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

[John1]

**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.

Hi Elvisman,

I’m glad that you agree with Vatican II and what is says about the importance of and the desire of Christian Unity. I would never suggest that the Church jettison any of it’s beliefs! Truely, there are some of the doctrines taught by the Catholic Church that I don’t have a good understanding about and some that seem unjustified by me personally. Because I question some of the Church’s teaching, or just because I don’t fully understand some of the Church’s teaching doesn’t mean that I’m not a Catholic. It sounds like, in your estimation, that any Catholic that questions Church teachings, doesn’t have the right to participate in the Body of Christ. Brother, some of your positions sound like they are in conflict with Church doctrine. In my post you will find that I am steadfast in my belief that Catholics are Christians. I would not have joined the Catholic Church if I didn’t believe that it was a part of the Body of Christ.I don’t know why you would find the term “Christian Catholic” offensive? It in no way implies that Catholics are not Christians., I’m just giving proper respect an position to name “Christian”. People all over the world have given their lives, and are giving their lives, because they bear that name. Saint Peter said that we should praise God that we bear that name!!!

 

[John1]

Hi Again Elvisman,

You know as well as I, that their are “Catholics” out there that are so apposed to Vatican II and to the Church’s desire for Christian unity, that they even deny that the last few Popes, covering about fifty years, are not valid! We also know what the Bible says about wolves in sheep’s clothing! SSPX, Sedevacantist, Traditionalist, and Conclavist are some of the Catholic groups dividing the Catholic Church! Some of the more noted characters even went as far as falsely saying that they supported the Church’s teachings, when in fact they did not. This makes them liars, and the Devil is the father of lies. I respect anyone’s right to question the Church’s decisions, and even have personal doubts about those decisions, but to declare that all the Pope’s since Vatican II, including the present Pope were invalid is going way to far. Again, I so glad that you agree with Vatican II and what it says about Christian Unity concerning our “separated bretheren”. Praise and honor to God, and to His Only bregotten Son Jesus Christ, forever, Amen!!!

 

[elvisman]

Hi Elvisman,

I’m glad that you agree with Vatican II and what is says about the importance of and the desire of Christian Unity. I would never suggest that the Church jettison any of it’s beliefs! Truely, there are some of the doctrines taught by the Catholic Church that I don’t have a good understanding about and some that seem unjustified by me personally. Because I question some of the Church’s teaching, or just because I don’t fully understand some of the Church’s teaching doesn’t mean that I’m not a Catholic. It sounds like, in your estimation, that any Catholic that questions Church teachings, doesn’t have the right to participate in the Body of Christ. Brother, some of your positions sound like they are in conflict with Church doctrine. In my post you will find that I am steadfast in my belief that Catholics are Christians. I would not have joined the Catholic Church if I didn’t believe that it was a part of the Body of Christ.I don’t know why you would find the term “Christian Catholic” offensive? It in no way implies that Catholics are not Christians., I’m just giving proper respect an position to name “Christian”. People all over the world have given their lives, and are giving their lives, because they bear that name. Saint Peter said that we should praise God that we bear that name!!!

John -
I never said that you cannot question the teachings of the Church. You certainly can - and should, if you don’t understand them.

However, IF you recognize the Church as the Body of Christ (1 Cor. 12), the fullness of truth (Eph. 1:22-23), the pillar and foundation of truth (1 Tim. 3:15), the Body that Jesus identifies his very self with (Acts 9:4-5) and areceive the Holy Eucharist - you must accept those teachings. Otherwise - you are not in communion with that Church and are, instead, a dissident.

**As for the terms “ChristianCatholic” - it IS offensive because it DOES (name removed by moderator)ly that Catholics arent Christians but that somehow, there is another group that IS - “Christian Catholics”. **

There are others who identify themselves as “Catholic Christians”, which is more accurate, since the word “Catholic” at its base definition means “universal”. In essence, they are calling themselves Universal Christians - as in the “Universal Church of Christ”.

As for me - I call myself Catholic, as those in the early Church did.

 

[elvisman]

Hi Again Elvisman,

You know as well as I, that their are “Catholics” out there that are so apposed to Vatican II and to the Church’s desire for Christian unity, that they even deny that the last few Popes, covering about fifty years, are not valid! We also know what the Bible says about wolves in sheep’s clothing! SSPX, Sedevacantist, Traditionalist, and Conclavist are some of the Catholic groups dividing the Catholic Church! Some of the more noted characters even went as far as falsely saying that they supported the Church’s teachings, when in fact they did not. This makes them liars, and the Devil is the father of lies. I respect anyone’s right to question the Church’s decisions, and even have personal doubts about those decisions, but to declare that all the Pope’s since Vatican II, including the present Pope were invalid is going way to far. Again, I so glad that you agree with Vatican II and what it says about Christian Unity concerning our “separated bretheren”. Praise and honor to God, and to His Only bregotten Son Jesus Christ, forever, Amen!!!

