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

[schaick]

Because the question is so ludicrously broad, anybody using any sort of intellect would reject it. Schaick asked iF ANYONE in the Catholic Church at the time express the fruits of the Holy Spirit. He is asserting that not one person in the entire Church expressed the fruits of the Holy Spirit.

---

Whether or not Leo or any other Pope became corrupt doesn’t matter one, single bit to the Holy Spirit. Jesus GUARANTEED that his Church – His Body – would not succumb to the powers of evil (Matt. 16:18) – and it hasn’t.

---

All through the OT – God used flawed human beings to work his will. He did it with Abraham, Isaac, Jacob, Moses, David and a slew of others. In the end – HIS will was accomplished – *not *theirs.

---

If you’re looking for a perfect Body – please show me because I’ve never met a perfect human being. Have YOU?

LOL!! What I asked was:

***Did Pope Leo **have the fruits of the Holy Spirit? Did anyone in the Catholic Church **at the time *express the fruits of the Holy Spirit?

Actually a trick question because indeed Martin Luther was showing the fruits of the Spirit.

*Was Leo X he teaching the true Gospel? *

Some of these errors we have decided to include in the present document; their substance is as follows:
…
33. That heretics be burned is against the will of the Spirit.
…
With the advice and consent of these our venerable brothers, with mature deliberation on each and every one of the above theses, and by the authority of almighty God, the blessed Apostles Peter and Paul, and our own authority, we condemn, reprobate, and reject completely each of these theses or errors as either heretical, scandalous, false, offensive to pious ears or seductive of simple minds, and against Catholic truth.

 

[steve_b]

Disclaimer: I am not officially Catholic (waiting on a priest to contact me about catechesis), but have ceased protesting

To the OP: one thing Catholics must keep in mind is that, in the Protestant mindset, there’s generally no authority or “permission” if you will needed for the founding of a new denomination or a new independent “community church”.

This has not always been the case, and still may not be for some. For example, many people were scandalized by Wesley’s action of ordaining other men in his day (he was an Anglican priest, and lacked the authority to ordain in the C of E as he was not a bishop).

For a current example, I saw a debate between a Catholic layman and a Protestant minister who started his own independent, non-denominational church. In a Q&A session in the debate, someone asked who gave him the authority to found his own church. His reply was that he didn’t, Jesus founded the church and called him to pastor this congregation.

This sort of detachment seems to be common, at least among people who say Jesus wanted to build a church. They acknowledge that, but usually quickly follow with “but He sure didn’t just found one true church” or something to the effect that He really intended to split up his followers, contrary to what He said.

Then you have some churches that are adamantly (and ironically) anti-church. An example is Calvary Chapel. As a group, they tend to be so anti-ecclesial that they talk about how any structure is a necessary evil and should be as limited as possible. They also tend to deny the value of ritual, tradition; etc. Talk about throwing the baby out with the bath water…

(Note: I was part of a CC congregation for a number of years, including being ordained as a youth pastor, before coming to the point I’m at now. I am grateful for what God has taught me in CC. They’re big on submission to authority, even though they preach against ecclesial authority )

Love to hear your story.

 

[steve_b]

I think we need to keep in mind our Catholic belief that our Protestant brothers and sisters have at least parts of it right. So as long as their teaching and preaching beliefs that are in sync with what the Catholic Church believes, they have it partly right.

Imperfectly, perhaps, but they’re reaching sinners who need reaching.

I am inspired by Robert Duvall’s character in the movie “The Apostle”, who is on the other side of this debate. He’s an evangelical preacher who starts up his “own” church…I’ll leave the details out, it’s an excellent movie…and anyway, sees from a distance the local priest blessing the shrimping boats from a bridge as they’re going out to the ocean.

He watches for a while, then remarks out loud to himself, “You do it your way and I do it mine; either way we get the job done”.

Something we should perhaps keep in mind.

This is relativism, which is a heresy.

 

[schaick]

Hey Mike and Schaick…

You said:

Absolutely. I think perhaps you were merely being facetious.

There were bad people in the CC in every century, starting with Judas; this proves nothing.

Instead of answering my question you come back with the following:

Jesus said in Matthew 16: I will build my churches - right or wrong???

You said: I don’t want to belong to a “branch” of Jesus’ church; I want to belong to the historical church founded by Jesus.

One more time if you don’t mind: You believe that Leo IX, in the 11th century, broke away from the one True Church founded by Jesus? Okay…Help me find that one true church, (as opposed to the protestant and catholic branches) - that existed in the first century and continues to exist today? In other words, when I walk out my door and drive by the CC to which I belong, where should I go to find the one true church founded by Jesus?

