Catholic Church founded by Jesus?

[Buzzard3]

To add to this, remember the Lord spoke about the Bread from Heaven\Life a year BEFORE to the followers, disciples, and Apostles. This was the “ONLY” time followers(and Judas) left him due to his teaching in ALL of scripture - no other time… Why leave if it was NOT literal?

As can be seen from the gospel of John, the doctrine of the Real Presence, amongst other things, is a test of faith.

I accept said doctrine only because the Catholic Church teaches it - it must be true because the CC is the “fullness” of Christ (Eph1:22-23).

 

[Buzzard3]

Respectfully, your not answering the question… How do YOU know YOU are interpreting scripture correctly? If you and a fellow christian from your church disagree on the meaning of a scripture line, where do you go to get a final correct answer? The pastor? majority of congregation in agreement?

When St. Paul had a doctrinal dispute wih Barnabus, they went to the Church leaders in Jerusalem to get it sorted out. And the Spirit sent Paul to the same Church leaders to have his preaching approved.

In other words, the beliefs and practices of all believers - great and small - are subject to the authority of the Church.

 

[Justin_Mary]

As can be seen from the gospel of John, the doctrine of the Real Presence, amongst other things, is a test of faith.

I accept said doctrine only because the Catholic Church teaches it - it must be true because the CC is the “fullness” of Christ (Eph1:22-23).

For me, none of this makes any sense if this isn’t true.

I was baptized as a baby, but complicated family issues ended my regular church attendance to seldom if at all. As I got older I found myself interested in God. I began watching TV shows & things they said made sense. But of course there were more questions. I began reading the Bible & some questions were answered, but more questions came as well.

I went back to the Church my mom brought me to, Catholic. More answers, more questions.

I took a comparative religion class… not a lot of answers came out of that. Questions, yes. But no answers.

Then one day as I was praying I came across John 6 & it hit me like a ton of bricks. I found a book I had bought years earlier about Eucharistic miracles & it made sense… in a way it didn’t before. I didn’t necessarily believe that these things happened but I began to “see” the reality the Church professed as truth.

The prayers of the Mass made sense, the priesthood made sense, the Kingdom of God made sense. The sacrifice of the Mass, the priesthood of Christ, Exodus, the Love of God… all made sense & makes sense.

All things reconciled in the Eucharist, in Christ.

So, I don’t believe the real presence because the Church teaches it. I believe the Church because she teaches the real presence.

 

[asaphvapor]

YOU:
Historical evidence from 1st and 2nd century sources like the Didache, Clement of Rome, and Ignatius of Antioch

ME
Yes ECFs do use “Catholic Church”. But “catholic” in early writings refers to the Church as Universal. Not RCC or RCC believers.

 

[mcq72]

And He also said, “I will draw all to Me when I have been lifted up.”

So it wasn’t Jesus withholding Himself from them. It was them.

Then " caste not your pearls before swine" or “Blind the heart of this people, and make their ears heavy, and shut their eyes: lest they see with their eyes, and hear with their ears, and understand with their heart, and be converted and I heal them.”…

Why did He speak in parables?

Christ had not yet been lifted up, had not died on the cross yet, though the John 6 text alludes heavily to it, which they could not perceive, much less the Lord’s explicit mentioning if His ascension.

Of course Christ is the Light coming into a dark world, even manna from heaven, and wished to gather all of Jerusalem/ Israel into His care…but apparently by Jesus own words, you have to be drawn by the Father, not just by manna, miracles etc.

It is both lack of faith and repentance or broken spirit, yet God resisting the proud, .

 

[asaphvapor]

YOU:
Because we can trace our history back to Peter, the rock on which Christ would build His Church.

ME:
Yes anyone can claim that. But clearly false.
A real look at Scriptures say:
The Church Christ founded was Jerusalem Church. Not Church of ROME.
So RCC cannot be traced to Apostles or JEsus.

Scriptures is always right. So RCC is making false claims.

 

[mcq72]

A very limited one at that. Only Mormons say this.

Don’t forget JW’s.

 

[asaphvapor]

YOU:
For the first 1000 years of Christianity there was only one Church - the Catholic Church. If this was not the Church founded by Jesus, what Church was?

ME:

. . . .

