Did Jesus Start the Catholic Church?

[Cinette]

The Disciples of Emmaus has seen the Resurrecton first with the eyes of the mind, then then with the eyes of the body.

BUt the Apostles would see it first with the eyes of the body, then with the eyes of the mind.

Now he stood among them 3 times after his Resurrection.

Next he breathed the Holy Spirit into them. When he did that they were no long servants, but sons.

Look back 3 times the Holy Spirit is mentioned with some external sign.

1. As a Dove at Christ’s baptism betokening his innocence and Divine Sonship.
2. As fiery tongues on the Day of Pentecost as a sign of the Spirit’s power to convert the world.
3. As the breath of the Risen Christ with all of its regenerative Power.

Then he gave them the Power to forgiven sins, and he told them there would be a distinction between sins also. He said to them some you will forgive, othere you will not.

Peter was called to be the Leader. Lead my Sheep, Feed my Sheep. But this by no means took any Power away from the others.

Now you must ask yourself, Can your Priest say I forgive your sin? This is why Rev Kev the Sacraments are so important.

Only God can forgive sins, but he did it in the form of Man Jesus Christ. The incarnation would now hold, God would continue to forgive sins through man.

It is still through the Holy Spirit, the Spirit that is revealed to us by Christ. The true Spriit of God.

*The H Spirit was also present at the Transfiguration.

Rinni I know you are a very passionate person about your Faith but I think you could avoid misunderstandings if you read through your posting before clicking. Your grammar is often faulty and the construction of your sentences. You probably type very fast and then click. If you read your postings through you would pick up your mistakes and then correct them and then there might be less misunderstandings.

*

 

[Cinette]

** Wow! I guess I’ve been very naughty** because I took issue with Catholics who want everyone to march in step.

** I’ve stated my basic position in various postings.** I come from a mixed Catholic/Protestant heritage which doubtless contributes to my desire to see the two traditions reconcile. I also have tried to read all points of view. For example, I subscribe to Our Sunday Visitor, US Catholic, Commonweal and our diocesan paper and watch EWTN regularly.

** How is that to be done? My suggestion is to have a ‘broader church’ **- a church which doesn’t rush to label as heretical or egocentric anyone who wants reform within Catholicism. I deeply admire much about Catholicism, certainly the unselfish devotion of many priests and nuns. But there simply is too much doctrine central to Catholicism that, try as I will, I cannot bring myself to accept.

** Within most of mainline Protestantism there is emphasis on ‘think and let think’** (words of John Wesley). If you believe, for example, that Padre Pio bilocated and levitated (among his many other miracles), fine. But as for me, I cannot believe that and many other miracles ascribed to canonized saints. Nor do I believe that Mary lived a sinless life, even though she deserves our deep appreciation and respect. And the whole hierarchial system of Catholicism strikes me as a relic of the ancient and medieval world when monarchies were the main form of government. And I think the church ought to think about abolishing the celibacy requirement for priests and also grant women more rights, certainly that of Deacon. I disagree with the church’s position on artificial birth control. Etc.

** Am I wrong to be honest and state these things? **Is that some sort of sin to express doubt? I read a poll in the *US Catholic * a tear or so ago which (as I recall) stated that 53% of Catholics don’t believe in transubstantiation, possibly the most central of all the church’s teachings. Are they all automatically be excommunicated? Isn’t this an abominable heresy? Frankly, I don’t think so.

** I believe that the church should be broad enough to abide people of differing views rather than demand cookie-cutter Catholics.** Because it doesn’t, you have millions of Catholics either leaving the church or ignoring the church’s teachings. After all, Protestantism resulted from the refusal of the church to accept different opinions. It even seems that contemporary Catholicism recognizes that the 16th century church needed reform and the Council of Trent was too late and produced too little. I have sung Luther’s “A Mighty Fortress” at Mass! Good sign, I might add, This has been described as “The Battle Hymn of the Reformation”!
**
But I know such opinions as mine (many Catholics have them) only anger those who are going to defend the status quo ** and become incensed with those of us who want significant change.

