Did Jesus Start the Catholic Church?

  • Thread starter Thread starter benedictus2
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
The southern evangalists have been under much scrutiny here in the US. What an abomination, its crime in Christs name. Billion dollar homes and Rolls Royce’s with $1000 a pop donation in the “time, seed, harvest” misinterpretation of the Bible. This is exactly what Sola Scritura does for Christianity. With ministers like Mike Murdock promising miracles from God. But at $1000. a shot. And they go as far as to ask for followers Credit Card numbers? No Cross, No talk about sin or hell, its just “much to depressing” followers say.🙂

The Catholic Church became what it is over thousands of years. The jealousy, envy and every other wonderful aspect of man, has pretenders trying to establish the same only with “Instant Gratification”. So its a process of condemning a sacred institution on order to promote an abomination. About the same as what McDonalds does to the finest food establishments. Though thats not a great analogy its the best I can do off the top of my head.😃
 
Hi, Rev Kevin,

Your use of the dictionary is noteworthy. But, for a discussion, you need to advance from merely quoting the dictionary and engage others in dialogue.

Let’s take a look at your first paragraph here… and see what we have.
Now the only church mentioned by Christ is church. He never mentions any denomination ie, Catholic, Baptist, Methodist or any other. The CC uses the “apostlic succession” as their way of saying Christ started the CC. NO where does it say he did. It only says Church.

First of all, Christ did not ‘mention’ church in some type of incidental or off-handed manner… He is Founding His Church on Peter, Rev Kevin. And, you know what, He really is not recorded as having named it. But, do you really think that was necessary at that time?

At that time there were Jews - of different denominations: Pharisses, Sadducees, and several other groups, there was a world filled with Pagans - mainly Greek and Roman types but a few others like the Gnostics - and there were always a few who did not believe in anything. Christ’s followers were to be totally different from all of these - but, not providing a NAME is only one of the many things CHRIST DID NOT DO! Christ did not come with a set of blueprints, permits, plans and polcy/procedure manuals for the Church He founded on Peter!

Look all through the NT - and what you see is the DEVELOPMENT of Christ’s Church (and, that would be the Catholic Church) on earth under the Promised Inspiration of the Holy Spirit. Here are just two examples:

Notice, Judas was immediately replaced - but Christ did not ‘chose’ Matthias as the others Apostles (Acts 1:21-26) the Holy Spirit’s choice of Judas’ successor was provided after the Apostles established criteria and prayed. Here is another example:

Christ did not establish the position of Deacon - this took place after Pentecost by the Apostles acting under the Divine Guidance of the Holy Spirit (Acts 6:1-6). We later see Paul establishing Bishops. Yesterday, Jan 26, the Catholic Church celebrated the Feast Day of Sts. Timothy and Titus - and we see the succession from the Apostles to the next geneation of believers. From this ever expanding group, new Shepherds would be stepping forward (although, some would prove unworthy of their calling).

Which is defined as:
one of the groups of Christians who have their own beliefs and forms of worship
a place for public (especially Christian) worship; “the church was empty”
church service: a service conducted in a house of worship; “don’t be late for church”
perform a special church rite or service for; “church a woman after childbirth”
In another post you challenge anyone to prove that Christ founded the Catholic Church. Many have provided both biblical and historical references - but, you simply dismiss these because Christ did not use the word “Catholic”. I invited you to draw a line identifying how our believe in Christ traveled from the First Century to the Sixteenth Century. And, then to take a look at all of the chaotic lines from the 16th Century onward to this very day. The guidance of the Holy Spirit for the Church founded by Christ on Peter is quite obvious. When you consider doctrinal integrity - what was taught by the early Catholic Church is what is taught today - contrasted with the multiplicity of doctrinal changes in the Protestant denominations - it becomes even more obvious.

So, here is my challenge to you: prove that Christ founded the Baptist Church or whatever church you are claiming to belong.

God bless
 
Just a quick response. Yes, there are many ‘quacks’ posing as legitimate ministers who seek to hide their greed for money behind promises of blessings in return for donations. Outrageous perversion of Christianity! One wonder where these ministers were ordained. Sadly, one weakness of Protestantism is that it is susceptible to such distortion.
Code:
I presume this is why I find mainline Protestantism attractive. (I come from a mixed Catholic/Protestant heritage.) It doesn't demand conformity as Catholicism does, while not 'anything goes' as one finds so often among evangelicals where hucksterism flourishes. On the other hand, Catholicism and evangelicalism share similar views when it comes to widespread modern miracles and on some moral issues as well. 

 But God bless everybody anyway.
 
Okay. Christ started a movement which evolved into the Christian church. Where I have trouble is the dogma that this was/is the Catholic Church amd none other, that other Christians are at best separated brothers and sisters, at worse rebellious heretics.
Code:
 My main doubt stems from the reality that Catholicism has become such a legalistic entity, when Jesus always seemed to oppose legalism. That was a serious problem with the religious establishment at that time.

Now, what do I mean by legalism.