Yes – I know some of them and am related to some - and pray for all of them continually.

---

Again**, John – it’s okay to question the Church’s teachings – and even have doubts. But upon learning and having a good understanding of those teachings, to doubt and reject them from that point shows a lack of faith.

---

It’s like anything else. If you have a hard time understanding Algebra – that’s fine. But, after being taught how to figure out the equations, you cannot reject the answer, because in Math - there is only ONE answer. For you to do so at that point is pure pride – just as a rejection of Church teachings after knowing them is spiritual pride.

Anyway - keep the faith, brother. Continue to learn it and become enriched by the Holy Spirit. Remember - the more we learn, the more we will be held accountable (Luke 12:48).

 

[Richard_Kastner]

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?

Joe, here’s the question you pose in the OP

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?

In this question you state that many have started churches in the last 500 yrs. and as far as calling your church “the church founded by Jesus Christ?” These people can call their church anything they want, including “the church founded by Jesus Christ” right? What you don’t address nor do you ask to be addressed is whether or not this is right. If you wanted peoples opinions on whether it was right or wrong, why didn’t you address that in the OP?

 

[joe370]

[Richard Kastner;7298370]Joe, here’s the question you pose in the OP

In this question you state that many have started churches in the last 500 yrs. and as far as calling your church “the church founded by Jesus Christ?” These people can call their church anything they want, including “the church founded by Jesus Christ” right?

Wrong, in my opinion!!!

What you don’t address nor do you ask to be addressed is whether or not this is right. If you wanted peoples opinions on whether it was right or wrong, why didn’t you address that in the OP?

I did address it Richard. I said : “a resounding no” to the OP. It is wrong to start another church and call that church the church founded by God.

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?

 

[elvisman]

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?

Correct!

And a store called “Pep Boys” without Manny Moe and Jack is just another auto parts store!

 

[Nicea325]

Originally Posted by joe370
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?

Likewise, Jesus does not need competition nor is He a capitalist.

 

[jphilapy]

Likewise, Jesus does not need competition nor is He a capitalist.

Well in terms of the churches, he is not a capitalist. But I think if he were powerless and opened a fish store front then he would be a capitalist. But since he isn’t powerless, that would make him a monopoly.

 

[mackbrislawn]

All real Christian Churches aer headed by Christ.

Isn’t this statement a tautology?

Of course all real Christian Churches real headed by Christ. But the question is, what are the real Christian Churches?

 

[mackbrislawn]

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?

I agree.

And suppose you or I were to read the Koran and from that start up our own Muslim congregation, taken from our local neighborhoods? Would other Muslims regard our congregation as true followers of Islam? How about reading the Book of Mormon and the Pearl of Great Price, and then founding a new Mormon church?

 

[Mikeoffaith]

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.

Actually, if you look at the Arian heresy and it’s particular life, I don’t think you can say that this was a particularly “eastern” heresy that had no foothold in the west. The only thing that you can pin Arianism as being particularly eastern is the fact that Arius was from Alexandria. Arianism had quite the long life in the western realm especially in the Germanic regions of Europe. And you can’t say that the west or Rome was the great champion of orthodoxy in this matter, except for the exiling of Liberius. Again, a man from Alexandria was the greatest champion of Trinitarianism.

The Arian heresy affected all of Christendom, not just the church in the East. But much like the the Church in Acts 15, the Episcopate of the church was called together to figure out what the dogma was to be and promulgated that dogma.

in regards to Primus Inter Parus, I see the ECF as affirming this and that this is not a modern invention. Certainly, this gives the See/Bishop of Rome greater authority that that give in Canon 6 of Nicea.

 

[Daniel_David]

Marketing is marketing is marketing…
Once you have paid your regulatory fees to your city and been granted your tax exemption status, I would think you could say whatever you wanted to… but then again, I don’t really know

 

[Nicea325]

Actually, if you look at the Arian heresy and it’s particular life, I don’t think you can say that this was a particularly “eastern” heresy that had no foothold in the west. The only thing that you can pin Arianism as being particularly eastern is the fact that Arius was from Alexandria. Arianism had quite the long life in the western realm especially in the Germanic regions of Europe. And you can’t say that the west or Rome was the great champion of orthodoxy in this matter, except for the exiling of Liberius. Again, a man from Alexandria was the greatest champion of Trinitarianism.

