not mean that works can be put before faith. There should be no doubt but that faith saves and then lives by doing its own works, so that the works which are added to salvation by faith are not those of the law but a different kind of thing altogether.”
Didymus the Blind, Commentary on James, 2:26b

Vl. “Of course we are bound to bear in mind in how great need our faith stands of humility when we hear the prophet thus speaking of it as equivalent to the performance of the highest works: O Lord my heart is not exalted.”
Hilary of Poitiers, Commentary on the Psalms, 130/131:1 [A.D. 365]

Didymus the Blind (V.) affirms the traditional Catholic belief that we are initially justified by faith, but good works done in grace complete and perfect our justification. He does not mean or even say that faith alone saves as if it were exclusive rather than inclusive. Faith is the bare essential which is initially required in order for us to please God (Heb 11:6). It is the foundation of our justification which excludes works of the law (Eph 2: 8-9). Works of the law are not performed in the system of grace, but in the system of debt in which one attempts to make God obligated to pay him his just wage. James makes it clear that we are not saved by faith alone (2:24):* “A man is justified by works and not by faith alone.”* Thus Didymus believed, along with all the Patristic Fathers, that good works done in grace must be added to faith in order to complete the justification process. He did not hold the false Protestant belief that works are merely a sign of our justification and only serve to sanctify us. On the contrary, he believed that good works done in faith by grace serve to justify us before God together with our faith. He was anathematized for his unorthodox teaching on the transmigration of souls, but not for his belief in justification.

“Grace is preceded by no merits. A reward is due to good works, if they are performed, but grace, which is not due, precedes good works that they may be done.”
Council of Orange, Canon 19 on grace [A.D. 529]

PAX :heaven:

 

[JohnnyReb]

In light of all that is provided, I see that there is evidence that the the church has never been completely unifed on this issue. The bottom line is that this all comes down to faith. If one puts their faith in the claims of the Catholic church and its claims of teaching authority, they will come to all the conclusions that all Catholics in this discussion have come to. A Catholic trusts (or should trust) the Catholic church’s interpretation of the deposit of faith.

A non Catholic Protestant does not have such faith and is not able to accept the claims of the Catholic church. With scripture and evidence from the Church fathers that Protestant beliefs are an abberation of the Christian faith, and have a foundation even in the primative church, they will hold onto them.

I may or may not post anymore in this thread. That will depend on how the discussion evolves. I have said what I need to say. Have a blessed Christmas everyone. Remember Jesus is the reason for the season.

Clement of Rome (1st century)—ANF: Vol. I, The Apostolic Fathers, First Epistle of Clement to the Corinthians, Chapter 32.

“God has decreed that a person who believes in Christ can be saved without works. By faith alone he receives the forgiveness of sins.”

“The patriarch Abraham himself before receiving circumcision had been declared righteous on the score of faith alone: before circumcision, the text says, “Abraham believed God, and credit for it brought him to righteousness.”

Chrysostom (349-407)–Fathers of the Church, Vol. 82, Homilies on Genesis 18-45, 27.7 (Washington, D.C.: The Catholic University of America Press, 1990), p. 167.

How then does {St. Paul}say boasting was excluded? “By what law? of works? Nay, but by the law of faith.” See he calls the faith also a law delighting to keep to the names, and so allay the seeming novelty. But what is the “law of faith?” It is, being saved by grace. Here he shows God’s power, in that He has not only saved, but has even justified, and led them to boasting, and this too without needing works, but looking for faith only.

“For the patriarchs prefigured and foretold that man would be justified from faith. Therefore, just as it was reckoned as righteousness to Abraham that he had faith, so we too, if we have faith in Christ and every mystery of his, will be sons of Abraham. Our whole life will be accounted as righteous.”

Marius Victorinus (born c. 280, converted around 356)—Epistle to the Galatians, 1.3.7. Mark J. Edwards, ed., Ancient Christian Commentary on Scripture, New Testament VI: Galatians, Ephesians, Philippians (Downers Grove: InterVarsity Press, 1998), p. 39.