Theological legalism. The Catholic Church insists that to embrace the full truth of the gospel you must accept all of its doctrines. It appears to me that many of the doctrines of Catholicism - e. g., transubstantiation, Immaculate Conception, sinless life of Mary, etc. - came along later and are not clearly found in scripture. Once, for example, that Mary became so central to the faith (St. Paul never mentions Mary) then a variety of doctrines followed, many of them defined quite late: Immaculate Conception, 1864, Assumption of Mary, 1950. I feel that the church should not be so legalistic in insisting that all of its many teachings must be accepted, and that Christians should be free to think more for themselves. 

 Liturgical legalism.While some variation is permitted in worship patterns, such as practiced, say, by the Uniate churches of the East, Catholicism has a quite rigid plan of worship. Stay with the missal. There is am approved, right way to celebrate communion - for example, the host has to be made of a certain bread - and certain words to absolve sinners, etc. It could be argued, and is, that this is a strength of Catholicism, the same gospel, the same words of consecration, etc., the world over. I have found it disconcerting that when priests process into a special ceremony they all wear the same colors, only men are in the procession. etc. In other words, with only slight variation, there is a right way to worship and that is to follow the cookie-cutter patterns set down by the church.

Moral legalism. In my mind, there are many gray areas in this area. Birth control, for example. If a couple have the number of children they feel they can raise. providing the benefits of college, etc., I feel that they have the right to limit the number of children. Catholicism permits limiting children, too, but condemns to condemn artificial birth control. Legalistic. Or, take abortion. Millions of good Christians are against abortion, but they would make occasional exceptions, to save the life of the mother, perhaps, or in the case of rape. Or, divorce. Catholicism has annulments, which is church-approved divorce - frankly - but here again the presence of legalism. Many marriages are fine when they start out, but something changes. Maybe the husband becomes addicted to alcohol, changing his personality, or the woman goes criminally insane for some unknown reason. But, no - no divorce unless sanctified by the church. Catholicism's harsh criticism of gays and lesbians is legalistic. I oppose gay marriage myself, but have finally concluded that some people are 'born gay' (God's doing?) and should not be deprived of intimacy the rest of their lives. There is a wide gap between committed loving relationships and wanton promiscuity. and may we should accept the one while condemning the other.

  What I guess I'm suggesting is that the church got off the track somewhere. It began as a form of liberation from the legalism of traditional Judaism with all of its don'ts. But today traditional Catholicism is weighed down by its own legalism. This certainly is one one reason so many people either have left the church or ignore its pronouncements.

  This is not to take from the wonderful work that thousands of devoted priests and nuns have done, and continue to do, around the world. The problem is not with them (well, there are exceptions) but with the ecclesiastical framework within which they have to work. Perhaps its time that the hierarchy took a good look at itself. Perhaps it is another example of legalism.   

  God bless all of his children of every creed, culture, color and country. May religion become a bridge and not a barrier among them.
*Perhaps you should take a course in the Theology of the Body, RCIA etc so you can have a thorough understanding of the Catholic Faith.

You speak and think like a Protestant. As for me I find it no problem at all to conform to the 10 Commandments. I am horrified to see your views on abortion - definitely not the culture of life you believe in! What a shame!
:):)🙂
*
 
Hi, Heliotropium,

WOW! You certainly worked hard an putting those pages together - and, I for one, appreciate your efforts! 👍

Would you mind sharing the link(s) you used?

God bless
VII. Controversies in the Church

Matt. 13:24-30 - scandals have always existed in the Church, just as they have existed outside of the Church. This should not cause us to lose hope in the Church. God’s mysterious plan requires the wheat and the weeds to be side by side in the Church until the end of time.

Matt. 13:47-50 - God’s plan is that the Church (the kingdom of heaven) is a net which catches fish of every kind, good and bad. God revealed this to us so that we will not get discouraged by the sinfulness of the Church’s members.

Matt. 16:18 - no matter how sinful its members conduct themselves, Jesus promised that the gates of death will never prevail against the Church.

Matt. 23:2-3 - the Jewish people would have always understood the difference between a person’s sinfulness and his teaching authority. We see that the sinfulness of the Pharisees does not minimize their teaching authority. They occupy the “cathedra” of Moses.

Matt. 26:70-72; Mark 14:68-70; Luke 22:57; John 18:25-27 - Peter denied Christ three times, yet he was chosen to be the leader of the Church, and taught and wrote infallibly.

Mark 14:45 - Judas was unfaithful by betraying Jesus. But his apostolic office was preserved and this did not weaken the Church.

Mark 14:50 - all of Jesus’ apostles were unfaithful by abandoning Him in the garden of Gethsemane, yet they are the foundation of the Church.

John 20:24-25 - Thomas the apostle was unfaithful by refusing to believe in Jesus’ resurrection, yet he taught infallibly in India.

Rom. 3:3-4 - unfaithful members do not nullify the faithfulness of God and the work of the Holy Spirit in the Church.

Eph. 5:25-27 - just as Jesus Christ has both a human and a divine nature, the Church, His Bride, is also both human and divine. It is the holy and spotless bride of Christ, with sinful human members.

