Did Jesus Start the Catholic Church?

[tqualey]

Hi, Guanophore,

You have been at this a lot longer than I … and, your patience is truly remarkable.

In earlier posts, he agreed with Benedictus2 on her presentation of Protestant theologians agreeing that Christ (The Cornerstone) founded His Church on Peter (the Foundation). It looks like he has Sisyphus as his real ‘roll’ model - he can only take the thought so far up the hill, then it gets away from him and it rolls down to the same debunked iteas previously presented.

His entire post was a quote from this one individual. The fact that the first 500 years of Early Church Fathers repeatedly, continuously and explicitly refer to the Bishop of Rome as the leader of the Catholic Church - apparently means nothing. I realize it is just soooo much easier to being churhc history in the 16th Century and refer back to earlier items on an as-needed-basis. But, we know history is not like that.

Enjoyed reading your post…as usual…

God bless

How do people like this make the early references to the Catholic Church in the second century “go away”? Do they just pretend they don’t exist, or do they have ways of explaining them into irrelevance?

and by that very claim denies that it is Christ’s church, because the Bible teaches that Christ’s church is built upon Himself.

He even quotes the Scripture that states His Church is built upon the foundation of the apostles and prophets. Does anyone really imagine that these people can have a church built upon them without God’s grace? Does anyone really believe the apostles and prophets “replaced” Christ? Isn’t it pretty clear that they were all grafted into the cornerstone?

Why do they think Jesus changed Simon bar Jonah’s name to Cephas (Rock)?

Peter never suggested that God’s people or God’s churches were built upon Peter. He preached that men should turn to Christ. He knew that Christ was not only the foundation but also the comer stone of His church:

Is he suggesting that Peter did not know he was part of the foundation?

To whom coming, as unto a living stone, disallowed indeed of men, but chosen of God, and precious, ye also, as lively stones, are built up a spiritual house, an holy priesthood, to offer up spiritual sacrifices, acceptable to God by Jesus Christ.

So, how come these people can be built into the cornerstone and become part of God’s building, but if Peter is built in, for some reason he is “replacing Christ”???

 

[tqualey]

Hi, Placido,

Great post! and great references!!

What continues to be a phantom argument is that a statement of rejection is given - WITHOUT an explanation ( except, of course, “I don’t believe…”). The actual reason is just never given. Contrast this with your post where we say we believe - AND here is / are the reason(s). And this does not even touch on the historical references.

In brief, there is no substance to his presented argument - except what truly appears to be simply petulance fueled by willful pride. The ancient Hebrews were not the only ones with a stiff neck.

God bless

Meaning, you don’t believe Acts 2:38; you don’t believe Titus 3:5; you don’t believe Acts 22:16, and you don’t believe 1 Peter 3:21.

placido

 

[Prodigal_Son1]

Christ’s Church

By Rosco Brong D.D., 1938

St. Ignatius approximately 107AD

See rev kevin, the difference in what is presented is the time things were written down. Catholics use some of the earliest writings by the early Church fathers, some of who learned directly from the Apostles themselves. You, on the other hand, are still searching the internet to prove modern day thinking and have trouble getting out of the 20th century.

I cannot understand the thought process behind placing priority in the more modern day Christians over the first Christians.

 

[Prodigal_Son1]

Christ’s Church

By Rosco Brong D.D., 1938
**
OUR LORD BUILT HIS OWN CHURCH, AND IT IS STILL DOING BUSINESS FOR HIM**

Christ’s church was built by Christ Himself, before His crucifixion. No organization is Christ’s church, no matter what it calls itself, if its origin is more recent than the personal ministry of Christ on earth. Christ’s church in the world today is the same in organization, in doctrine, and in practice as it was 1900 years ago.

Your quote contains contradictions, that you don’t address by just copying and pasting without any of your own thoughts. Explain to me how the Christian Church you describe is the same in organization, in doctrine and in practice with all the different denominations clearly different in organization, in doctrine and in practice?

Paul wrote many Church locations with his letters and epistles. He had a common teaching in many of those letters and epistles.

**Eph 4:3 eager to maintain the unity of the Spirit in the bond of peace.
Eph 4:4 There is one body and one Spirit, just as you were called to the one hope that belongs to your call,
Eph 4:5 one Lord, one faith, one baptism,
Eph 4:6 one God and Father of us all, who is above all and through all and in all.