Local churches mentioned in the Bible:

Antioch, Pisidia: Acts 13:14; Gal 1:2

Antioch, Syria: Acts 11:26 (Paul’s home base)

Athens: Acts 17:34

Babylon: 1 Peter 5:13; Acts 2:9

Berea: Acts 17:11

Caesarea: Acts 10:1,48

Cenchrea: Rom 16:1

Colossae: Col 1:2

Corinth: Acts 18:1

Crete: Titus 1:5

Cyrene: Acts 11:20

Damascus: Acts 9:19

Derbe: Acts 14:20; Gal 1:2

Ephesus: Acts 18:19

Hierapolis Col 4:13

Iconium: Acts 14:1; Gal 1:2

Jerusalem: Acts 2:5

Joppa: Acts 9:36, 38

Laodicea: Rev 1:11, Col 4:15

Lydda: Acts 9:32

Lystra: Acts 14:6; Gal 1:2

Pergamum: Rev 1:11

Philadelphia: Rev 1:11

Philippi: Acts 16:12

Puteoli, Italy: Acts 28:13-14

Rome: Rom 1:7

Sardis: Rev 1:11

Sharon: Acts 9:35

Smyrna: Rev 1:11

Tarsus: Acts 9:30

Thessalonica: Acts 17:1

Thyatira: Rev 1:11; Acts 16:14

Troas: Acts 20:6-7

Regions of churches:

Region of Phoencia: Acts 11:19

Region of Samaria: Acts 8:14, 25

Churches of Judea: Gal 1:22

Churches of Galatia: Gal 1:2

Churches of Asia: 1 Cor 16:19

Churches of Macedonia: 2 Cor 8:1

 

[Julius_Caesar]

Then " caste not your pearls before swine" or “Blind the heart of this people, and make their ears heavy, and shut their eyes: lest they see with their eyes, and hear with their ears, and understand with their heart, and be converted and I heal them.”…

And what of:

“How often did I want to gather you as a hen wanted to gathers her chicks but you wouldn’t let Me?”

Or, “You would not come to Me so.you would have life?”

The problem was with the people not Jesus closing Himself off.

 

[Julius_Caesar]

Subsequently there were so many other churches. Church of ROME (Catholic) came much later in history (AD380) .

Peter and Paul went there in the sixties A.D. so you’re wrong there.

 

[mcq72]

How often did I want to gather you as a hen wanted to gathers her chicks but you wouldn’t let Me?”

Thank you…thought of your text but only paraprased with

“(Jesus) wished to gather all of Jerusalem/ Israel into His care”

The problem was with the people not Jesus closing Himself off.

Not sure I said Jesus closed Himself off for I posted He was a Light come into a dark world or manna from heaven ( falling indiscriminately).

You must be drawn by the Father. Any false pretense for following is not of Him, and in His wisdom and kindness will not let you see by false pretenses.

 

[asaphvapor]

YOU:
Peter and Paul went there in the sixties A.D. so you’re wrong there.

ME:
Yes claims. BIBLE says nothing of Peter going to ROME.
How can it be 60s?
Peter died in AD67.
That would mean Peter was there for 7 years?

This would contradict what Catholics claimed:
Peter was in ROME for 25 years.

 

[Julius_Caesar]

Yes claims. BIBLE says nothing of Peter going to ROME.
How can it be 60s?

And the Babylon in 1 Peter is Rome. Wrong again.

 

[Julius_Caesar]

You must be drawn by the Father.

And they were drawn. They didn’t come. That was the issue.

 

[Julius_Caesar]

BIBLE chronology shows it is impossible for Peter to be in ROME for 25 years as Catholics claimed.

I’m not aware of any Catholic who holds to Peter being in Rome for 25 years.

 

[Gorgias]

You took my quote of of context, and you altered what I wrote.

Sorry… I did nothing of the sort. You wrote:

There are numerous links to homilies and writings by members of the Magisterium

…and I responded about the need to take care to understand what the magisterium is and is not, as well as to understand why “homilies and writings” are not magisterial documents.

So: I looked at the context of your post, and addressed it. And, I didn’t misquote you, either, but addressed what you actually wrote.

No need to create controversy where there is none.

You were implicitly impugning the magisterium over non-magisterial speech! That’s not controversial?!?

And why (CC approach) you have Orthodox and P’s today? “Once right always right” is appropos?

We have a variety of Christian sects because of pride and a desire to lead and not be led, IMHO.

“Pacify those that contend” was a bit lacking ( from Didache, on not creating schism)?

Not sure what you mean by this. Would you cite the context in the Didache, please?

ME
Yes ECFs do use “Catholic Church”. But “catholic” in early writings refers to the Church as Universal. Not RCC or RCC believers.

True, inasmuch as “Catholic” only came to be used in the way it is today, subsequent to the break between East and West. However, the Church of the 1st and 2nd century A.D. is a Church that was founded by Jesus Himself, is based on the apostles, had established apostolic succession, and practiced the sacraments (notably, believing that the Eucharist was truly the Body and Blood of Jesus). What church, existing today, has those marks? The Roman Catholic and Orthodox Churches. Therefore, the Church of the 1st and 2nd century A.D. can be understood to continue manifesting itself in unbroken continuity up to the present day, and through the Roman Catholic Church.