“God’s mission was not to save people in order that they may remain barren or inert. For Scripture says that faith has saved us. Put better: Since God willed it, faith has saved us. Now in what case, tell me, does faith save without itself doing anything at all? Faith’s workings themselves are a gift of God, lest anyone should boast. What then is Paul saying? Not that God has forbidden works but that he has forbidden us to be justified by works. No one, Paul says, is justified by works, precisely in order that the grace and benevolence of God may become apparent.”

Chrysostom (349-407)—Homily on Ephesians 4.2.9. Mark J. Edwards, ed., Ancient Christian Commentary on Scripture, New Testament VI: Galatians, Ephesians, Philippians (Downers Grove: InterVarsity Press, 1998), p. 134.

“They are justified freely because they have not done anything nor given anything in return, but **by faith alone they have been made holy by the gift of God.” **

Ambrosiaster (fl. c. 366-384), on Rom. 3:24—Gerald Bray, ed., Ancient Christian Commentary on Scripture, New Testament VI: Romans (Downers Grove: InterVarsity Press, 1998), p. 101.

“How then can the Jews think that they have been justified by the works of the law in the same way as Abraham, when they see that** Abraham was not justified by the works of the law but by faith alone?** Therefore there is no need of the law when the ungodly is justified before God by faith alone.”

Ambrosiaster (fl. c. 366-384), on Rom. 4:5—Gerald Bray, ed., Ancient Christian Commentary on Scripture, New Testament VI: Romans (Downers Grove: InterVarsity Press, 1998), p. 112.

“Abraham is the image of someone who is **justified by faith alone, **since what he believed was credited to him as righteousness. But he is also approved because of his works, since he offered up his son Isaac on the altar. Of course he did not do this work by itself; in doing it, he remained firmly anchored in his faith, believing that through Isaac his seed would be multiplied until it was as numerous as the stars.”

Basil of Caesarea (329-379)—Chemnitz, Examination of the Council of Trent, Part 1, p. 505,

“Therefore let no one boast of his works, because no one can be justified by his works; but he who is just receives it as a gift, because he is justified by the washing of regeneration. It is faith, therefore, which delivers us by the blood of Christ, because blessed is he whose sins are forgiven, and to whom pardon is granted.”

Ambrose (c. 339-97)—George Finch, A Sketch of the Romish Controversy (London: G. Norman, 1831), p. 220.

“But what about the person who does no work (Rom 4:5)? Think here of some godless sinner, who has no good works to show. What of him or her? What if such a person comes to believe in God who justifies the impious? People like that are impious because they accomplish nothing good; they may seem to do good things, but their actions cannot truly be called good, because performed without faith.

 

[joe370]

Hey JohnnyReb…

In light of all that is provided, I see that there is evidence that the the church has never been completely unifed on this issue.

Do you mean, on the issue of whether or not someone can start a church, and call it the church founded by Jesus Christ? I only started this thread because it was a question I once asked myself, as a former non-Catholic, and was curious what other non-Catholics thought. What was your answer to the question? Whatever it is I will certainly respect your decision.

The bottom line is that this all comes down to faith. If one puts their faith in the claims of the Catholic church and its claims of teaching authority, they will come to all the conclusions that all Catholics in this discussion have come to. A Catholic trusts (or should trust) the Catholic church’s interpretation of the deposit of faith.

A non Catholic Protestant does not have such faith and is not able to accept the claims of the Catholic church. With scripture and evidence from the Church fathers that Protestant beliefs are an abberation of the Christian faith, and have a foundation even in the primative church, they will hold onto them.

If scripture and the ECF’s are all you think you need, then that’s cool, in my opinion. My sister left the CC and shares your exact sentiments, with the exception of the ECF’s. She sees them as being too catholic. She left because she didn’t believe in the ministerial priesthood as being necessary, since, in her mind, all Christians belong to the royal priesthood, and of course she is right about all Christians being priests, but wrong, in my humble opinion, about the ministerial priesthood; perhaps that is why she rejects the writings of the ECF’s, who see the ministerial priesthood as necessary. If you don’t mind me asking: why did you leave the CC?

I may or may not post anymore in this thread. That will depend on how the discussion evolves. I have said what I need to say. Have a blessed Christmas everyone. Remember Jesus is the reason for the season.