1 Tim. 5:19 - Paul acknowledges Church elders might be unfaithful. The Church, not rebellion and schism, deals with these matters.

2 Tim. 2:13 - if we remain faithless, God remains faithful for He cannot deny Himself.

2 Tim. 2:20 - a great house has not only gold and silver, but also wood and earthenware, some for noble use, some for ignoble use.

Jer. 24:1-10 - God’s plan includes both good and bad figs. The good figs will be rewarded, and the bad figs will be discarded.

1 Kings 6,7,8 - the Lord commands us to build elaborate places of worship. Some non-Catholics think that this is controversial and the money should be given to the poor, even though no organization does more for the poor of the world that the Catholic Church. We create our churches with beauty because Christ our King lives in the churches in the blessed Eucharist.

Matt. 26:8-9; Mark 14:4-5; John 12:5 - negative comments concerning the beauty of the Church are like the disciples complaining about the woman anointing Jesus’ head with costly oil. Jesus desires that we honor Him with our best gifts, not for Him, but for us, so that we realize He is God and we are His creatures.

Matt. 26:10-11 - Jesus says we have both a duty to honor God and give to the poor - a balanced life of reverence and charity

So there you go Rev Kev. We got scripture too and i would have just given you the link if i didint think you would ignore it like everything else.
 
No Roy, man got off track with Luther to start with, not the church. The debates clearly show the wrong done to the family in time since Luther/Erasmus. The family was the point of contention with Erasmus. And as man has continued to sleepwalk, here we are today with the loss of the Sacraments of Matrimony/Virginity and a full blown plague of Abortion to replace it. Abortion for emergency medical use is a poor act of deception also. Fact is women in the USA use it as Birth control now. Thats how far over the edge we have gone.

Anyway, we know how the doctines developed and why the doctines developed. Which also happens over a 2-thousand year period. As we see even up to the ex-cathedra doctine of the 1950’s.

Anyway without each consecutive ecumenical council of the elect we couldn’t nor wouldn’t have Christianity as we have today. And I’m not talking “Catholic/Orthodox” here. The very start of the councils come from heretical concepts such as the gnostics, etc, and there is a whole list of them. As I type its now proposed that Jesus Christ never died on the Cross. In fact it was a look alike who was sent? Well here at each step along the way heretical theory becomes fought and defined.

As far as the doctrines of Mary, they prove to be one of the most important places to observe and test the process by which great ideas have developed.

Reseach just the Immaculate Conception and one quickly concludes its dated far before the late 1800’s MOF it first appears in council at the Council of Basil 1439 Decender 18th. The Pope declared the council invalid, and 4-hundred years of research took place before this becomes doctrine. Now, in fact if the doctrine is first proposed as doctrine, it even predates Basil, which it does. Look at the historical artwork of Mary? There is no woman in the history of mankind who has been painted more or venerated more and this dates to the EAST in Byzantine Art and Liturgy to date.

Anyway another topic for another day.

Yet at re-focus, when we talk doctine in any one generation. We must by default uphold the teachings of the church. Admitt as mankind that we simply do not know any better than our forefathers. And suspend all judgement until the TRUTH becomes Fact. And the truth hasn’t become a fact, on the contrary if we view confirmed miracles such as fatima, we see a window given from God that certainly indicates otherwise.

This isn’t to say we may still in fact be wrong in certain ideas. But until we know for “fact”. Its just good sense to stick to the teaching of 2-thousand years worth of scholars nondogmatically. Its just good skeptical philosophy to not reject what in fact may prove to be 100% correct.

Family, Abortion and other moral issues are again another topic. The church history has been a confirmation of all that is good about family. How one doesn’t see that as opposed to where we stand today is beyond me. The family is a wreak in the West and more accurate the USA. Morality in fact is lost as are christian values on this present path. Statistics in the USA will confirm this. The family was debated with Luther and Erasmus, and the Family was the point Erasmus posed as the value that would be corrupted by Luther. As we see, he was correct.
 
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.
I disagree with, ‘The Church is a group of Christian congregations…’

It appears that most creative explanations for the translations of the Greek term ‘ekklesia’ are for the purposes of excluding ‘Catholic’, and including their own ‘denomination’, as a part of that ‘assembly’.

When Matthew wrote about Christ’s announcement of building His Church, he used the term ‘ekklesia’. Now moving beyond the establishing of His Church, we have to look at what His intent was for His ‘ekklesia’. Christ said, 'And I have other sheep, that are not of this fold; I must bring them also, and they will heed my voice. So there shall be one flock, one shepherd.’

Looking deeper into scriptures, we see Paul wrote many letters speaking about being unified in Christ; being of the same mind and judgment.

I fail to see how one can reconcile His ‘assembly’ as a ‘group of congregations’, all with different doctrines/teachings. Scriptures do not tell us of any acceptance of differences, slight or great. In fact, scriptures were letters of instructions and corrections teaching the people the SAME things.