The Arian heresy affected all of Christendom, not just the church in the East. But much like the the Church in Acts 15, the Episcopate of the church was called together to figure out what the dogma was to be and promulgated that dogma.

in regards to Primus Inter Parus, I see the ECF as affirming this and that this is not a modern invention. Certainly, this gives the See/Bishop of Rome greater authority that that give in Canon 6 of Nicea.

I never said nor stated Arianism had no impact on the West. The point it is that Arianism was founded and commenced in the East and spread vastly.And I can say the West was a champion of orthodoxy as well as the East. However,to honestly believe the East was the only orthodox champion is just plain wrong. .

 

[Mikeoffaith]

First of all - no need to apologize.

---

Secondly, I’ve spoken to many people over the years who say exactly what you expressed:
“I am a Christian FIRST, then a Catholic.”

That is a contradiction in terms, my friend. The Catholic Church IS the Christian institution established by Christ. In short it was the first and ONLY Church instituted by him. “Catholic Church” simply means, “The Church Universal” – the worldwide Christian Church.

As Cardinal Ratzinger wrote in the declaration, Dominus Iesus, ALL Protestant denominations are not Churches in the fullest sense of the term. They are “ecclesial communities”. The point is that many of them have a partial truth and, although they are related to the Body of Christ, they are divorced from of it.

The only Church established by Christ himself (Matt. 16:18) is the same Church we read about as being the fullness of truth (Eph. 1:22-23). It is the one we read about in 1 Tim. 3:15 that is the *“pillar and foundation of truth”. *Finally - it is the very same Church that Jesus Christ identified himself with in Acts 9:4-5.
You must remember - Jesus only built ONE Church - not thousands.

Partial truth isn’t enough. The Church HAS to encompass the fullness of Truth – the fullness Christ (Eph. 1:22-23). Any institution that doesn’t is NOT his Church.

Then from your definition of ONE church then all Orthodox are relegated to something as less than.

 

[JohnnyReb]

Can anyone start a church, just as so many have done, and call his or her new church the church founded by Jesus Christ?

Jesus founded the church, which is the body of believers (Christians). Of course no one could found another. There is one body, but many parts. Jesus is the vine, we are the branches (ruh roh sounds like Anglican Branch theory, but I am not trying to copy that entirely here). Catholics are not Christians because they belong to the Catholic church. They are Christians because they are saved by the grace of God. Even the “seperated brethren” have some access to the Christian/Catholic faith according to the Roman Catholic Church, just not the entirety thereof. The idea of seperated brethern is that non Catholics are brothers and sisters in Christ who are not in full communion with the Catholic Church, correct?

 

[Mikeoffaith]

The issue created (thousands of different denominations) is a product of human arrogance,ignorance and pride and it has nothing to do with God as its author.

I agree with you completely!

 

[Jessup]

Yes in America!!! you can start any kind of church you want.

 

[elvisman]

Then from your definition of ONE church then all Orthodox are relegated to something as less than.

**Jesus established ONE Church - not two, not ten, not ten thousand.
What part of ONE do you not grasp?

 

[elvisman]

Jesus founded the church, which is the body of believers (Christians). Of course no one could found another. There is one body, but many parts. Jesus is the vine, we are the branches (ruh roh sounds like Anglican Branch theory, but I am not trying to copy that entirely here). Catholics are not Christians because they belong to the Catholic church. They are Christians because they are saved by the grace of God. Even the “seperated brethren” have some access to the Christian/Catholic faith according to the Roman Catholic Church, just not the entirety thereof. The idea of seperated brethern is that non Catholics are brothers and sisters in Christ who are not in full communion with the Catholic Church, correct?

Whereas, Prostestants - ALL Protestant sects - are related to the Church they are outside of it. This is not the fault of Christ’s only Church - the Catholic Church. It is because of their own choice. That is the truth, uncomfortable as it may sound.

**You and I are brothers in Christ, as we are both baptized Christians (I assume you are baptized). However, we are separated brothers - as in a divorce. That is what Protestantism is - a divorce from the Body of Christ. We are still related, although not in full communion with each other.

When the Church speaks of there being no salvation outside of it (Extra Ecclesiam Nulla Salus), it does not mean to infer that ALL Protestants are doomed. It means that since the Church is the means of Salvation (not the cause) you must be a prt of the church to be saved. There is, of course, the doctrine of invincible ignorance, which says:
Those who, through no fault of their own, do not know the Gospel of Christ or his Church, but who nevertheless seek God with a sincere heart, and, moved by grace, try in their actions to do his will as they know it through the dictates of their conscience - those too may achieve eternal salvation (CCC-847).

My hope - as is the hope of the Church is that you and every other Protestant will one day be in full communion with each other.

Peace.