Did Jesus Start the Catholic Church?

[rev_kevin]

So, you teach us that all scripture was predestined to be in the bible, and that scripture that was not inspired was predestined to be left out. But, what to call this new denomination??? How about Kevinism?

Look these kind of remarks are uncalled for. I have not and will not make lite or fun of you. I hope these kind of remarks will not be acceptable here on the CAF. To me these are a form of personal attacks.

 

[po18guy]

Look these kind of remarks are uncalled for. I have not and will not make lite or fun of you. I hope these kind of remarks will not be acceptable here on the CAF. To me these are a form of personal attacks.

Well, please forgive me then, if you will. It was a flippant response.

 

[benedictus2]

How many times must I tell you what the Church is?

And I agreed with your defintion.

And it is precisely because i agreed with your definition that I can say that you are wrong about there One Christian Church. There isn’t. All these Christian Churches are separate churches because they do not all believe in the same thing.

It is precisely because I agreed with your defintiion that I know that none of the Protestant Churches can claim to be the Church that Christ started.

 

[benedictus2]

I wasn’t there but maybe they should have been included.

So now we have the truth. You do not really believe that the Bible is inerrant because you have doubts that perhaps some books that should be in have been left out.

So now we have got that settled.

Let me put it this way Scripture is inspired by God.

But you said a few sentences above that you do not know that for a fact by casting doubt on the canon.

The Catholic decided to use what they thought should be the Bible. I’m sure there are Scripture that should have been put in as part of the Bible but it didn’t fit what they thought the Bible should be.

But for 1500 years we accepted that as the Bible. How can someone 1500 years removed from the event know which one should be admitted. For that matter, how do you know that you should only have 66 book?

NO. Scritpure was inspired by God. Man put in and left out what he wanted.

That is the most illogical statement I have ever read. How can scripture be inspired by God if we do not even know what should be called Scripture?

About the canon. I’m not so sure about. Thats your belief not mine.

But the canon is precisely that - the canon of Scripture.

And no it’s your belief too. Because you base your belief on 66 books that you just said at the beginning of the posts you do not even know if they are the correct 66 books.

 

[rev_kevin]

And Catholic. That was the nature of the Church. He did not just mean for people to know his teaching. He wanted everyone one who hears to be incorporated into His Church that is why he follows the “proclamation of the Gospel” part with "baptizing them in the Name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit.

That is why every convert had to be baptized, even those who had already received John’s baptism had to be re-baptized.
You keep reiterating that but I have already shown you that that is a bogus argument.

As I already said before, even if no one said you are a human being, the fact remains that you are a human being. The naming comes after reality. Please that is such a simple concept so I don’t see how you cannot understand that.

If you keep using that line of argument, then you are basically saying that before Antioch, the apostles were not Christian. Is that what you are saying? That until they were called Christians they were not Christians?

No Christ is not the Church. You are sounding like Rinnie. That is a heresy. Christ is not the Church. The Church is theBody of Christ but the Church is not the person of Christ.

Because there were no other churches then. Baptists were not formed yet. There were no Lutheran, Anglicans, Evangelicals etc, etc. There were only Catholics. So Christians were all Catholics. And that was true for the first 1000 years.
This part of your post has no bearing on our discussion. You are adding information that is irrelevant to the topic. So I won’t address it.

By doing so you are acknowledging that the Catholic Church was inspired by the Holy Spirit.

**But you put yourself in a quandary. Because the only way you can be certain that the Bible is really inerrant is to accept that at that moment in time, the Cathollic Church was infallible because of the Holy Spirit.

But how do you know that? Seriously, how do you know that she was indeed infallible at that time? Maybe she made an error and left out books that should be there and added books that should not be there?

So therefore, the only way you can be certain that she was infallible when she declared the canon is to admit that is always infallible. **

And we are baptized in the same way through the Father, Son and Holy Spirit.

