Did Jesus Start the Catholic Church?

[benedictus2]

YA it is pretty fast isn’t it
I really don’t have any comments on them. I just posted them for those of us who don’t know the Catholic Dogma’s. I feel this could help us in understanding the Catholic faith and know where you Catholic’s are comming from in the discussions.

Now if there is a certain part you want to discuss, feel free to ask.

And how does listing them address the question of whether Christ started the Catholic Church?

As I said before, we can only address individual dogma’s if one can show relevance.

Now. to steer this back into the right direction.

This is how it goes.

I**f the Catholic Church is the Church that Christ established, then all those dogma’s that you listed, whether you believe them or not are True and after God’s own heart for the simple reason of her Divine Origin.

That is why I suggest we stick to the original question.
**
I have a feeling that you are finally coming to the realization that the correct answer to that is the affirmative so I don’t know whether this is a one last attempt to avoid addressing the issue squarely.

Can I ask everyone to avoid going into the dogmas as that will only derail the thread?

 

[benedictus2]

I answered that in the red part of my post.

Read the red.

Okay, but that is a waste of html considering that it gets us nowhere. A link would have sufficed.

Anyway, let’s move on.

 

[tqualey]

Hi, Rev Kev,

Your first and second paragraphs are pretty good.

But you don’t really thind that God the Father was inspiring a ‘…small detachment from the massive edge…’ do you? Naw, I did not think so. God the Father gave Peter the answer - and Christ recognized the intervention of His Father as this was announced to the Apostles. And, Christ gently reminds us that it was not Peter’s intellect that fathomed the mystery - but, God’s revelation. And, as you read for yourself from my post - Christ founds His Church on Peter.

Concerning the Eastern Orthodox folks - I guess a lot depends on when in time they came up with this new idea … because form the very beginning, all eyes were on Rome and the Vicar of Christ on Earth - the Pope. After the schism, they saw things differently, and that is critical to any real understanding of what went on. It is so much easier to change one’s belief to match one’s behavior than the other way around.

Oh, and I thought that was a good ending paragraph you had, too.

God bless

The “Rock” dialogueIn a dialogue between Jesus and his disciples (Matthew 16:13-20), Jesus asks, “Who do people say that the Son of Man is?” The disciples give various answers. When he asks, “Who do you say that I am?” Simon Peter answers, “You are the Christ, the Son of the living God.” In turn, Jesus declares Peter to be “blessed” for having recognized Jesus’ true identity and attributes this recognition to a divine revelation. Then Jesus addresses Simon by what seems to have been the nickname “Peter” (Cephas in Aramaic, Petros [rock] in Greek) and says, “On this rock I will build my church, and the gates of Hades will not prevail against it.”

A common exegetical interpretation of Peter is provided by Daniel Harrington who suggests that Peter was an unlikely symbol of stability. While he was one of the first disciples called and served as the spokesman for the group, Peter is also the exemplar of “little faith” in Matthew 14, will soon have Jesus say to him, “Get behind me, Satan,” and will eventually deny Jesus three times. In light of the Easter event, then, Peter became an exemplar of the forgiven sinner. A great variance of opinions exists as to the interpretation of this passage with respect to what authority and responsibility, if any, Jesus was giving to Peter.

Petros had not previously been used as a name, but in the Greek-speaking world it became a popular Christian name, after the tradition of Peter’s prominence in the early Christian church had been established.

In the Eastern Orthodox Church this passage is interpreted as not implying a special prominence to the person of Peter, but to Peter’s position as representative of the Apostles. The word used for “rock” (petra) grammatically refers to “a small detachment of the massive ledge”, not to a massive boulder. Thus, Orthodox Sacred Tradition understands Jesus’ words as referring to the Apostolic Faith.

The great majority of Western scholars concur with the interpretation, that the “rock” was Peter, not Jesus himself or Peter’s faith.

