Catholic Church founded by Jesus?

[mcq72]

Excerpts from above article:

“The purpose of any Christian religion must be to teach the full, unaltered religion of Jesus Christ.”

“Jesus founded… an organized religious society which he called his Church. A society is a number of people who work together under the same authority using the same means towards the same objective.”"

“We cannot be true followers of Christ unless we accept his Church.”

"Catholics regard their separated brethren as being sincere people in good faith. Many of them have a deep, personal love of Christ and regulate their lives according to the highest ideals. "

Responses:

“Religion clean and undefiled before God and the Father, is this: to visit the fatherless and widows in their tribulation: and to keep one’s self unspotted from this world.” James1:12

The article rightly defines society/ church, and seems to fit some Protestant “societies”, despite the article having just unchurched them into “clubs” ( even though we are called “communities” officially).

The article skims over and I feel muddles the attitude toward seperated brethren, but easy to do because the CC is a bit all over the place with disjointed statements on such.

One one hand how can you be a holy brother in good faith unto Christ in one stroke and then pen we are not true followers?

 

[Gorgias]

There were two sects before that.

The East and the West.

Both retained the marks of the Church, however (one / holy / catholic / apostolic), and so, we can’t really call them ‘sects’. JPIII called them the “two lungs of the Church”.

In the beginning there was the Judaizing faction and the non Judaizing faction.

And the apostles were clear in telling the judaizers “your doctrine isn’t the doctrine of the Church; it is wrong.”

Protestants have only gained a bigger following than these all combined.

…while holding to thousands of distinct and mutually exclusive doctrines. That’s what we’d call ‘sectarian’, in a way that wasn’t present pre-Reformation.

Do they see such claim as valid, to a varying extent?

“leader among equals”. So… to an extent, but not precisely as the Catholic Church teaches it.

The article skims over and I feel muddles the attitude toward seperated brethren

No, that’s what Lumen gentium teaches, as well.

One one hand how can you be a holy brother in good faith unto Christ in one stroke and then pen we are not true followers?

Did Paul consider the Corinthians and Galatians “brothers/sisters in good faith”? Did he not, nevertheless, correct them when they did not truly follow correct doctrine?

 

[Julius_Caesar]

Both retained the marks of the Church, however (one / holy / catholic / apostolic), and so, we can’t really call them ‘sects’. JPIII called them the “two lungs of the Church”.

Which is why a Catholic who becomes Orthodox must renounce the “heretical teachings” of the Catholic Church?

And the apostles were clear in telling the judaizers “your doctrine isn’t the doctrine of the Church; it is wrong.

Some of them like James had sympathies with this faction. So it’s not as cut and dry as you would say.

 

[Gorgias]

Which is why a Catholic who becomes Orthodox must renounce the “heretical teachings” of the Catholic Church?

I’m not claiming that there’s no difference. I will, however, point out that there’s a big difference between the Catholic-Orthodox dynamic and the Catholic-Protestant or Orthodox-Protestant dynamic!

 

[Julius_Caesar]

I will , however, point out that there’s a big difference between the Catholic-Orthodox dynamic and the Catholic-Protestant or Orthodox-Protestant dynamic!

There’s only a difference when you compare Orthodoxy and Protestant sects.

Both sects regard the Catholic teaching on the Papacy as heretical, not to mention Purgatory.

 

[Gorgias]

There’s only a difference when you compare Orthodoxy and Protestant sects.

Both sects regard the Catholic teaching on the Papacy as heretical, not to mention Purgatory.

Right, but there’s so much more doctrinal difference than there is similarity. Eucharist? Sacramental economy? Priesthood? Christian marriage? All different (and, largely, all the same between Orthodox and Catholics)!

 

[Julius_Caesar]

Right, but there’s so much more doctrinal difference than there is similarity.

Notice I addressed that.

There’s only a difference when you compare Orthodoxy and Protestant sects.

However you haven’t addressed the fact that Orthodoxy and Catholicism are in opposite to one another.

As I said:

Both sects regard the Catholic teaching on the Papacy as heretical, not to mention Purgatory

 

[Gorgias]

However you haven’t addressed the fact that Orthodoxy and Catholicism are in opposite to one another.

Yes, there are differences, as I’ve affirmed. Yet, on the whole, there’s more in common between Catholic & Orthodox – in terms of both doctrine and practice! – than there is between them and Reformation communities.

 

[Julius_Caesar]

Yet, on the whole, there’s more in common between Catholic & Orthodox

Like a banana is to a plantain. For all it’s similarities, the two are different fruits.