And, by the way, I am not a sola scriptura person, either. I certainly don't believe - as one of many examples - that God repented that he made man (Gen. 6:6), and then our loving God saved only eight people during the days of Noah and purposefully drowned everyone else, among them many children and even infants in the womb. And as for getting two of each animal into that ark, feeding them (and cleaning up after them) for over 150 days - give me a break!

 We need an intelligent, forgiving, reconciling, expansive church that is less brittle, less defensive, less tribal, less judgemental, less medieval and more tolerant of those who have honest doubts. 

 God bless Catholics, Protestants and people of every creed, color, culture and country. Let's work together to make religion a bridge and not a barrier. Christ would want us to do that.

*As I read through your posting I can see that you do not believe in:

• Tradition;
• Apostolic Succession;
• The Pope and The Magisterium;
• The Eucharist;
• The Immaculate Conception;
• Celibacy (many priests prefer this because as head of families they would have no time for the priesthood - no time for the flock. Many Eastern Orthodox Catholic priests have expressed being in favour of celibacy).
  etc etc etc.

Obviously you do not believe in the Catholic Church.

So my friend why don’t you just stick with the church you believe in and let the Catholic Church, inspired by the Holy Spirit, get on with the task which they have been given by God. You have free will to choose. Jesus promised he would be with us always. Sure we have experienced many difficulties but in the end we always get back on track with the assistance of the Holy Spirit. JESUS DID NOT LET US DOWN - HE KEPT HIS PROMISE.

As for me I am so pleased I returned to the Catholic Church and the more I learn the more I love the Church. I will pray for you Roy.

 

[Erich]

Did he say to believe that the Euchrist is his real body? NO

This thread is growing faster than I can keep up, so this may have already been addressed.

1 Cor. 11:23-26 – For I received from the Lord what I also passed on to you: The Lord Jesus, on the night he was betrayed, took bread, and when he had given thanks, he broke it **and said, **“This is my body, which is for you; do this in remembrance of me.” In the same way, after supper he took the cup, saying, “This cup is the new covenant in my blood; do this, whenever you drink it, in remembrance of me.” For whenever you eat this bread and drink this cup, you proclaim the Lord’s death until he comes.

Matt 26:26-28 – While they were eating, Jesus took bread, and when he had given thanks, he broke it and gave it to his disciples, saying, “Take and eat; this is my body.” Then he took a cup, and when he had given thanks, he gave it to them, saying, “Drink from it, all of you. This is my blood of the covenant, which is poured out for many for the forgiveness of sins.

Mark 14:22-24 – While they were eating, Jesus took bread, and when he had given thanks, he broke it and gave it to his disciples, saying, “Take it; this is my body.” Then he took a cup, and when he had given thanks, he gave it to them, and they all drank from it. “This is my blood of the covenant, which is poured out for many,” he said to them.

Luke 22:19-20 – And he took bread, gave thanks and broke it, and gave it to them, saying, “This is my body given for you; do this in remembrance of me.” In the same way, after the supper he took the cup, saying, “This cup is the new covenant in my blood, which is poured out for you.

John 6:35 – Jesus said to them, “I am the bread of life”

John 6:53 – Jesus said to them, “Amen, amen, I say to you, unless you eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink his blood, you do not have life within you.”

John 6:55 – For my flesh is true food, and my blood is true drink.

What is the Eucharist if not His real body?

 

[Eric_Hilbert]

(Please Note: This uploaded content is no longer available.)

Children…

 

[tqualey]

The proof lies in your evasion. There can be no dialogue with someone who refuses to respond - and, believe me - you have not responded. Claiming that you have responded or that I and others have not read the posts is another evasion. No? Then please provide the post numbers for the answers to the questions - and, believe me - that would end my asking.

The request now goes out a third time, please - answer the questions. And, just in case you get misdirected here they are:

**
1.) Multiple posters have asked that if Christ did not found the Catholic Church on Peter, than who did. To this we have yet to have a logical or even chronological response.

2.) Multiple posters have asked about the Canon of Scripture (not Canon Law!) and it looks like it may not be complete! Yet, there is no explanation on how God’s Sacred Word may have things left out of it.