 

[benedictus2]

A common exegetical interpretation of Peter is provided by Daniel Harrington who suggests that Peter was an unlikely symbol of stability. While he was one of the first disciples called and served as the spokesman for the group, Peter is also the exemplar of “little faith” in Matthew 14, will soon have Jesus say to him, “Get behind me, Satan,” and will eventually deny Jesus three times. In light of the Easter event, then, Peter became an exemplar of the forgiven sinner. A great variance of opinions exists as to the interpretation of this passage with respect to what authority and responsibility, if any, Jesus was giving to Peter.

Petros had not previously been used as a name, but in the Greek-speaking world it became a popular Christian name, after the tradition of Peter’s prominence in the early Christian church had been established.

In the Eastern Orthodox Church this passage is interpreted as not implying a special prominence to the person of Peter, but to Peter’s position as representative of the Apostles. The word used for “rock” (petra) grammatically refers to “a small detachment of the massive ledge”, not to a massive boulder. Thus, Orthodox Sacred Tradition understands Jesus’ words as referring to the Apostolic Faith.

The great majority of Western scholars concur with the interpretation, that the “rock” was Peter, not Jesus himself or Peter’s faith.

"What do Protestant Biblical Scholars have to say about it Matthew 16:18 ?"

Gerhard Maier (leading conservative evangelical Lutheran theologian)

Nowadays a broad consensus has emerged which — in accordance with the words of the text — applies the promise to Peter as a person. On this point liberal (H. J. Holtzmann, E. Schweiger) and conservative (Cullmann, Flew) theologians agree, as well as representatives of Roman Catholic exegesis.

The Church in the Gospel of Matthew: Hermeneutical Analysis of the Current Debate”
Biblical Interpretation and Church Text and Context
(Flemington Markets, NSW: Paternoster Press, 1984), page 58
JPK pages 16-17
**

---

Donald A. Carson III**
Baptist and Professor of New Testament at Trinity Evangelical Seminary
(two quotations from different works)

Although it is true that petros and petra can mean “stone” and “rock” respectively in earlier Greek, the distinction is largely confined to poetry. Moreover the underlying Aramaic is in this case unquestionable; and most probably kepha was used in both clauses (“you are kepha” and “on this kepha”), since the word was used both for a name and for a “rock”. The Peshitta (written in Syriac, a language cognate with Aramaic) makes no distinction between the words in the two clauses. The Greek makes the distinction between petros and petra simply because it is trying to preserve the pun, and in Greek the feminine petra could not very well serve as a masculine name.

The Expositor’s Bible Commentary: Volume 8 (Matthew, Mark, Luke)
(Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 1984), page 368
JPK pages 17-18​

The word Peter petros, meaning “rock” (Gk 4377), is masculine, and in Jesus’ follow-up statement he uses the feminine word petra (Gk 4376). On the basis of this change, many have attempted to avoid identifying Peter as the rock on which Jesus builds his church. Yet if it were not for Protestant reactions against extremes of Roman Catholic interpretations, it is doubtful whether many would have taken “rock” to be anything or anyone other than Peter.

Zondervan NIV Bible Commentary — New Testament, vol. 2
(Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 1994), page 78
JPK page 18

---

Craig L. Blomberg
Baptist and Professor of New Testament, Denver Seminary

Acknowledging Jesus as The Christ illustrates the appropriateness of Simon’s nickname “Peter” (Petros = rock). This is not the first time Simon has been called Peter (cf. John 1:42), but it is certainly the most famous. Jesus’ declaration, “You are Peter”, parallels Peter’s confession, “You are the Christ”, as if to say, “Since you can tell me who I am, I will tell you who you are.” The expression “this rock” almost certainly refers to Peter, following immediately after his name, just as the words following “the Christ” in v. 16 applied to Jesus. The play on words in the Greek between Peter’s name (Petros) and the word “rock” (petra) makes sense only if Peter is the rock and if Jesus is about to explain the significance of this identification.

The New American Commentary: Matthew, vol. 22
(Nashville: Broadman, 1992), pages 251-252
JPK pages 31-32

 

[rev_kevin]

QUOTE=tqualey;7521179]Hi, Rev Kev,

That was thoughtful of you. Really. There are so many items from these pages that Lutherans and Baptists believe, too. Truly, this is a heart warming list to see them presented this way.

