Catholic Church founded by Jesus?

[mcq72]

I am in ‘ perfect communion ’ with Christ’s Church…

Ok…you are looking at perfect union with an institutional church…I was asking more in terms with other believers in Christ, whether in one own church or that of others…that is communion with others in the body of Christ.

The banquet has more to offer than the buffet

True. Many from all churches are into being fed, or meeting their religious obligation then scooting out, not really fellowshipping thru giving back/ serving the body of Christ…

 

[mcq72]

We see apostolic succession in the Book of Acts!

Yes, but CC inference is self replication of ones specific apostolic role. So for example Mathias replaced Judas, the treasurer. So were Mathias bishop appointments to be treasurers? I mean you do that with Peter.

There is only one Peter, one John, one Paul. They do not replicate themselves as to their specific calling, but yes as to be like Christ, and be stewards after their own calling. They appointed presbyters to meet specific needs of specific church communities. Don’t think they had a “central office” in mind.

So succession yes, as appointing presbyters in communities they founded and sheperded.

 

[mcq72]

No, that wasn’t the meaning of the ‘keys’. The authority to forgive sins is found in John 20, and there’s no mention of the ‘keys’ in that context.

So you are on record that the other apostles did not have keys to the kingdom or church as they went to the " ends of the earth"?

Is there any greater authority and power than to forgive sins, to reconcile man back to God, as per the gospel preached by the apostles?

What was the fruit of Peter’s first big excercise of leadership on Pentecost?

 

[Horton]

Thank you. It’s been a struggle to get through to this guy.

 

[Buzzard3]

Ya’ll aren’t suggesting that they’re literal keys, are you?

Not literal “keys”.

 

[Buzzard3]

So you are on record that the other apostles did not have keys to the kingdom or church as they went to the " ends of the earth"?

No matter where the other apostles went, they were always under the authority of the
Church, which was led by Peter, who alone had the “keys”.

 

[OriginalGabrielof12]

How do we know that the Catholic Church was founded by Jesus?

I know because where the body, blood, soul and divinity of Jesus Christ is, there is His Catholic Church.
Besides we Know Jesus built His Church upon Rock= Peter. Where is Peter today? He presides in Rome and remains the Bishop of Rome, In fact Peter and Paul’s bones are buried in Rome, they never left.
Where else can you find the True Presence of Jesus Christ? But in the Catholic Church.
Peace be with you

 

[Montrose]

It is says you have to confess grave sins once a year. If you have no grave sins there is no requirement to confess.

 

[Gorgias]

So you are on record that the other apostles did not have keys to the kingdom or church as they went to the " ends of the earth"?

Do we ever see the apostles being given the “keys”? On the other hand, we do see the power “to bind and loose”, as found in Mt 16 and Mt 18, is distinct from the power to “forgive and retain” sins, as found in John 20.

The “keys” are governance. “Binding and loosing” is talk found in a Jewish context – it means the power to interpret the law and lay down binding discipline.

Is there any greater authority and power than to forgive sins, to reconcile man back to God, as per the gospel preached by the apostles?

That doesn’t mean that this is what the “keys” are about. That authority is found in Isaiah 22, in the office of the “al-bayit”, and forgiveness of sin isn’t part of that metaphor there, either!

What was the fruit of Peter’s first big excercise of leadership on Pentecost?

To call people to baptism… which again is not the “power of the keys”!

 

[OrbisNonSufficit]

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?

