T
Can anyone start a church, and call it the church founded by Jesus Christ?
- Status
E
elvisman
Guest
**By whose authority? ****Certainly not Christ’s. **
You know how I know that?
Because NOWHERE do I find Schaick in the Bible receiving His authority . . .
N
Nicea325
Guest
Actually Mike I am not missing any point which has been covered for centuries now I am very well acquainted with the Eastern Orthodox not in communion with Rome and their view. However, the point you evidently do not know or flat out ignore is early church history. The common view today by most Orthodox is not exactly the same view which was held long before the Schism. Do some research and read the many passages by many Eastern bishops view on the Bishop of Rome. Not entirely in-tune with the modern notion of ‘first’ among equals.
And that is your belief,but it is not entirely true either. The eastern church was riddled with heresies and schisms throughout its history. Did the west wrestle heresies and the same issues? Yes! But Western Church was historically known for strong committment to orthodoxy. Let us not forget it was the Arian heresy (eastern hersesy) at one point in time which was the majority belief and orthodoxy was nearly at the point of destruction.
S
steve_b
Guest
It’s all about the Church founded BY Jesus Christ. He’s the author of HIS Church. That’s the Catholic Church. It was done in the 1st century. No ONE can do it over, or think they can start a seperate but equal church. To think they can is just just pure folly by the confused. Besides Paul settled this discussion in the 1st century
Rm 16:
17 I urge you, brothers and sisters, to watch out for those who cause divisions and put obstacles in your way that are contrary to the teaching you have learned. Keep away from them. 18 For such people are not serving our Lord Christ, but their own appetites. By smooth talk and flattery they deceive the minds of naive people. 19 Everyone has heard about your obedience, so I rejoice because of you; but I want you to be wise about what is good, and innocent about what is evil.
Gal 5:
19 The acts of the flesh are obvious: sexual immorality, impurity and debauchery; 20 idolatry and witchcraft; hatred, discord, jealousy, fits of rage, selfish ambition, dissensions, factions 21 and envy; drunkenness, orgies, and the like. I warn you, as I did before, that those who live like this will not inherit the kingdom of God.
Still think anyone can start a Church?
Who would think they can escape this sentence Paul lays out, that trace their lineage back to the Protestant revolt which dissented and divided from the Catholic Church?
J
John1
Guest
Hi Steve,
Paul did warn the early Christians about division. Probably one of his clearest warnings is found in 1 Corinthians 1:
10 I appeal to you, brothers and sisters,[a] in the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, that all of you agree with one another in what you say and that there be no divisions among you, but that you be perfectly united in mind and thought. 11 My brothers and sisters, some from Chloe’s household have informed me that there are quarrels among you. 12 What I mean is this: One of you says, “I follow Paul”; another, “I follow Apollos”; another, “I follow Cephas**”; still another, “I follow Christ.”
I think that makes it pretty clear that no one should say that they follow any of the Apostles, only Christ. I notice that Paul refers to the “church of God at Corinth” and not to the “Catholic Church at Corinth” and that should make it clear that the early church was refered to as “the church of God”. I’m sure that by some human reasoning and human logic that the term “Catholic Church” full of “Catholics” makes far more sense than sticking to “the church of God” full of “Christians”. It appears as the early “traditional” name had to be replaced with another. Peter says in 1 Peter 4:
If you are insulted because of the name of Christ, you are blessed, for the Spirit of glory and of God rests on you. 15 If you suffer, it should not be as a murderer or thief or any other kind of criminal, or even as a meddler. 16 However, if you suffer as a Christian, do not be ashamed, but praise God that you bear that name.