Thank you

But, don’t you think it best to stick with the thread as stated by the OP?

Like I said I just wanted to help those of us who don’t know why Catholic’s believe the way they do.

Since, as I recall you have said you believe that Christ started the Catholic Church, there really isn’t much more to discuss, eh?

This is what I said, Originally Posted by rev kevin
Jesus started the Church. Not saying the Catholic Church mind you, just His CHURCH.

With this fine list of cut 'n paste items, I bet you could start your own thread.

You’re probably right.

 

[rev_kevin]

"What do Protestant Biblical Scholars have to say about it Matthew 16:18 ?"

Gerhard Maier (leading conservative evangelical Lutheran theologian)

Nowadays a broad consensus has emerged which — in accordance with the words of the text — applies the promise to Peter as a person. On this point liberal (H. J. Holtzmann, E. Schweiger) and conservative (Cullmann, Flew) theologians agree, as well as representatives of Roman Catholic exegesis.

The Church in the Gospel of Matthew: Hermeneutical Analysis of the Current Debate”
Biblical Interpretation and Church Text and Context
(Flemington Markets, NSW: Paternoster Press, 1984), page 58
JPK pages 16-17
**

---

Donald A. Carson III**
Baptist and Professor of New Testament at Trinity Evangelical Seminary
(two quotations from different works)

Although it is true that petros and petra can mean “stone” and “rock” respectively in earlier Greek, the distinction is largely confined to poetry. Moreover the underlying Aramaic is in this case unquestionable; and most probably kepha was used in both clauses (“you are kepha” and “on this kepha”), since the word was used both for a name and for a “rock”. The Peshitta (written in Syriac, a language cognate with Aramaic) makes no distinction between the words in the two clauses. The Greek makes the distinction between petros and petra simply because it is trying to preserve the pun, and in Greek the feminine petra could not very well serve as a masculine name.

The Expositor’s Bible Commentary: Volume 8 (Matthew, Mark, Luke)
(Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 1984), page 368
JPK pages 17-18​

The word Peter petros, meaning “rock” (Gk 4377), is masculine, and in Jesus’ follow-up statement he uses the feminine word petra (Gk 4376). On the basis of this change, many have attempted to avoid identifying Peter as the rock on which Jesus builds his church. Yet if it were not for Protestant reactions against extremes of Roman Catholic interpretations, it is doubtful whether many would have taken “rock” to be anything or anyone other than Peter.

Zondervan NIV Bible Commentary — New Testament, vol. 2
(Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 1994), page 78
JPK page 18

---

Craig L. Blomberg
Baptist and Professor of New Testament, Denver Seminary

Acknowledging Jesus as The Christ illustrates the appropriateness of Simon’s nickname “Peter” (Petros = rock). This is not the first time Simon has been called Peter (cf. John 1:42), but it is certainly the most famous. Jesus’ declaration, “You are Peter”, parallels Peter’s confession, “You are the Christ”, as if to say, “Since you can tell me who I am, I will tell you who you are.” The expression “this rock” almost certainly refers to Peter, following immediately after his name, just as the words following “the Christ” in v. 16 applied to Jesus. The play on words in the Greek between Peter’s name (Petros) and the word “rock” (petra) makes sense only if Peter is the rock and if Jesus is about to explain the significance of this identification.

The New American Commentary: Matthew, vol. 22
(Nashville: Broadman, 1992), pages 251-252
JPK pages 31-32

Originally Posted by rev kevin
A common exegetical interpretation of Peter is provided by Daniel Harrington who suggests that Peter was an unlikely symbol of stability. While he was one of the first disciples called and served as the spokesman for the group, Peter is also the exemplar of “little faith” in Matthew 14, will soon have Jesus say to him, “Get behind me, Satan,” and will eventually deny Jesus three times. In light of the Easter event, then, Peter became an exemplar of the forgiven sinner. A great variance of opinions exists as to the interpretation of this passage with respect to what authority and responsibility, if any, Jesus was giving to Peter.