3.) You just have to wonder how a valid Baptism in the Catholic Church could be considered inadequate or deficient in some manner so that it must be repeated in a Protestant church. No response on this item has been provided. **

I don’t know what your are trying to prove here,
If you’re trying to start some kind of agrument, :slapfight: go find yourself another huckleberry. :aok:
When you have something with substance to talk about then we can talk. If you don’t then, have a nice night.

 

[Mikeoffaith]

Actually it was more than that (if you really read it).

It shows you why there was a schism and why the Eastern Church was in error. It shows you why the whole thing was more a political maneouver than anything to do with Christ.

That is why even a quick perusal of Orthodox Churches shows not a universal Church but more national Churches.

It you look at history, only the Catholic Church has remained that… Catholic.

Actually, it is only one perspective biased on the Western side. It would be interesting to hear the Eastern side of it, I’m sure the story will be different yet. Remember, it’s all about perspective.

But the fact that the Roman church may not be a conglomerate of national churches does not mean that it is universal. It doesn’t encompass all of Christianity, the way the early church did.

I would say that the early church was made up of a lot of “national churches” or at least local churches that had no relationship to one governing head. I don’t know how much direction Peter gave to the churches in Corinth, Ephesus, etc.

And again, if all the answers came from Rome, what was the point of an ecumenical council? Why gather any together when a promulgation of faith would only need to come from Rome? Isn’t that what you believe to make the church catholic, one central authority and all others subservient?

 

[Mikeoffaith]

In your earlier post you said that there are only two churches that can lay claim to being Christ’s Church.

I asked you before how come you are not in either.

If like some orthodox where the main doctrinal issue is the Filioque (although this is a rather bogus issue), then why are you not Catholic?

Why do you remain Lutheran?

I don’t think I said only in my post. And here it is,

I say that Christ did found the Universal Church. However, I reject that Rome is the only body that exists as that church. I respect that all of Orthodoxy and Rome are part of that Church.

Oh yeah and I never excluded my church out of that either. Stop reading things into it that aren’t there.

 

[Mikeoffaith]

Well not quite. The Lutheran Church is Lutheran because they followed Luther and Luther’s doctrine.

Those who call themselves Roman Catholics want to emphasize that they are of the Latin Rite variety.

The Catholic Church does not refer to herself as the Roman Catholic Church.

The Lutheran Church on the other hand does, that is why you have the LCMS.

Well no, you stuck us with the name. And that is a fact. I’m sure at the Synod Assembly, I can get a resolution passed to change the name of the church to the Lutheran Rite Catholic Church. Would that make you feel better about the name? Or would it make the rift any less? Or would you believe any more that we are part of the Church Catholic founded by Christ? I mean if the only thing you have to lay claim to be the Church that Christ founded because you refer to yourselves as Catholic, I say let’s have everyone add it to their name! The Methodist Rite Catholic Church. The Anglican Catholic Church.

 

[rev_kevin]

The proof lies in your evasion. There can be no dialogue with someone who refuses to respond - and, believe me - you have not responded. Claiming that you have responded or that I and others have not read the posts is another evasion. No? Then please provide the post numbers for the answers to the questions - and, believe me - that would end my asking.

The request now goes out a third time, please - answer the questions. And, just in case you get misdirected here they are:

**

1.) Multiple posters have asked that if Christ did not found the Catholic Church on Peter, than who did. To this we have yet to have a logical or even chronological response.

I never said the Cahtolic Baptism was invalid. I said that the pastor knew I was Baptized as a Catholic and he said I DID NOT need to be Baptized again. I chose to be baptized again.

Here are your answers to your questions that you have gone to great lengths to find. These have already been answered. If you want to keep tabs on me,(why would you want to do that, unless your… ) do a better job then the one your doing.

 

[tqualey]

Thank you for your responses.

God bless

I never said the Cahtolic Baptism was invalid. I said that the pastor knew I was Baptized as a Catholic and he said I DID NOT need to be Baptized again. I chose to be baptized again.

Here are your answers to your questions that you have gone to great lengths to find. These have already been answered. If you want to keep tabs on me,(why would you want to do that, unless your… ) do a better job then the one your doing.

 

[tqualey]

Hi, Mikeoffaith,

I really do not think just adding ‘Catholic’ to one’s name would do it.