**
Rom 16:17 I appeal to you, brethren, to take note of those who create dissensions and difficulties, in opposition to the doctrine which you have been taught; avoid them.
1Co 1:10 I appeal to you, brethren, by the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, that all of you agree and that there be no dissensions among you, but that you be united in the same mind and the same judgment.
Php 2:2 complete my joy by being of the same mind, having the same love, being in full accord and of one mind.
**

There are no examples of, slight or great, differences being accepted by the preachers/teachers that authored scriptures.

Christ prayed for us to be ‘perfectly one’.

**
Joh 17:20 "I do not pray for these only, but also for those who believe in me through their word,
Joh 17:21 that they may all be one; even as thou, Father, art in me, and I in thee, that they also may be in us, so that the world may believe that thou hast sent me.
Joh 17:22 The glory which thou hast given me I have given to them, that they may be one even as we are one,
Joh 17:23 I in them and thou in me, that they may become perfectly one, so that the world may know that thou hast sent me and hast loved them even as thou hast loved me.
**

Where is the explanation that ‘perfectly one’ is one of different groups with, slight to great, differences? Explain how ‘perfectly one’ is consistent with ‘a group of congregations’ that point fingers at other Christian Churches with accusations of wrongness.

The argument that Christ did not specifically start a Church named ‘Catholic’ Church are ludicrous, in my opinion. Christ did not specifically start a Church named 'Lutheran, Baptist, Methodist, Episcopal, Presbyterian, etc., etc. etc. Christ started ONE Church, intended to be worldwide, or universal if you prefer.

(CONTINUED)
 
To argue that Christ started a Church which is a group of believers and not a building is simply using semantics to maintain a divide between Christians. Scriptures clearly show us the hierarchy, set by God. Even in an ‘invisible’ Church, a hierarchy is clearly visible, to those that choose to see.

**
1Co 12:28 And God indeed hath set some in the church; first apostles, secondly prophets, thirdly doctors: after that miracles: then the graces of healings, helps, governments, kinds of tongues, interpretations of speeches.
Eph 4:10 He that descended is the same also that ascended above all the heavens: that he might fill all things.
Eph 4:11 And he gave some apostles, and some prophets, and other some evangelists, and other some pastors and doctors:
Eph 4:12 For the perfecting of the saints, for the word of the ministry, for the edifying of the body of Christ:
Eph 4:13 Until we all meet into the unity of faith and of the knowledge of the Son of God, unto a perfect man, unto the measure of the age of the fulness of Christ:
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.
**

A hierarchy, for the perfecting of the saints, for the word of the ministry, for the edifying of the body of Christ, that henceforth we be no more children tossed to and fro and carried about with every wind of doctrine. More simple put, ‘perfectly one’.

For hundreds of years there was only one Christian Church and men called that Church Catholic. It wasn’t until hundreds of years later that men divided the body of Christ, pretty much the same as Paul described by saying, ‘Now this I say, that every one of you saith: I indeed am of Paul; and I am of Apollo; and I of Cephas; and I of Christ.’ Today men say instead, ‘I am Baptist, I am Methodist, I am Presbyterian, I am Lutheran…’ All man made names just as Catholic was man made.

**
Acts 9:31
(IGNT+) αιG3588 THE μενG3303 INDEED ουνG3767 THEN εκκλησιαιG1577 ASSEMBLIES καθG2596 THROUGHOUT οληςG3650 WHOLE τηςG3588 THE ιουδαιαςG2449 OF JUDEA καιG2532 AND γαλιλαιαςG1056 GALILEE καιG2532 AND σαμαρειαςG4540 SAMARIA ειχονG2192 [G5707] HAD ειρηνηνG1515 PEACE, οικοδομουμεναιG3618 [G5746] BEING BUILT UP καιG2532 AND πορευομεναιG4198 [G5740] GOING ON τωG3588 IN THE φοβωG5401 FEAR τουG3588 OF THE κυριουG2962 LORD, καιG2532 AND τηG3588 IN THE παρακλησειG3874 COMFORT τουG3588 OF THE αγιουG40 HOLY πνευματοςG4151 SPIRIT επληθυνοντοG4129 [G5712] WERE INCREASED.
G2596
κατά
kata
kat-ah’
A primary particle; (preposition) down (in place or time), in varied relations (according to the case [genitive, dative or accusative] with which it is joined): - about, according as (to), after, against, (when they were) X alone, among, and, X apart, (even, like) as (concerning, pertaining to, touching), X aside, at, before, beyond, by, to the charge of, [charita-] bly, concerning, + covered, [dai-] ly, down, every, (+ far more) exceeding, X more excellent, for, from . . . to, godly, in (-asmuch, divers, every, -to, respect of), . . . by, after the manner of, + by any means, beyond (out of) measure, X mightily, more, X natural, of (up-) on (X part), out (of every), over against, (+ your) X own, + particularly, so, through (-oughout, -oughout every), thus, (un-) to (-gether, -ward), X uttermost, where (-by), with. In composition it retains many of these applications, and frequently denotes opposition, distribution or intensity.
G3650
ὅλος
holos
hol’-os
A primary word; “whole” or “all”, that is, complete (in extent, amount, time or degree), especially (neuter) as noun or adverb: - all, altogether, every whit, + throughout, whole.
kata holos
kat-ah’ hol’-os
Catholic is an adjective derived from the Greek adjective καθολικός (katholikos), meaning “universal”.
**
 
Hi, Roy5,

Let me complement you on an excellent post. 😃 You have a number of genuine questions here and I will try to give you a good start at the right answer.
Okay. Christ started a movement which evolved into the Christian church. Where I have trouble is the dogma that this was/is the Catholic Church amd none other, that other Christians are at best separated brothers and sisters, at worse rebellious heretics.

