Did Jesus Start the Catholic Church?

[Gabriel_of_12]

Jesus instituted the Catholic Church because she is His visible body made present in His True bodily sacramental presence. All her members are present both on earth and in heaven in the communion of saints, which reveals her glory in Jesus Christ from heaven all believing the same.

It appears that a misunderstanding has taken place in regards to those who are in the Kingdom of God (see Mt. 13) confusing it with those who make up the Church = body of Christ. These both grow together until the great harvest.

**No one can doubt your faith rev. kevin, yet what you describe as those being believers are truly in the kingdom of God, including our Muslim brothers and sisters who also believe in Jesus. **

Scripture reveals the difference between all those who are in the kingdom of God and those being the “children” of God. Both are biblical and one cannot escape the True presence of the body Christ as the Church without the True presence of Jesus body, blood soul and divinity being present.

Truthfully I don’t think this discussion cannot conclude without the biblical teachings between those who reside in the kingdom of God and those who are in the body of Christ = His Catholic Church.

Peace be with you

rev kevin;7563243]Its been a nice chat with some of ya’ll and some of ya’ll, well, you are less then nice.:tsktsk: I stand by my saying Jesus did not start the CC although there is some compelling arguements for it, I just don’t see the connection.

 

[Cinette]

*Despite the overwhelming scripture-based arguments Protestants will not acknowledge the compelling evidence that Jesus founded the Catholic Church. There is a stubbornness which I find hard to understand. If I were Protestant I would stop in my tracks and begin a serious investigation and prayer to get to the truth.

*

 

[PbloPicasso]

*Despite the overwhelming scripture-based arguments Protestants will not acknowledge the compelling evidence that Jesus founded the Catholic Church. There is a stubbornness which I find hard to understand. If I were Protestant I would stop in my tracks and begin a serious investigation and prayer to get to the truth.

*

The stubbornness your speak about is derived from the idea that they are resisting Satan and his minions. They believe that if something about God is not right (meaning it doesn’t cooperate with what they believe) if must be from Satan. Therefore, they are resisting the Devel, in their minds. The problem with this kind of thinking is that if you do not open your mind to rational thinking you will not be able to get past this disparity. It took realizing the flaws in my own assumptions, graciously pointed out by converts that helped me realize how stubborn I was being. The truth is that not everyone that says Lord, will accept the truth.

 

[GaryTaylor]

The stubbornness your speak about is derived from the idea that they are resisting Satan and his minions. They believe that if something about God is not right (meaning it doesn’t cooperate with what they believe) if must be from Satan. Therefore, they are resisting the Devel, in their minds. The problem with this kind of thinking is that if you do not open your mind to rational thinking you will not be able to get past this disparity. It took realizing the flaws in my own assumptions, graciously pointed out by converts that helped me realize how stubborn I was being. The truth is that not everyone that says Lord, will accept the truth.

Learned Behavior in the US since the 1700’s, and also a issue in England and elsewhere. Being taught as children that Catholic is evil and sister’s have horns under their habits becomes a very long exercise in reality therapy. And if one can’t step outside their own denial, the simple truth is they are condemned to a life in their own beliefs. Sad but true.

Obviously not all, yet here at CAF is a very good lesson and example in this reality. The Lord seeks those who seek him also.

A great book on this is Thomas Mertons, Seven Storey Mountain. `

 

[PbloPicasso]

A great book on this is Thomas Mertons, Seven Storey Mountain. `

I need to read that book.

As I’ve pointed out, most of my family members are fundamentalists for many generations. Many of them believe we’re headed to hell. One of my sister-in-laws deleted me from her Facebook because she doesn’t like to see my Catholic posts. My mother-in-law is 83 and gives me the speach “now, Mark, you know the bible. We spend many hours reading the bible together and you know the truth”. I just smile now and say nothing. This keeps the peace in the family. My father-in-law passed away 7 years ago and this opened the door for my family to be disposed to learning more about other faiths. Even though I used to be Catholic prior I did not truly know the teaching of the Church because of all the heresy that was being taught to me by “leaders of the Church”. I even went to a Catholic seminary, which really nearly destroyed my faith in God after the things I saw and happened to me. VCII was ont a bad thing at all. It was the dissenters that ran with hederodox ideas that hijacked the Church from within that drove Catholicism into the ground to its present day struggles, including the scandals. Many Catholic leaders (lay) are just as guilty as anyone else in hiding the scandals as anyone else. I want to make this clear. … Protestants have just as many problems but tend to hide it better. I know because most of my family are members of the Protestant clergy. I could tell some really horrifying stories.