Actually, I am not familiar with just how the “Lutheran Church” got its name … but, I won’t argue with your explanation. As I recall the term “Baptist” was one of criticism (I think they were actually Anabaptists) and “Methodist” was also a term of scorn for the ‘method’ they claimed to use. These are just stories I have heard and really do not vouch for their accuracy.

But, as I appreciate the situation, Luther’s break from the Church founded by Christ on Peter was a radical departure. One can not leave the USA, take a law book with you, land on a deserted island and claim this is the real US because you have some it laws.

While Luther had a special devotion to Mary, he dropped virtually everything that the Catholic Church - his former church - taught. While he agreed with Baptism, he pretty much disagreed with the other Sacraments, the Primacy of Peter, that the Holy Spirit guides the Church so that it does not TEACH error in matter of faith or morals. (Some leaders of the Catholic Church gave public scandal - and lives lives that brought into question their devotion to Christ (as opposed to devotion to money, sex and power!) But, recall, Christ never promised that the leaders of His Church (beginning with Peter) would lead sinless and saintly lives. There is a human element in the Catholic Church… and sometimes this is very upsetting when evil is done!

Luther’s break was dramatic, permanent and far-reaching. By the time he was on his deathbed, there was no going back to the way things were done before. There were those who challenged Luther - both nobility and commoner and those who separated from Luther’s teaching. Splintering after splintering - which still goes on today.

God bless

Well no, you stuck us with the name. And that is a fact. I’m sure at the Synod Assembly, I can get a resolution passed to change the name of the church to the Lutheran Rite Catholic Church. Would that make you feel better about the name? Or would it make the rift any less? Or would you believe any more that we are part of the Church Catholic founded by Christ? I mean if the only thing you have to lay claim to be the Church that Christ founded because you refer to yourselves as Catholic, I say let’s have everyone add it to their name! The Methodist Rite Catholic Church. The Anglican Catholic Church.

 

[benedictus2]

Let me correct you right now, There is no new age rubbish in what I am saying.

When you said that the Church IS God!

How you see that by his Holy Spirit in which he came to sanctify Men through his Spirit after his Crucifixion makes us equal to him, as he is equal to God in beyond my level of understanding thats for sure.

Man will never be equal to God! The process of Theosis does not mean we become the Second Person of the Trinity.

You have a very strange theology because you rely on your own understanding.

That is why you end up with stupid statements that say we are God. God existed from all Eternity. God created us. We cannot be God because we had a beginning. God did not have a beginning.

What is so hard to comprehend about that. Even a primary school student will get that.

That is why I said that God started the CC through his Son Jesus Christ.

Exactly, exactly, exactly! God STARTED the Catholic Church. If God is the Catholic Church then that means that the Catholic Church STARTED herself. Simple logic.

**That the Catholic church HAD A BEGINNING means that she cannot possibly be God!

**

 

[benedictus2]

Like I said before. Dump and exit.

I hope you realize that with every such post you confirm my assesment of you.

** Wow! I guess I’ve been very naughty** because I took issue with Catholics who want everyone to march in step.

As opposed to the Great Roy5 wanting us to march in step with him! Shall we also shout Hail Pope Roy5?

** I’ve stated my basic position in various postings.** I come from a mixed Catholic/Protestant heritage which doubtless contributes to my desire to see the two traditions reconcile. I also have tried to read all points of view. For example, I subscribe to Our Sunday Visitor, US Catholic, Commonweal and our diocesan paper and watch EWTN regularly.

And this is supposed to validate your position of I/Me/Myself? Exactly how?

** How is that to be done? My suggestion is to have a ‘broader church’ **- a church which doesn’t rush to label as heretical or egocentric anyone who wants reform within Catholicism. I deeply admire much about Catholicism, certainly the unselfish devotion of many priests and nuns. But there simply is too much doctrine central to Catholicism that, try as I will, I cannot bring myself to accept.

Well hellooo, the Church is already broad. It cannot be broader.

What you are suggesting is not a broader church but Roy5’s way. You want a church where you basically decided doctrine and moral precepts and every one else can do the same. Total Rubbish! Christ did not come so that everyone can go their merry way following their own way.