The Lord Jesus Christ established His church on earth and it is made up of those who believe that Jesus Christ is Lord and Savior. If someone wants to gather believers to their house and worship Jesus Christ, or build a building for “Christians” to gather and worship Jesus Christ, then by whose authority is that gathering made ineffectual. If the Holy Spirit is active in some of the congregations of our separated Brethren (reference Vatican II), then I would say that it was established by the Authority of our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ. I beleive that the Catholic Church is a Christian church, but I do not believe that the Body of Christ, the belivers in Christ, is limited to the Catholic Church.**
S
steve_b
Guest
J
John1
Guest
Hi Steve,
Yes I’m serious, and yes I’m a member of the Catholic Church. As far as Paul’s statement in his first letter to the Corinthians, he is definitely pointing out the divisions that were present in the early church, caused precisely by some of the early Christians at Corinth making the assertion that they were following one early church leader over another. More importantly Paul even brings up the name of Cephas (Peter) as one of the leaders that they are incorrectly saying that they follow, and boasting about. If you are following Jesus then your doing God’s will. If your following Paul, Apollos, or Peter, and boasting about it, then your guilty of exactly what Paul was talking about, and causing divisions in the church that Jesus established. I think that we agree that Jesus established one church. I think that we disagree on exactly what that “church” is exactly. You are absolutely correct that God is not separating those that the Catholic Church describes as “separated brethren” and the fact that the Holy Spirit is present in some of them proves this.
Now, the answer to original thread question is a resounding yes. Anyone can start a church. The Mormon, Jehovah Witnesses, Muslims, etc., all have there churches, but not churches founded on the belief that Jesus was the Christ, the Only Begotten Son of God, and Our Lord and Savior.
How can Christians coming together to worship Jesus Christ, comparing worshippers from group to any other group of worshippers, be of any offense to God?
What is God’s will? Could it be that the brothers and sisters in Christ, “so-called separated” or not, love one another?
Jesus explains what he was saying in John 6:53, in John 6:63, Jesus says, “The Spirit gives life, the flesh counts for nothing. The words I have spoken to you are spirit and they give life.”
J
John1
Guest
Oops, I almost forgot. Here’s some Church history: The combination “the Catholic Church” (he katholike ekklesia) is found for the first time in the letter of St. Ignatius to the Smyrnaeans, written about the year 110. I believe that was considered the second century.
E
elvisman
Guest
So, you actually think Ignatius invented the name “Catholic” in his Letter to the Smyrnaeans? You really believe this?Oops, I almost forgot. Here’s some Church history: The combination “the Catholic Church” (he katholike ekklesia) is found for the first time in the letter of St. Ignatius to the Smyrnaeans, written about the year 110. I believe that was considered the second century.
Read the letter and you’ll see that he is using the name as if they already knew what he was talking about. It had already been a long-established name.
Context, my friend . . . CONTEXT.
Oh, by the way (no pun intended) - the Early church was first referred to as "The Way" (Acts 9:1-2) long before Pauls referred to it as anything else. Paul also refers to it as simply, “The Church” (1 Tim. 3:15).
E
elvisman
Guest
Actually - that’s not what the OP states. It seeks to find out whether or not these “churches” are sanctioned by Christ.
This is what is asks:
"Can anyone start a church, just as so many have done, and call his or her new church the church founded by Jesus Christ?"
The answer is a resounding “No”. Without authority - you don’t have a church. What you may have is an ecclesial community not established by Christ.
Are you using this verse to deny the Real Presence in the Eucharist - or are you saying that it means we should love one another?
In both cases, you’d be wrong.
Context . . .
A
Alexander_Roman
Guest
I thought we weren’t about Mormon-bashing, given how nice they are . . . !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?
Alex
J
John1
Guest
Hi Elvisman,
Boy, talking about taking things out of context! First off, I was replying to brother Steve, in as much as he had implied the that the term “Catholic”, especially “Catholic Church”, was used in the first century and I said that it had no historical evidence until the *second century.*You probably would have needed to read the previous posts to really get the context. Yes I do believe that historically the first written example of the term “Catholic Church” was written in 110 A.D… By reading the Catholic Encyclopedia you will see that fact and also that the original sense of the term “Catholic” was changing in a sense at least until about 400 A.D.
Oh, about the Way, that was a term used by Saulbefore he became a Christian known as Paul. You’re absolutely right, it’s all about context!
Now, about the Eucharist, brother Steve had added John 6:53 to the end of his previous post and I wanted to make sure that John 6:63 was also recognized because Jesus plainly says that the Spirit gives life, the flesh counts for nothing. The reason that I felt that this was important to include was that earlier reference that I made to 1 Corinthians 1, where Paul is talking about division in the church, Paul emphasizes that it is on the power of the Spirit that your faith should rest, not on the wisdom of men. If the Holy Spirit is active in some of the churched of the “separated brethren”, doesn’t that mean that God is present there also. Brother Steve had mentioned something about God’s will and I was making the statement that God’s will is that we brothers and sisters in Christ love each other, without exception. Peace, out!