Response Posted by rev kevin
Ok thats what they say it means and what I posted is what Daniel Harrington says it means.

 

[rev_kevin]

Hi, Rev Kev,

Your first and second paragraphs are pretty good.

 

[tqualey]

I don’t believe it, Rev Kev … you are back-sliding … again!

If you will recall… the question asked (reflecting the OP’s thread) was did Jesus start the Catholic Chruch. As I recall, you went through a lot of huffing 'n puffing about how you had answered the question - but, several posters were just not satisified. Then you told us Christ founded the Catholic Church on Peter. Now this…

This is what I said, Originally Posted by rev kevin
Jesus started the Church. Not saying the Catholic Church mind you, just His CHURCH.

So, I guess it is back to square one … because you really need to make up your mind.

Yes, as I have previously given you the entire verse of Matt 16:13-19, Christ founds His Chruch on Peter. Christ does not name His Church - He leaves that to others. Saul of Tarsus actively persecutes those who follow Christ and the name they used was The Way. And, then the Scriptures end … ah… but, Sacred Tradition - what the Apostles did BEFORE THERE WAS A SCRIPTURE and what the Early Church did after the Apostles fills in the details. Prior to 107AD Ignatious of Atnioch calls the organization the Catholic Church. But, don’t take my word for it …

I previously invited you to draw a line from Peter to wherever the leadership of the Church went. A straight line can be drawn from Peter to Pope Benedict XVI. There is no line that goes to Luther, Calvin, Henry VIII or anyone else. Prove me wrong by drawing your own line… and let me know where you wind up.

As I previously told you, Christ did not come back to earth, remove the authority He gave to Peter and his successors and give it to Luther, or Calvin or any of the others who broke with the teachings of the Catholic Church.

Finally, if Christ did not found the Catholic Church - who did?

As I recall you have this habit of evading items you don’t like … here’s is your chance to rise to the challenge and respond to these questions. You really have not done a credible job in the past … but, I just know with the benefit of having looked at all of that Catholic doctrine - you are much better equiped to respond fully. Make me proud of you, Rev Kev.

I will look forward to reading your response in the morning … it is 11:15pm over here and I am going to bed.

God bless

 

[benedictus2]

Ok thats what they say it means and what I posted is what Daniel Harrington says it means.

And I thought I’d reinforce the last line that says most scholars believe that Peter is the Rock.

 

[benedictus2]

Hi Joe: I do understand your view and the views of others on this post. I see the reasoning behind what each of you are saying and I understand the conclusions you draw from this reasoning. It would be difficult to properly convey my view on any of that, because my background is so different. I can say that I don’t think any of you are going to hell for trying to be close to God in whatever way you heard His call. Each of you are converging on one point starting from different points. It follows that you are taking different paths to the same place. The strange part about that is that you really don’t have to go anywhere. Remember those pictures they sold in the kiosks at the malls back in the 1990’s where if you stared at them you were supposed to be able to see another picture emerge from the picture? It seemed like you could never find it until you stopped trying so hard. Then it was right there. Of course it was right there all the time.

Your friend
Sufjon

I thought I’d post a second reply to this to illustrate where the error is.

If I am not mistaken you lean towards New Age belief.

The difference between that and the Judeo-Christian religion is that what the former is man’s attempt at understanding God, the Judeo-Christian faith is God revealing Himself…

It is not a case of man rising to a higher consciousness and thereby connecting with a deity. It is not a case of man realizing one’s god-potential.

Judea-Christian belief says that God who is so very much Other, who is so far above our understanding chose to reveal Himself. And that God’s Self-Revelation while written in the Bible is not limited to the Bible because to enable this Self-Revelation, He did not write a book but instead established a Church through whom the Truth will proclaimed.