Just in case you don’t post here again, have a great Christmas brother.

 

[Good_Fella]

In light of all that is provided, I see that there is evidence that the the church has never been completely unifed on this issue.

Clement of Rome (1st century)—ANF: Vol. I, The Apostolic Fathers, First Epistle of Clement to the Corinthians, Chapter 32.

“God has decreed that a person who believes in Christ can be saved without works. By faith alone he receives the forgiveness of sins.”

“The patriarch Abraham himself before receiving circumcision had been declared righteous on the score of faith alone: before circumcision, the text says, “Abraham believed God, and credit for it brought him to righteousness.”

Chrysostom (349-407)–Fathers of the Church, Vol. 82, Homilies on Genesis 18-45, 27.7 (Washington, D.C.: The Catholic University of America Press, 1990), p. 167.

How then does {St. Paul}say boasting was excluded? “By what law? of works? Nay, but by the law of faith.” See he calls the faith also a law delighting to keep to the names, and so allay the seeming novelty. But what is the “law of faith?” It is, being saved by grace. Here he shows God’s power, in that He has not only saved, but has even justified, and led them to boasting, and this too without needing works, but looking for faith only.

“For the patriarchs prefigured and foretold that man would be justified from faith. Therefore, just as it was reckoned as righteousness to Abraham that he had faith, so we too, if we have faith in Christ and every mystery of his, will be sons of Abraham. Our whole life will be accounted as righteous.”

Marius Victorinus (born c. 280, converted around 356)—Epistle to the Galatians, 1.3.7. Mark J. Edwards, ed., Ancient Christian Commentary on Scripture, New Testament VI: Galatians, Ephesians, Philippians (Downers Grove: InterVarsity Press, 1998), p. 39.

“God’s mission was not to save people in order that they may remain barren or inert. For Scripture says that faith has saved us. Put better: Since God willed it, faith has saved us. Now in what case, tell me, does faith save without itself doing anything at all? Faith’s workings themselves are a gift of God, lest anyone should boast. What then is Paul saying? Not that God has forbidden works but that he has forbidden us to be justified by works. No one, Paul says, is justified by works, precisely in order that the grace and benevolence of God may become apparent.”

Chrysostom (349-407)—Homily on Ephesians 4.2.9. Mark J. Edwards, ed., Ancient Christian Commentary on Scripture, New Testament VI: Galatians, Ephesians, Philippians (Downers Grove: InterVarsity Press, 1998), p. 134.

“They are justified freely because they have not done anything nor given anything in return, but **by faith alone they have been made holy by the gift of God.” **

Ambrosiaster (fl. c. 366-384), on Rom. 3:24—Gerald Bray, ed., Ancient Christian Commentary on Scripture, New Testament VI: Romans (Downers Grove: InterVarsity Press, 1998), p. 101.

“How then can the Jews think that they have been justified by the works of the law in the same way as Abraham, when they see that** Abraham was not justified by the works of the law but by faith alone?** Therefore there is no need of the law when the ungodly is justified before God by faith alone.”

Ambrosiaster (fl. c. 366-384), on Rom. 4:5—Gerald Bray, ed., Ancient Christian Commentary on Scripture, New Testament VI: Romans (Downers Grove: InterVarsity Press, 1998), p. 112.

“Abraham is the image of someone who is **justified by faith alone, **since what he believed was credited to him as righteousness. But he is also approved because of his works, since he offered up his son Isaac on the altar. Of course he did not do this work by itself; in doing it, he remained firmly anchored in his faith, believing that through Isaac his seed would be multiplied until it was as numerous as the stars.”

Basil of Caesarea (329-379)—Chemnitz, Examination of the Council of Trent, Part 1, p. 505,

“Therefore let no one boast of his works, because no one can be justified by his works; but he who is just receives it as a gift, because he is justified by the washing of regeneration. It is faith, therefore, which delivers us by the blood of Christ, because blessed is he whose sins are forgiven, and to whom pardon is granted.”

Ambrose (c. 339-97)—George Finch, A Sketch of the Romish Controversy (London: G. Norman, 1831), p. 220.