He came that we may learn humility. That we may learn to die to self.

What you are proposing is that we may even more get firmly enthroned the ego.

** Within most of mainline Protestantism there is emphasis on ‘think and let think’** (words of John Wesley).

And Christ did that too. He allowed the disciples who insisted on leaving him after the discourse on the bread of life to do precisely that. Leave.

You want to bring Christ to heel.

No go sir. The last time I checked Christ is the God, not you.

If you believe, for example, that Padre Pio bilocated and levitated (among his many other miracles), fine.

See another less than smart statement. Since when has Padre Pio’s bilocation been Catholic dogma?

What is coming out loud and clear in your post is this painful ignorance of what the Church is.

Since you say you are well read, then I suggest you start digging into the real deal stuff about the Church and cease having conversations with yourself alone.

** Am I wrong to be honest and state these things? **

You may be telling us what you believe but that is not what honesty is all about. You are not even honest with yourself because if you really are honest with yourself you will dialogue.

I have seen protestants do that on this thread. There’s Mike, Rev Kevin, Dokimas, etc.

But you don’t You just vent your spleen and that is that. That is anything but honest. As a matter of fact, I think there is an ingrained fear to know the truth.

You dislike it when we post the position of the Church and yet here you are insisting that the Church BOW TO YOU.

Arrogance. Sheer arrogance.

Is that some sort of sin to express doubt?

Expressing sin is not doubt. Demanding that the Church change her stand according to your whim is. Pride.

What makes you think that you are so brilliant that because this is what you have arrived at from your extremely limited knowledge that the Church should therefore accede to your wishes?

You seem to think that you are so much more brilliant, so much more informed, so much more holy and guided by the Holy Spirit that all these things that you require changed must be so.

You arrive on this earth 2000 years from the birth of the Church and think that you are right and the Church and her saints, apostles, doctor and popes is wrong?

Nothing could be more arrogant than that. That same arrogance and pride that preceded the fall of Adam and Eve.

Oh I forgot, Being a devotee of the historico-critical method you probably don’t believe in Adam and Eve.

 

[Cinette]

Actually, it is only one perspective biased on the Western side. It would be interesting to hear the Eastern side of it, I’m sure the story will be different yet. Remember, it’s all about perspective.

But the fact that the Roman church may not be a conglomerate of national churches does not mean that it is universal. It doesn’t encompass all of Christianity, the way the early church did.

I would say that the early church was made up of a lot of “national churches” or at least local churches that had no relationship to one governing head. I don’t know how much direction Peter gave to the churches in Corinth, Ephesus, etc.

And again, if all the answers came from Rome, what was the point of an ecumenical council? Why gather any together when a promulgation of faith would only need to come from Rome? Isn’t that what you believe to make the church catholic, one central authority and all others subservient?

Mike - do you honestly believe what you are saying? It is more like a bunch of snide remarks to irritate and annoy. This is not an honest statement but just to demonstrate your resentment and dislike for the CC. I can’t believe you are being sincere - more like the kind of thing you say to “hurt and get back” rather than participating in honest debate

 

[benedictus2]

Actually, it is only one perspective biased on the Western side. It would be interesting to hear the Eastern side of it, I’m sure the story will be different yet. Remember, it’s all about perspective.

Well then let’s

Let’s table here the other perspective. Would you like to table the Easter side?

But the fact that the Roman church may not be a conglomerate of national churches does not mean that it is universal.

Universal means that she spans the globe. She is not limited to a particular nationality or country. That is very, very evident in the Catholic Church.

It doesn’t encompass all of Christianity, the way the early church did.

Because in the early Church there was only one Church - the Catholic Church. Then people started to set up their own Churches against Christ’s will.

I would say that the early church was made up of a lot of “national churches” or at least local churches that had no relationship to one governing head. I don’t know how much direction Peter gave to the churches in Corinth, Ephesus, etc.

Maybe you ought to read Acts and early Church History.

And again, if all the answers came from Rome, what was the point of an ecumenical council? Why gather any together when a promulgation of faith would only need to come from Rome? Isn’t that what you believe to make the church catholic, one central authority and all others subservient?

