Catholic Church founded by Jesus?

[Montrose]

Please show me where in the CCC or Canon Law or other source that has authority where it is a mortal sin if one is unable to meet this obligation.

Baltimore Catechism:

Q. 909. When are we bound to receive Holy Communion?

A. We are bound to receive Holy Communion, under pain of mortal sin, during the Easter time and when in danger of death.

 

[Glenn]

We trust that Holy Spirit succeeded in guarding Faith to be pure and passed down as pure. In the end, Satan is father of all lies and as such we don’t believe he was successful in infiltrating Church doctrine which is “pillar and foundation of Truth”.

Yes, it makes sense that if God gave us a trustworthy Book, the living Christ would also give us a trustworthy Church. Christ is alive, as is His Body. The Truth is:

written not with ink but with the Spirit of the living God, not on tablets of stone but on tablets of human hearts. (2 Corinthians 3:3).

Yet His Word is also:

“living and active, sharper than any two-edged sword, piercing to the division of soul and of spirit, of joints and of marrow, and discerning the thoughts and intentions of the heart” (Hebrews 4:12), "and able to make you wise for salvation through faith, which is in Christ Jesus." (2 Timothy 3:15)

But in regard to the one, holy, catholic, and apostolic Church, is this something institutional or something mystical? If, on the one hand (speaking hypothetically), there is a theologically liberal Catholic who no longer accepts the essential creeds of the Church, and on the other, there is a Protestant who has accepted those things that the Catholic Church itself deems to be sufficient for salvation, which of these two is truly part of the Body of Christ?

It seems that what we apply to the visible Catholic Church we can also apply (from a different perspective) to the invisible mystical Church–in which case, its universality cuts across denominational lines. This mystical Church is held together by the Spirit, through whom God is “all in all.”

In regard to Peter, I do believe he was the founding Rock, but of course, it was Christ who built the Church. I don’t, however, see scriptural evidence for his successors. I think one would have to accept a priori the authority of the Catholic Church on that matter.

According to a Protestant understanding, the Holy Spirit is the only true interpreter of God’s Word. If we are in Christ, we have His Spirit. But we, being sinners by nature, still wrestling with sin, the flesh and the Devil, often “quench His Spirit.” We do this regardless of whether we are Catholic or Protestant. Some Catholics are further on the road to sanctification than some Protestants, and some Protestants are further on that road than some Catholics.

I do, however, recognize that among Protestants, especially among those who lack an institutional authority structure, there is massive doctrinal confusion. So on a practical level, I see the real advantage of the Church hierarchy that exists for Catholics, Orthodox, Anglicans, and Lutherans.

I’m just thinking out loud. I welcome your responses.

 

[AlmaRedemptorisMater]

Even further, the Church that wrote the Bible.

 

[Montrose]

In regard to Peter, I do believe he was the founding Rock, but of course, it was Christ who built the Church. I don’t, however, see scriptural evidence for his successors.

APOSTOLIC AUTHORITY AND SUCCESSION - Scripture Catholic

What the Early Church Believed: Apostolic Succession | Catholic Answers Tract

What is the biblical support for apostolic succession? | Catholic Answers Q&A

Apostolic Succession | Catholic Answers Encyclopedia

Does Christ's Church Have Apostolic Succession? | Catholic Answers Magazine

 

[Buzzard3]

In regard to Peter, I do believe he was the founding Rock, but of course, it was Christ who built the Church.

Matt 16:18 doesn’t say Peter will buiod the Church - Jesus said he hmself will build the Church on Peter.

I don’t, however, see scriptural evidence for his successors.

So what? Not everything is in the Bible.

I think one would have to accept a priori the authority of the Catholic Church on that matter.

Jesus gave Peter something awesome - the “keys of the kingdom of God”. What happened to those almighty “keys” - did Peter lose them? No, Peter passed them on to his successor … and so on to this very day. Can you tell me where the “keys” are today?

According to a Protestant understanding, the Holy Spirit is the only true interpreter of God’s Word.

The Catholic Church also believes the HS is the only true interpreter of scripture, except the HS expresses that interpretation thru the Magisterium of the Church, not thru individuals acting alone.

Some Catholics are further on the road to sanctification than some Protestants, and some Protestants are further on that road than some Catholics.

I would agree with that. In the end, it is our love of God that saves us.

 

[Justin_Mary]

I’m just thinking out loud. I welcome your responses.

I understand your logic, but…

Yes, it makes sense that if God gave us a trustworthy Book, the living Christ would also give us a trustworthy Church. Christ is alive, as is His Body. The Truth is:

written not with ink but with the Spirit of the living God, not on tablets of stone but on tablets of human hearts. (2 Corinthians 3:3).

We know he didn’t give us a book. He gave us a Church. He chose 12, they lived with him, learned to be like him for three years. Then when he had told them everything his Father had told him, he sent them to the ends of the earth.

& it was that Church that gave us the Bible.

That is how he revealed to us how he works. In the Spirit, through his Church, specifically the people in his Church.

In regard to Peter, I do believe he was the founding Rock, but of course, it was Christ who built the Church. I don’t, however, see scriptural evidence for his successors.

If we put the Bible first I can see your position. But that is not the case. History tells us what happened to Peter after Jesus ascended into heaven. & history tells us what happened after Peter Died.

The ones Jesus taught & the ones they taught for hundreds of years before the New Testament was canonized tells us about the successors of the Apostles & the Seat of Peter.

 

[mcq72]

So what? Not everything is in the Bible. (about papal succession)

Seems contradictory to this:

“All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness
That the man of God may be perfect, furnished to every good work.”

Can one be perfect , furnished, without traditional teaching of office of the pope per CC understanding?