Before I was born was I Catholic? NO. My parents were but they had to proclaim me Catholic before I became Catholic, correct? YES. I was Catholic because as a child I had no choice, no say so but to be Catholic because of my parents. If I said I wanted to be another religion they would have punished me in some way. So its kind of like being in a State Religion but lets call it a Parent Religion. Then as I got older and was able to make up my own mind, like the Reformation.

Ok Christ is not the Church but the body and as a believer, I am a part of his body therefore I am a part of his church.

Yes it is relevant to the topic becuase I gave you the reason why there was only the Catholic Church.

I believe the Catholic Church is fallible not infallible. Its run by man and man is fallible.

Man is fallible, thats why.

I don’t go by the canon. Thats a Catholic thing written by man not by God.

 

[rev_kevin]

Well, please forgive me then, if you will. It was a flippant response.

 

[rev_kevin]

And I agreed with your defintion.

And it is precisely because i agreed with your definition that I can say that you are wrong about there One Christian Church. There isn’t. All these Christian Churches are separate churches because they do not all believe in the same thing.

It is precisely because I agreed with your defintiion that I know that none of the Protestant Churches can claim to be the Church that Christ started.

There is only one Church and all and I repeat, all Christians are apart of that Church which is the body of Christ. Remember his church has many branches. Could this be a fortelling of the other denominations? HMMM Could be.

 

[benedictus2]

And we are baptized in the same way through the Father, Son and Holy Spirit.

That is correct. Your baptism is valid.

Before I was born was I Catholic? NO. My parents were but they had to proclaim me Catholic before I became Catholic, correct? YES. I was Catholic because as a child I had no choice, no say so but to be Catholic because of my parents. If I said I wanted to be another religion they would have punished me in some way. So its kind of like being in a State Religion but lets call it a Parent Religion. Then as I got older and was able to make up my own mind, like the Reformation.

But that is neither here not there.

So now you are in another denomination, another church. There must have been some reason for you to move from the Catholic Church to the baptist Church and the only reason I think that would be a valid reason is if you believe the baptist Church is the Church that Christ founded on earth.

So the question now is do you believe this to be so?

And if you do not think this to be so, then should you not try to find that church that Christ started, the church in Acts?

And here is something else to think about. You have been saying over and over again that we are One Christian Church and there is no difference in belief. If that were so, they why did you have to leave the Catholic Church to become baptist? Obviously there must have been a different belief.

Ok Christ is not the Church but the body and as a believer, I am a part of his body therefore I am a part of his church.

No you are not part of the Church because you are a believer. You are part of the church because you have been baptized.

Nonetheless, you are a separated member because you are not in full communion with the Church that Jesus established on earth.

You are ignoring quite a lot of the things that Jesus commanded that can be found in the Bible so this membership is incomplete.

 

[benedictus2]

There is only one Church and all and I repeat, all Christians are apart of that Church which is the body of Christ. Remember his church has many branches. Could this be a fortelling of the other denominations? HMMM Could be.

Well not according to your defintion.

You said that Church is a group of people with the same beliefs.

Since Methodists and Baptists and Catholics have different beliefs, then no there is no One Christian Church.

There is One Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church but the other churches are separate Churches.

We believe in a few common doctrines but we do not have all the same doctrines.

As a matter of fact, the later the church is founded the greater the difference.

The Lutherans have more in common with the Catholic Church than the Baptists but even they are a separate Church that is why they are called the Lutheran Church.

 

[benedictus2]

Yes it is relevant to the topic becuase I gave you the reason why there was only the Catholic Church.

Do you mean this or did you just slip up? And should I classify this as Freudian?

I believe the Catholic Church is fallible not infallible. Its run by man and man is fallible.

If that is true, then she was fallible when she came up with the Bible. Therefore the Bible is not inerrant.

I don’t go by the canon. Thats a Catholic thing written by man not by God.

Do you even know what I mean when I say the canon? The canon is the canon of Scriptures i.e. the Bible.

So you believe the Bible is a Catholic thing. Well yes it is.

 

[rev_kevin]

So now we have the truth. You do not really believe that the Bible is inerrant because you have doubts that perhaps some books that should be in have been left out.

So now we have got that settled.