Jesus answered and spoke again in parables to them, saying, "The Kingdom of Heaven is like a certain king, who made a marriage feast for his son, and sent out his servants to call those who were invited to the marriage feast, but they would not come. Again he sent out other servants, saying, ‘Tell those who are invited, “Behold, I have prepared my dinner. My cattle and my fatlings are killed, and all things are ready. Come to the marriage feast!”’ But they made light of it, and went their ways, one to his own farm, another to his merchandise, and the rest grabbed his servants, and treated them shamefully, and killed them. When the king heard that, he was angry, and sent his armies, destroyed those murderers, and burned their city. “Then he said to his servants, ‘The wedding is ready, but those who were invited weren’t worthy. Go therefore to the intersections of the highways, and as many as you may find, invite to the marriage feast.’ Those servants went out into the highways, and gathered together as many as they found, both bad and good. The wedding was filled with guests. But when the king came in to see the guests, he saw there a man who didn’t have on wedding clothing, and he said to him, ‘Friend, how did you come in here not wearing wedding clothing?’ He was speechless. Then the king said to the servants, ‘Bind him hand and foot, take him away, and throw him into the outer darkness; there is where the weeping and grinding of teeth will be.’ For many are called, but few chosen.”

— Matthew 22:1-14

So that is difference between those who do not arrive at the banquet and those who do but unprepared.

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.

Of course. Problem is the outside factor. Imagine you have someone who isn’t well-versed in theology, now how can he decide which interpretation is correct? If indeed denominations do not matter, then there is no real reason to have them. In the end, Church is the final authority and for Church to be final authority there must be a way to identify the Church correctly. That is where Peter’s Successors come to play.

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

No doubt.

 

[OrbisNonSufficit]

So on a practical level, I see the real advantage of the Church hierarchy that exists for Catholics, Orthodox, Anglicans, and Lutherans.

I get that. Problem comes when there is internal Schism. How does one decide whether Oriental or Eastern Orthodoxy is correct? What if two Lutheran sides started arguing? Who would be correct? What happens when Lutheran Church of Sweden starts portraying our Lord as homosexual or St. Joseph as transvestite? How does one divide between all who disagree without needing PhD in Church History, theology and so on… and more importantly, how can one be certain of this answer?

We know Faith requires certainty- it was problem of St. Thomas the Apostle. But how do we get this certainty? Jerusalem was always able to be identified… Old Testament Authority was always clear. Why would New Testament Authority not have this prerogative?

 

[ArchStanton]

ArchStanton:

I am in ‘ perfect communion ’ with Christ’s Church…

Ok…you are looking at perfect union with an institutional church…I was asking more in terms with other believers in Christ, whether in one own church or that of others…that is communion with others in the body of Christ.

To ‘believe in Christ’ has many facets… Are we talking about believing in the death and resurrection of Our Lord [only]? or do we take it further and show obedience to His 'hierarchical church’? Do we believe Christ when He said ‘This IS my body’?, do we believe in baptismal regeneration? Do we believe Christ left His church to Peter [keys]? Do we believe in Apostolic Succession?

After all…
Eph 3:10 so that the manifold WISDOM of God might now be made known THROUGH the CHURCH to the principalities and authorities in the heavens.

Eph 4:3-6 striving to preserve the unity of the spirit through the bond of peace: ONE BODY and ONE SPIRIT , as you were also called to the one hope of your call; one Lord, ONE FAITH , one baptism; one God and Father of all, who is over all and through all and in all.

ArchStanton:

The banquet has more to offer than the buffet

True. Many from all churches are into being fed,

Are they being fed the body, blood, soul, and divinity of Christ?
[Catholic/Orthodox]

 

[hope]

gain, from my take of the CC explanation, either equality of oral and scripture or the three legged stool, scripture as a rule is not enough for proficiency, which to me is contrary to our said text.

hope:

No one says that it is insufficient only

It is implied by three legged stool, and or when citing oral is equal to written.

You know something that you ignore is the word useful. Paul says that Scripture is inspired and he says that it is useful then he explains how it is useful.
My conclusion is that you don’t know what Paul is saying. It leads you to unfounded conclusions. Such as it contains all that should be taught, even though it says no such thing. There is nothing contrary to the “said text” but your preconceived religious belief that the Catholic Church does not have authority. The three legged stool is Scripture, Sacred Tradition, and the teaching authority of the Magesterium
Scripture wasn’t delivered by Jesus. He never said to write anything. It was the Church who declared what was “God Inspired”. It is the Church that has guided us from heresy. It is the Church that shows us what we should believe. It is the Church that Jesus founded. Your position goes against scripture.