As far as nuns hiding their horns, according to some Catholics they believe they had horns too. Some of them took their own discipline and projected it onto lay children as if they too were required to live the exact same way. At least that’s my theory.

 

[rev_kevin]

benedictus2;7563575]But Rev Kevin, you gave a definition of what Church is. How can you give a definition and then go against that definition?

Quote: rev kevin
What Is A Church?
A church is a group of believers in Jesus Christ, associated together, under Christ, for His purposes.

The Zondervan Pictorial Encyclopedia of the Bible says the English word “church” is derived from the Greek word kyriakon, which means something belonging to the Lord.

“`Church’ in the New Testament, however, renders Greek ekklesia, which mostly designates a local congregation of Christians and never a building. An ekklesia was a meeting or assembly. Its commonest use was for the public assembly of citizens duly summoned . . . ,” according to the New Bible Dictionary.

“Ekklesia was originally employed by the Greeks to denote an assembly or congregation of free citizens summoned or `called out’ by a herald in connection with public affairs (Acts 19:39).”

“In no case is the word used with reference to a building in which public worship is conducted. The word “church” is applicable essentially to people . . .”

The Church is a group of Christian congregations, ***believers ***in Jesus Christ. Its the people not a named church like Baptist, Catholic, Methodist…Its the people

Where have I said anything different?

If you say that a Church is a group of people with the same belief

, then as I have said before there is no One Christian Church but different Christian Churches. So therefore this Church as a group of believers of Christ just does not exist.

I disagree with you on this. We believe in Christ, that he died for our sins, rose from the dead, and assended to heaven among other things.

Christ founded a Church with visible unity not one amorphous conglomeration of people of*** disparate ***

beliefs.

Desparate right

I think this is one important point that you have not really addressed.

And what is that?

So since there are only different Christian Churches not One Christian Church these can’t all possibly claim to belong to Christ’s Church.

No there is one Christian Church, its all believers not a named church/denomination. We are all Christians therefore we are part of his church.

 

[rev_kevin]

You see the church as the [group of] believers of Christ. Fine! What you need to see also is that the group of believers was called Catholic Church

as early as 107 AD. Baptists and others are those who separated from the original group.

But what were they called before Catholic? HMMMMM I know**, Christians**

And you can not say Catholic and Baptist are one group because, according to Scriptures, members of the group must be of one mind – and Catholics and Baptists are not of one mind.

 

[fbl9]

Oh yes I can. Sure Scripture say members of the group must be of one mind but that one mind is believing in Christ not all this dogmas and stuff like that.

 

[PbloPicasso]

Quote: rev kevin
What Is A Church?
A church is a group of believers in Jesus Christ, associated together, under Christ, for His purposes.

The Zondervan Pictorial Encyclopedia of the Bible says the English word “church” is derived from the Greek word kyriakon, which means something belonging to the Lord.

“`Church’ in the New Testament, however, renders Greek ekklesia, which mostly designates a local congregation of Christians and never a building. An ekklesia was a meeting or assembly. Its commonest use was for the public assembly of citizens duly summoned . . . ,” according to the New Bible Dictionary.

“Ekklesia was originally employed by the Greeks to denote an assembly or congregation of free citizens summoned or `called out’ by a herald in connection with public affairs (Acts 19:39).”

“In no case is the word used with reference to a building in which public worship is conducted. The word “church” is applicable essentially to people . . .”

The Church is a group of Christian congregations, ***believers ***in Jesus Christ. Its the people not a named church like Baptist, Catholic, Methodist…Its the people

Where have I said anything different?

That Church is Catholic. You’re resources are written outside the context of the ancient Church teachings, which puts you way out of touch with reality on this subject. I would figure that your Catholic upbringing would have kept you straight on this point. You’re sources are as new as your church - church used in the sense of an ecclesial community. I donated most of my library of resources after realizing that I was depending on a tradition of believers that believed something far different than me in spite of their wide spread use by preachers. If you remember, I was a preacher as well, just not full-time or permanent, which is pretty normal from where I came.