“But what about the person who does no work (Rom 4:5)? Think here of some godless sinner, who has no good works to show. What of him or her? What if such a person comes to believe in God who justifies the impious? People like that are impious because they accomplish nothing good; they may seem to do good things, but their actions cannot truly be called good, because performed without faith.

Again you are taking these excerpts completely out of context by reading into them with a Protestant preconceived notion. The works the ECFs are referring to and rejecting are the ones performed in the system of the law, not of grace. Since apostolic time the Church established by Christ has believed that we are justified by faith and works. The Church Fathers were unanimous in holding and affirming this universal belief and steadfast tradition (paradosis). Nor did they ever contradict themselves on this article. The unorthodox gnostic belief in sola fide resurfaced with the Protestant Reformers and was condemned by the Council of Trent because it was never adhered to by the Catholic Church to begin with.

Have a blessed and peaceful Christmas! :heaven:

 

[JohnnyReb]

Again you are taking these excerpts completely out of context by reading into them with a Protestant preconceived notion. The works the ECFs are referring to and rejecting are the ones performed in the system of the law, not of grace. Since apostolic time the Church established by Christ has believed that we are justified by faith and works. The Church Fathers were unanimous in holding and affirming this universal belief and steadfast tradition (paradosis). Nor did they ever contradict themselves on this article. The unorthodox gnostic belief in sola fide resurfaced with the Protestant Reformers and was condemned by the Council of Trent because it was never adhered to by the Catholic Church to begin with.

Have a blessed and peaceful Christmas! :heaven:

Its funny that we both see each other as reading our own perspectives into the varying passages. Sigh.

I don’t see any need to twist or read anything into those passages, what they say is pretty clear to me.

I’ve enjoyed this discussion, but where do we go from here? I think we have both made our point and argument.

At Joe:

Its clear to me that the discussion evolved. I think you will have to go back some pages to see how it has. I think it evolved from a discussion involving the idea of a visible vs “invisible” church to the nature of authority in the church to the issue of sola fide. I personally contend that the Protestant reformers never sought to establish a new church, but correct mistakes and make reforms in the church. By leaving the RCC, they didn’t establish a new church because the church is the body of Christ made up of all believers, established by Christ.

Of course this is contrary to the Catholic position.

Joe, Good Fella and everyone else, have a Merry Christmas. I may go lay back down. I have a cold and want to get over it by tomorrow if I can.

 

[Good_Fella]

It seems that Ireneaus sees the church as founded on Peter and Paul, which is different from the Catholic Claim that the Church as built on Peter alone.

Catholics have never believed that the Church was founded on Peter alone to the exclusion of the other apostles. And I certainly never have. But it does appear that Irenaeus thought the Apostolic Tradition of the Church was preserved more fully in the Church at Rome than in the other churches where heresies were leaving their marks and disputes and contentions arose. The Bishop of Lyons (Lugdunum in Gaul at the time) must have held the Roman bishops in higher esteem than the bishops of the other churches in light of the fact that he perceived Rome (not Lugdunum or Antioch or Alexandria or Jerusalem) to be the center where everyone should by necessity converge to have their doctrines received and ratified in the wake of heresy and contention between the orthodox and heterodox clergy. As one Catholic scholar put it: “they wanted their doctrine to be accepted by the conscience of the Church.”

“If there are disputes in a local church, that church should have recourse(resort) to the Roman church, for there is contained the Tradition which is preserved by all the churches.”
Against Heresies 3, 4:1

**Ireneaus states: **

*“It is necessary that every church, that is, the faithful who are everywhere, should agree with this church; in which that tradition which is from the apostles has been preserved by those who are everywhere.” *

Catholics will say according to Irenaeus, all churches must agree with the See of Rome, so that if you know the faith of Rome, then you know the faith of the Church. If all orthodox churches are NECESSARILY in agreement with Rome, what can that mean except that Rome is infallible?

Perhaps a **different translation **of what Ireneaus taught is more accurate:

For to this church, on account of its stronger pre-eminence, it must needs be that every church resorts (that is to say, the faithful from all quarters); and in this church the tradition that comes from the apostles has ever been preserved by those who come from all quarters.

