E
elvisman
Guest
Like I said - that’s a cop-out.
Can you at least tell me what I said that is so exhausting to you or point me to a post where you already discussed this and made your point(s)?
Can anyone start a church, and call it the church founded by Jesus Christ?
- Status
Can you at least tell me what I said that is so exhausting to you or point me to a post where you already discussed this and made your point(s)?
N
Nicea325
Guest
Isn’t it amazing how the Truth tends to offend so many?Like I said - that’s a cop-out.
Can you at least tell me what I said that is so exhausting to you or point me to a post where you already discussed this and made your point(s)?
E
elvisman
Guest
Yes, it’s difficult to have a one-sided conversation . . .
A
AmateurPianist
Guest
See my new signature.
N
Nicea325
Guest
Now I remember why I took a long, long break here. When 2 folks end up gossiping over you (Isn’t it amazing how the Truth tends to offend so many?)…that is really “over the top”
Over the top? Then why are you here,if you are not going to discuss anything,but only complain?
J
jphilapy
Guest
And saying Jesus is the Truth is exclusive to because it implies that there is only one truth which would mean it excludes mormons, jehova’s witnesses, muslims etc. So are you fond of the idea that Jesus is a Truth? Or are you going to contradict yourself and claim that there is the Truth?
Is it **a **church that proclaims the Truth? Or is it the Church that proclaims a truth? Just wondering how you make that work because it seems to me that it only works when it is the church proclaiming the truth.
J
John1
Guest
Hi Steveb,
Thanks for the link, that will save me a trip to the bookstore. I’ll check it out more next week.
I know what you mean about historians. Most or at least a lot of the classical historians would add information to fill in gaps as long as it seemed resonable. Eusebius was more of a chronicler and he hardly everadded anything, :shrug:so you still have to research his writings.
J
John1
Guest
Elvisman, it seems like maybe some of our “separated bretheren” must have hurt you somehow, and if that’s the case, I’m truly sorry that you were hurt. I will be praying for you and I hope that you will be praying for me. Peace be with you and yours.Of COURSE, we’re good. You’e not disrespectful when you err - you respectfully disagree. I wish there were more posters like you who represented the non-Catholic side.
Thanks, that’s just part of what being a Christian is all about. Of course I’m nowhere close to perfect, but I’m working on it.
**That being said, the Church is not **made of all believers in Christ – but those who remain faithful to ALL his truth without cherry-picking the truths they reject. Christ didn’t establish a buffet – he built a Church.
James 2:19 tells us that even the demons believe in God and tremble. Simply believing in Christ does not save you – and does not make you part of his body.
So I guess you’re saying the church is only made up of perfect Christians? I don’t agree.
I think the Body is made up of many members, some stronger and some weaker. I have found that most Catholics who refer, vaguely or not, to other Catholics as “cafeteria Catholic” really haven’t taken a good look in the mirror.
**You’re wrong **when you say that our separated brethren are not divorced from the Church, which is the Body of Christ. Protestantism was born of divorce – divorce from the Church. This is why so many denominations accept divorce. It would be hypocritical of them *not *to do so when their very origins are based in it.
Again, since the Pope affirmed that the Holy Spirit was active in these “ecclesial communities” of our “separated bretheren”, and since we were all baptized by one Spirit into one Body, and since we have been given one Spirit to drink,after considering all this, I most definitely disagree with your assertion that the “separated bretheren” are not part of the Body of Christ. I praise God that he sends his Holy Spirit to not only you and I, but also to our “separated bretheren”. When you take the Eucharist you are supposed to recognize the Body of Christ. My dear brother in Christ, think about it!
You seem to be a very sincere and honest person. My problem with you is that you misrepresent the Catholic Church that you claim to be part of. Much of what you say is *contrary *to tenets of the Catholic faith, making you a dissident.
This is precisely what the Reformers were before divorcing themselves from the body of Christ.