I repeat:

I think it is hard for Catholics to get their heads around the fact that the Church Jesus built does not need to be contained in one Church denomination/body.

The church is the people called out to follow Jesus - not all those people are Catholics- just Christian.

I guess you don’t understand the mystical body.

Jesus’ Church is whereever people called out are celbrating, expressing the Gospel message.

I had no idea this was such a foreign idea to Catholics- one interpretation, multiple applications. Trinitarian Christians all holding the same basic tenets of faith.

If the world was left with no Catholics would Jesus’ Church cease to exist? How about no Pope?

 

[steve_b]

indeed Martin Luther was showing the fruits of the Spirit.

When?

 

[schaick]

I do have a question, and I do not mean to disrespect you or your church as I know that you are a Christian and love God. I want to use you as an example since you are a Pastor, but I am not making the claim that this is a true fact, just a hypothetical. Let’s say that you set up Church and bring in a flock, you teach from the Bible about matters of faith and morals. However on a point or two you are teaching heresy, that being your opinion or doctrine at variance with the orthodox or accepted doctrine of a church or religious system, plus the maintaining of such an opinion or doctrine based on how you interpret the Bible. The subject matter is not really important just the fact that a heresy is being taught. Where is the oversight and to what authority do you defer too and matters of faith and morals? Peace

I want to jump in here-

That is where the Church the pillar and foundation of truth steps in.
1 Timothy 3
15 if I am delayed, you will know how people ought to conduct themselves in God’s household, which is the church of the living God, the pillar and foundation of the truth.

We as the people called out are all responsible for making sure the truth is taught.

 

[elvisman]

I repeat:

I think it is hard for Catholics to get their heads around the fact that the Church Jesus built does not need to be contained in one Church denomination/body.

The church is the people called out to follow Jesus - not all those people are Catholics- just Christian.

I guess you don’t understand the mystical body.

Jesus’ Church is whereever people called out are celbrating, expressing the Gospel message.

I had no idea this was such a foreign idea to Catholics- one interpretation, multiple applications. Trinitarian Christians all holding the same basic tenets of faith.

If the world was left with no Catholics would Jesus’ Church cease to exist? How about no Pope?

And again - I would defer you to post #45 for the definition of His Church because you just don’t seem to get it.
**The world will never be left with no Catholics. Jesus guaranteed that in Matt. 16:18-19.

Whereas my definition of Church is Biblical, yours isn’t. It is simply your opinion.

 

[elvisman]

LOL!! What I asked was:

***Did Pope Leo ***have the fruits of the Holy Spirit? Did anyone in the Catholic Church **at the time **express the fruits of the Holy Spirit?

Actually a trick question because indeed Martin Luther was showing the fruits of the Spirit.

*Was Leo X *he teaching the true Gospel?

Some of these errors we have decided to include in the present document; their substance is as follows:
…
33. That heretics be burned is against the will of the Spirit.
…
With the advice and consent of these our venerable brothers, with mature deliberation on each and every one of the above theses, and by the authority of almighty God, the blessed Apostles Peter and Paul, and our own authority, we condemn, reprobate, and reject completely each of these theses or errors as either heretical, scandalous, false, offensive to pious ears or seductive of simple minds, and against Catholic truth.

So - in your opinion - Luther was the only one who showed fruits of the spirit during that time? You can make that statement with a straight face - and without fear of God? You know of every single person who was Catholic at the time?

---

As for Martin Luther - HISTORY and his writings illustrate that he showed more fruits of spiritual pride than anything else - namely fruits of the Holy Spirit:

---

“If your Papist wishes to make a great fuss about the word “alone” (sola), say this to him: ‘Dr. Martin Luther will have it so and he says that a papist and an *** are the same thing’.”

---

“Please do not give these asses any other answer to their useless braying about that word “sola” than simply ‘Luther will have it so, and he says that he is a doctor above all the papal doctors’."

---

“I know quite well how much skill, hard work, understanding and intelligence is needed for a good translation. They know it less than even the miller’s donkey for they have never tried it.

---

“You tell me what a great fuss the Papists are making because the word alone is not in the text of Paul…say right out to him: ‘Dr. Martin Luther will have it so,’…I will have it so, and I order it to be so, and my will is reason enough. I know very well that the word ‘alone’ is not in the Latin or the Greek”

“If your Papist annoys you with the word (‘alone’), tell him straightway, ‘Dr. Martin Luther will have it so’: Papist and *** are one and the same thing. Whoever will not have my translation, let him give it the go-by: the devil’s thanks to him who censures it without my will and knowledge. Luther will have it so, and he is a doctor above all the doctors in Popedom.” (Amic. Discussion, 1, 127,‘The Facts About Luther,’ O’Hare, TAN Books, 1987, p. 201.)