But you said a few sentences above that you do not know that for a fact by casting doubt on the canon.

But for 1500 years we accepted that as the Bible. How can someone 1500 years removed from the event know which one should be admitted. For that matter, how do you know that you should only have 66 book?

That is the most illogical statement I have ever read. How can scripture be inspired by God if we do not even know what should be called Scripture?
But the canon is precisely that - the canon of Scripture.

And no it’s your belief too. Because you base your belief on 66 books that you just said at the beginning of the posts you do not even know if they are the correct 66 books.

I didn’t say the present isn’t inerrant. I said there may have been some writtings that were left out for one reason or another.

This canon?
The Catholic Church organized cannon law in the thirteenth century because they learned scholars were having difficulties with deciphering the codes and relating them to each other. Each area of the code existed in a separate book, which made it difficult to actually find the right code. By 1582 the canon law existed in a larger compilation volume.

In the early part of the 20th century, Pope Pius X determined that the canon laws should be updated. He requested that extraneous text be removed and all of the documents be turned into one specific code. He also called for the removal of narratives and portions that were later deemed obsolete by newer revisions. This was released in 1919 as the Code of the Canon Law (1917) and went into effect in 1918.

The code was again revised and while it was released in 1982, work on the project actually began in 1963. Pope John Paul II approved the final code on January 25, 1983, which became known as the 1983 Code of Canon Law. This law put into place specific requirements for students and scholars. It required all seminary students to study canon law. Judges and judicial vicars working in this field must also have the JCD doctorate degree and the JCL license to practice.

Canon law is the is the series of laws used by the Catholic Church as well as the legal system that follows those laws. Those who study canon law receive a specialized degree and typically study theology or regular law prior to taking classes in this field. In the early days of the Catholic Church, documents and decrees were collected together and published.

Canon law is an integral part of the Catholic Church and those who hold major offices within the Church. It denotes the way in which they’re expected to act, as well as the way they do their jobs. The Church’s last revision of the code updated it for more modern times and it’s possible that it will again be updated in the future.

How do you know that it should have 73 books? I have a Bible that has 80 books to it. Its called THE COMPLETE BIBLE.

Why was the Gosples of Timothy and Mary Magdelen not put in? They were left out, why?

I didn’t say they were not the correct books. I said that man put in and left out what he wanted. That don’t mean that the books in it now aren’t correct.

 

[benedictus2]

I didn’t say the present isn’t inerrant. I said there may have been some writtings that were left out for one reason or another.

So what is it exactly you are trying to say, that there may be books that should have been included and there may be books that should not have been included?

If that is so, then you are saying that somehow the Holy Spirit guided them to an erroneous collection which basically destroys any claim to inerrancy don’t you think?

This canon?
The Catholic Church organized cannon law in the thirteenth century because they learned scholars were having difficulties with deciphering the codes and relating them to each other. Each area of the code existed in a separate book, which made it difficult to actually find the right code. By 1582 the canon law existed in a larger compilation volume.

In the early part of the 20th century, Pope Pius X determined that the canon laws should be updated. He requested that extraneous text be removed and all of the documents be turned into one specific code. He also called for the removal of narratives and portions that were later deemed obsolete by newer revisions. This was released in 1919 as the Code of the Canon Law (1917) and went into effect in 1918.

The code was again revised and while it was released in 1982, work on the project actually began in 1963. Pope John Paul II approved the final code on January 25, 1983, which became known as the 1983 Code of Canon Law. This law put into place specific requirements for students and scholars. It required all seminary students to study canon law. Judges and judicial vicars working in this field must also have the JCD doctorate degree and the JCL license to practice.

Canon law is the is the series of laws used by the Catholic Church as well as the legal system that follows those laws. Those who study canon law receive a specialized degree and typically study theology or regular law prior to taking classes in this field. In the early days of the Catholic Church, documents and decrees were collected together and published.

Canon law is an integral part of the Catholic Church and those who hold major offices within the Church. It denotes the way in which they’re expected to act, as well as the way they do their jobs. The Church’s last revision of the code updated it for more modern times and it’s possible that it will again be updated in the future.