 

[hope]

It is no wonder I could not find it. I am assuming that you got this from another translation than the one you linked? The closest I could find to your quote was

Final exhortation
1 It is good therefore that he who has learned the ordinances of the Lord as many as have been written should walk in them. For he who does these things shall be glorified in the kingdom of God, and he who chooses the others shall perish with his works. For this reason there is a resurrection, for this reason there is a recompense.

Is this what you meant?

 

[mcq72]

You know something that you ignore is the word useful. Paul says that Scripture is inspired and he says that it is useful then he explains how it is useful.

I agree with this.That is, of course the written Word of God has an intent, a purposed outcome, and of course to be " used".

The same can be said of oral teaching, or tradition, council etc.

The two or three can be equal, but only when the latter gets it right, is harmonious with the written, and not the other way around.

Perhaps at the beginning the oral was useful to help determine authenticity of an apostles writing. I mean an early Christian having heard Paul teach would have to say upon later reading his letter, " that certainly sounds like Paul". But beyond that, once a writing is discerned to be inspired, meaning God’s “Word”, it then should become the rule, to be " used" by the Church for all the things Paul mentions ( doctrine, reproof, instruction) leaving the user "competent, thoroughly furnished, complete, perfect, etc.).

but your preconceived religious belief that the Catholic Church does not have authority.

Nothing above states that. Anyone can “use” Holy Scripture to above end. That means, as Jesus even states, the individual can for example reprove someone, as can two together, and finally as can the church, the last being the strongest.

So indeed the CC can and has " used" scripture in 2nd Timothy authoritative fashion. She indeed has in the past used her authority and been quite correctly equal to, in tune with Scriptural intent. Where we disagree is when the Church in my opinion wants more authority than necesary. This I feel is exemplified by continuing to assert that oral ( Her oral, not others) is equal to the Written, or by making tradition a capital unconditionally. Key word is unconditionally. That is to say that her proclamations are always right because she can not be wrong. Only “others” can make “use” of the Word or tradition wrongly.

To be fair , all churches struggle with such assuredness, that it is the church down the street that has it wrong.

It is the Church that has guided us from heresy.

Agree the CC has doggedly fought against heresy. Athanasius comes to mind, like one of David’s mighty men.

It is the Church that shows us what we should believe. It is the Church that Jesus founded. Your position goes against scripture.

I believe to rightly divide scripture one must see the assurances of His perfect guidance ( like strict Calvinists and OSAS?), but also like Arminians that we are to beware, though beginning greatly, and much persevering and reproving others, not to stumble ourselves.

 

[mcq72]

Is this what you meant?

Yes, i did post a link to the above translation…not sure where i got my original post version…would have to check my old notes, even if I remebered it correctly.

 

[mcq72]

Are they being fed the body, blood, soul, and divinity of Christ ?

I really think if you have one of them you have them all…none are deficient.

To ‘ believe in Christ ’ has many facets… Are we talking about believing in the death and resurrection of Our Lord [only]? or do we take it further and show obedience to His 'hierarchical church ’? Do we believe Christ when He said ‘ This IS my body ’?, do we believe in baptismal regeneration ? Do we believe Christ left His church to Peter [keys] ? Do we

Yes, the list can go on and on. Reminds me of what happened thru Moses seat.

The Nicene Council had what, a page or two of decrees, and a simple creed?

Then Trent Council had oodles of pages.

The more one’s list grows, the less catholic/ universal they are. We are already split in half, Catholics and Orthodox/Protestant.

Yet just as sect laden was Israel, salvation was still of her. So to is there salvation offered in “Christianity”, Christ never failing to be real in either.

 

[Buzzard3]

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.”