From there I recognized that “mans tradition” is not the same as “sacred tradition”. That really disturbed me. Then I came across a moral delimma dealing with the birth of our youngest child. I was faced with “do I save my wife or our child”. Would I be asked and I searched my heart for the answer yet could not produce an answer. My selfishness and concern for our other two children along with the thought of losing my precious wife was so painful. It was at that point I became ashamed of myself and decided at that time to turn to Catholic teaching to get through it. I recognized that day, the need for a teaching authority and why the Jews also had the same structure that Jesus said he did not come to destroy but to fulfill.

I’m sure that if your income is your source of survival you are in a pickle should you return to your faith of origin. But, if you ever decide to come home, let me know and I will do everything within my ability to help you make the steps. Currently, I’m supporting a former Presbyterian minister on his journey to the Church. Fortunately he is retired now, but the Coming Home Network is an apostolate designed to help former Protestant ministers on their journey in the face of potentially losing their sole source of income.

What do you say, my friend? Are you ready to come home yet? I’m praying for you, because I see you have a good heart and mean well. It would be a thrilling moment to see you come home like me.

For some strange reason I have this urge to sing “Coming Home” . Whatcha say brother? Are you ready? Jesus is calling you. Are you ready to be forgiven? Are you ready to commit to him?

Oops, no proselytizing. I forget when I get worked up.

 

[Prodigal_Son1]

But what were they called before Catholic? HMMMMM I know**, Christians**

Oh yes I can. Sure Scripture say members of the group must be of one mind but that one mind is believing in Christ not all this dogmas and stuff like that.

Your ‘Christian’ before ‘Catholic’ argument is weak, in my opinion. What did they call every denomination of Protestants before they were called Protestants or by a certain named denomination? Catholics!

Scriptures tell us to be of the same mind and judgement, and specifically speak of doctrine and stuff like that.

**

Rom 6:17 But thanks be to God, that you were the servants of sin but have obeyed from the heart unto that form of doctrine into which you have been delivered.

Rom 16:17 Now I beseech you, brethren, to mark them who make dissensions and offences contrary to the doctrine which you have learned and avoid them.

Eph 4:14 That henceforth we be no more children tossed to and fro and carried about with every wind of doctrine, by the wickedness of men, by cunning craftiness by which they lie in wait to deceive.

**

 

[tqualey]

Hi, Rev Kev,

I see you are still singing that tune without any words!

So, just WHICH CHURCH do you think Christ started if not the Catholic Church. This is not something you can just slide back and forth on and claim to have actually made an argument. All you are doing is repeating, “I don’t believe” - and, really, Rev Kev - no matter how often you say this - it will not change the facts!

rinnie: I never said the CC was out. They are a Christian group as well. See I believe that Jesus started a Church but not the CC. I believe His Church is composed of all those who believe in Him. Not a named Church.
.

Catholics look to Apostolic Tradition - which preceeded Sacred Scripture by almost 400 years. During this time the Roman Empire was actively murdering Catholic for their Faith. Please note - Protestants did not arrive on the scene until the 16th Century. There is NO EVIDENCE of these 30,000+ groups, all claiming to believe in Christ - just not what Christ said - during the persecutions by the Roman Emperors.

Since you are so confident that Christ did not found the Catholic Church - show your evidence. Really, as often as I ask you ONLY do one of two things:

** 1.) Ignore the post … somehow it just goes by and remains unanswered… with the vain hope that it will just go away unanswered. or…

2.) Claim you have already answered which church was founded by Christ. Please recall, there was no multitude out there in Matthew 16 - just the Twelve. So, where is your reference that Christ did not found it - or, that the Resurrected Christ did not tell Peter to feed Christ’s Lambs and tend Christ’s Sheep?**

So, please … I really have been waiting a while … let’s hear what you have to say…and this means not just repeating yourself (again) but, actually producing evidence.!

 

[benedictus2]

What Is A Church?
A church is a group of believers in Jesus Christ, associated together, under Christ, for His purposes.