The discussion was not about canon law but of the canon of Scripture, i.e. the Bible.

How do you know that it should have 73 books? I have a Bible that has 80 books to it. Its called THE COMPLETE BIBLE.

And there goes the question. Who has the right to determine the canon of Scripture.

So who do you think has the authority to determine what should and should not be part of the Canon of Scripture.

Why was the Gosples of Timothy and Mary Magdelen not put in? They were left out, why?

Exactly? Why? Because they were gnostic gospels.

I didn’t say they were not the correct books. I said that man put in and left out what he wanted. That don’t mean that the books in it now aren’t correct.

But again the question remains, someone has to have been infallible in making a pronouncement on what books should be in the Bible or there is no way we can definitely say that the Bible is the word of God.

The question here is a toss up between the Church in the 4th century or Luther in the 16th century.

The toss up is between several groups of learned men and holy men as again one person Luther.

The toss up is between the Church that Christ established and one aggrieved person 1500 years later.

If you accept the 66 books, then you are saying that Luther was infallible.

 

[benedictus2]

Hi Rev Kevin,

I am logging off so good night (though it’s probably morning where you are) and the Peace and Joy of Christ be with you through your day.

Peace!

Cory

 

[rikkk1958]

As I read some of the posts, especially that of Rev Kevin, I should say that he was trying to justify his position with philosophical thinking about the Catholic Church and Christian Church as One. I think he wants to connect his church with the original Church that Jesus wanted built. He is not bound by the tradition and probably do not want to follow what the disciples said how the Church should be formed. Am I correct on this?

Isn’t that the disciples said that only one Church should stand, and the Bishops, Presbyters, Deacons, should administer the Church? Were they the people that Jesus entrusted to build His Church? I believe that the succession is the correct way of building the Church because after all Jesus appointed the one to build His church. I believe that the early Church fathers did everything what is best for the Church, and that they were right to make it as the “One and Only Church of Jesus Christ” therefore they decided to name it the Catholic Church.

Now, how can anyone just build another church without following what the disciples, and early fathers did to continue the INSTRUCTIONS of Jesus Christ. That the Church must be one in Doctrine. Besides, the Eucharistic Rite of the Church is very much alive with tradition that had been there since the beginning of the formation.

 

[Prodigal_Son1]

Catholic tradition holds that the Catholic Church was founded by Jesus Christ. The New Testament records Jesus’ activities and teaching, his appointment of the twelve Apostles and his instructions to them to continue his work.[16][17] The Catholic Church teaches that the coming of the Holy Spirit upon the apostles, in an event known as Pentecost, signaled the beginning of the public ministry of the Church.[18] While there is no particular narrative of Peter being “consecrated by Jesus,” and then by “Peter traveling to Rome founding a church there” in Church tradition, this came to be the Catholic view. Peter is also held to be Rome’s first bishop and consecrater Linus as its next bishop, thus starting the line of Popes of whom Pope Benedict XVI is the current successor. This view is often repeated in the Catholic Church.[19] The narratives of the appointment of the twelve Apostles and the appointing of Matthias as an Apostle are both found directly in the Scriptures.

Exactly when Christians first appeared in Rome is difficult to determine, see Godfearers and Proselytes for the historical background. The Acts of the Apostles claims that the Jewish Christian couple Priscilla and Aquila had recently come from Rome to Corinth when, in about the year 50, Paul reached Corinth, indicating that Christianity in Rome had preceded Paul. While the church in Rome was already flourishing when Paul wrote his Epistle to the Romans to them from Corinth, about AD 57, he greets some fifty people in Rome by name, but not Peter whom he knew. There is also no mention of Peter in Rome later during Paul’s two year stay there in chapter 28 of Acts, about AD 60-62. Church historians consistently consider Peter and Paul to have been martyred under the reign of Nero, in AD 64 such as after the Great Fire of Rome which, according to Tacitus, Nero blamed on the Christians. The tradition that the See of Rome was founded as an organized Christian community by Peter and Paul and that its episcopate owes to them its origin can be traced back only as the second-century, with Irenaeus, but there is no conclusive evidence, scripturally, historically or chronologically, that Peter was in fact the Bishop of Rome. Irenaeus does not say that either Peter or Paul was “bishop” of the Church in Rome, and some historians have questioned whether Peter spent much time in Rome before his martyrdom

I believe this is my last post in this thread. It has become a circular discussion with new objections being listed, because it’s not specified in scriptures.