Well, I would have re-worded that first sentence a bit … but, let’s move on the sentence two… look back at Matt 16:18 and tell me how many conflicted and conflicting groups do you see when Christ is talking to Peter? Fast forward to the Acts - and you see the Holy Spirit guiding the Church in big and small ways and the Word of God is spread throughout the world. We begin with Christ, Who then confirms His Authority to the Apostles, who in turn confir the Authority of Christ onto new members. From a historical standpoint, we see the Apostolic period until John dies in about 100. And, then we see the Post-Apostolic and Early Church Fathers providing written documents and their living examples of the Christ’s True Church. Look around. There are no Lutherans, Baptists, Methodist, Anglicans, or any other group - just the Catholic Church.
Code:
 My main doubt stems from the reality that Catholicism has become such a legalistic entity, when Jesus always seemed to oppose legalism. That was a serious problem with the religious establishment at that time.
You need to put this in context, Roy5… the Legalism that was condemned by Christ was that of the Jewish religious leaders who subverted the Law of God to make their own laws that only appeared to fulfill the Law of God. It was a sham - and Christ called their hand on this distortion. Look at Luke 11:42 where Justice and Love of God are neglected so that the traditions of men can be practiced. This is the legalism that chokes men’s hearts and minds so that there is longer room for God.

Because of the length … I will break here and address the concerns you have for theology, liturgy, and morals.

God bless
Code:
Now, what do I mean by legalism.

Theological legalism. The Catholic Church insists that to embrace the full truth of the gospel you must accept all of its doctrines. It appears to me that many of the doctrines of Catholicism - e. g., transubstantiation, Immaculate Conception, sinless life of Mary, etc. - came along later and are not clearly found in scripture. Once, for example, that Mary became so central to the faith (St. Paul never mentions Mary) then a variety of doctrines followed, many of them defined quite late: Immaculate Conception, 1864, Assumption of Mary, 1950. I feel that the church should not be so legalistic in insisting that all of its many teachings must be accepted, and that Christians should be free to think more for themselves. 

 Liturgical legalism.While some variation is permitted in worship patterns, such as practiced, say, by the Uniate churches of the East, Catholicism has a quite rigid plan of worship. Stay with the missal. There is am approved, right way to celebrate communion - for example, the host has to be made of a certain bread - and certain words to absolve sinners, etc. It could be argued, and is, that this is a strength of Catholicism, the same gospel, the same words of consecration, etc., the world over. I have found it disconcerting that when priests process into a special ceremony they all wear the same colors, only men are in the procession. etc. In other words, with only slight variation, there is a right way to worship and that is to follow the cookie-cutter patterns set down by the church.

Moral legalism. In my mind, there are many gray areas in this area. Birth control, for example. If a couple have the number of children they feel they can raise. providing the benefits of college, etc., I feel that they have the right to limit the number of children. Catholicism permits limiting children, too, but condemns to condemn artificial birth control. Legalistic. Or, take abortion. Millions of good Christians are against abortion, but they would make occasional exceptions, to save the life of the mother, perhaps, or in the case of rape. Or, divorce. Catholicism has annulments, which is church-approved divorce - frankly - but here again the presence of legalism. Many marriages are fine when they start out, but something changes. Maybe the husband becomes addicted to alcohol, changing his personality, or the woman goes criminally insane for some unknown reason. But, no - no divorce unless sanctified by the church. Catholicism's harsh criticism of gays and lesbians is legalistic. I oppose gay marriage myself, but have finally concluded that some people are 'born gay' (God's doing?) and should not be deprived of intimacy the rest of their lives. There is a wide gap between committed loving relationships and wanton promiscuity. and may we should accept the one while condemning the other.
 
Rev
By now it really doesn’t matter what you think the church is, we’re not here to change your beliefs. All of us will past away from this world, The Catholic Church will still be here taking care of her flock. I hope you find your way to the true Church that Jesus himself founded.
 
How do you understand this statement:

Jesus Christ is indeed the Living Catholic Church here on earth, being led by his Holy Spirit!!
As to us forming the Body of Christ on earth, of course. He still remains in heaven as the Head.
 
Hi, Roy5,

Let me complement you on an excellent post. 😃 You have a number of genuine questions here and I will try to give you a good start at the right answer.
I love this Christian approach presented in Brotherly Love. Excellent, Seriously, I say this in honesty not as a joke.👍

Anyway

But yes we have some basic issues which seem to come for a lack of denial of truth.