Sounds to me like he was full of HIMSELF- not the Holy Spirit.

 

[elvisman]

I want to jump in here-

That is where the Church the pillar and foundation of truth steps in.
1 Timothy 3
15 if I am delayed, you will know how people ought to conduct themselves in God’s household, which is the church of the living God, the pillar and foundation of the truth.

We as the people called out are all responsible for making sure the truth is taught.

NOWHERE in this passage does it say that WE are responsible for the truth being taught.
In fact - it says that the CHURCH is the pillar and foundation of truth - NOT us.
**We, as individuals, do not have the guarantee that the Church has of being led into ALL truth (John 16:12-15). **

Boy - where do you get this stuff from?

 

[steve_b]

I repeat:

I think it is hard for Catholics to get their heads around the fact that the Church Jesus built does not need to be contained in one Church denomination/body.

The church is the people called out to follow Jesus - not all those people are Catholics- just Christian.

support your opinion with evidence. Go back to the beginning. Before the NT was even assembled and canonized. Prove your point with evidence
s:

Trinitarian Christians all holding the same basic tenets of faith.

If they held the same tenets of faith, they would be Catholic.
s:

If the world was left with no Catholics would Jesus’ Church cease to exist?

Yes.
s:

How about no Pope?

• If the world was left with no Catholics then by definition No Catholic Church, No pope, No Eucharist, No sacraments to aid souls.
• ergo, No escape from the gates of hell for those who exist.

Jn 6

truly I tell you, unless you eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink his blood, you have no life in you. 54 Whoever eats my flesh and drinks my blood has eternal life, and I will raise them up at the last day. 55 For my flesh is real food and my blood is real drink. 56 Whoever eats my flesh and drinks my blood remains in me, and I in them.

BTW, no protestant organization has the Eucharist.

 

[schaick]

Awesome post!

I have often wondered if anyone sees the lack of obedience and humility in the leader/founder of their church? I think Luther for sure lacked in these areas - even if many of his ideas were right!

Luther’s authority was GOD.

Binding and loosing- man can not bind and loose what GOD has not already bound and loosed.
The Pope, no man has authority to add a requirement for our salvation over what GOD has already laid out in HIS plan - such as buying indulgemces.

Have yu ever seen Young’s translation? extremely literal translation that attempts to preserve the tense and word usage as found in the original Greek and Hebrew writings

**Matthew 18 **(Young’s Literal Translation)
18`Verily I say to you, Whatever things ye may bind upon the earth shall be having been bound in the heavens, and whatever things ye may loose on the earth shall be having been loosed in the heavens.

 

[schaick]

So - in your opinion - Luther was the only one who showed fruits of the spirit during that time? You can make that statement with a straight face - and without fear of God? You know of every single person who was Catholic at the time?

Did I say only

 

[schaick]

And again - I would defer you to post #45 for the definition of His Church because you just don’t seem to get it.
The world will never be left with no Catholics. Jesus *guaranteed *that in Matt. 16:18-19.

Whereas my definition of Church is Biblical, yours isn’t. It is simply your opinion.

So in other words you believe Jesus’ Church would cease to exist if the Catholic Church disappeared from earth.

Interesting!!

My definition of Church comes from the use of
**g1577 ἐκκλησία ekklēsia ** blueletterbible.org/lang/lexicon/lexicon.cfm?Strongs=G1577&t=KJV

1. a gathering of citizens called out from their homes into some public place, an assembly
   a) an assembly of the people convened at the public place of the council for the purpose of deliberating
   b) the assembly of the Israelites
   c) any gathering or throng of men assembled by chance, tumultuously
   d) in a Christian sense
2. an assembly of Christians gathered for worship in a religious meeting
3. a company of Christian, or of those who, hoping for eternal salvation through Jesus Christ, observe their own religious rites, hold their own religious meetings, and manage their own affairs, according to regulations prescribed for the body for order’s sake
4. those who anywhere, in a city, village, constitute such a company and are united into one body
5. the whole body of Christians scattered throughout the earth
6. the assembly of faithful Christians already dead and received into heaven

 

[schaick]

support your opinion with evidence. Go back to the beginning. Before the NT was even assembled and canonized. Prove your point with evidence

If they held the same tenets of faith, they would be Catholic.

Yes.

• If the world was left with no Catholics then by definition No Catholic Church, No pope, No Eucharist, No sacraments to aid souls.
• ergo, No escape from the gates of hell for those who exist.