I try to represent Christ, though I realize that I fall way short. I pray to God that I am forgiven for my short comings.I think the Catholic Church is made up of a lot of people who are trying their best to represent Christ, even though they may be looked down on by others who feel that they are not worthy to be members of the Body of Christ. Whatever happened during the Reformation, whether the Reformers were trying to separate themselves from Christ or if they were separating themselves from what they saw as a corrupted system, who knows? That was a long, long time ago.
**Remember Jesus’ warning in **Matt. 7:21-23:
"Not everyone who says to me, ‘Lord, Lord,’ will enter the kingdom of heaven, but only the one who does the will of my Father in heaven.
Many will say to me on that day, 'Lord, Lord, did we not prophesy in your name? Did we not drive out demons in your name? Did we not do mighty deeds in your name?’
Then I will declare to them solemnly, 'I never knew you. Depart from me, you evildoers.’
Take care.
G
Good_Fella
Guest
“Whoever isn’t with me is against me. Whoever doesn’t gather with me scatters.”
Matthew 12, 30
Martin Luther had no idea that he was about to open Pandora’s box (not with the key entrusted to Peter) and unleash the gates of Hell.
Then the fifth angel blew his trumpet, and I saw a star that had fallen from the sky to the earth. It was given the key to the passage to the abyss. It opened the passage to the abyss, and smoke came up out of the passage like smoke from a huge furnace. The sun and air were darkened by the smoke from the passage. Locusts came out of the smoke onto the land, and they were given the same power as scorpions of the earth.
Revelation 9, 1-3
“Wherefore it is incumbent to obey the presbyters [priests] who are in the Church…those who, together with the succession of the episcopate, have received the certain gift of truth.”
*St. Irenaeus, Against Heresies, 26:2 (inter A.D. 180-199) *
“God is truly and absolutely simple.”
St. Augustine (De Trin. iv, 6,7)
You will continue to complicate things even further by your rationalizations. Because of God’s simplicity, Christ instituted one Church with a central teaching authority. Protestants deny the concept of a magisterium altogether, as if whatever God wills to objectively reveal to us all until the end of time for the benefit of our salvation is of no worth.
PAX :heaven:
E
elvisman
Guest
**John – I don‘t know where you’re coming from. When did I say – or even imply – that I said the Church was made up of only perfect Christians? **
The truth is John – you are a Cafeteria Catholic because you pick and choose which doctrines you like and discard the ones you don’t.
I’m not telling you this because I want to insult you – I’m saying it because this is exactly what you are doing.
If you want to be a Catholic - you must believe what the Church teaches because the she is led by the holy Spirit to ALL truth (John 16:12-15). If you don’t believe in her doctrines - then you are a Protestant.
I’m sorry that you again disagree with the Holy Spirit who leads the Church to all truth.
As for the Eucharist, this is precisely why non-Catholics are not supposed to receive it – maybe not even you. Receiving the Eucharist is a declaration to the world that you accept and believe in all of the teachings of the Catholic Church – not just some of them. The reason it is called “Communion” is because we are all united by our faith as a community. Those who reject Catholic doctrines have no business receiving the Eucharist.
Whereas those outside the Catholic Church are related to her – they are outside the Body of Christ.
There are dire consequences for those who do not take this seriously. This is why St. Paul tells us in 1 Cor. 11:27-30, Paul speaks to the reality of the Eucharist and the severity of the consequences to those who take this lightly:
“Therefore whoever eats the bread or drinks the cup of the Lord unworthily will have to answer for the body and blood of the Lord. A person should examine himself, and so eat the bread and drink the cup. For anyone who eats and drinks without discerning the body, eats and drinks judgment on himself. That is why many among you are ill and infirm, and a considerable number are dying.”
**Yes, it was **a long time ago – but what does that have to do with anything.
Their rebellion has spawned literally thousands of constantly splintered sects. This is not the unity that Jesus fervently prayed for in John 17. He prayed that his Church remain ONE – not tens of thousands. The rebellion of the “Reformers” has only served to defy the very will of the Savior they claimed to believe in.