The councils ironed out doctrine and combatted heresy. It has no bearing on the fact that the Prime See is that of Rome.

 

[benedictus2]

I don’t think I said only in my post. And here it is,
Mikeoffaith;749299:

             *I say that Christ did found the  Universal Church.  However, I reject that Rome is the only body that  exists as that church. I respect that **all of Orthodoxy and Rome***

are part of that Church.

Oh yeah and I never excluded my church out of that either. Stop reading things into it that aren’t there.

You said all of Orthodoxy and Rome.
Since, the Lutheran Church is neither part of Orthodoxy nor the Catholic Church, you are therefore saying that she is not part of the Universal Church.

 

[Cinette]

*For Rinni -

Proverbs 3:5-6

“Trust in the Lord with all your heart, and do not rely on your own insight.
In all your ways acknowledge Him, and He will make straight your paths.”

*

 

[Roy5]

No, I don’t believe in Adam and Eve, except as a parable or perhaps a fable with a moral lesson. If we trace history through the genealogies in the scriptures, Adam and Eve must have been created about 4000 BC. We know that humankind has been around many, many thousands of years beyond that.

** The sun and moon created after the earth but before the stars?** Eve made from a rib taken from Adam? And why would God tell them not to eat from the tree of the knowledge of good and evil? Wasn’t that knowledge important? And why can they be blamed if they didn’t yet know the difference between good and evil? And we could go on and on.

** The first eleven chapters of Genesis are legends, containing some truth perhaps, but not to be taken literally.** For example, there probably was a massive flood in that part of the world. But do I believe that Noah built an ark that would hold two of every animal, that he got them into the ark two by two, and that he fed and cleaned up after them for over 150 days? Worse than that, do I believe that my God repented that he had created humankind, then drowns everybody - children, babies in the womb, included - except for eight people? Of course not. And do I believe that God made different languages to punish people for building a tower into the sky, probably much lower than our lowest skyscraper? I suspect that the writer of that section of Genesis (document J or E, I forget) may have been attacking the Hanging Gardens of Babylon.

** So accuse me of whatever - egotism etc.** I don’t pretend to know the deeper truth about this massive, miraculous, and mysterious universe. I’m content to wait until I leave this earth for the world to come. But which is more arrogant? To admit ignorance of deeper spiritual truth or claim to belong to the one and only true church? I’ll let you decide. If I see you in that world to come, we can chat personally. I think we both will be astonished by what we learn there that makes what we think we know here seem naive and childish. But God is kind and probably has a good sense of humor, too. Do you?

** But, God bless you anyway** - and people of goodwill regardless of their faith. I’m sure you mean well and live a good life. God is more interested in our heart than our doctrines and church affiliation.

 

[benedictus2]

Well no, you stuck us with the name. And that is a fact.

That is a fact I am not aware of so please enlighten me.

I’m sure at the Synod Assembly, I can get a resolution passed to change the name of the church to the Lutheran Rite Catholic Church.

Except that that would be a lie. It is not a Lutheran Rite Catholic Church. It is simply a Lutheran Church. If it were not so, then there would not be a need for the JDDJ.

Would that make you feel better about the name? Or would it make the rift any less?

A name changes nothing. It does not alter reality.

Or would you believe any more that we are part of the Church Catholic founded by Christ?

Separated brethren. You have your own set of doctrines and your own set of heirarchy. Not quite what Christ intended.

I mean if the only thing you have to lay claim to be the Church that Christ founded because you refer to yourselves as Catholic,

Because we can support that claim. I think there has been enough support given over the many pages in this thread.

I say let’s have everyone add it to their name! The Methodist Rite Catholic Church. The Anglican Catholic Church.

Would not make a difference. I could add MD next to my name and the only thing that would approximate in reality is Mind Drowsing.

 

[rev_kevin]

Roy5;7517408]**

** But, God bless you anyway**** - and people of goodwill regardless of their faith. I’m sure you mean well and live a good life. God is more interested in our heart than our doctrines and church affiliation.

… By George, he’s right. :yup: God is more interested in our heart than our doctrines and church affiliation.