Catholic Church founded by Jesus?

[hope]

Interesting but please expound. Some use the word Church, in various ways. For instance, the way that we use the word parish or congregation is used as Church. There was a Church in Rome, Jerusalem, etc. but these were not thought of as being separate but as been stated universal. We are not discussing other faiths but the Catholic faith. It seems to me that you are the one moving the goal post or at least not fully explaining your comments. You may mean that there was the Eastern Churches but they were all one not separate faiths. As we should be still, that we are not goes against what Jesus intended. Jesus sent out the apostles 12 not to have them each found a Church but that there would be one Church. To sum up you need to provide a little more texture than a flat statement o fit being inaccurate claim.

 

[mcq72]

We are not discussing other faiths but the Catholic faith

Is the Christian faith only the Catholic faith?

There was a Church in Rome, Jerusalem, etc. but these were not thought of as being separate but as been stated universal

Yes, the Nicene council/ creed seemed to allow a primacy of Rome as understood by Rome and others , and a different understanding by others. And by such all were one and universal.

You may mean that there was the Eastern Churches but they were all one not separate faiths. As we should be still, that we are not goes against what Jesus intended.

Yes, but it all goes south over primacy of Rome development/understanding. Both sides claim their understanding is from the beginning, apostolic and as Jesus intended. So obviously some churches would disagree that their understanding began 1000 years later, (even 1500 ), and strongly disagree with those dislodging them from “church” status to “community” status.

 

[hope]

Is the Christian faith only the Catholic faith?

What is your question?
Are you asking if I believe only Catholics are Christians? No But that isn’t the question is it? The question is who founded the Catholic Church? Buzzard wanted to know if the Catholic Church wasn’t founded by Jesus what Church was? It is a question that (name removed by moderator) dances around.

 

[Buzzard3]

There is no once right (at the beginning) always right (today) by anyone prudent in the faith.

Scripture indicates that the true Church existed from the beginning and will always exist:

1. Jesus promised that his Church cannot be destroyed (Matt 16:19)
2. 1Tim 3:15 says the Church is the “pillar and foundation of the truth” and Eph 1:22-23 says the Church is the “fullness” of Christ.

Such eventual examination and dependency is Spirit led.

The Church is Spirit led , individuals follow the Church and are under the authority of the Church. Even Paul was under the authority of the Church.

 

[Malka]

I would start here:

1. Cathedra Petri: The titles and prerogatives of St. Peter, and of his see and successors; as described by the early fathers. . .

Cathedra Petri : or, The titles and prerogatives of St. Peter, and of his see and successors ; as described by the early fathers, ecclesiastical writers, and councils of the church : Allnatt, C.F.B : Free Download, Borrow, and Streaming : Internet Ar

1. The [Catholic] Church and Ecclesiology [Article Archive] - Dave Armstrong

The [Catholic] Church And Ecclesiology (Index Page) | Dave Armstrong

1. The Papacy and Infallibility [Article Archive] - Dave Armstrong

The Papacy And Infallibility (Index Page) | Dave Armstrong

1. Fathers of the Church [Article Archive] - Dave Armstrong

Fathers Of The Church (Index Page) | Dave Armstrong

 

[mcq72]

Scripture indicates that the true Church existed from the beginning and will always exist:

1. Jesus promised that his Church cannot be destroyed (Matt 16:19)
2. 1Tim 3:15 says the Church is the “pillar and foundation of the truth” and Eph 1:22-23 says the Church is the “fullness” of Christ.

Understand. From the Catholic perspective, ORAR is really in effect (once right always right) on faith matters. All others not.

We have same challenge in P churches also where critiques, error , are in the church down the street (but not our own).

Agree with your scriptures, but not the CC understanding and application of them.

Even Paul was under the authority of the Church.

Well conditionally so, as should be. As long as the church is abiding in truth, thereby in Christ on a matter, Paul would serve the matter, even be obligated and under such authority. Yet as an example he did not yield to Judaizers from Jerusalem church, nor to Peter when he appeased them, disconcerting the gentiles.

Jesus said beware of hypocrisy and bad doctrine that may rest with those in authority.

 

[mcq72]

What is your question?
Are you asking if I believe only Catholics are Christians? No But that isn’t the question is it? The question is who founded the Catholic Church? Buzzard wanted to know if the Catholic Church wasn’t founded by Jesus what Church was? It is a question that (name removed by moderator) dances around.

Ok. Thank you.

As to dancing, do you think there was only the Catholic church, no “Orthodox” understanding, until 1000 ad, or no " Protestant" understanding until 1500 ad?

The other question as to what Jesus founded and what is was called ( if anything other than ecclessia), is something else.

 

[hope]

As to dancing, do you think there was only the Catholic church, no “Orthodox” understanding, until 1000 ad, or no " Protestant" understanding until 1500 ad?

They were all one until the separation. It was I believe that understanding differed which caused the schism.

 

[hope]

I disagree that it isn’t the question asked. You don’t like the term dancing around but what it meas is you do not answer the question directly. There was only one Church with understanding of Church not meaning believers in a particular area but the whole. I understand you come from a different view point.

 

[hope]

I am sorry you feel that way. But I do assume that you avoided the obvious answer which is there is only one Church founded by Jesus and until the sad schism it was one Catholic Church and no other.

 

[mcq72]

They were all one until the separation. It was I believe that understanding differed which caused the schism.

OK. I would add that understanding differed as understanding developed by some, and others reacted by remaining steady or as in beginning.