**Not at all. I don’t know how you deduced that from my response. I was merely pointing to Jesus’ warning about those who think that ALL believers will be saved. **Elvisman, it seems like maybe some of our “separated bretheren” must have hurt you somehow, and if that’s the case, I’m truly sorry that you were hurt. I will be praying for you and I hope that you will be praying for me. Peace be with you and yours.
Jesus disagrees with you.
J
joe370
Guest
Can anyone start a church, just as so many have done, and call his or her new church the church founded by Jesus Christ?
J
John1
Guest
The truth is John – you are a Cafeteria Catholic because you pick and choose which doctrines you like and discard the ones you don’t.
I’m not telling you this because I want to insult you – I’m saying it because this is exactly what you are doing.
If you want to be a Catholic - you must believe what the Church teaches because the she is led by the holy Spirit to ALL truth (John 16:12-15). If you don’t believe in her doctrines - then you are a Protestant.
As for the Eucharist, this is precisely why non-Catholics are not supposed to receive it – maybe not even you. Receiving the Eucharist is a declaration to the world that you accept and believe in all of the teachings of the Catholic Church – not just some of them. The reason it is called “Communion” is because we are all united by our faith as a community. Those who reject Catholic doctrines have no business receiving the Eucharist.
Whereas those outside the Catholic Church are related to her – they are outside the Body of Christ.
**There are dire consequences for those who do not take this seriously. **Yes, it was **a long time ago – but what does that have to do with anything.
Their rebellion has spawned literally thousands of constantly splintered sects. This is not the unity that Jesus fervently prayed for in John 17. He prayed that his Church remain ONE – not tens of thousands. The rebellion of the “Reformers” has only served to defy the very will of the Savior they claimed to believe in.
Not at all. I don’t know how you deduced that from my response. I was merely pointing to Jesus’ warning about those who think that ALL believers will be saved.
Jesus disagrees with you.**
Hi Elvisman,
I was just wondering, are you a Sedevacantist?
Sedevacantists are a small group of Catholics that believe Paul VI (1963–1978), John Paul I (1978), John Paul II (1978–2005) and Benedict XVI (since 2005) have been neither true Catholics nor true Popes, by virtue of allegedly having espoused the heresy of Modernism, or of having otherwise denied or contradicted solemnly defined Catholic dogmas. Some of them classify John XXIII (1958–1963) also as a Modernist antipope.
If not, are you perhaps a conclavist?
The term comes from the word “conclave”, which is used in relation to mainstream Catholic papal elections. Conclavists tend to be strongly opposed by other Traditionalist Catholics, including the sedevacantists with whom they share the belief that the official succession of popes is invalid.
Do you agree with Vatican II and the Pope’s decree on Christian Unity?
The reason I’m asking you these questions is because it sounds like you don’t support some of the directives in “Unitatis Redintegratio”, i.e.:
*-Even in the beginnings of this one and only Church of God there arose certain rifts,(19) which the Apostle strongly condemned.(20) But in subsequent centuries much more serious dissensions made their appearance and quite large communities came to be separated from full communion with the Catholic Church-for which, often enough, men of both sides were to blame. The children who are born into these Communities and who grow up believing in Christ cannot be accused of the sin involved in the separation, and the Catholic Church embraces upon them as brothers, with respect and affection. For men who believe in Christ and have been truly baptized are in communion with the Catholic Church even though this communion is imperfect. The differences that exist in varying degrees between them and the Catholic Church-whether in doctrine and sometimes in discipline, or concerning the structure of the Church-do indeed create many obstacles, sometimes serious ones, to full ecclesiastical communion. The ecumenical movement is striving to overcome these obstacles. But even in spite of them it remains true that all who have been justified by faith in Baptism are members of Christ’s body,(21) and have a right to be called Christian, and so are correctly accepted as brothers by the children of the Catholic Church.(22)
If your not a Sedevacantist, or a Conclavist, could you possibly be a “Cafeteria Catholic”?
