Did Jesus Start the Catholic Church?

[benedictus2]

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 v
v
v
v
v 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.

And how does the historico-critical method make sense of faith and the Divine inspiration of the Bible?

Did Spinoza NOT believe the Bible is inspired?

Perhaps you should add to your reading list Jesus of Nazareth by Pope Benedict. Then perhaps you will realize the short comings of the historico critical method.

** 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.

Precisely! You do not know! But here you are claiming to be ignorant of the deeper truths and yet insist that the Church who apprehends the deeper truth so much more than you do BOW TO YOU.

What makes your pidly little brain much more credible and thus to be believed as compared to the doctors, saints, Popes and Apostles who have gone before.

Is it not the height of irrationality to claim not to know much and then insist that those who have a better grasp of truth than you do bow to you in obeisance?

But which is more arrogant? To admit ignorance of deeper spiritual truth or claim to belong to the one and only true church?
?

You admit ignorance and yet you demand that you lead the learned and the wise? How idiotic is that? Should it not be that the wise lead the ignorant?

Once you demand that the Church bow to your way, you claim authority. Based on what? On your self confessed lack of knowledge and wisdom? Or is this a round about way of saying that you are more in possession of the lights of God than St Thomas, St Augustine, the Popes and councils of the Church?

Sorry. Only delusion and arrogance can be concluded form your claims. Take your pick. Or perhaps both.

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.

And the God we will see in the world to come established a Church by which we can come to know Him even in this current world.

The God we will see in the world to come promised to send His Spirit that His Church maybe guided into Truth.

But it seems that you do not believe that to be so, hence the uncertainty of knowing the Truths of God even in this present world.

How sad that the God you believe in is unknowable. Perhaps you are more of a deist than a Christian and like Bultman do not really believe that Christ is God incarnate.

But God is kind and probably has a good sense of humor, too. Do you?

God is much more than kind. God is merciful.

And for the record, I have a humongous sense of humour.

But there is nothing remotely funny in the arrogance of some who demand to be heard but refuse to listen to what others say.

There is nothing remotely humourous in the arrogance of some who think they can dictate what the Church should and should not do.
You probably do not even see how irrational your position is as a semi Christian-full relativist person.

You say that every one should be allowed to think what they like to think and follow what they want to follow and yet here you are dictating that the Church should not be allowed to think what she likes to think and follow what she wants to follow.

You want to be accorded the freedom to declare autonomy for yourself in all that you want to say and do but you will not grant that same freedom to others. More than that you insist that the Church be constrained by your self acknowledged little mind.

Arrogance and Delusion.

But the topic of this thread, whether Christ established the Catholic Church.

So far you ranted and raved at the Church but have not contributed one single proof to support that you do not believe the Church to be founded by Christ.

Perhaps the first thing that you should ask yourself is whether you truly believe Christ is God and that the Bible is inerrant.

Because if you believe neither, then you are obviously not a Christian hence we need to tackle your questions from a different angle.

 

[benedictus2]

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

And the heart is shaped by doctrine.

What you know to be true is how you will live.

If you believe it to be true that a child in the womb is not a person, then you will act according to that perception. Hence if the child is perceived to be a thread to your finance, freedom and health then you will kill that child without a qualm.

Doctrine is important. Because to Love God with all your hearth, with all your soul and with all your strength is a doctrine.

That Christ is God is a doctrine.

 

[benedictus2]

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

God is indeed concerned for our hearts. That is why He set up a Church and sent the Spirit to lead her to His Doctrines.

 

[Cinette]

And the heart is shaped by doctrine.

What you know to be true is how you will live.

If you believe it to be true that a child in the womb is not a person, then you will act according to that perception. Hence if the child is perceived to be a thread to your finance, freedom and health then you will kill that child without a qualm.

Doctrine is important. Because to Love God with all your hearth, with all your soul and with all your strength is a doctrine.

That Christ is God is a doctrine.

*Oh Benedictus I loved your post ((you must check your spelling as it is a blemish! ).

*I hope our dear friend the rev kevin will read it and take it in because it is simply the truth.

 

[tqualey]

I just don’t believe you are still doing this, Roy5.

Your demonstration is that you are just on this list to spew out your own thoughts and not interact with anyone. Really, I would have thought you had learned something from Benedictus2’s post call you to task - but, apparently not.

You have refused to respond to my posts dealing with your issues … so … why not just go and find a list that people just post their thoughts and leave it at that. Truly, your posts are very limited, your view of the Catholic Church is incredibly distorted to the point of being lame - and worse yet - you just refuse to engage others.