Not sure CC teaches that papal succession is not in bible. They teach it is quite implicitly in bible.

 

[Montrose]

Montrose:

So what? Not everything ( evidence for papal succession) is in the Bible

Seems contradictory to this:

“All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness
That the man of God may be perfect, furnished to every good work.”

Can one be perfect , furnished, without traditional teaching of office of the pope per CC understanding?

Not sure CC teaches that papal succession is not in bible. They teach it is quite implicitly in bible.

You have quoted me saying “So what? Not everything (evidence for papal succession) is in the Bible.”
I know I am getting old but I don’t recollect saying that. Could you direct me to the post of mine where I said that.

 

[mcq72]

You have quoted me saying “So what? Not everything (evidence for papal succession) is in the Bible.”
I know I am getting old but I don’t recollect saying that. Could you direct me to the post of mine where I said that.

Sorry, twas Buzzards quote, which I have corrected my post. Have no idea how that happened, for you never commented on his specific response. Sorry again. Even more ironic because you did good homework and posted plenty of responses (biblical) to succession.

 

[hope]

I do not see how it is a contradiction nor do you explain why it would be contradictory.

All scripture is inspired by God and is useful for teaching, for refutation, for correction, and for training in righteousness,
so that one who belongs to God may be competent, equipped for every good work.

This is a better translation.
What it doesn’t say is that it is only scripture. To say that everything is not in Scripture actually is what Scripture says. All this particular scripture says is how Scripture is useful and why and to whom. Your translation uses the word perfect which I believe you have misunderstood. What it is conveying is that those who belong to God will have the tools for every good work not that everything is in Scripture.

 

[Glenn]

We know he didn’t give us a book. He gave us a Church. He chose 12, they lived with him, learned to be like him for three years. Then when he had told them everything his Father had told him, he sent them to the ends of the earth.

& it was that Church that gave us the Bible.

That is how he revealed to us how he works. In the Spirit, through his Church, specifically the people in his Church.

I do see your point here. Thanks.

 

[Glenn]

Thanks for all of the links. They certainly appear to be very relevant to this discussion, so I will definitely read them.

 

[Glenn]

Jesus gave Peter something awesome - the “keys of the kingdom of God”. What happened to those almighty “keys” - did Peter lose them? No, Peter passed them on to his successor … and so on to this very day. Can you tell me where the “keys” are today?

Yes, another good point. Jesus didn’t just bless Peter; he gave him some keys, something for him to safeguard. I’ll be reading the links posted by Montrose. They look like they will address some of my questions.

God bless.

 

[mcq72]

What it is conveying is that those who belong to God will have the tools for every good work not that everything is in Scripture

Actually it conveys only one tool in this text, the tool being scripture, to be competent or perfectly equipped. It does not say scripture is insufficient. It does not say you also need tradition, history or extra biblical sources to be competent/ perfectly equipped in this text.

 

[hope]

Actually it conveys only one tool in this text, the tool being scripture, to be competent or perfectly equipped. It does not say scripture is insufficient. It does not say you also need tradition, history or extra biblical sources to be competent/ perfectly equipped in this text.

What it doesn’t say is that scripture is all you need. What it does say is that Scripture is useful but it doesn’t say only scripture is useful. You haven’t provided what was a contradiction?

 

[mcq72]

What it is conveying is that those who belong to God will have the tools for every good work not that everything is in Scripture

Again, one could ask can I do every good work competently/ perfectly without believing in Peter’s succession because it is not explicitly in scripture ( more of a tradition using extra biblical sources such as church fathers), or the Assumption of Mary etc.?

Either you say no because it is derived from biblical texts, or no, because tradition is equal to Scripture, contradicting 2 Tim 3:16 because I am not fully equipped without tradition.

 

[mcq72]

What it does say is that Scripture is useful

Yes, to fully equip. That is what it says. It does not say other equippers, (teachers, magisteriums, tradition, councils, decrees) are not bound by scripture also.

What it doesn’t say is that scripture is all you need.

Anything else we need must also be scriptural to comply with said text.

What is not in scripture is not in scripture. It is extra biblical. Extra biblical can be useful like scripture, but conditionally so and is debated as to it’s equality with Scripture.

For example I do not equate the level of inspiration of say John 3:16 to the 1954 decree of Mary’s Assumption.

 

[fredystairs]

Either you say no because it is derived from biblical texts, or no, because tradition is equal to Scripture, contradicting 2 Tim 3:16 because I am not fully equipped without tradition.

2Thess 2:15: So then brethren, stand firm and hold to the traditions which you were taught, whether by word of mouth or by a letter from us.

This passage says that oral or written traditions are obligatory upon us.

Further, at the time that St Paul wrote this, not all of the New Testament had not been completed yet. For example, the Book of Revelation had not been written. If one is going to rely on on the passage from 2 Timothy, then one could logically argue that Revelation would not be binding since it was not written then.

Pax

 

[Horton]

Baltimore Catechism:

Q. 909. When are we bound to receive Holy Communion?

A. We are bound to receive Holy Communion, under pain of mortal sin, during the Easter time and when in danger of death.

Since neither of these is from the source I requested, I’m going to guess you can’t find the proof. Have a good day.

 

[fredystairs]

Montrose:

Baltimore Catechism:

Q. 909. When are we bound to receive Holy Communion?

A. We are bound to receive Holy Communion, under pain of mortal sin, during the Easter time and when in danger of death.

Since neither of these is from the source I requested, I’m going to guess you can’t find the proof. Have a good day.

Code of Canon Law (1983) #920

1. After being initiated into the most Holy Eucharist, each of the faithful is obligated to receive holy communion once a year.
2. This precept must be fulfilled in the Easter season unless it is fulfilled for a just cause at a different time of the year.

Pax