Rom 16:17 I appeal to you, brethren, to take note of those who create dissensions and difficulties, in opposition to the doctrine which you have been taught; avoid them**.

1Co 1:10 I appeal to you, brethren, by the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, that all of you agree and that there be no dissensions among you, but that you be united in the same mind and the same judgment.

Php 2:2 complete my joy by being of the same mind, having the same love, being in full accord and of one mind.

Rom 15:5 May the God of steadfastness and encouragement grant you to live in such harmony with one another, in accord with Christ Jesus,
Rom 15:6 that together you may with one voice glorify the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ.

1Co 12:13 For by one Spirit we were all baptized into one body–Jews or Greeks, slaves or free–and all were made to drink of one Spirit.

Rom 12:4 For as in one body we have many members, and all the members do not have the same function,
Rom 12:5 so we, though many, are one body in Christ, and individually members one of another.

Eph 4:4 There is one body and one Spirit, just as you were called to the one hope that belongs to your call,

Col 3:15 And let the peace of Christ rule in your hearts, to which indeed you were called in the one body. And be thankful.

Believers of the early Church were taught one mind and judgment, unlike all believers of today.

 

[tqualey]

Hi, Prodigal Son1,

Excellent post

I think while we are all eagerly awaiting a specific response to this detailed post… we should not hold our breath!

God bless

Your quote contains contradictions, that you don’t address by just copying and pasting without any of your own thoughts. Explain to me how the Christian Church you describe is the same in organization, in doctrine and in practice with all the different denominations clearly different in organization, in doctrine and in practice?

Paul wrote many Church locations with his letters and epistles. He had a common teaching in many of those letters and epistles.

Believers of the early Church were taught one mind and judgment, unlike all believers of today.

 

[adrift]

Christ’s Church

By Rosco Brong D.D., 1938
.

This is a discredited argument. Rosco Brong fails to put the Scripture into context lifting out a word and expounding on it as if that was all that was said., He ignores that there is a name change and that it is followed up by the giving of the Keys to heaven. Of course these have to be ignored if you wish to maintain that Jesus didn’t start the Catholic Church.

 

[rinnie]

I believe ALL Christians believe this with the exception of what I highlited.

Seem to me we have alot in common so far.

Hi Rev Kev, That is what I hope and pray with the Grace of God I can somehow plant the seed and then with prayers (which we call water for our seed to make them grow) that in time the Holy Spirit will take that knowledge which we are given by Christ through his Church and find a way to reveal it to you.

Remember how John told us in 15:4 About the vine and branches. See the Vine which is us must stay attatched to the branches in order to live and produce good fruit.

Now with that said, it is not only talking about us and Jesus (remain in me as I remain in you) we also must stay attached to one another.

St Paul tells us that without all the parts the body is diminished.

The early Christian community described in Acts is a community of belivers which was of ONE HEART and MIND.

Now I think we got the heart, but we have to work on one mind. Now remember all that believed had ALL thing’s in common. That is how we have to work together and figure out a way to make this happen as it way in the beginning.

You and I can see one thing for sure. That Christ gave up his body so that he can unite us all to his Mystical Body the Church.

That is why I hope we can as friends, (not that we are buds now) find a way to understand the full extend of what is really stands in our way right now.

I will never again accuse you of speaking of both sides of your mouth, (as they say). I can NOW see that when you can see and accept what has been showed to you, You are not only growing in your faith, we are growing together and becoming one in eachother, as Christ and his Church, And that is what its all about.

I think that if we work together to understand the full extend of the Sacraments we can bind together. See our Sacraments are our Power to bound us.

Here is a quote from the CCC: Sacraments are powers that come forth from the Body of CHrist which is ever-living and life-giving. They are the actions of the HOLY SPIRIT at work in his body the Church.

Once you can grow in your understanding of the Sacraments you will find it so much easier to grow in your faith as a whole.

Unfortunately God works in his time, not my time or our time. ( I do need to have a talk with him about that (just kidding). And what I have learned it it WILL be revealed to you, when The Holy Spirt feels the TIME is right.