And if God is indeed the kind of God we give the attribute of Omnipotence, Omniscience and Omni-benevolence to, then it is only through Him revealing Himself will man come to know Him. Being so far above us, the only way we can know Him is if He were to reveal Himself. Left to ourselves, since He is so far above us, we have no hope of even grasping a tiny aspect of Him.

We come to know Him only because He allows us to come to know Him.

That is why relativism and Christianity will never be a couple.

What you are proposing is grounded on relativism and that perspective will never grasp the full import of Christian Truth because that philosophical foundation is built on shifting sand not upon a firm and stable Rock.

 

[rev_kevin]

I don’t believe it, Rev Kev … you are back-sliding … again!

If you will recall… the question asked (reflecting the OP’s thread) was did Jesus start the Catholic Chruch. As I recall, you went through a lot of huffing 'n puffing about how you had answered the question - but, several posters were just not satisified. Then you told us Christ founded the Catholic Church on Peter. Now this…

 

[rev_kevin]

And I thought I’d reinforce the last line that says most scholars believe that Peter is the Rock.

OK. He was the rock. But even a rock can crumble and not be stable.

Walking on water
Three of the four canonical Gospels—Matthew, Mark and John—recount the story of Jesus walking on water. Matthew additionally describes Peter walking on water for a moment, but began to sink when his faith wavered. [Matt. 14:28–31]

Washing of feet
At the beginning of the Last Supper, Jesus washed his disciples’ feet. Peter initially refused to let Jesus wash his feet, but when Jesus responded: “If I wash thee not, thou hast no part with me”, Peter replied: “Lord, not my feet only, but also my hands and my head”.[Jn. 13:2-11] The washing of feet is often repeated in the service of worship on Maundy Thursday by some Christian denominations.

**Arrest of Jesus **
Apostle Peter striking MalchusThe three synoptic Gospels all mention that, when Jesus was arrested, one of his companions cut off the ear of a servant of the High Priest.[18] The Gospel of John also includes this event, and names Peter as the swordsman and Malchus as the victim. [Jn. 18:10] Luke adds that Jesus touched the ear and miraculously healed it.[Lk. 22:50]

Denial of Jesus by Peter
All four canonical gospels recount that, during the Last Supper, Jesus foretold that Peter would deny him three times before the following cockcrow (“before the cock crows twice” in Mark’s account).

The three Synoptics and John describe the three denials as follows:

A denial when a female servant of the high priest spots Simon Peter, saying that he had been with Jesus. According to Mark (but not in all manuscripts), “the rooster crowed.” Only Luke and John mention a fire by which Peter was warming himself among other people: according to Luke, Peter was “sitting”; according to John, he was “standing.”
A denial when Simon Peter had gone out to the gateway, away from the firelight, but the same servant girl (Mark) or another servant girl (Matthew) or a man (Luke and also John, for whom, though, this is the third denial) told the bystanders he was a follower of Jesus.
According to John, “the rooster crowed.”
A denial came when Peter’s Galilean accent was taken as proof that he was indeed a disciple of Jesus. According to Matthew, Mark and Luke, “the rooster crowed.” John, though, does not mention the Galilean accent.
Matthew adds that it was his accent that gave him away as coming from Galilee. Luke deviates slightly from this by stating that, rather than a crowd accusing Simon Peter, it was a third individual.

**St. Peter Denying Christ **
The Gospel of John places the second denial while Peter was still warming himself at the fire, and gives as the occasion of the third denial a claim by someone to have seen him in the garden of Gethsemane when Jesus was arrested.

 

[benedictus2]

rev kevin:

benedictus2:

I think Rev Kevin does agree now that Peter was in Rome.
Original Response by rev kevin

I have seen and heard some compelling evidence that he was there. I believe you may have mixed this up with me believing that Jesus started the CC.

I think what Tom may be referring to was when you pasted the “How Did your Church start?”

I asked you then if you posted that and you said yes and then I asked you how can you maintain being baptist if you believe the Chronology to be true.

I think that that is where the discussion should be headed rather going back to the things we’ve already settled.