 

[Gorgias]

ME:
Yes anyone can claim that. But clearly false.
A real look at Scriptures say:
The Church Christ founded was Jerusalem Church. Not Church of ROME.

Jesus commanded the apostles to make disciples. They existed as a unity of local Churches. So, yes… Rome and Jerusalem (and others) were the Church.

So RCC cannot be traced to Apostles or JEsus.

Was there not a Church in Rome when Paul wrote his epistle? Was that church not apostolically based? Was it not following the commands of Jesus?

Scriptures is always right. So RCC is making false claims.

Scripture is inerrant. Those who interpret it to suggest Rome was not part of the Church are the ones making false claims.

There was One Physical Church initially. Church of Jerusalem founded by Christ. BIBLE says so. Not Church of ROME like what Catholics love to falsely claim.

Subsequently there were so many other churches. Church of ROME (Catholic) came much later in history (AD380) .

No. Other churches were present shortly thereafter. What in the world do you think St Paul is talking about in his epistles? He founded local churches that were part of the growing Church.

Babylon: 1 Peter 5:13; Acts 2:9

Acts 2:9 speaks to Jewish inhabitants of various regions, not of Christian Churches.

To what do you think Peter’s citation refers, hmm…? The Church in Rome.

Rome: Rom 1:7

Wait – didn’t you just say that there was no church in Rome?

There is no mention of Peter going ROME in Scriptures. Let alone becoming some bishop of ROME.

So what? There’s no mention of my Mom’s apple pie in Scripture, but it sure exists, and I eat it each Thanksgiving!

95% of RCC doctrines are false claims.

Read up, my friend. You’re grieviously mistaken.

This would contradict what Catholics claimed:
Peter was in ROME for 25 years.

Help me out here… where is this claim made?

 

[mcq72]

We have a variety of Christian sects because of pride and a desire to lead and not be led, IMHO.

Cuts both ways.

Not sure what you mean by this.

“Thou shalt not make a schism but thou shalt pacify them that contend”
Didache 4:3

Here arectwovtranslations

4:1 My child, {thou shalt remember him that speaketh unto thee the word of God} night and day, and shalt honour him as the Lord;
4:2 for whencesoever the Lordship speaketh, there is the Lord.
4:3 Moreover thou shalt seek out day by day the persons of the saints, that thou mayest find rest in their words.
4:4 Thou shalt not make a schism, but thou shalt pacify them that contend;
4:5 thou shalt judge righteously, thou shalt not make a difference in a person to reprove him for transgressions.

My child, thou shalt remember, day and night, him who speaks the word of God to thee, and thou shalt honour him as the Lord, for where the Lord’s nature is spoken of, there is he present. 2 And thou shalt seek daily the presence of the saints, that thou mayest find rest in their words. 3 Thou shalt not desire a schism, but shalt reconcile those that strive. Thou shalt give righteous judgment; thou shalt favour no man’s person in reproving transgression.

http://www.earlychristianwritings.com/text/didache-lake.html

 

[Gorgias]

Cuts both ways.

Sure it does. However, the Catholic Church was given authority to lead by Jesus Himself. So, from that perspective, it’s not like the Church is saying “we want to wrest control”… since, after all, it was given to the Church by Jesus.

“Thou shalt not make a schism but thou shalt pacify them that contend”
Didache 4:3

OK. The translation I’m reading renders it as “you shall not long for division, but shall bring those who contend to peace.”

Not sure why you think this helps your case. The Catholic Church didn’t make any schisms; but folks sure have created them when they left the Church!

And, after all, you can’t “bring to peace” folks who refuse to stop “contending”!

 

[TULIPed]

and I responded about the need to take care to understand what the magisterium is and is not , as well as to understand why “homilies and writings” are not magisterial documents.

But this is exactly my point. You can’t just follow what the magisterium says or writes blindly - it’s not “easy”, as in binary. You used the word “nuance” in your original response. Anything “nuanced” is not - by definition - binary or “easy”.

You were implicitly impugning the magisterium over non-magisterial speech! That’s not controversial?!?

I was not doing anything of the sort. My point was not over magisterial speech - it was that it’s not easy to do in a “I just do whatever they say”.

There are numerous links to homilies and writings by members of the Magisterium - on both sides (although heavily weighted one direction I must say).

The only reason I added the “on both sides” in this statement was to try to be somewhat even handed - the honest truth is I don’t think you can find a homily that supports anything other than pro-life stands, which I violently agree with.

Gorgias - just because a Protestant writes something doesn’t make it wrong.