Catholic Church founded by Jesus?

[Julius_Caesar]

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

The Orthodox concept makes the patriarch of Constantinople merely a figure head, IMO, which was not how the Apostles treated Peter.

 

[Gorgias]

By the way, the article citing deals not with seperated brethren but folks who gave never heard the gospel, where missionaries have not reached.

The paragraph in Lumen gentium certainly deals with non-Catholic Christians. Have you ever read that document?

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

Are you sure about that? Let’s take a look…

O stupid Galatians! Who has bewitched you, before whose eyes Jesus Christ was publicly portrayed as crucified?

I want to learn only this from you: did you receive the Spirit from works of the law, or from faith in what you heard?

Are you so stupid? After beginning with the Spirit, are you now ending with the flesh?

… now that you have come to know God, or rather to be known by God, how can you turn back again to the weak and destitute elemental powers? Do you want to be slaves to them all over again? You are observing days, months, seasons, and years. I am afraid on your account that perhaps I have labored for you in vain.

Sure sounds like he’s telling them that they’ve turned from the right path. Not that they are incapable of turning back – but certainly, he’s saying what you claim he doesn’t say.

 

[Gorgias]

Gorgias:

By whom?

The Orthodox.

Go figure.

You mean the folks who innovated and decided that the Petrine office should be based on the center of the empire and not on the see of Peter?

Go figure.

 

[Julius_Caesar]

You mean the folks who innovated and decided that the Petrine office should be based on the center of the empire and not on the see of Peter?

True.

You cannot however gloss over the fact that that is how they regard us.

All facts must be emphasized and the fact of the matter is, we are two different groups of Christianity.

 

[mcq72]

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

Which baptism, of John, or of Christ and the apostles, before Calvary, afterwards?

Many people believed John the baptist and the Lord’s/ apostles message and baptism. Nicodemus did not. What was the difference, but of being born of the Spirit ? Do you think Zacharias, Elizabeth, Simeon or Anna and Joseph were not born of the Spirit?

 

[mcq72]

The Orthodox concept makes the patriarch of Constantinople merely a figure head, IMO, which was not how the Apostles treated Peter.

Well, not exactly a fair comparison. I mean the very nature of an apostle is somewhat an itinerant traveling pastor, a founding pastor, not necesarily a bishop over one city church.

I am not sure Peter ruled over the other apostles, led them at times yes, and agree not just a figurehead.

 

[mcq72]

The paragraph in Lumen gentium certainly deals with non-Catholic Christians. Have you ever read that document?

Yes. Just saying it is only one of the sources dealing with non Catholics, as like the one cited in article from Pope Pius XI I think.

but certainly, he’s saying what you claim he doesn’t say.

Ok.i rescind. Still the article cites good faith then not being a true follower .

 

[Buzzard3]

If I had not been raised Catholic (or had not read any accounts of Eucharistic miracles) and had instead relied on the scriptures alone, I very much doubt if I would have arrived at the doctrine of the Real Presence. This is not so surprising or unusual – how many Protestants or disciples of sola scriptura have arrived at the doctrine of the Real Presence? This is understandable; after all, the idea of Jesus turning bread and wine into his real body and blood is not something that the human mind can easily accept – even more incredible is a priest performing the same feat!

So I believe in the Real Presence only because Christ’s Church teaches it as the truth, which is an act of faith on my part and is not as a result of any intellectual process.

 

[Wannano]

If I had not been raised Catholic (or had not read any accounts of Eucharistic miracles) and had instead relied on the scriptures alone, I very much doubt if I would have arrived at the doctrine of the Real Presence. This is not so surprising or unusual – how many Protestants or disciples of sola scriptura have arrived at the doctrine of the Real Presence? This is understandable; after all, the idea of Jesus turning bread and wine into his real body and blood is not something that the human mind can easily accept – even more incredible is a priest performing the same feat!

So I believe in the Real Presence only because Christ’s Church teaches it as the truth, which is an act of faith on my part and is not as a result of any intellectual process.

Thank you for presenting what is from my viewpoint, possibly the most generous and meaningful and kind statement of personal faith. A major obstacle for many Christians is the fact that to the CC the Mass or Communion via Transubstantiation is the summit of the Christian experience even though it is not explicitly taught in the New Testament. How easy it would be to accept if it were black and white within Scripture. Without being raised Catholic, it is difficult to see that John 6 has a direct correlation to the Last Supper. Most often we are told we don’t have the full truth etc. Your post is refreshingly honest and I thank you for it.