I’m not telling you this because I want to insult you – I’m saying it because this is exactly what you are doing.
If you want to be a Catholic - you must believe what the Church teaches because the she is led by the holy Spirit to ALL truth (John 16:12-15). If you don’t believe in her doctrines - then you are a Protestant.
As for the Eucharist, this is precisely why non-Catholics are not supposed to receive it – maybe not even you. Receiving the Eucharist is a declaration to the world that you accept and believe in all of the teachings of the Catholic Church – not just some of them. The reason it is called “Communion” is because we are all united by our faith as a community. Those who reject Catholic doctrines have no business receiving the Eucharist.
Whereas those outside the Catholic Church are related to her – they are outside the Body of Christ.
**There are dire consequences for those who do not take this seriously. **Yes, it was **a long time ago – but what does that have to do with anything.
Their rebellion has spawned literally thousands of constantly splintered sects. This is not the unity that Jesus fervently prayed for in John 17. He prayed that his Church remain ONE – not tens of thousands. The rebellion of the “Reformers” has only served to defy the very will of the Savior they claimed to believe in.
Not at all. I don’t know how you deduced that from my response. I was merely pointing to Jesus’ warning about those who think that ALL believers will be saved.
Jesus disagrees with you.**
Hi Elvisman,
I was just wondering, are you a Sedevacantist?
Sedevacantists are a small group of Catholics that believe Paul VI (1963–1978), John Paul I (1978), John Paul II (1978–2005) and Benedict XVI (since 2005) have been neither true Catholics nor true Popes, by virtue of allegedly having espoused the heresy of Modernism, or of having otherwise denied or contradicted solemnly defined Catholic dogmas. Some of them classify John XXIII (1958–1963) also as a Modernist antipope.
If not, are you perhaps a conclavist?
The term comes from the word “conclave”, which is used in relation to mainstream Catholic papal elections. Conclavists tend to be strongly opposed by other Traditionalist Catholics, including the sedevacantists with whom they share the belief that the official succession of popes is invalid.
Do you agree with Vatican II and the Pope’s decree on Christian Unity?
The reason I’m asking you these questions is because it sounds like you don’t support some of the directives in “Unitatis Redintegratio”, i.e.:
*-Even in the beginnings of this one and only Church of God there arose certain rifts,(19) which the Apostle strongly condemned.(20) But in subsequent centuries much more serious dissensions made their appearance and quite large communities came to be separated from full communion with the Catholic Church-for which, often enough, men of both sides were to blame. The children who are born into these Communities and who grow up believing in Christ cannot be accused of the sin involved in the separation, and the Catholic Church embraces upon them as brothers, with respect and affection. For men who believe in Christ and have been truly baptized are in communion with the Catholic Church even though this communion is imperfect. The differences that exist in varying degrees between them and the Catholic Church-whether in doctrine and sometimes in discipline, or concerning the structure of the Church-do indeed create many obstacles, sometimes serious ones, to full ecclesiastical communion. The ecumenical movement is striving to overcome these obstacles. But even in spite of them it remains true that all who have been justified by faith in Baptism are members of Christ’s body,(21) and have a right to be called Christian, and so are correctly accepted as brothers by the children of the Catholic Church.(22)
If your not a Sedevacantist, or a Conclavist, could you possibly be a “Cafeteria Catholic”?
E
elvisman
Guest
So you think that because I believe in ALL that the Church teaches - I’m a sedavacantist? * HOW did you come to that* conclusion? Sedevacantists reject some teachings of the Church - especially those after Vatican II. That is a silly charge - at best.**
I called you a “Cafeteria Catholic” - not to insult you but as a matter of fact. I have read many of your posts and much is what I read is your opinion - not the Catholic position, which is what you claim to be. The truth is not up for grabs, John. It is what it IS and your version of it is simply that - your version - not Christ’s. We must follow HIS gospel - not yours.**
Christ is truth itself (John 14:6) and his Church is the pillar and foundation of that truth (1 Tim. 3:15). It is the fullness of Christ (Eph. 1:22-23) so when you reject her teachings and making up your own - you’re rejecting Christ Himself (Luke 10:16) . . .