Jn 6

truly I tell you, unless you eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink his blood, you have no life in you. 54 Whoever eats my flesh and drinks my blood has eternal life, and I will raise them up at the last day. 55 For my flesh is real food and my blood is real drink. 56 Whoever eats my flesh and drinks my blood remains in me, and I in them.

BTW, no protestant organization has the Eucharist.

Begs the question, what are the basic tenets of faith of a Catholic?

And to think all this time I thought I was baptized and had Real Presence in the Eucharist. Guess the Holy Spirit only goes to the Catholic Church?!?

 

[steve_b]

Begs the question, what are the basic tenets of faith of a Catholic?

It’s all spelled out in the Catechism. No guess work.
scborromeo.org/ccc.htm do you have a question?
s:

And to think all this time I thought I was baptized and had Real Presence in the Eucharist.

You don’t identify who you are.

 

[jphilapy]

LOL!! It does.

What Catholics see as a multitude of different beliefs among trinitarian Christians is one faith with multiple applications. We all hold the same basic tenets of faith.

There is but one body of Christ.

If it was all contained in one denomination, dead and living-what is so mystical about that?

There is one interpretation of Scripture, but multiple applications

So Calvinism believs that christians cannot fall away, once saved always saved. Arminianism believe that they can fall away.

Calvinism believes that only those God has chosen will be saved. Arminianism believes that the choice is yours.

So explain to me how those CONTRADICTIONS are just different applications?

 

[elvisman]

Luther’s authority was GOD.

Ummm, as I already showed you in post #68 - Luther’s authority was LUTHER himself.

His own words do not lie . . .

Binding and loosing- man can not bind and loose what GOD has not already bound and loosed.
The Pope, no man has authority to add a requirement for our salvation over what GOD has already laid out in HIS plan - such as buying indulgemces.

Oh, Shaick -
The Church NEVER condoned the selling of indulgences - neither did ANY Pope in history.
You are perpetuating an anti-Catholic lie.

Have yu ever seen Young’s translation? extremely literal translation that attempts to preserve the tense and word usage as found in the original Greek and Hebrew writings

**Matthew 18 **(Young’s Literal Translation)
18`Verily I say to you, Whatever things ye may bind upon the earth shall be having been bound in the heavens, and whatever things ye may loose on the earth shall be having been loosed in the heavens.

This only BOLSTERS the Catholic position.

Whatever the Church ordains on earth has been ordained in heaven.
Jesus guaranteed this at the last supper in John 16:12-15 when he told tha Apostles that the Holy Spirit would guide the Church to ALL truth.

 

[elvisman]

**So in other words you believe Jesus’ Church **would cease to exist if the Catholic Church disappeared from earth.

Interesting!!

My definition of Church comes from the use of
**g1577 ἐκκλησία ekklēsia **blueletterbible.org/lang/lexicon/lexicon.cfm?Strongs=G1577&t=KJV

1. a gathering of citizens called out from their homes into some public place, an assembly
   a) an assembly of the people convened at the public place of the council for the purpose of deliberating
   b) the assembly of the Israelites
   c) any gathering or throng of men assembled by chance, tumultuously
   d) in a Christian sense
2. an assembly of Christians gathered for worship in a religious meeting
3. a company of Christian, or of those who, hoping for eternal salvation through Jesus Christ, observe their own religious rites, hold their own religious meetings, and manage their own affairs, according to regulations prescribed for the body for order’s sake
4. those who anywhere, in a city, village, constitute such a company and are united into one body
5. the whole body of Christians scattered throughout the earth
6. the assembly of faithful Christians already dead and received into heaven

Again - Catholics will NEVER disappear from the Earth. Jesus guaranteed that in Matt. 16:18.

As for the definition of church - I gave you the BIBLICAL interpretation straight from the lips of Jesus Christ.

All you can give me is yet another manmade, Protestant interpretation . . .**

 

[Mikeoffaith]

Okay, I’ll bite, but you did not answer my question. You believe that Leo IX broke away from the one True Church? Help me find that one true church Mike since you don’t believe it is the CC?

But Joe, I’ve answered this same question several times in several different threads, but you keep rejecting my answer because it’s not the answer you want me to give. And I see none of my questions were answered except for another question.

 

[steve_b]

Wow Joe, that was a good question! What did Leo IX have to say when he did it?

how do you arrive at that?

Joe asked

“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?”

Mike, when did Leo IX start a new Church?
M:

What is it with Bishops of Rome named Leo? Do they always feel the need to break away from the one true path of Christ and just keep rending His Church into pieces?

Do they have no respect for the One True Church? Do they have so little respect for Christ and the Apostles?

Here’s an article on the history of Leo IX. What are you talking about? Please be specific