 

[Gorgias]

For all it’s similarities, the two are different fruits.

I would assert “two varieties of the same fruit.” You know – like bing and rainier cherries?

 

[Julius_Caesar]

I would assert “two varieties of the same fruit.” You know – like bing and rainier cherries?

No. Different. Considering we are viewed as theological innovators.

 

[Gorgias]

Considering we are viewed as theological innovators.

By whom?

 

[Justin_Mary]

Both retained the marks of the Church, however (one / holy / catholic / apostolic), and so, we can’t really call them ‘sects’. JPIII called them the “two lungs of the Church”.

I’m pretty sure he called Western & Eastern Catholics the two lungs; Latin & Byzantine

 

[Gorgias]

Gorgias:

Both retained the marks of the Church, however (one / holy / catholic / apostolic), and so, we can’t really call them ‘sects’. JPIII called them the “two lungs of the Church”.

I’m pretty sure he called Western & Eastern Catholics the two lungs; Latin & Byzantine

From JPII’s Et unum sint (paragraph 54):

In this perspective an expression which I have frequently employed finds its deepest meaning: the Church must breathe with her two lungs! In the first millennium of the history of Christianity, this expression refers primarily to the relationship between Byzantium and Rome.

In the context of the Church in the first millennium, “Byzantium and Rome” references what would become “Orthodox and Catholic”, and not “Eastern and Western Catholic.”

 

[Julius_Caesar]

By whom?

The Orthodox.

Go figure.

 

[Justin_Mary]

In the context of the Church in the first millennium, “Byzantium and Rome” references what would become “Orthodox and Catholic”, and not “Eastern and Western Catholic.”

Ok. I was wrong.

 

[Buzzard3]

Nothing strange about it if one has experienced religiosity without new birth, and then experiencing new birth. Night and day.All things become new.

Are you saying you yourself experienced “religiosity without rebirth” and then experienced “rebirth”? If so, please explain.

For starters, what is “religiosity”?

 

[mcq72]

Are you saying you yourself experienced “religiosity without rebirth” and then experienced “rebirth”? If so, please explain.

For starters, what is “religiosity”

Religiosity is being religious without the fullness of the spiritual foundation. This is nothing new. It began at the garden after the fall. Adam and Eve covered themselves with leaves. It eased their feeling of being naked. God had to undo their work, and apply His own covering, represented by death of an animal for a hide covering, the first remission of sin by blood. That blood shedding is the full spiritual foundation for any good feeling of not being naked, of truly and fully being covered.

Any teaching of false covering, of man made devices/understanding, is an abuse of the key of knowledge, of entrance into heaven. Jesus alleges this against the Jewish leaders/ lawyers of His day. The actual priests were rightly revered as office holders of God’s salvific business by the people, and it was very difficult to see their hypocrisy and bad doctrine. So much so that it hindered people from entering the kingdom, and even made many twice the sinner.

The false pretense of righteousness is a terrible inequity. It makes one say they feel fine because they followed all the rules for their sin covering, when in fact it was not done by the Spirit of God. God did not personally clothe them like He graciously did in the garden.

He had to basically say to Nicodemus, a teacher of Israel, you need to be born of the Spirit. Can you imagine that, a key holder needing regeneration?

 

[mcq72]

“leader among equals”. So… to an extent, but not precisely as the Catholic Church teaches it.

So there can be such a thing, “first amongst equals”, to an extent. I’ll take it.

No, that’s what Lumen gentium teaches, as well.

By disjointed I meant seperated brethren writings are found in various documents, and not in one tidy place. And, you need to read all of them to get full picture. Not easy to do, and cherry picking can distort picture.

By the way, the article citing deals not with seperated brethren but folks who gave never heard the gospel, where missionaries have not reached. I have seen the citing used more for that, when answering the question of does God send people to hell, such as indigenous peoples who have never been reached by the church

Did Paul consider the Corinthians and Galatians “brothers/sisters in good faith”? Did he not, nevertheless, correct them when they did not truly follow correct doctrine?

Paul would never refer to a weaker, or partially misguided beluever as not a true follower of Christ.

You are either a brother or you are not. You cant be a brother in good faith and not a true follower of Christ at same time.

 

[ArchStanton]

He had to basically say to Nicodemus, a teacher of Israel, you need to be born of the Spirit. Can you imagine that, a key holder needing regeneration?

Yes, he would need baptism in Christ’s new Church