E
elvisman
Guest
Ahhh** – I understand what you’re saying now.**Hi Elvisman,
Boy, talking about taking things out of context! First off, I was replying to brother Steve, in as much as he had implied the that the term “Catholic”, especially “Catholic Church”, was used in the first century and I said that it had no historical evidence until the *second century.*You probably would have needed to read the previous posts to really get the context. Yes I do believe that historically the first written example of the term “Catholic Church” was written in 110 A.D… By reading the Catholic Encyclopedia you will see that fact and also that the original sense of the term “Catholic” was changing in a sense at least until about 400 A.D.
Oh, about the Way, that was a term used by Saulbefore he became a Christian known as Paul. You’re absolutely right, it’s all about context!
Now, about the Eucharist, brother Steve had added John 6:53 to the end of his previous post and I wanted to make sure that John 6:63 was also recognized because Jesus plainly says that the Spirit gives life, the flesh counts for nothing. The reason that I felt that this was important to include was that earlier reference that I made to 1 Corinthians 1, where Paul is talking about division in the church, Paul emphasizes that it is on the power of the Spirit that your faith should rest, not on the wisdom of men. If the Holy Spirit is active in some of the churched of the “separated brethren”, doesn’t that mean that God is present there also. Brother Steve had mentioned something about God’s will and I was making the statement that God’s will is that we brothers and sisters in Christ love each other, without exception. Peace, out!
First of all – it doesn’t appear that you read my post very closely. I was telling you that whe Ignatius wrote his letter to the Smyrnaeans – he was writing to people who had already known the moniker, “Catholic Church” quite well – as if it had been around for some time. He wasn’t inventing the name when he wrote it. This alludes to the fact that it was already widespread.
Back then, things took a while to spead. There was no next day mail, telephones or internet. It took years for this kind of thing to stick.
As for John 6:53 – Jesus was telling those who rejected the notion of eating his flesh that their unbelief was due to the fact that their fleshly minds could not possibly comprehend what he was telling them unless the Spirit revealed it to them.**
My point about “The Way” and “The Church” is that the Church didn’t have an exclusive name - at the very beginning. However, there were certain beliefs associated with it that set it apart. Some of these things included an ardent belief in the Eucharist, the virgin birth and the fact that Jesus Christ was the Son of God. These things are even recorded by non-Christian historians such as Josephus, Pliny and others. Christians were even called cannibals in many 1st century historical writings for their belief in the Real Presence.
The Gnostics and other early heretics of the 1st century were not part of this Church but dissident sects. They were very much like Protestants, in that, they invented their own doctrines and precepts of mere men, whereas the Church had the guarantee of being guided by the Holy spirit to ALL truth (John 16:12-15).
Whenever beliefs were called into question or aberrant teachings sprang up in the Early Church – councils were held to combat these false teachings (Arianism, Nestorianism, Pelagianism, etc).
I’ve read that you claim to be a member of the Catholic Church. Is that the same Catholic Church obedient to the See of Rome - or is it another dissident sect? Just asking out of curiosity.
Finally - God’s will is that we love everybody – friend or foe – not just brothers in Christ.
S
steve_b
Guest
Paul’s point was
*agree with one another in what you say and that there be no divisions among you, but that you be perfectly united in mind and thought. 11 My brothers and sisters, some from Chloe’s household have informed me that there are *quarrels among you
I quoted [Rm 16:17…] & Gal 5:19…] They are different context.
the dissent and division spoken of in the passages I quoted refer to real division, i.e. people leave the Church. The consequences are if they don’t return, they will NOT inherit heaven.
you’re passages you quote don’t have this consequence. Therefore, we are talking about a different type of division, between the passages we quote…
j:
Your passages you quote, the people are still together physically, no one has left, even though they’re arguing. My passages talk about people leaving the Church and getting others to leave also. Different context, different consequences
j:
The Catholic Church isn’t confused on “The Church”. why are you confused about this?
j:
the HS leads souls to the Catholic Church and the sacraments. NEVER away from the Catholic Church. The HS does NOT lead dissenters to remain dissenters and remain divided from the Catholic Church.
j:
Elvisman answered this
j:
Protestants don’t have the Eucharist, so I will deal with Catholics.