But, don’t worry - one day you will.

God bless

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.

 

[tqualey]

Hi, Benedictus2,

Great post!

But, this guy makes a wall look attentive!

God bless

Like I said before. Dump and exit.

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

As opposed to the Great Roy5 wanting us to march in step with him! Shall we also shout Hail Pope Roy5?
And this is supposed to validate your position of I/Me/Myself? Exactly how?

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.

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.
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.

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.

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]

*Roy5 - a “Catholic” who does not believe in Mary’s perpetual virginity is amazing. One needs only to contemplate what she stood for. Her womb contained our Lord Jesus - the second person of the Holy Trinity. She was the Mother of God and as such, had to be a woman of extreme virtue. Jesus had her DNA naturally. She had taken a vow of chastity before she met Joseph and he was to assume the role of husband to protect her.

She was not in a romantic love relationship. Her role was special. I am not denigrating married love but Mary was apart from that.

I can understand that, Catholics can understand that! I believe there are Protestants who also understand.
*

 

[Roy5]

Probably I haven’t been expressing myself well, and I don’t intend to keep trying. I am, of course, not saying that I have the answers. Quite the contrary. I’m saying that we live in such a vast and mysterious universe that none of us has the answers to many of the controversial issues. Is the Genesis story of Adam and Eve historically true? Did God order Joshua to slaughter all the inhabitants of Jericho? And command Saul to kill every surviving Amalekite? Did Mary live a sinless life? Is transubstantiation the only correct interpretation of Holy Communion? Did Mary and the Baby Jesus rest on top of their Nazareth home as it was carried by angels to Loreto, Italy? Did Padre Pio levitate and bilocate? Oh, and are Ex. 20, verses 18 and 20, the Word of the Lord? Those verses, you will recall, ordered the execution of witches and the killing of all Hindus, Buddhists, etc. - people who don’t worship Jehovah. I’ve read that as many as 50,000 women were burned or murdered in other ways across Europe because of that 18th verse.

** I can tell that my doubts really annoy some.** Sorry about that, but I presume I’m trying to indicate that traditional Catholicism as well as sola scriptura Protestantism have problems. At least, they are problems for me. Over the years I have sought, in my own little way, to counter the notion that Christianity is an irrelevant and superstitious cult that provides contradictory views of our God (who drowns just about everybody but also is love, merciful and forgiving). I’m much in favor of the second concept and resent it when the Lord I worship is presented as some wrathful tyrant who founded one true church which we’d better accept as infallible - or else! No wonder the number of unchurched and irreligious is growing in Europe, the USA and elsewhere. I’d abandon Christianity, too, if I had to believe everything some of our churches require of its adherents.

** But, let me close this chapter because it seems to have aroused some emotional ad hominem accusations.** Goodbye to this thread - and God bless everybody. We’ll all lucky that God is long-suffering, willing to tolerate our foolishness in the light of the Lord’s magnificent and mysterious omniscience. “Praise God from whom all blessings flow.”

 

[Roy5]

Oops. Hurried too much to evacuate this thread. If anyone is looking up the witch reference, it is Ex. 22:18 - and also verse 20. Not Ex. 20, where, of course, we find the Ten Commandments. These present some problems, too. Like making graven images. Or, not doing any work on the seventh day (Saturday???). How about “Thou shalt not kill.”? Hm. Lots of possible interpretations for that. But… goodbye, again.

 

[Mikeoffaith]

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

When statements are made like “Luther dropped virtually everything that Rome taught sans Mary,” pretty much tells me there isn’t whole lot that you know about the Lutheran Church or Luther’s teaching other than what other Roman Catholics have taught. I like that you say Luther disagreed with 6 out of the 7 sacraments. It would be interesting to hear you understanding of that, but I fear if we go down this road we are getting far off topic.

The fact of whether or not Jesus founded the Catholic Church and my understanding of what that means and entails is different from your understanding of what that means.

 

[Mikeoffaith]

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

Wow Cinette, you seem to be reading a lot into this. Where do you get that I resent or dislike the CC? I don’t agree with the church on points but it’s far from dislike or resent. If you think because I disagree with you and others that Rome is not the center of Christianity and that I believe it does not contain the fulness of truth or is the only One Holy and Catholic Apostolic Church, then I think you really need to think twice about your definition of honest debate.

 

[Mikeoffaith]

Well then let’s

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

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.

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.

Maybe you ought to read Acts and early Church History.

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

I’m assuming a lot in my response. But if you are saying let’s table the Western and Eastern versions of the Schism. Sure. For argument we can lay them aside.