Scriptures tell us that there were many things Christ did that are NOT recorded in scriptures. They tell us if all was recorded, the world itself could not hold all the books. Yet Catholics are bound in these discussions by only what is recorded.

Scriptures recorded a conversation between Christ and ONLY His apostles.

**

Joh 15:16 You have not chosen me: but I have chosen you; and have appointed you, that you should go and should bring forth fruit; and your fruit should remain: that whatsoever you shall ask of the Father in my name, he may give it you.

**

The word translated to ‘appointed’ is translated in the KJV as ordained. Peter was ordained.

**

Mat 16:16 Simon Peter answered and said: Thou art Christ, the Son of the living God.
Mat 16:17 And Jesus answering said to him: Blessed art thou, Simon Bar-Jona: because flesh and blood hath not revealed it to thee, but my Father who is in heaven.
Mat 16:18 And I say to thee: That thou art Peter; and upon this rock I will build my church, and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it.
Mat 16:19 And I will give to thee the keys of the kingdom of heaven. And whatsoever thou shalt bind upon earth, it shall be bound also in heaven: and whatsoever thou shalt loose on earth, it shall be loosed also in heaven.

**

Peter was singled out for what the Father in heaven revealed to him, or 'consecrated by Christ.

Now exactly when did whoever go to Rome is a new objection. It does not matter, especially when one considers it was a new Church and had to go through a growth period like anything else new.

We’ve played the semantics game, which appears to be a total avoidance of agreeing with anything Catholics say. The first Church was called ‘Catholic’ and the name stayed with the Church. Those Churches formed when people separated themselves from the Catholic Church came hundreds of years later and of course are not in scriptures, the same as charged that Catholic is not in scriptures. Even secular history records the age of the Catholic Church.

The same as Christ chose Caesarea Philippi as the place to announce the building of His Church, Rome became the center of the Catholic Church. Both places were places where men were kept from the kingdom of God. Now they are His places, the place where He announced the building of His Church and the place that His Church is known worldwide as being the ‘headquarters’ of His Church.

Yes, the Catholic Church encompassed the globe, becoming universal, the same as rev kevin has said every Church did. Those Churches spread the Gospel message to this day. Those Churches rev kevin keeps speaking of came through the Catholic Church. Not to believe that is closing one’s eyes to history, both Church and secular.

It’s there in scriptures, the authoritative Church, for anyone to see, The Church was an organization started by Christ Himself, with a purpose to spread His Gospel. Those that hold Catholics to the letter of scriptures overlook the fact that Christ never wrote, or ordered scribed, anything. He commanded them to PREACH His word. The scriptures that are written do not give themselves the authority people have given them. In fact, scriptures give authority to the Church that Christ built.

 

[rinnie]

Nowhere in the Bible does Christ say He is the Church. Your arguments are the height of illogicality.
Rinnie, when Christ said to Peter “upon this Rock I will build my Church”, does that mean he is building Himself on Peter?

When we Paul speaks of the Church being the bride of Christ, since you say that the Church is Jesus Himself, does that mean the Jesus is married to Himself?

Your exegesis has gone beyond the absurd.

Bottom line you are pedling heresy. And everyone now knows that for a fact.

You are like the protestants who take 1 teeny weeny bit of scripture and make a whole doctrine out of it even though other passages contradict your interpretation.

You are bordering on pantheism.

Thank-you again for your wonderful judgement of my understanding of the faith, it is always gvien with such love.

When ST Paul refers to Jesus as the bride is he married to himself? What kind of question is that? You say you understand the Church. You say you have it all figured out. Then I am happy for you, and you are the first person who has it all figured out. BUt it sure is not Catholic Teaching thats for sure. None I ever had, and you can attack the Catholic School and CCC also.