The Zondervan Pictorial Encyclopedia of the Bible says the English word “church” is derived from the Greek word kyriakon, which means something belonging to the Lord.

“`Church’ in the New Testament, however, renders Greek ekklesia, which mostly designates a local congregation of Christians and never a building. An ekklesia was a meeting or assembly. Its commonest use was for the public assembly of citizens duly summoned . . . ,” according to the New Bible Dictionary.

“Ekklesia was originally employed by the Greeks to denote an assembly or congregation of free citizens summoned or `called out’ by a herald in connection with public affairs (Acts 19:39).”

“In no case is the word used with reference to a building in which public worship is conducted. The word “church” is applicable essentially to people . . .”

The Church is a group of Christian congregations, ***believers ***in Jesus Christ. Its the people not a named church like Baptist, Catholic, Methodist…Its the people

Where have I said anything different?

Sorry Rev Kevin but you are not being honest here.

Your definition of Church was simply “A group of people with the same belief”. But because I showed you that your definition actually worked against your own argument, now you are putting forward another definition. A made up one to suit you this time.

Not good. :tsktsk:You are moving the goal post because it does not suit you. You are not being honest with us or with yourself or with God.

I disagree with you on this. We believe in Christ, that he died for our sins, rose from the dead, and assended to heaven among other things.

Sorry, but the least common denomination just does not work. The Church that Christ established explained more than that. To believe in Christ means to believe in EVERYTHING He said and to FOLLOW everything He said.

Desparate right

What’s the matter, never heard of the word “disparate” before?
Google it so you will better understand what I mean. That was not a misspelling.

And what is that?

That there is no such thing as One Christian Church. Don’t feign ignorance. You know what I meant. Feigning ignorance is dishonest.

No there is one Christian Church, its all believers not a named church/denomination. We are all Christians therefore we are part of his church.

Sorry but no. We do not believe in the same thing. We hold SOME beliefs in common but not all. So no, you may try telling yourself that but you know you are wrong. We are not of the same Church. There is NO One Christian Church.
The fact that you say you are Baptist and that some say they are Methodist, etc proves that. We belong to different Churches.
The fact that you believe in some things differently to the way the Calvinist, Catholics, etc, believe means that we are not one Church.

The fact that you understand Baptism, Eucharist, Mary, Salvation differently means that we do not belong to the same Church.

Church does not mean having the least common denominator. Church means believing in the same doctrines.

And any Church started by men is not Christ’s Church.

 

[Cinette]

But what were they called before Catholic? HMMMMM I know**, Christians**

 

[guanophore]

But what were they called before Catholic? HMMMMM I know**, Christians**

Indeed. The two are one and the same.

Oh yes I can. Sure Scripture say members of the group must be of one mind but that one mind is believing in Christ not all this dogmas and stuff like that.

No, Kev. Believing in Christ is an all or nothing proposition. We don’t get to just pick and choose which parts of the “dogmas and stuff like that” we want to embrace. Jesus told the Apostles to teach “all that I have commanded”. Nothing gets left out, and nothing can be removed.

 

[Mikeoffaith]

Not believing in Apostolic Succsesion Mike?

Believe in it? Completely! Believe that the Roman Church has it? Questionable. The definition seems to take on new meanings and nuances depending on who is in Rome. I think Scott can speak better to this than I can.

 

[Mikeoffaith]

Hi, MikeofFaith,

Thank you for your thoughtful responses. I will do my best to respond in a similar way

Thank you for your kindness and patience. I appreciate you taking the time to bring your thoughts here.

Prior to last Sunday’s Super Bowl game - there were two really great teams going to compete against one another. There were a lot of folks that were conviced that the Steelers were the best … and I’d say an equal number that thought Green Bay was the best. When Sunday night came - there was no room for speculating on which team was best. It is now in the history books. In the same way, Luther’s break with the Catholic Church is not a matter of opinion, but one of simply reading the history. Let’s start at the beginning.

Reading history is never as simple as reading facts such as math. There are perspectives and interpretations. Outcomes maybe viewed as black and white but the reasons or even the consequences can be very gray. For instance did the Stealers lose because they are a really bad team? Or did the Packers win because they were playing exceptionally well. Personally, I was backing the Packers.