 

[benedictus2]

OK. He was the rock. But even a rock can crumble and not be stable.

An ordinary rock, yes. But one that has God’s guarantee, well no. Because that could mean only two things:
Either Christ is not God so could not keep His guarantee.
Or Christ is God but lied so did not keep His guarantee
Both positions are heretical.

** Walking on water**
Three of the four canonical Gospels—Matthew, Mark and John—recount the story of Jesus walking on water. Matthew additionally describes Peter walking on water for a moment, but began to sink when his faith wavered. [Matt. 14:28–31]

So what. That was before the Holy Spirit was given to Peter. After that, His faith was so strong He was willing to die for His Master.

Another thing to remember, Jesus knew all Peter’s weaknesses. BUT He chose him anyway.** Never forget that. He was Christ’s CHOICE. **Although more correctly, He was God’s Choice since the Father made His choice clear when He revealed Christ’s identity and Mission to Peter alone.

** Washing of feet**
At the beginning of the Last Supper, Jesus washed his disciples’ feet. Peter initially refused to let Jesus wash his feet, but when Jesus responded: “If I wash thee not, thou hast no part with me”, Peter replied: “Lord, not my feet only, but also my hands and my head”.[Jn. 13:2-11] The washing of feet is often repeated in the service of worship on Maundy Thursday by some Christian denominations.

Again, the Spirit has not been sent yet. And just look at His response here. Once Jesus corrected him, just look at the response. Not only my feet by my hands and head as well. See how eagerly He wants to be part of His Master.

** Arrest of Jesus **
Apostle Peter striking MalchusThe three synoptic Gospels all mention that, when Jesus was arrested, one of his companions cut off the ear of a servant of the High Priest.[18] The Gospel of John also includes this event, and names Peter as the swordsman and Malchus as the victim. [Jn. 18:10] Luke adds that Jesus touched the ear and miraculously healed it.[Lk. 22:50]

So what again. He was impulsive. But, because he was CHOSEN by God, God gave him the grace to suffer.

I think this is something that you wish to diminish -God’s CHOICE.

**I often tell people that those who have issues with Peter have an issue with God. It was not Peter who said make me rock. It was not Peter who told the Father reveal the Truth to me.

It was God who freely chose to make Simon as the Rock and it was God’s free choice to reveal to Peter and no other the truth about Christ.**

Denial of Jesus by Peter
All four canonical gospels recount that, during the Last Supper, Jesus foretold that Peter would deny him three times before the following cockcrow (“before the cock crows twice” in Mark’s account).

The three Synoptics and John describe the three denials as follows:

A denial when a female servant of the high priest spots Simon Peter, saying that he had been with Jesus. According to Mark (but not in all manuscripts), “the rooster crowed.” Only Luke and John mention a fire by which Peter was warming himself among other people: according to Luke, Peter was “sitting”; according to John, he was “standing.”
A denial when Simon Peter had gone out to the gateway, away from the firelight, but the same servant girl (Mark) or another servant girl (Matthew) or a man (Luke and also John, for whom, though, this is the third denial) told the bystanders he was a follower of Jesus.
According to John, “the rooster crowed.”
A denial came when Peter’s Galilean accent was taken as proof that he was indeed a disciple of Jesus. According to Matthew, Mark and Luke, “the rooster crowed.” John, though, does not mention the Galilean accent.
Matthew adds that it was his accent that gave him away as coming from Galilee. Luke deviates slightly from this by stating that, rather than a crowd accusing Simon Peter, it was a third individual.

**St. Peter Denying Christ **
The Gospel of John places the second denial while Peter was still warming himself at the fire, and gives as the occasion of the third denial a claim by someone to have seen him in the garden of Gethsemane when Jesus was arrested

And what did Christ do? Before He died, knowing that Satan has asked permisson to sift them all, Christ prayed for Peter ONLY. Why did He not pray for all the others. Would it not have been more sensible to pray for all of them? But Christ prayed for Peter ALONE.