What offends God re: worship? Ignoring mass,as in, ignoring the Eucharist.
Heb 10:
25 not giving up meeting together, as some are in the habit of doing, but encouraging one another—and all the more as you see the Day approaching.
26 *If we deliberately keep on sinning after we have received the knowledge *of the truth, no sacrifice for sins is left, 27 but only a fearful expectation of judgment and of raging fire that will consume the enemies of God.
What is the sacrifice for sins? It is the Eucharist. [Mt 26:28; Mk 14:24; Lk 22:20; Jn 6:54,56] where do you find this? At mass with a validly ordained priest or bishop.
Eucharist is what the Church celebrates EVERY time we meet, especially on SUNDAY (the Day). And to purposely miss mass/ Eucharist on Sunday, as is the habit of some, it’s alread considered a deadly sin because those who purposely miss, will be Judged as enemies of God, and if one doesn’t rid their soul of it, and change whatever bad habit they’ve gotten into, they will end up in hell.
Hebrews continues
28 Anyone who rejected the law of Moses died without mercy on the testimony of two or three witnesses. 29 How much more severely do you think someone deserves to be punished who has trampled the Son of God underfoot, who has treated as an unholy thing the blood of the covenant that sanctified them, and who has insulted the Spirit of grace? 30 For we know him who said, “It is mine to avenge; I will repay,”* and again, “The Lord will judge his people.”** 31 It is a dreadful thing to fall into the hands of the living God.*
IOW, don’t miss mass. Don’t blow off the Eucharist.
“Truly truly, I say to you, Unless you eat my flesh and drink my blood you have no life in you”.[Jn 6:53]
j:
God’s will is that they come home to the Catholic Church.
j:
And your point? Is Jesus saying HIS flesh means nothing? NO
Spirit and life covers the seen and unseen. There ARE no other realities. Therefore, go back to Jn 6:53 and understand this covers all realities.
J
joe370
Guest
John 1, when you say you are a Christian catholic are you referring to the Catholic Church in communion with Rome? John 1, what is your answer to the OP below?
Can anyone start a church, just as so many have done, and call his or her new church the church founded by Jesus Christ?
S
steve_b
Guest
As I pointed out to you, Ignatius was a bishop since ~69 a.d. That makes him an ECF DURING apostolic times. The only letters we have from him were the ones he wrote on his way to Rome to be thrown to the lions. Some have this date ~98 a.d. others 110a.d. + These are estimates.
Since he was a disciple of St John, taught by John, most of Ignatius life (80%+ of his life) was DURING the 1st century. What can we say about what Ignatius wrote.
- No one who followed him, contradicted him in what he wrote
- Polycarp, bishop of Smyrna, also disciple of St John, and friend of Ignatius, also used Catholic Church in HIS writings
- I suppose you find it odd, 2 disciples of St John calling the Church the Catholic Church?
- Did you know that it is an estimate, speaking of dates, that John wrote Revelation ~100 a.d.? Again an estimate, because this is when John the last apostle, was thought to have died.
- 110 a.d. is an estimate. As are dates of books of scripture when THEY were written.
- The gospels were some of the last books to be written. Does that mean that before those books were written, none of the things written in those books were ever heard of by people?
The council of Nicea calls the Catholic Church an article of faith. The teaching and the name Catholic Church, is consistant from the 1st century.
j:
Division from the Catholic Church, and maintaining that division, is a deadly sin on the part of the one who divides. They don’t have the sacraments specifically given by Jesus for salvation. Since God wants all to be saved and come to the knowledge of Him.[1 tim 2:4] He wants all to be in His Church. But He doesn’t force anyone. He lays it all out as a choice. He gives prevenient grace, and He gives the Church and the sacraments to provide grace for the journey and to make the right decisions. But in the end, it depends on how well a person is disposed to grace and the truth given, and whether they obey Jesus, the HS, the draw of the Father, and the guidance of the Catholic Church, the pillar and foundation of truth.
Can anyone start a church, just as so many have done, and call his or her new church the church founded by Jesus Christ?