J
John1
Guest
Hi Elvisman,
I wasn’t trying to insult you either brother. Maybe you really don’t understand how insulting some of the things you write are really? I reason that I brought up Vatican II and the Church’s doctrine and desire for Christian unity, appears to be something that you reject. The reason I asked if you were a Sedevacantist, or a Conclavist, or a “Cafeteria Catholic” is because if you reject or ignore the Church’s teaching on Christian unity, then you’re probably affiliated with one of the groups mentioned, or worse! I’ve read through your post carefully and that’s the only conclusion that I can come up with. I made no charge against you, I only asked very serious questions. Now, I will ask only one question of you.
Do you accept the validity of Vatican II in it’s entirity?
E
Esdra
Guest
HiI 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.
regarding starting new churches:
As all Christians are priests, they indeed can become the call to start “a new church”.
But I have a problem here: What do you understand under “new Church”? - do you refer to christian cults like LDS or Davidians or the sect around Jones who let his brethren commit suicide in the midst of the jungle of guyana?
I mean, if a Baptist pastor builds as a minister a Baptist Church somwhere - did he form then a new Church? - I mean, there is no authority: Every Baptist (or also Pentecostal) Church is for its own. Yes, they do have contacts, but each time it is “a Church for its own”… Yes, there are even organisations like the EA (=Evangelical Alliance; Don’t know if they exist outside the German speaking countries, however!), but even there are not all, let’s say Baptist Churches in. Some are Baptists, but don’t call themselves like that - for example they simply call themselves “Free christian community/church” - but from their theology and worship-style they are definitely Baptists. Concerning names it’s getting even more complicated among the Pentecostals, there you can find names from Assembly of God (in English speaking countries) to Every Nation to Hillsong or simply to "free christian church (pentecostal Church)… You see my point? Are they all Churches of their own?
I guess the OP Question is a very Catholic question… Seen from the Protestant (especially from the “reborn Protestant” view) this question doesn’t arise in my opinion.
in Christ,
Esdra
R
Richard_Kastner
Guest
You’ve answered your own question haven’t you?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?
E
elvisman
Guest
**I don’t reject any of what Vatican II declared about Christian unity. What I object to are the many false interpretations of the documents of Vatican II by Catholics as well as Protestants.
There are many Catholics - which, by your posts, I believe includes you - who seem to believe that because there was a call for Christian unity at Vatican II we must jettison some of our beliefs in order to accomplish this.
The heart of the council was not to embrace this unity at the expense of our faith but because of our faith. We must love everybosy - celebrating our common beliefs, but praying for their conversion to the fullness of the truth.
**If you find my comments insulting - that was not my intention. However, some of your positions are very much in conflict with the very Church you claim to be a part of.
The fact that you list yourself as “Christian Catholic” is highly insulting, as it seems to imply that Catholics are not Christians. On the contrary - we were the very FIRST Christians.
**Absolutely - but NOT the many different interpretations of it. It is probably one of the most misunderstood councils in the history of the Church.
F
fbl9
Guest
I’ll second that statement.
N
Nicea325
Guest
Yes…very misunderstood and by a lot of laity.
J
joe370
Guest
We should strive to find the church founded by God as opposed to the church founded by mere man. The answer to the following question is, a resounding NO!
If I start a church tomorrow and call my new church the church founded by Jesus, would you agree with me? Of course not.The Home Depot was founded in 1978 by Bernie Marcus, Arthur Blank, Ron Brill, and Pat Farrah. If I were to start my own home improvement center and call it Home Depot, would I be right? Only if it is a different home improvement center that has nothing to do with the Home Depot founded by Bernie Marcus, Arthur Blank, Ron Brill, and Pat Farrah, and the same applies to the church founded by God, as opposed to a church founded by mere man; wouldn’t you agree?
- Status