And what else did Christ do? After His resurrection, in the process of making Peter His Chief shepherd, in the process of entrusting His flock to Peter, He allows Peter to affirm His Love for Christ and thereby make ammends for His denials.

**If we focus on Christ then we will know what Christ willed.

The problem is in your attempt to discredit Peter you have taken your focus away from Christ so blinded yourself to the fact that these are His Choices, His Will, His way of acting.

Rev Kevin, I think you need to ask yourself why there is such a need in you to discredit Peter? Why is there a need in you to diminish his obvious primacy among the apostles? Why?
What underlies that desire to diminish a great apostle?
**

 

[rev_kevin]

I think what Tom may be referring to was when you pasted the “How Did your Church start?”

I asked you then if you posted that and you said yes and then I asked you how can you maintain being baptist if you believe the Chronology to be true.

I think that that is where the discussion should be headed rather going back to the things we’ve already settled.

You just asked me if I posted that, and I answered yes I did. The Yes part didn’t mean Yes I agree with you. It was just acknowledging that I am the one who posted it.

 

[benedictus2]

You just asked me if I posted that, and I answered yes I did. The Yes part didn’t mean Yes I agree with you. It was just acknowledging that I am the one who posted it.

Well then the question is why did you post it if you did not think it was true?

I think you also said that you acknowledge the Chronology to be correct ( I could be wrong about that. I will need to check the succeeding posts).

 

[rev_kevin]

Well then the question is why did you post it if you did not think it was true?

I think you also said that you acknowledge the Chronology to be correct ( I could be wrong about that. I will need to check the succeeding posts).

The only part I disagree with or believe not to be true is the part that says Jesus is the founder of the Catholic Church. That I have always maintained.

 

[benedictus2]

The only part I disagree with or believe not to be true is the part that says Jesus is the founder of the Catholic Church. That I have always maintained.

But, for you to post that chronology and in that chronology it clearly states that Jesus founded the Church, then I don’t understand why you would post that at all.

Perhaps you need to go back to that post and the ones after that.

Also, it clearly shows that origin of the Baptist Church which you belong to and it was founded over a thousand years before Jesus started His Church.

That is why I asked you if you posted that because it really just does not make sense why you would if you do not believe what it says.

 

[PbloPicasso]

The only part I disagree with or believe not to be true is the part that says Jesus is the founder of the Catholic Church. That I have always maintained.

The only problem I really would want to deal with would be Matt 16, dealing with who Jesus was speaking to. Once I accepted the Protestant and Orthodox teaching that Jesus was speaking to the group, not Peter in particular. I had issues with it for several reasons I won’t go into. So accepting that premise I definitly have issues with the apostolic lineage and the fact that Mett 23 makes it pretty clear that Jesus taught us to follow the authority “chair of Moses” and bound with Matt 16 there is no denying that we are to obey our elders. Jesus taught obedience. He just said not to do as they do but as they teach.

If someone, anyone, breaks with the “chair” then they are not in any position to begin anything because they in themselves are already wrong and have broken or divided from the truth. Following them would be perilous. So, even though I believe you mean well, I also believe that following our own beliefs that have departed from the truth at any point in time is wrong. It can not be made right until we repair our faith, that is organize our hearts and minds towards truth, not the lie.

At the very least an educated man such as yourself should realize with your Catholic upbringing that the Orthodox Church should be the very least anyone should be part of. In fact, I lean towards much of the teachings I’ve learned from the Eastern Church. However, I’ve also read the primacy of peter issues from ACF enough to believe there is a very good point. I believe that many Catholics, well meaning, overstate the actual authority on the matter of faith and morals at times, well intentioned, but not exactly correct. But those of us who want to remain in communion with our bishops must obey no matter what leanings we have IMHO. Unity will not take place in the midst of absolute chaos, unless God somehow brings it about in His time.

 

[benedictus2]

Also, it clearly shows that origin of the Baptist Church which you belong to and it was founded over a thousand years** before J**esus started His Church.

.

Correction to my post. That should have read founded over a thousand years AFTER Jesus started His Church.