Or, word for word (and in English word order, not Latin):

*For ENIM it must be the case NECESSE EST that every church OMNEM ECCLESIAM (that is, (HOC EST, faithful individuals EOS QUI SUNT FIDELES from every quarter) UNDIQUE) will come together CONVENIRE at this church, AD HANC ECCLESIAM, because of PROPTER (its) more powerful POTENTIOREM pre-eminence, PRINCIPALITATEM…

Irenaeus says that every church must CONVENIRE AD Rome. Some persons have translated this as “agree with.” Now, taking the Latin Vulgate as a handy guide to popular Latin usage of the time, we see that (as in classical usage) CONVENIRE CUM normally means “agree with” (Mt 20:13), but that CONVENIRE AD means “resort to” or “assemble at”. It implies physical motion. *

“Resort to this church” in a physical sense is literally in Latin Obstinatus ad hanc ecclesiam.
“Have recourse to this church” is literally* Habeo recupero ad hanc ecclesiam* .
“Assemble at this church” is literally Congrego ad hanc ecclesiam.
“Agreeing to this church” is literally *Convenire ad hanc ecclesiam *

The preposition ad can mean to, at, or towards. We agree to the church or are in agreement with her by agreeing with her teachings or to what she teaches. We have Irenaeus being translated from the Greek to the Latin and to the English, so we have to do a little reshaping with words. Unfortunately, the original Greek text is lost.

In other words, another plausible explaination is that Irenaeus’ plain point is that bishops and presbyters are kept true to the faith they have received from the Apostles not only by continuity with their predecessors, but also by the continual cross-fertilization and cross-checking provided by the network of travel and correspondence among congregations. A system of accountablility.

Such an interpretation doesn’t fit the construction of Irenaeus’ assertion that the doctrines of the Church at Rome are unadulterated and free from heretical elements by virtue of their derivation from the two great Apostolic founders of the Church. Irenaeus acknowledges that the bishops of Rome succeed in line from Peter himself and thus hold a place of universal primacy among all the bishops, which explains why everyone “turned to” or “resorted to” Rome at a time of crisis in their provinces.

PAX :harp:

 

[Good_Fella]

The Catholic saint Augustine seemed to be confused on the subject of the whether Peter or Jesus was the Rock.

In a passage in this book, I said about the Apostle Peter: ‘On him as on a rock the Church was built.’… But I know that very frequently at a later time, I so explained that it be understood as built upon Him whom Peter confessed… And so Peter, called after this rock, represented the person of the Church which is built upon this rock, and has received ‘the keys of the kingdom of heaven…’ But let the reader decide which of these two opinions is the more probable (Augustine, Retractations, 1:21 as cited in Cleenewerck L. His Broken Body: Understanding and Healing the Schism Between the Roman Catholic and Eastern Orthodox Churches (An Orthodox Perspective). Euclid University Consortium Press, Washington (DC), 2007, p. 302).

Since Augustine was confused, it seems safe to conclude that the idea that Peter must be the Rock was not the universal position at least in the early fifth century.

*“Peter, upon whom is built the Church of Christ, against which the gates of hell shall not prevail, left only one epistle of acknowledged genuinity.”
Origen, Commentaries on John 5,3

“No doubt the others [Apostles] were all that Peter was, but a primacy is given to Peter, and it is thus made clear that there is but one flock which is to be fed by all the apostles in common accord. If a man does not hold fast to this oneness of Peter, does he imagine that he still holds the faith? If he deserts the Chair of Peter upon whom the Church was built, has he still confidence that he is in the Church? This unity firmly we should hold and maintain, especially we bishops, presiding in the Church, in order that we may approve the episcopate itself to be the one and undivided.”
Cyprian, The Unity of the Church 4-5

“You cannot deny that you know in the city of Rome the Chair was first conferred on Peter, in which the prince of all the Apostles, Peter, sat on which Chair unity should be preserved by all, so that he should now be a schismatic and a sinner who should set up another Chair against that unique one.”