If you mean that Catholic merely means universal in that it spans the globe, then I would say that almost any other church could say the same. If you are defining that all these churches report back to Rome and that makes it more universal/catholic then that is a different definition. If you wish to define it and understand it that way, fantastic! But at the same time I may or may not hold the same definition.

Then people started to set up their own churches? And when did that happen exactly?

If the councils were there to iron our doctrine and combat heresy, what does that have to do with Rome’s primacy? Even if you look at the Pentarchy of the early church, Rome may have had a prime position, but it was not the only authority. In my book primacy does not equal absolute authority. I think you need to read Acts and Early Church History again. But then again maybe you don’t. How I read Acts and my understanding of it maybe different than your own.

 

[Mikeoffaith]

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.

Saying all of Orthodoxy and Rome are part of the Catholic Church is not the same as saying ONLY all of Orthodoxy and Rome are the ONLY parts of the Catholic Church. So I’m not so sure about what you are misunderstanding is. Should I have listed ever branch of Orthodoxy as well to make sure that it is understood that I mean more than just the Greek Orthodox church? And should I also list all the children of Rome that I believe to be in the Catholic Church? I can if that will help you understand.

 

[Mikeoffaith]

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

It was actually John Eck who first used the term as an insult toward Luther’s followers around 1519 if I’m not mistaken.

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. A name changes nothing. It does not alter reality. Separated brethren. You have your own set of doctrines and your own set of heirarchy. Not quite what Christ intended. Because we can support that claim. I think there has been enough support given over the many pages in this thread. 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.

Exactly and just because you choose to call yourselves the Catholic Church doesn’t alter my belief or reality that you are merely a part of the Church started by Christ and I am almost certain that your hierarchy is far from what Christ had intended. But again our perspectives are different. And yes you could add MD after your name if you so believed yourself to be a doctor of medicine, but I please forgive me if I don’t necessarily believe you to be one.

 

[Mikeoffaith]

That Christ is God is a doctrine.

Actually, isn’t that dogma and not doctrine?

 

[Matthew_P_Muehl]

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

If that were true Christ would have not established the Catholic Church!

Matthew

 

[Cinette]

Wow Cinette, you seem to be reading a lot into this. Where do you get that I resent or dislike the CC? I don’t agree with the church on points but it’s far from dislike or resent. If you think because I disagree with you and others that Rome is not the center of Christianity and that I believe it does not contain the fulness of truth or is the only One Holy and Catholic Apostolic Church, then I think you really need to think twice about your definition of honest debate.

*I admit I know little about the Lutheran church but I always thought that it was quite close to the CC. I believe there are about 3 or four different Lutheran denominations. I knew a couple who spoke like fundamentalists and knew they were not close. Then I met their Pastor and he told me that they believe that the Bread of Life is only such when the receiver consumes it and that the remains are fed to the birds because that is not the body of Christ. I thought that was weird. Then I attended a meeting where different denominations participated and was impressed with the Lutheran because he spoke a lot like a Catholic - so I am confused. You have said some stinging things. So again - I am confused.

God bless
*

 

[benedictus2]

Actually, isn’t that dogma and not doctrine?

That is doctrine that has officially been made dogma.

 

[benedictus2]

Hi, Benedictus2,

Great post!

But, this guy makes a wall look attentive!

God bless

Oh Tom that is so funny.

I should stop laughing as I am not supposed to have a sense of humour.

 

[benedictus2]

Probably I haven’t been expressing myself well, and I don’t intend to keep trying. I am, of course, not saying that I have the answers. Quite the contrary. I’m saying that we live in such a vast and mysterious universe that none of us has the answers to many of the controversial issues.

And here lies your problem.

You claim to not know the answers and yet you want to bend to your thinking those who do know the answers or at the very least more much more answers than you.

I wish I could cartoon your position.

You are like a first grade child who has finally learned than one and one makes two telling your teacher who happens to be Einstein that he should change the formula to C-ME3.

It is good to know that you are at least ammenable that you do not know all the answwers.

And being so, you most likely do not know either that the Church knows much more than you. So why should she listen to you. Why should what you say be followed considering you know very little.

Read all the Church documents, all the writings of the Church doctors, Catholic History, the great Catholic thinkers like G K Chesterton, great mystics like Teresa of Avila, John of the Cross and Therese of Liesieux. Read Cardinal Newman, Pope Benedict, and John Paul II. When you have done that, debate the points and perhaps you will have a little bit more credibility.

At the moment, you are a mouse commanding the Lion sit.