At the Last Supper, Christ told His Apostles to “Do this in rememberance of me” - giving them - the First Bishops of what would be called the Catholic Church in at least 107AD - the God given power to conscecrate common bread and wine into the Body, Blood, Human Soul and Divinity of Jesus Christ. Note Christ did not say, “Any anyone else who wants to do this can do it, too!” This Power to stand in the place of Christ and consecrate these earthly items into Christ is passed through the Bishops. Luther was an ordained priest, but did not have the power to consecrate someone into being a bishop. There were no bishops under Luther. The Power to transform bread and wine into Chrsit was never passed on. And, that is the meat of the nut right there.

See I see that single action as Christ making the promise to be present, not that the Apostles in the future or anyone who succeeded them as causing Christ to be present. But if you want to say that the power to consecrate is passed from Apostle to the first Bishops, since technically they weren’t Bishops, certainly their ordinations as such would be called into question because Christ probably wasn’t using the correct form, but leaving that aside, tell me how does the succession work? What is your understanding of it? How is one Bishop’s ordination valid and another not? Now for Lutherans, you seem to be mistaken in your history. You seem to think that all persons in the Lutheran Church had to flow from Luther in order to be part of this movement, a form of Lutheran Succession if you will or if it was Luther’s to grant. You seem to miss all the Bishops in the North, whose chains have remain unbroken since the first Bishop appointed there. And that’s a fact.

Notice there is quite a difference with the Orthodox Church - they kept their bishops after the split with Rome and to this day have a valid consecration of bread and wine into the Real Presence. The Protestants at the time of Luther and afterwards were so distressed with the Bishop of Rome that they wanted nothing to do with him - and they broke ever attachment to Rome they could find.

I think Rome’s understanding of Apostolic Succession and the Orthodox would differ and I wonder how their ordinations would stand up to the same standards presented to the Anglicans in Apostolicae Curae. And again, it is simple history we do have Bishops in the Lutheran Church. I am sure that the Bishop of Uppsala might be surprised at the statement.

For you to prove you point, you would need to show a succession of bishops with the power to validly consecrate other bishops from the time of Luther to today. That isyour burden. My burden of proof is to show a direct line from Peter to Benedict XVI - and here is a link: newadvent.org/cathen/12272b.htm There were 217 Popes prior to Pope Leo ascending to the Chair of Peter and excommunicating Luther for his heresies. It really isn’t a matter of opinion.

Nope, your burden of proof to show a succession of Bishops with the power to validly consecrate other bishops is not found in the list of the Bishops of Rome. Even if you could show that Peter’s succession followed down in a circuitous route from Peter who validly ordained another bishop who then validly ordained(?) the next Bishop of Rome and so on wouldn’t even matter. You would have to be able to show that a current Bishop was validly ordained by another bishop and so on and so on and so on. The Bishop of Rome/Pope does not ordain/consecrate every Bishop out there.

Luther did his best to break with anything he found offensive in the organizational Catholic Church - and he took most offense at the Vicar of Christ on Earth - Pope Leo X. When he severed his ties with the Church founded by Christ on Peter - and now represented by Pope Leo X, Luther severed his ties with the Catholic Church. Anything he tried to keep was strictly for show and sentiment. Luther cut himself off from the Vine,the source of all life in Christ.

Actually, I think he took most offense with the Papacy in general not just Leo X. When Luther pointed out the errors being perpetrated on the Body of Christ by the Vicar of Christ, Leo excommunicated him, well I’ll take that as Luther severing his ties with Rome. But the fact remains you have someone who claims to be the Servant of the Servants of God taking full advantage of all that the Papal Tiara brings. I guess if one wants to be the Vicar of Christ then one should be crowned as well.

Take care Tom and God’s peace.

 

[Mikeoffaith]

And the church has suffered dearly for her mistakes Mike. Yet it doesn’t change the truth of what is, Just means people are human and make errors.

I agree Gary. We all have paid dearly for ignoring the HS at times. However, sometimes listening to the Holy Spirit means being humble and not self righteous. And don’t think I am just laying that at Rome’s doorstep.

 

[Mikeoffaith]

Talked about this on a different thread and it comes up much these days. But heres what was said early on.