“For the good of unity Blessed Peter deserved to be preferred before the rest, and alone received the keys of the Kingdom of Heaven, that he might communicate them to the rest.”
Optatus of Mileve, The Schism of Donatists 2, 2-3; 7,3

“It is Peter himself that he says, ‘You are Peter, and upon this rock I will build my Church.’ Where Peter is there is the Church. And where the Church, no death is there, but eternal life.”
Ambrose, Commentaries on Twelve of David’s Psalms 40,30

“Christ is the Rock, ‘For they drank from that spiritual Rock that followed them, and that Rock was Christ,’ and he did not refuse to bestow the favour of this title even upon His disciple, so that he, too, might be Peter [or Rock], in that he was from the Rock a solid constancy, a firm faith.”
Ambrose, Expos. in Luc.

“Peter himself the chief of the Apostles, the first in the Church, the friend of Christ, who received a revelation not from man, but from the Father, as the Lord bears witness to him…this very Peter, and when I name Peter, the great Apostles, I name that unbroken rock, that firm foundation, the great Apostle, the first of the disciples, the first called, and the first who obeyed.”
John Chrysostom, Homily 3 de Poenit. 4

“This most Holy See [Rome] has preserved the supremacy over all the Churches on earth, for one special reason among many others; to wit, that it has remained intact from the defilement of heresy. No one has ever sat on that Chair, who has taught heretical doctrine; rather that See has preserved unstained the Apostolic grace.”
Theodoret of Cyr, Epistle 116 to Renatus

“Blessed Simon, who after his confession of the mystery was set to be the foundation-stone of the Church, and received the keys of the kingdom of heaven.”
Hilary of Potiers, On the Trinity, 20, NPNF2, 9:105

“Number the bishops from the See of Peter. And in that order of Fathers see who has succeeded whom. That is the rock against which the gates of hell do not prevail.”
Augustine, Psalm Against the Party of Donatus, 18

“If the very order of episcopal succession is to be considered, how much more surely, truly, and safely do we number them [Bishops of Rome] from Peter himself, to whom, as to one representing the whole church, the Lord said, ‘Upon this rock I will build my Church, and the gates of hell shall not conquer it.’ Peter was succeeded by Linus, Linus by Clement…”
Augustine, Letters 53, 1:2 *

Augustine was not confused, and he never disbelieved that Peter was the rock on which Christ would establish his Church, thereby dissenting from the tradition the early Church Fathers before him bear witness to. He merely speculated on the two possibilities of who the rock referred to: Jesus and Peter. In line with his mentor Ambrose (See above), Augustine understood Jesus to be the heavenly Rock (1 Pet 2:6) and Peter his representative rock on earth as our Lord’s vicar of the kingdom of heaven.

PAX :heaven:

 

[Bill_Pick]

*“Peter, upon whom is built the Church of Christ, against which the gates of hell shall not prevail, left only one epistle of acknowledged genuinity.”
Origen, Commentaries on John 5,3

“No doubt the others [Apostles] were all that Peter was, but a primacy is given to Peter, and it is thus made clear that there is but one flock which is to be fed by all the apostles in common accord. If a man does not hold fast to this oneness of Peter, does he imagine that he still holds the faith? If he deserts the Chair of Peter upon whom the Church was built, has he still confidence that he is in the Church? This unity firmly we should hold and maintain, especially we bishops, presiding in the Church, in order that we may approve the episcopate itself to be the one and undivided.”
Cyprian, The Unity of the Church 4-5

“You cannot deny that you know in the city of Rome the Chair was first conferred on Peter, in which the prince of all the Apostles, Peter, sat on which Chair unity should be preserved by all, so that he should now be a schismatic and a sinner who should set up another Chair against that unique one.”

“For the good of unity Blessed Peter deserved to be preferred before the rest, and alone received the keys of the Kingdom of Heaven, that he might communicate them to the rest.”
Optatus of Mileve, The Schism of Donatists 2, 2-3; 7,3

“It is Peter himself that he says, ‘You are Peter, and upon this rock I will build my Church.’ Where Peter is there is the Church. And where the Church, no death is there, but eternal life.”
Ambrose, Commentaries on Twelve of David’s Psalms 40,30

“Christ is the Rock, ‘For they drank from that spiritual Rock that followed them, and that Rock was Christ,’ and he did not refuse to bestow the favour of this title even upon His disciple, so that he, too, might be Peter [or Rock], in that he was from the Rock a solid constancy, a firm faith.”
Ambrose, Expos. in Luc.