I’d be to first to tell you, the Catholic/Orthodox teaching is a hard pill to swallow, I avoided it like the plague for years. I had little desire to do daily and weekly penance. But, at some point I found myself teaching the very truth I was avoiding to those struggling in and with life. Ironic is what it was, and I had to re-examine my own values and be honest with myself. Change comes with self “honesty” first. And its very hard to look at ourselves and admit we in fact are not so wonderful when we see the bigger picture. MOF I was so far from it I had to approach it bit by bit.

Man is so far off track today, abominations like murder, abortion, crime are common. We been desensitised. Is it any wonder children are murdered daily on the streets? What was once unheard of then become a vice, then a habit, then accepted as daily living. The very ideas Christianity was developed to suppress by God, we now accept as normal, no different than Rome, and every other empire God finally destroyed. What the USA isn’t comparible to Sodom and Gomorrah? Could you imagine another 100-years of this? We won’t make at this rate. And this century already started out worse than last. And 45-million Christians were martyred last, never mind the Jews and innocents. We have a problem here, and the denial of Christ church adds to it. How could we correct the outer issues when we can’t correct the inner issues? 🤷
 
As to us forming the Body of Christ on earth, of course. He still remains in heaven as the Head.
*You obviously have not read all the postings. There is a poster who said that the Church is Jesus Christ and that the Holy spirit is guiding it. Well if the Church is Christ why do we need the Holy Spirit.

That sentence makes no sense as so many of the things this poster said.
 
OK, Roy5, I am back… here is Part 2.
Code:
Theological legalism. The Catholic Church insists that to embrace the full truth of the gospel you must accept all of its doctrines. It appears to me that many of the doctrines of Catholicism - e. g., transubstantiation, Immaculate Conception, sinless life of Mary, etc. - came along later and are not clearly found in scripture. Once, for example, that Mary became so central to the faith (St. Paul never mentions Mary) then a variety of doctrines followed, many of them defined quite late: Immaculate Conception, 1864, Assumption of Mary, 1950. I feel that the church should not be so legalistic in insisting that all of its many teachings must be accepted, and that Christians should be free to think more for themselves.
Again, context is most important. Remember, on that First Pentecost Sunday, the Holy Spirit DID NOT DELIVER A BOOK. We celebrate the birthday of the Catholic Church on Pentecost - no the delivery of NT Scripture. This is truly a critical element - because if you don’t see that the Church was created BEFORE the first words of the NT were written, we really have a problem. Now, a simply historical check will tell you that the Church happened first and then the NT - at the time of that First Pentecost, Saul of Tarsus was an up and coming Pharisee … and while undoubtedly zealous - had not handed people over to be killed for their Faith in Christ.

Matthew 16 is a very rich chapter and one worth re-reading … Christ gives Peter the delegated power to bind and lose. Here’s the question: since Christ did not limit Peter - why do you think Peter (and his successors all the way to Benedict XVI) should be limited. All of the doctrines of Mary you are finding ‘un-biblical’ are really a reflection on Christ! The Immaculate Conception means that through a Special Grace of God - totally unearned by Mary - from the first moment of her conception, she was free of Original Sin. Do you recall how the Ark of the Covenant was to be kept - the finest materials, untouched by man, all for the Glory of God.

Well, Mary’s virginal womb acted in more profound manner than the Ark - it actually held Jesus Christ Who is True God and True Man. Most of us have fond thoughts of our Mothers - and, from the Scriptures we see how Christ was obedient to His earthly parents and obviously loved them. None of the doctrines on Mary take away any honor or glory to Christ. Mary’s role - which she immediately embraced - is to bring Chirst to others. As soon as the angel left - Mary has packed her bag and is off to see pregnant Elizabeth. And, the Holy Spirit inspires Elizabeth to announce that the Son of God is present in Mary’s now-pregnant womb.
Code:
 Liturgical legalism.While some variation is permitted in worship patterns, such as practiced, say, by the Uniate churches of the East, Catholicism has a quite rigid plan of worship. Stay with the missal. There is am approved, right way to celebrate communion - for example, the host has to be made of a certain bread - and certain words to absolve sinners, etc. It could be argued, and is, that this is a strength of Catholicism, the same gospel, the same words of consecration, etc., the world over. I have found it disconcerting that when priests process into a special ceremony they all wear the same colors, only men are in the procession. etc. In other words, with only slight variation, there is a right way to worship and that is to follow the cookie-cutter patterns set down by the church.
One of the things about the Catholic Church is that it has been around for about 2,000 years. I guess you could say this was the original group who said, “Been there, done that and got the T-shirt!”

It isn’t that the Church could not re-formulate how the Mass is celebrated or how various prayers are said - Peter and his successors can bind and lose (and, just so this is understood correctly, this authority to bind and lose is not done on whim where the Pope would decide one morning out of clear blue sky to create a new doctrine. This is done under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit… Who will keep the Church from teaching errro.

During the early days of the Church, there were no set rules as you have described them. Rather, these rules developed over time and under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit to ensure that abuses that had crept into the Church were kept out. You know, there are pretty strict rules when it comes to smoking around gasoline. The Fire Marshall can quickly turn quite authoritarian if there is a violation here - and, wouldn’t you expect that. The rules are there to safeguard the solemnity of the Mass and to make sure that due reverance is given to God.