Because we are taught the CHURCH is A GREAT MYSTERY. And when Christ compared himself and the bride it was not in a marriage like being married in this world. Of course you do seem to know and correct me so often.

What I was taught is the CHURCH is MANY THINGS. The RCC says the Church is the Holy Mother Church also, does that means it Mary, I am sure you will accuse me of that next.

When St.Paul talks about the NATURE of the Church and it RELATIONSHIP to the bride is that of a BRIDE whom CHRIST LOVES DEEPLY. So much does he love the Church that he handed himself over for her.

For goodness sakes when he says she is the bride it is his LOVE that makes her the splendent bride, the Church in Splendor without spot, or wrinkle or any such thing, Holy without blemish. (Ephesians 5:27). SO I have no idea how this can have have Christ marrying himself. It is you who have gone beyond absurd.

Maybe instead of being in such a hurry in condemning me, maybe hit the word and the understanding’s the teaching’s of the Church yourself first.

 

[rinnie]

And for you information the Catholic Church does teach that Christ is the Church.

The True Church the one Courch founded by Christ is not or our making nor can it and its teaching be interpreted by us according to a majority vote.

The Church of Christ IS THE BODY OF CHRIST in the world today in the visible structured hierarchical manifestation of the RISEN LORD at word to complete the task assigned him by the Father to bring all women and men together into ONE family, anointed in ONE HOLY SPIRIT made HOLY through the PRESENCE OF CHRIST in the EUCHARIST.

The Pope said that all SALVATION COMES THROUGH THE CC. How can Salvation come through the CC if the CC is not Jesus Christ.

Jesus Christ is the Catholic Church and becomes alive through the CC by the Power of the Holy Spirit. It is though the Sacraments that we find him making his presence.

You act like the CC is a bulding or something. The Church is Jesus Christ comming alive through the Sacraments.

That is why the CC is where all Salvation comes from.

If the CHurch was not Jesus Christ alive in this world then the CHurch could not save you. The CC is Christ alive today as much alive as he was when he was walking this world over 2000 years ago. Which is what I have been saying all along.

There is no difference between Jesus working through his human body years ago, then him working through is Mystical body today the Church. It is just another way that we are saved through Jesus Christ. It is through his body the Church, as it was through his Body on the Cross then.

He still has the Power of the Holy Spirit given to him from God to allow us his saving Grace.

Is Jesus Christ the CC. YES HE IS. And again call me any name you want. That is the teaching of the CC.

 

[joe370]

You want me to say Peter and Paul. And anything less then that means I have not answered your question.

Peter and Paul are not the founders of the Catholic Church in union with Rome. Were you just kidding? At any rate, I want to hear what you believe, not what we, here at CAF believe, regarding who you believe is the founder of the CC, and when said founder founded the CC? I guess I will just keep asking until you tell me otherwise…

 

[rinnie]

Dear Rev Kev.

This is something that you have to remember. What is the True Catholic Church.

I remember what the Pope said once and please take a whole week to think about this, and let me know if you can agree with this. I believe with alot of prayer and thinking you will see this part for sure.

The True Church is one that has ALL of the Sacraments.

If you are in a Church that has SOME of the Sacraments you are in a Church that has some of the truth. But we need the fulness of the truth to save us.

If your CHurch has all of the Sacraments, you are in the right Church. Because it is CHrist that is working through the Sacraments now that can save us.

So remember while the Church is revealed to us in many many ways, It is the power of the Holy Spirit working through the Sacraments that give us forgiveness for sins, Baptsim. the Eucharist all that is needed for eternal life in Christ. Jesus Christ is alive thru the sacraments thru the Church just as he was human he is Divine.

 

[Cinette]

Yes I am. I am Baptized Catholic and Baptized as Baptist.

*Why? In the CC you would have been baptised in the name of the Father, Son and Holy Spirit.

The Bible says there is only one baptism.

So why rev kevin?

*