“Peter himself the chief of the Apostles, the first in the Church, the friend of Christ, who received a revelation not from man, but from the Father, as the Lord bears witness to him…this very Peter, and when I name Peter, the great Apostles, I name that unbroken rock, that firm foundation, the great Apostle, the first of the disciples, the first called, and the first who obeyed.”
John Chrysostom, Homily 3 de Poenit. 4

“This most Holy See [Rome] has preserved the supremacy over all the Churches on earth, for one special reason among many others; to wit, that it has remained intact from the defilement of heresy. No one has ever sat on that Chair, who has taught heretical doctrine; rather that See has preserved unstained the Apostolic grace.”
Theodoret of Cyr, Epistle 116 to Renatus

“Blessed Simon, who after his confession of the mystery was set to be the foundation-stone of the Church, and received the keys of the kingdom of heaven.”
Hilary of Potiers, On the Trinity, 20, NPNF2, 9:105

“Number the bishops from the See of Peter. And in that order of Fathers see who has succeeded whom. That is the rock against which the gates of hell do not prevail.”
Augustine, Psalm Against the Party of Donatus, 18

“If the very order of episcopal succession is to be considered, how much more surely, truly, and safely do we number them [Bishops of Rome] from Peter himself, to whom, as to one representing the whole church, the Lord said, ‘Upon this rock I will build my Church, and the gates of hell shall not conquer it.’ Peter was succeeded by Linus, Linus by Clement…”
Augustine, Letters 53, 1:2 *

Augustine was not confused, and he never disbelieved that Peter was the rock on which Christ would establish his Church, thereby dissenting from the tradition the early Church Fathers before him bear witness to. He merely speculated on the two possibilities of who the rock referred to: Jesus and Peter. In line with his mentor Ambrose (See above), Augustine understood Jesus to be the heavenly Rock (1 Pet 2:6) and Peter his representative rock on earth as our Lord’s vicar of the kingdom of heaven.

PAX :heaven:

To answer the question ANY ONE THAT CAN READ CAN START A CHURCH,AND HAVE

 

[Bill_Pick]

To answer the question ANY ONE THAT CAN READ CAN START A CHURCH,AND HAVE

PS> Thank You G F , for a very good post

 

[LaymanX]

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?

Before answering this question, there are some ambiguities that need to be cleared. First, what do you mean by ‘church’? Second, what do you mean by “founded by Jesus Christ”?

The first question seems to be related to the kind of churches that rapidly grew in number over the past 500 years. Namely, churches that no longer saw the bishop residing in the See of Rome and all those in communion with him as their absolute authority. So we have two kinds of churches here. One that recognizes the See of Rome as authoritative and another that doesn’t. [Note: the latter kind of churches were around since the second Ecumenical Council - Assyrian Church, Coptic Church, Orthodox Church]

The second question would be related to the first. I suppose by “founded by Jesus Christ” you mean a Church “that recognizes the bishop in the See of Rome and all those in communion with him.” If this is what is meant by “founded by Jesus Christ,” the answer is “No.” But if you mean by “founded by Jesus Christ” a community that was the result of a movement which began with the life, death, and resurrection of Jesus Christ, then the answer is “Depends.” It would depend on some questions:

1. Do they at least worship Jesus?
2. Is the Jesus that they believe both God and man?
3. Is the Jesus that they believe the 2nd person of the Trinity?
4. Do they at least use the Gospels (minimally Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John) to live according to the life and teachings of Christ?

The more of these questions they answer in the affirmative, the more likely the answer would be “Yes.”

Peace and Grace,

Francis

 

[joe370]

Hey brother…

LaymanX;7501761]Before answering this question, there are some ambiguities that need to be cleared. First, what do you mean by ‘church’?

I will let the New Testament Greek Lexicon define it:

studylight.org/lex/grk/view.cgi?number=1577

Second, what do you mean by “founded by Jesus Christ”?

Jesus said: “I will build my church.” I am referring to that one church. For example, Martin Luther is the founder of the Lutheran church, and he found it in the 16th century. Who is the founder of the Catholic church, in union with the bishop of Rome, and when did he (or they) - found that church?