 

[Buzzard3]

Well conditionally so, as should be. As long as the church is abiding in truth, thereby in Christ on a matter, Paul would serve the matter, even be obligated and under such authority. Yet as an example he did not yield to Judaizers from Jerusalem church, nor to Peter when he appeased them, disconcerting the gentiles.

Paul was compelled by the Holy Spirit to go to Jerusalem to have the content of his preaching approved by Church leaders (Gal 2:1-2). Paul also consulted the Church leaders in Jerusalem to settle a doctrinal dispute between he and Barnabus ((Acts 15:2-3).

If Paul were alive today, which Church would he go to have his preaching approved and to settle doctrinal disputes?
Which Church do YOU go to have YOUR doctrines approved? If none, how come Paul had to have his doctrines approved by the Church leaders, but you don’t?

Paul corrected Peter when his behaviour erred, but would nevertheless have recognized him as the leader of the Church.

 

[Justin_Mary]

If none, how come Paul had to have his doctrines approved by the Church leaders, but you don’t?

Because Paul didn’t have the New Testament

 

[Dan_Defender]

Which Church do YOU go to have YOUR doctrines approved? If none, how come Paul had to have his doctrines approved by the Church leaders, but you don’t?

Paul corrected Peter when his behaviour erred, but would nevertheless have recognized him as the leader of the Church.

I agree. St Paul was not going around trying to teach something different than the others. And it was specially important for him to be aligned in doctrinal matters as there was no NT canon yet.

 

[Buzzard3]

Because Paul didn’t have the New Testament

Whose interpretation of the NT is correct? Yours?

Which Church s the “pillar and foundation of the truth” (1Tim 3:15)?

 

[Justin_Mary]

Whose interpretation of the NT is correct? Yours?

Which Church s the “pillar and foundation of the truth” (1Tim 3:15)?

I was just kidding.

Sola Scriptura is funny to me. They use a collection of writings composed by a guy primarily telling a bunch of people they got it wrong. Somehow they see themselves in the role of Paul when he is clearly in person of The Church.

 

[mcq72]

Paul was compelled by the Holy Spirit to go to Jerusalem to have the content of his preaching approved by Church leaders (Gal 2:1-2).

Paul is very clear he received the gosple and authority from Christ Himself.

He went up to Jerusalem In Galatians after 14 years of preaching, and founding a few churches at least.

“Then after fourteen years, I went up again to Jerusalem,” Gal 1:1

Paul also consulted the Church leaders in Jerusalem to settle a doctrinal dispute between he and Barnabus ((Acts 15:2-3).

I would hope so, for it was from the Jerusalem church that leaven, yeast , bad doctrinal application, came from.Go to the source of the problem, and have those leaders reign in error coming from their jurisdiction. For sure the apostles held authority in churches thu out the whole world , and they needed to reinforce correct doctrine

If Paul were alive today, which Church would he go to have his preaching approved and to settle doctrinal disputes?

Paul today would have much castigating to do, perhaps in all churches, not excluding Rome.

No one, no one is denying the church of apostolic times, which was not Roman, Orthodox , nor protestant. Yet several views remain and just how they operated. It is in the eyes of the beholder. Where you sit on a matter is where you also stand. You see head bishop/papacy, being above the other apostles jurisdictionally. Others do not.

Which Church do YOU go to have YOUR doctrines approved?

Many of our doctrines were at one time approved by CC, and by Orthodox, some councils, early fathers, tradition. Of course not all, by all, anymore. Catholicism is not the only “church” that has a magisterium of sorts, whith confessions, creeds, catechisms, even councils.

Paul corrected Peter when his behaviour erred, but would nevertheless have recognized him as the leader of the Church.

Again, it is in eyes of beholder just how that was understood back then. For sure Peter was the leader of the twelve original apostles, and original church.

For sure scripture cites Christ as the chief cornerstone, with the the twelve apostles next as our foundation, all and following disciples, living stones.

So i do not think he needed his doctrine ‘approved" in general sense. He wished to mitigate the tension of "others’’, to pacify them, by adding apostolic seal of approval to his gospel of liberty. Otherwise , he would not compromise any of his gospel with the gentiles. Thankfully the Spirit led him to Jerusalem, as the Spirit also led the church at Jerusalem to be of same accord.

 

[Buzzard3]

I was just kidding.

Sorry I didn’t realize that. But come to think of it, what you said is not a bad argument!

Sola Scriptura is funny to me. They use a collection of writings composed by a guy primarily telling a bunch of people they got it wrong. Somehow they see themselves in the role of Paul when he is clearly in person of The Church.

Even funnier is that Sola Scriptura-ists worship the Bible, but they (generally) despise the Catholic Church that was responsible for deciding on the canon of the Bible. What strange logic. Apparently, God had no choice but to allow the false “whore of Babylon” church to decide the canon of his holy scriptures - hilarious!

 

[Buzzard3]

Paul is very clear he received the gosple and authority from Christ Himself.

That doesn’t explain why the Spirit compelled him to go the Church leaders in Jerusalem to have his revelation and preaching approved.
Furthermore, anyone can claim to have had a revelation from Christ, but that doesn’t mean it’s authentic - the Church decides what is of God, not the individual, as the case of Paul demonstrates.

 

[hope]

Paul today would have much castigating to do, perhaps in all churches, not excluding Rome.

No one, no one is denying the church of apostolic times, which was not Roman, Orthodox , nor protestant. Yet several views remain and just how they operated. It is in the eyes of the beholder. Where you sit on a matter is where you also stand. You see head bishop/papacy, being above the other apostles jurisdictionally. Others do not.

This does not answer who Paul would go to today. You state what the Church was not but do not say what the Church was. Where is that Church of “Apostolic times”?