The thinking probably was that words our Lord used at the Last Supper could not be improved upon - so - let’s use them. Christ was a Jew celebrating the Passover - and today we use unlevened bread. Wine was served at the Passover - it was not a sparkling wine or a special high alcohol content wine or grape juice - it was a regular wine that had an alcohol content served at the time and this idea is what has carried over to this day.

Contrast this with the anything-goes type of services done by others. If the idea of actually worshipping God through honoring Chist’s sacrifice is there - it is truly hidden. Now, we can do great fellowship and have stunning public speakers who do a lot to entertain - but, that is not the Catholic idea of genuine worship.

I will be back and finish up… 😃

God bless
 
OK, Roy5, I am back… here is Part 2.

One of the things about the Catholic Church is that it has been around for about 2,000 years. I guess you could say this was the original group who said, “Been there, done that and got the T-shirt!”

It isn’t that the Church could not re-formulate how the Mass is celebrated or how various prayers are said - Peter and his successors can bind and lose (and, just so this is understood correctly, this authority to bind and lose is not done on whim where the Pope would decide one morning out of clear blue sky to create a new doctrine. This is done under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit… Who will keep the Church from teaching errro.

During the early days of the Church, there were no set rules as you have described them. Rather, these rules developed over time and under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit to ensure that abuses that had crept into the Church were kept out. You know, there are pretty strict rules when it comes to smoking around gasoline. The Fire Marshall can quickly turn quite authoritarian if there is a violation here - and, wouldn’t you expect that. The rules are there to safeguard the solemnity of the Mass and to make sure that due reverance is given to God.

The thinking probably was that words our Lord used at the Last Supper could not be improved upon - so - let’s use them. Christ was a Jew celebrating the Passover - and today we use unlevened bread. Wine was served at the Passover - it was not a sparkling wine or a special high alcohol content wine or grape juice - it was a regular wine that had an alcohol content served at the time and this idea is what has carried over to this day.

Contrast this with the anything-goes type of services done by others. If the idea of actually worshipping God through honoring Chist’s sacrifice is there - it is truly hidden. Now, we can do great fellowship and have stunning public speakers who do a lot to entertain - but, that is not the Catholic idea of genuine worship.

I will be back and finish up… 😃

God bless
👍👍👍👍👍
 
So the Greek word for church that you go by is irrelevant now?
If the title did not exist yet then how can you be so sure that by church he meant the CC?
Unless you are in Greece, yes, it is irrelevant today. We are speaking of accomplished historical fact, not theory. The Catholic and Orthodox alone trace all the way back to Christ. No other does. No Church can trace its history back to Christ without smacking into the Catholic Church. None. Try it.
Christ founded Christianity not the CC.
You have just violated sola scriptura. Not in the bible. What actually is in the bible? “…I found my Church”. Go ahead and be anti-Catholic - that is expected. But please don’t put words in Jesus’ mouth. Good grief!

Just as no theatre production or screenplay is based upon the Cliff’s Notes of the original, neither is any Church intended to be based on the bible. In a practical sense, the New Testament is a form of sacred “Cliff’s Notes” of Jesus’ life. And, while Cliff’s Notes are “sufficient” to know what occurred in the original story - they are neither complete nor original. They are a pale substitute if you reject the writer’s work, but still like the story.

I, in no way, demean sacred scripture. I merely point out that it is intended to be part of a Church, not all of it. I consider it to be abuse for a Church that claims Christ to base itself on the incomplete story of Christ. Just as nature abhors a vacuum, man’s imagination makes up what is missing in the story.
 
The true “catholic” church is all those who have placed their faith in Jesus Christ for salvation.
Scripture teaches that one’s final salvation depends on the state of the soul at death. As Jesus himself tells us, “He who endures to the end will be saved” (Matt. 24:13; see also 25:31–46).

The idea that all one has to do is “accept Jesus as their personal Savior” to be assured of salvation doesn’t hold water. That’s not the way things work in real life – or the Bible. Adam and Eve, who received God’s grace in a manner just as unmerited as anyone today, most definitely did demerit it – and lost grace not only for themselves but for us as well (see also Rom. 11:17-24).

Related to the issue of whether one can lose one’s salvation is the question of whether one can know with complete certainty that one is in a state of salvation. Even if one could not lose one’s salvation, one still might not be sure whether one ever had salvation. Similarly, even if one could be sure that one is now in a state of salvation, one might be able to fall from grace in the future. The “knowability” of salvation is a different question than the “loseability” of salvation.

And, if we can’t know for sure whether we are in a state of salvation, how much harder is it for someone else to know for sure whether we are in a state of salvation (and therefore part of Christ’s Church – as you define it). In Matt. 18:17, Jesus said that if one brother offends another they were to take it to “the Church.” How is one brother – or the other – supposed to know for sure who is even in “the Church”?

Also, notice the article “the” referring to a specific entity. Not “churches” but one visible, recognizable Church that can be expected to have a recognizable leadership with universal authority. If a Methodist offends a Baptist, or a Presbyterian offends a Pentecostal, which church do they take it to for adjudication? This alone demonstrates the problem when thousands of denominations exist outside the bounds of the “one holy, catholic, and apostolic Church.”