 

[LaymanX]

I will let the New Testament Greek Lexicon define it:

studylight.org/lex/grk/view.cgi?number=1577

Ok, let’s run with what the Greek scholars say. There are four definitions for a Christian ‘church’:

1. a bunch of Christians gathered together in a religious meeting.
2. a bunch of Christians, hoping for salvation through JC according to their own religious rules.
3. those united in one body.
4. all the Christians in the whole world.
5. all the dead Christians in heaven.

This is very ambiguous. What constitutes a “Christian” or “religious meeting”? So on to the next question which seems to answer this.

Jesus said: “I will build my church.” I am referring to that one church. For example, Martin Luther is the founder of the Lutheran church, and he found it in the 16th century. Who is the founder of the Catholic church, in union with the bishop of Rome, and when did he (or they) - found that church?

Martin Luther did not establish the Lutheran church although he became the symbol for them. He just sought for reform within the church. The pope declined the request and asked him to recant. He did not think the bishop of Rome was infallible. So if you mean by a church that rejects infallibility of the bishop of Rome and therefore not in communion with that See, then again this would include all the non-papal, apostolic churches of antiquity (Assyrian Church, Coptic Church, Orthodox Church, Lutheran, Anglican Church, and Methodist Church). There have always been two kinds of churches since the second Ecumenical Council. Both, papal and non-papal will say that Jesus began their apostolic Church. The papal Church will say that Jesus intended the structure to be absolute hierarchy, and the non-papal would say it was intended to be primus inter pares (eng. “first among equal”). We have been in constant dialogue regarding this since the second Ecumenical Council.

Peace,

Francis

 

[joe370]

Hey Francis…

The Ekklesia (the called out) - is comprised of all the brothers and sisters in Christ united as one.

So on to the next question which seems to answer this.

Martin Luther did not establish the Lutheran church although he became the symbol for them.

Who is considered the founder of the Lutheran church? I am pretty sure it wasn’t Jesus.

He just sought for reform within the church. The pope declined the request and asked him to recant. He did not think the bishop of Rome was infallible.

ML was right; the Pope is not infallible.

So if you mean by a church that rejects infallibility of the bishop of Rome and therefore not in communion with that See, then again this would include all the non-papal, apostolic churches of antiquity (Assyrian Church, Coptic Church, Orthodox Church, Lutheran, Anglican Church, and Methodist Church).

Agreed. There are so many more…

There have always been two kinds of churches since the second Ecumenical Council. Both, papal and non-papal will say that Jesus began their apostolic Church. The papal Church will say that Jesus intended the structure to be absolute hierarchy, and the non-papal would say it was intended to be primus inter pares (eng. “first among equal”). We have been in constant dialogue regarding this since the second Ecumenical Council.

Agreed. Do you believe that it is OK for anyone to start a church, and call it the church founded by Jesus Christ?

 

[LaymanX]

Who is considered the founder of the Lutheran church? I am pretty sure it wasn’t Jesus.

Most Lutherans do hold to apostolic succession these days, so the same question could be asked of the Roman Catholic Church. Did Romans start it? 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. According to them, Luther merely cleaned up the “dirty” corners of Jesus’ Church. Did St. Thomas found a cathedral titled “St. Thomas Cathedral”? Of course not.

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.

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.

Francis

 

[placido]

LaymanX,
You are clearly someone well informed, yet you seem to deliberately resort to wrong arguments as a way of diversion.

Most Lutherans do hold to apostolic succession these days,

Please allow me to emphasize “this days”.

so the same question could be asked of the Roman Catholic Church. Did Romans start it?

No! Because unlike the Lutheran Church (based on the teachings and/or interpretations of Martin Luther) the Roman Catholic Church is not based on the teachings and/or interpretations of the Romans. By the way, the “Roman” Church is just one rite of the Catholic Church.

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.

But you know such a Lutheran claim does violence to history.

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

But you don’t clean a house by abandoning it and building a new one.

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

That one is a very weak diversion … and you know that or … at least, you were supposed to know that

placido

 

[pmr3147]

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?

 

[pmr3147]

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.