For starters, “All scripture” in that that verse (2Tim 3:16) refers to the OT. And is doesn’t say scripture is all a Christian needs for doctrine - it simply says scripture is “profitable” for doctrine. Finally, it says scripture equips the man of God for “every good work” - there is more to salvation than simply doing good works.

Here is a verse that trumps 2Tim 3:16 - Eph 4:11-15 describes something that Christ gave us for achieving the following …

“equipping of the saints for the work of ministry, for the [c]edifying of the body of Christ, 13 till we all come to the unity of the faith and of the knowledge of the Son of God, to a perfect man, to the measure of the stature of the fullness of Christ; 14 that we should no longer be children, tossed to and fro and carried about with every wind of doctrine, by the trickery of men, in the cunning craftiness of deceitful plotting …”

What is it that Christ gave us that achievses all use amazing things , including bringing believers to “the fullness of Christ”? Verse 11 tells us: It is “apostles, some prophets, some evangelists, and some pastors and teachers” … the CHURCH, in other words. Notice that in this passage, there is not a single reference to scripture. Also notice that the Church is described as he “fullness” of Christ in Eph 1:22-23.

 

[ArchStanton]

ArchStanton:

Are they being fed the body, blood, soul, and divinity of Christ ?

I really think if you have one of them you have them all…none are deficient.

In my previous post I bracketed [Catholic/Orthodox]. What other ‘assembly’ has the Eucharist?

ArchStanton:

To ‘ believe in Christ ’ has many facets… Are we talking about believing in the death and resurrection of Our Lord [only]? or do we take it further and show obedience to His 'hierarchical church ’? Do we believe Christ when He said ‘ This IS my body ’?, do we believe in baptismal regeneration ? Do we believe Christ left His church to Peter [keys] ? Do we

Yes, the list can go on and on. Reminds me of what happened thru Moses seat.

The Nicene Council had what, a page or two of decrees, and a simple creed?

Then Trent Council had oodles of pages.

The more one’s list grows, the less catholic/ universal they are. We are already split in half, Catholics and Orthodox/Protestant.

Yet just as sect laden was Israel, salvation was still of her. So to is there salvation offered in “Christianity”, Christ never failing to be real in either.

The number of pages from Trent has nothing to do with ‘binding/loosing’, and the 'keys’ of authority guiding Christ’s Church.

The multiple splits are due to a lack of obedience.

Salvation is offered indeed… but again, why not accept Christ’s Church fully with the sacraments?

CCC (Catechism of the Catholic Church)

"Outside the Church there is no salvation"

846 How are we to understand this affirmation, often repeated by the Church Fathers? Re-formulated positively, it means that all salvation comes from Christ the Head through the Church which is his Body:

Basing itself on Scripture and Tradition, the Council teaches that the Church, a pilgrim now on earth, is necessary for salvation:…

847 This affirmation is not aimed at those who, through no fault of their own, do not know Christ and his Church:

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 .

 

[Justin_Mary]

This I feel is exemplified by continuing to assert that oral ( Her oral, not others) is equal to the Written, or by making tradition a capital unconditionally. Key word is unconditionally. That is to say that her proclamations are always right because she can not be wrong.

I think you’re confabulating two different things.

Tradition is not simply oral teaching but also the understanding of the teachings, both written & oral. There were truths taught & understood by Christians for 300 years before the canon of scripture was decided.

Similar to what you mentioned earlier people would read the letters, say “yes this sounds like Paul.” & “yes, this supports the truths we were taught.”

This way they can teach, “he said eat his flesh, he meant eat his flesh.” And proclaim as wrong when someone says, “I think he meant that figuratively.”

& we have church documents going back to the beginning to support this, outside of scripture.

Secondly the Church can be wrong & has said as much many times. & proclamations are only infallible as a matter of faith decided by the Pope, or a council, but usually together. It’s not like anything someone says is infallible or can’t be wrong. There’s a process that has to be followed.