ST. IRENAEUS OF LYON {c. 180-199 AD}

"It is possible, then, for everyone in every Church, who may wish to know the truth, to contemplate the tradition of the Apostles which has been made known throughout the whole world. And we are in a position to enumerate those who were instituted bishops by the Apostles, and their successors to our own times: men who neither knew nor taught anything like these heretics rave about. For if the Apostles had known hidden mysteries which they taught to the elite secretly and apart from the rest, they would have handed them down especially to those very ones to whom they were committing the self-same Churches. For surely they wished all those and their successors to be perfect and without reproach, to whom they handed on their authority.

“But since it would be too long to enumerate in such a volume as this the successions of all the Churches, we shall confound all those who, in whatever manner, whether through self-satisfaction or vainglory, or through blindness and wicked opinion, assemble other than where it is proper, by pointing out here the successions of the bishops of the greatest and most ancient Church known to all, founded and organized AT ROME by the two most glorious Apostles, Peter and Paul, that Church which has the tradition and the faith which comes down to us after having been announced to men by the Apostles. FOR WITH THIS CHURCH, BECAUSE OF ITS SUPERIOR ORIGIN [or “preeminent authority”] ALL CHURCHES MUST AGREE, THAT IS, ALL THE FAITHFUL IN THE WHOLE WORLD; AND IT IS IN HER THAT THE FAITHFUL EVERYWHERE HAVE MAINTAINED THE APOSTOLIC TRADITION.”

I think Iranaeus’ reasoning for apostolic succession against the Gnostic heresy was brilliant. Just as a side commentary, as Bishop of Lyon wouldn’t he be under the jurisdiction of Rome? And as such do you think he would talk smack about the Bishop of Rome and say something like, “Oh Jerusalem was first, so whatever their Patriarch says, it’s the word?” Or if he was a Bishop under say Alexandria, maybe he would have said some kind words about the Successors of Mark?

 

[Mikeoffaith]

Talked about this on a different thread and it comes up much these days. But heres what was said early on.

ST. IRENAEUS OF LYON {c. 180-199 AD}

"It is possible, then, for everyone in every Church, who may wish to know the truth, to contemplate the tradition of the Apostles which has been made known throughout the whole world. And we are in a position to enumerate those who were instituted bishops by the Apostles, and their successors to our own times: men who neither knew nor taught anything like these heretics rave about. For if the Apostles had known hidden mysteries which they taught to the elite secretly and apart from the rest, they would have handed them down especially to those very ones to whom they were committing the self-same Churches. For surely they wished all those and their successors to be perfect and without reproach, to whom they handed on their authority.

“But since it would be too long to enumerate in such a volume as this the successions of all the Churches, we shall confound all those who, in whatever manner, whether through self-satisfaction or vainglory, or through blindness and wicked opinion, assemble other than where it is proper, by pointing out here the successions of the bishops of the greatest and most ancient Church known to all, founded and organized AT ROME by the two most glorious Apostles, Peter and Paul, that Church which has the tradition and the faith which comes down to us after having been announced to men by the Apostles. FOR WITH THIS CHURCH, BECAUSE OF ITS SUPERIOR ORIGIN [or “preeminent authority”] ALL CHURCHES MUST AGREE, THAT IS, ALL THE FAITHFUL IN THE WHOLE WORLD; AND IT IS IN HER THAT THE FAITHFUL EVERYWHERE HAVE MAINTAINED THE APOSTOLIC TRADITION.”

I found that quote from Irenaeus Book III Chapter III and I see it as translated as such.

1. Since, however, it would be very tedious, in such a volume as this, to reckon up the successions of all the Churches, we do put to confusion all those who, in whatever manner, whether by an evil self-pleasing, by vainglory, or by blindness and perverse opinion, assemble in unauthorized meetings; we do this, I say, by indicating that tradition derived from the apostles, of the very great, the very ancient, and universally known Church founded and organized at Rome by the two most glorious apostles, Peter and Paul; as also by pointing out the faith preached to men, which comes down to our time by means of the successions of the bishops. For it is a matter of necessity that every Church should agree with this Church, on account of its pre- eminent authority, that is, the faithful everywhere,
   inasmuch as the apostolical tradition has been preserved continuously by those faithful men who exist everywhere.