It should be clarified though that some non-Catholic Churches do recognize the Real Presence in some varying degrees but do not teach Transubstantiation.

 

[TruthHasSpoken]

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

Which early writings are you referring to … can you cite a few examples ? Someone such as St Ignatius of Antioch would be a good example; he was a disciple of St John.

“See that ye all follow the bishop, even as Christ Jesus does the Father, and the presbytery as ye would the apostles. Do ye also reverence the deacons, as those that carry out the appointment of God. Let no man do anything connected with the Church without the bishop. Let that be deemed a proper Eucharist, which is [administered] either by the bishop, or by one to whom he has entrusted it. Wherever the bishop shall appear, there let the multitude also be; by the bishop, or by one to whom he has entrusted it. Wherever the bishop shall appear, there let the multitude also be; even as, wherever Jesus Christ is, there is the Catholic Church.” Ignatius of Antioch, Epistle to the Smyrneans, 8:2 (c. A.D. 110).

St Cyprian is a good example too.

”Whence you ought to know that the bishop is in the Church, and the Church in the bishop; and if any one be not with the bishop, that he is not in the Church, and that those flatter themselves in vain who creep in, not having peace with God’s priests, and think that they communicate secretly with some; while the Church, which is Catholic and one, is not cut nor divided, but is indeed connected and bound together by the cement of priests who cohere with one another.” Cyprian, To Florentius, Epistle 66/67 (A.D. 254).

Who were these Catholic’s - Church Universal - who had priests and bishops?

 

[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.

What does “religiosity” have to do with the Christians in Matt 7:21-23? They performed miracles, prophesied and cast out demons in the name of Jesus - are these supernatural feats the result of “religiosity”?

 

[mcq72]

What does “religiosity” have to do with the Christians in Matt 7:21-23? They performed miracles, prophesied and cast out demons in the name of Jesus - are these supernatural feats the result of “religiosity”?

Apparently so.

Were they “Christians” in said text, or goats, or tares?

Here is partial commentary from Calvin:

““The confession of my name is now heard aloud from their tongue. But I too will confess on the opposite side, that their profession is deceitful and false.” And what is contained in Christ’s confession? That he never reckoned them among his own people, even at the time when they boasted that they were the pillars of the church.”

https://biblehub.com/library/calvin...k_luke_volume_1/matthew_7_21-23_luke_6_46.htm

The often asked question by some Evangelicals of, " Do you know Jesus personally" is partly founded on such texts where Christ says “I never knew you”. It is generally posed to people of Christian upbringing and or practice thereof, as Jesus did in the negative, even to teachers and leaders of His time.

 

[Julius_Caesar]

Apparently so.

This is a rehash on the faith and works in James 2.

 

[otjm]

I don’t even know what that is. And if you cannot answer an honest question without prejudging motives, then I would prefer not to hear anything further from you.

Ease up, Glenn, the comment about Siri was in jest. Most people do not have copies of the documents (a number of which were listed).

The information exists. And while you are Baptist, I will reference another Protestant who was asking the same question (although he was Anglican) and that we John Henry Cardinal Newman. He died in 1890, and moved from being an Anglican priest and theologian to becoming a Catholic priest. It was he who said that “To read the Fathers of the Church is to cease to be Protestant”.

The Forum is made up primarily of Catholic laity, most of whom are neither theologians nor historians. If you are interested in the documents which reflect the early Church, I would suggest contacting Catholic Answers directly and asking them who would be a good reference you could contact with your question(s). They also may be able to reference one or more books which delve into the writings of the early Church Fathers.

One book which may be a starting point is The Fathers of the Church, by Mike Aquilina. It is not a text book, but rather a compilation of selections from the Fathers.

 

[mcq72]

This is a rehash on the faith and works in James 2.

Not sure about that, I think it is about being in the right faith carnally, and thinking your works justify then.

 

[Julius_Caesar]

Julius_Caesar:

This is a rehash on the faith and works in James 2.

Not sure about that, I think it is about being in the right faith carnally, and thinking your works justify then.

Miracles aren’t your works so that fails you. Miracles are produced with great faith.