NO
J
joe370
Guest
J
John1
Guest
Hi Elvisman,
Maybe I didn’t read your post closely enough, and if I didn’t I apologize. My point about the “Catholic Church” term written by Ignatius around 110 A.D. is the earliest known use of that term historically speaking. We can speculate as much as we want, but that type of speculation only boils down to personal opinions and bias. There simply is no historical evidence that the term was used prior to that letter. I doubt if St. Ignatius coined that term, however I have no historical evidence as proof.
I am a Christian, first and foremost, and a member of the local Catholic Church. Surely you don’t question my participation in the Body of Christ of my membership in the Catholic Church! Actually, I think that you were probably trying to be funny, like a clown, or maybe you were being condescending, I don’t really know, but that’s okay.
I never stated that God’s will is that we only love our brothers and sisters in Christ, but according to the first letter of John, whoever says “I love God”, yet hates his brother is a liar. As a matter of fact, the biggest part of the letter emphasizes the importance love between brothers. In the first letter of Peter, Peter says "Show proper respect to everyone: Love the brotherhood of believers, fear God, honor the king.
J
joe370
Guest
Hey John1…
It is okay if we as catholics and non-catholics, can’t always agree; after all we are all still brothers and sisters in Christ and like Peter said:
Always be prepared to give an answer to everyone who asks you to give the reason for the hope that you have.* But do this with gentleness and respect, keeping a clear conscience.**
*
John, I was just curious: Why does it matter if the church was not called catholic from 33 AD to the turn of the first century?Maybe I didn’t read your post closely enough, and if I didn’t I apologize. My point about the “Catholic Church” term written by Ignatius around 110 A.D. is the earliest known use of that term historically speaking. We can speculate as much as we want, but that type of speculation only boils down to personal opinions and bias. There simply is no historical evidence that the term was used prior to that letter. I doubt if St. Ignatius coined that term, however I have no historical evidence as proof.
The original disciples never had any formal name (Christian) - for themselves, just as they had no formal name for the church (catholic) until the latter part of the 1st century.
Code:
* Acts 11:26, "and when he had found him, he brought him to Antioch. And it came about that for an entire year they met with the church, and taught considerable numbers; and the disciples were first called Christians in Antioch."John, you don’t belong to the same church to which I belong and vice versa - right? What is the name of the church to which you belong and who founded it and when, if you don’t mind me asking? I ask that same question regarding the CC, in communion with Rome, again, if you don’t mind?
Said with gentleness and respect.Actually, I think that you were probably trying to be funny, like a clown, or maybe you were being condescending, I don’t really know, but that’s okay.
It is okay if we as catholics and non-catholics, can’t always agree; after all we are all still brothers and sisters in Christ and like Peter said:Always be prepared to give an answer to everyone who asks you to give the reason for the hope that you have.* But do this with gentleness and respect, keeping a clear conscience.**
*
I never stated that God’s will is that we only love our brothers and sisters in Christ, but according to the first letter of John, whoever says “I love God”, yet hates his brother is a liar. As a matter of fact, the biggest part of the letter emphasizes the importance love between brothers. In the first letter of Peter, Peter says "Show proper respect to everyone: Love the brotherhood of believers, fear God, honor the king.
J
John1
Guest
Hi Joe,
The answer to th question is “yes”. Whether or not you or I agree that the “new church” is the church founded by Jesus is another question completely.
Now about the first part of your post, I am a member of the Catholic Church in communion with Rome. I lable myself as a “Christian Catholic” because that’s what I am. It’ a bit of irony that the term “Catholic Christians” entered Roman Imperial law when Theodosius I, Emperor from 379 to 395, reserved that name for adherents of “that religion which was delivered to the Romans by the divine Apostle Peter, as it has been preserved by faithful tradition and which is now professed by the Pontiff (Pope) Damasus and by Peter, Bishop of Alexandria …as for the others, since in our judgement they are foolish madmen, we decree that they shall be branded with the ignominious name of heretics, and shall not presume to give their conventicles the name of churches.” This law of 27 February 380 was included in Book 16 of the Codex Theodosianus. It established **Catholic Christianity **as the official religion of the Roman Empire. Somehow through time the “Christianity” part of that term has been lost, and now many refer to the religion as the “Catholic religion”. We are supposed to praise God that we bear the name “Christian” as Peter says in 1 Peter 4:16. I think it would be an insult to be called anything else.
- Status