To me that last line says that every Church should agree because Rome is pre-eminent only in the fact that the church is sort of a representative of faithful apostolic tradition that is preserved by others outside of Rome. I don’t see this as Rome being it’s own apostolic tradition except that it rightfully reflects the tradition of those other sees that also are a faithful repository for the tradition.

Does any one have any idea what the Latin translation is?

 

[GaryTaylor]

Mike,

“Does any one have any idea what the Latin translation is?”

No, I don’t have it but it exists, and you could bet a dollar to a donut if there was issue, it would plastered all over the internet like everything else is. Catholic Church has been using him for a referrence for as long as I can remember. I have a 1960 Bible here with his book in Foot Notes.

No Ireneaus doesn’t say the church “should” agree. He said the church “must” agree. And no, I don’t believe he would say anything contrary to Rome, he wrote; “Against Heresies”, that topic alone gives an idea of where he was at.

Apostolic Succsesion is through the Apostles no doubt. They had more power than the Bishops and rightfully so. Peter was the head of the Apostles. The church established in Rome is factual history not just with Christian authors, but with Jewish and Roman authors. I’ve posted a few of them on here just the other day. Anyway, I don’t find any issues with Apostolic Succsesion, I do find issues when the church takes on its political agenda and in effect turns into a social/political institution. You won’t have to read far to quickly realize these guys were over the edge. Power doesn’t corrupt a little, it corrupts completely. And of course I believe Luther had many valid points, Erasmus never contended that he didn’t. There wouldn’t have been Luther without Erasmus. He is the one who planted the ideas in Luthers mind. Luther had the right personality to set it off. He became pissed because once he did Erasmus refused to back him, and it further infuriated Luther when Erasmus spoke for the Church.

Nonetheless, it wouldn’t change the Chain of Command in the church. No different than if you and I worked for GE, and I left because I didn’t like the way you ran it. I’m entitled to do as I please, right, wrong or indifferent. It wouldn’t change anything at GE though. GE may well decide to clean house and get their act together, but it would still be their chain of command regardless who ran it.

Now the problem isn’t so much if Luther is wrong or right, the problem is the way he solves the problem. You can’t have two seperate business’s doing the exact same thing. Its impossible, because at some point the thinking will further widen. And it has done nothing but continued to widen, to the point we have thousands of fractions of Orthodox and Protestant churchs now and we don’t even what to call them anymore. And if trace their historys most started right here in New England after 1750 and then continued to fracture.

The Orthodox, Lutheran, Angelic, Methodist are all going to be in communion with Rome at some point. Its just a matter of time, we may not live to see it all, but we will see some of it. The Orthodox is very close now. Papal Primacy isn’t an issue with them but on this forum. Photius wrote making a big issue out of this then in the end before his death he’s in full communion with Rome? Nonetheless the damage was done. But that another converstation for another day.

MIke the simple truth is all war at its foundation is based on religion and the influenece it holds over countrys. And we will have no choice at some point but to unite the church. We simply cannot speak from 40 points of view and be respected to the point we will need to be in the future. And the clocks ticking. This is bigger than the US now, its world reasoning now and if we can’t appeal to the better thinking anarchy will rule. As we struggle to do this, so does Islam. The problem with Islam is they have guided missles with misguided men. We have a problem and its hugh. You can equate this period right now to when Einstein came to the US to build the Nuclear weapon. Its no different, the weapons in the wrong hands now and millions perish, Israel is gone, and WWIII is set off.

I listened to Malichi Martin lecture years ago, he felt we were so far down this path that it was time to set up a B-Survival Plan. I thought he was crazy then, today I believe he may have been dead right. This is no different than 11 guys on the field arguing about who made the last mistake, while the offense is already set to run another play. We need to get back in the game here. Thats whats important, not who made the mistake 5-centurys ago. In the end, none of these mistakes are going to matter. They will look back and say “What were they thinking?” Or they will look back at this period for thousands of years as a time when people were able to put there petty differences aside for the greater good.

OK I’m getting off the soap-box now, I did my weekly Rah-Rah speech

God Bless, GT