Jesus intended there to be one universal, authoritative, visible – and, yes, Catholic – Church to represent him on earth until his return.
Also, “apostolic” refers to built on the teaching of the apostles." It is not a statement of support for “apostolic succession.”
Actually, the role of apostolic succession in preserving true doctrine is illustrated in the Bible. To make sure that the apostles’ teachings would be passed down after the deaths of the apostles, Paul told Timothy, “[W]hat you have heard from me before many witnesses entrust to faithful men who will be able to teach others also” (2 Tim. 2:2). In this passage he refers to the first four generations of apostolic succession—his own generation, Timothy’s generation, the generation Timothy will teach, and the generation they will teach.

The normal way that the authority to teach in the apostles’ names is passed on is by receiving it from someone else who already has this authority (i.e. by apostolic succession).
 
Here is Part 3, Roy5…
Code:
 Moral legalism. In my mind, there are many gray areas in this area. Birth control, for example. If a couple have the number of children they feel they can raise. providing the benefits of college, etc., I feel that they have the right to limit the number of children. Catholicism permits limiting children, too, but condemns to condemn artificial birth control. Legalistic.
Now, Roy5, you really have to be consistent in your condemnation … or else it appears to be acting on a whim. While sex is viewed as a major recreational activity in our society today - it was viewed that way when Christ walked the earth. Given the limited anatomical geography… not much has really changed in 2000 (and we can really go much further back if we want!) But, unlike buy someone a meal or watching a movie with them - procreation is just that - we participate in the creation of another human being. It is not a casual way to spend an hour or two - the human created has an immortal soul and this needs to be recognized.

The idea between the having a man and woman appreciate just what it is that they are about to do can not be over emphasized. If they can not afford another child then, since they are to have control of their passions, they are to not to start the process if there is a chance of conception. This is what is considered natural in that nothing un-natural or artificial is used to prevent conception. The use of artifical birth control essentially establishes people as just a breeding pair with no human control over what is going on (not much mutual respect here) and what could happen - a failure of the contraceptive.

Or, take abortion. Millions of good Christians are against abortion, but they would make occasional exceptions, to save the life of the mother, perhaps, or in the case of rape.

Last count I heard was 53 million abortions (that is only what is on record) since 1973’s Roe v Wade decision. You mentioned rape - so, we have a perfectly innocent human that we are going to sacrifice because we do not like the way God allowed its life to come into existence. At what point does “Thou Shalt Not Kill” get a footing here? Let’s look at the recent case of the physician arrested and now indicted for the murder of 8 people (he botched the abortion of one and the woman died, and at least seven unborn children were forced out of their mother’s wombs alive (so, by law there is a live birth here) and then he severed their spinal cord with scissors. Some folks are seeing this as atypical and so out of the ordinary that it is unique. Well, it si only unique because this guy got caught with some much blood and body parts on his hands. The culture we have is one of death - and efforts to promote death are all around us. This physician is paid to provide death - not life - and we have the natural consequences of his actions played out for all to see.

Or, divorce. Catholicism has annulments, which is church-approved divorce - frankly - but here again the presence of legalism. Many marriages are fine when they start out, but something changes. Maybe the husband becomes addicted to alcohol, changing his personality, or the woman goes criminally insane for some unknown reason. But, no - no divorce unless sanctified by the church.

This may come as a surprise, Roy5, but, the Catholic Church does not condemn divorce - especially in such horrific circumstances as you have colorfully described! The problem is RE-MARRIAGE… not divorce. In the case of the Church granting an annulment - what it is saying is that based on established criteria, there was never a marriage to begin with.

Catholicism’s harsh criticism of gays and lesbians is legalistic. I oppose gay marriage myself, but have finally concluded that some people are ‘born gay’ (God’s doing?) and should not be deprived of intimacy the rest of their lives. There is a wide gap between committed loving relationships and wanton promiscuity. and may we should accept the one while condemning the other.

Wow, Roy5, you are all over the place on this one! The Catholic Church does not condemn homosexuals - they are persons as we are persons … sinners as we are sinners … and all are in need of the Grace of God. What the Church does condemn is sexual activity outside of marriage. Plese note, it even-handedly condemns adultery and forniciation, too! When it comes to the Natural Law, homosexuality simply falls far short of what is going on in creation. As human beings we are to be in control of ourselves and our emotions - and this is the challenge. But, note, it is a challenge for all of us to follow Christ - and, as He told the woman caught in adultery, “Go and sin no more” - He tells us all.

What I guess I’m suggesting is that the church got off the track somewhere. It began as a form of liberation from the legalism of traditional Judaism with all of its don’ts. But today traditional Catholicism is weighed down by its own legalism. This certainly is one one reason so many people either have left the church or ignore its pronouncements.
.
It is always a good idea for all of us to take a good and objective look at ourselves. The Church officially does this when it holds Councils - the last one was Vatican II with the idea of looking how well it was following the teachings of Christ in today’s world.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top