So I promise to not get frustrated with you when you can’t see what I see yet. But I promise once you see what I see, you can also relate to me what you see. Hey maybe God has some Mountains for us to Move together. Who Knows. But I do know one thing for sure. THe saying that the Good Lord works in Mysterious ways is an understatement.

Who would have thought 5 months ago. You and I Rev Kev. Buds!! Just goes to show anything is possible for God. God can sure change a heart.

 

[rinnie]

Hi Tqualey, and thank-you for you response. But unfortunately I personally see thing’s in a different light.

Let me first address the ignore switch as Mickey calls It I believe there are times you have to let thing’s with with certain people, rest for a time. because you some how can’t relate to one another at that time. Maybe never who knows. But when you continue to try to show THEM what you see and what you are trying to say they are not going to accept it anyway. And then the thread becomes about you and them, not the subject at hand. So we do disagree on that. BUt hey, can’t we disagree without calling each other names:shrug:

Next What is the CC? Thats really what this turned into I believe.

The CC as I stated is a Mystery. Why? Simple its many things.

In the O.T the Temple was the dwelling place of God. God dwelled in the Tabernacle.

Now in the N.T Jesus introduced the Son of God who tabernacled among Men. He showed us first his Physical Body as the Church, not a building any longer. What dwells in the tabnacle of Christ, His Physical Body, while on earth. God of course, he was the SOUL.

Now the N.T teaches us that the dwelling place is now the CHURCH. Not the building but the people who comprise the Body of the Church.

Now the mystery begins. What is the Church here on earth then? Is it Visible? If the CC is visible as we are taught then God has to be Visilbe also then. So how is God Visible then.

Simple, and this is what I have been saying all along. While Christ was made Visble to others in the Physical Body, which we call the 2nd person of the Trinity, it does not change a thing as far as him being the same person in the Eucharist. Only in physical appearance. The 2nd Person of the Trinity always was and always will be Christ. What I tried to show to someone outside of our faith, Rev, Kev, he saw it, but does not quite understand what he is seeing yet.

Yet in our own faith I can’t even begin to explain what I am saying:shrug: I don’t get it.

What I was trying to show Rev Kev is Jesus alive in the RCC in the form of the Eucharist he is still just as alive and has just as much power as he did in his human body. They are one in the same. But revealed differently is all. How Jesus brought us salvation in the Human body, he is still doing it in the Eucharist. What I was trying to say and still am may I add, Jesus does not have to be revealed as the 2nd Person of the Trinity, to still work as he did in the 2nd person of the Trinity. He is still doing that work in the Eucharist.

To make it more blunt did the 2nd Person cease? Or is the 2nd person still as always has been one in being with the Father.

In the RCC The Body of CHRist is not only in the Spirtual Form. The CC itself is the VISIBLE PRESENCE of CHRIST ON EARTH through the Eucharist.

That is why we say the Body of Christ is the CC.

The CC is the Kingdom of God here on earth. THY KINGDOM COME, they will be done On earth AS IT IS in heaven.

Did Jesus not give Peter the keys to the Kingdom, Did Jesus not say what you bind on eath is bound in heaven? Did Christ not tell Peter to build his Kingdom here on earth.

What is our Eucharistic Celebration, Are we not called to Hear God’s Word, express the Great prayer of thanksgiving for the Paschal Mystery and the PRESENCE of Christ AS our very Food and Drink to strengthen the bonds of communion with one another.

Is not the goal of the Apostles and our goal also supposed to be to fulfill a dream of building up the Kingdom of God on this earth until we can be united with the Kingdom of God in heaven when he comes again in Glory.

What makes us so much different then other Church’s. Simple the Sacraments. While we are called to acknowledge the truth that is in other Church’s. It is that TRUTH that is in them, that can lead them into full communion with Us in the Eucharist.

 

[Mikeoffaith]

I am not attempting to twist your words and I’m cool with what ever you believe. I was just wondering if you would simply answer the following questions: if you are right and the papacy (leadership of the Catholic Church) - was not instituted by Christ, you must believe that the Catholic Church is a man-made church; is that what you believe?

Is that what you believe about the Eastern Orthodox church as well?

Joe-

It isn’t that simple. I believe that Christ is the foundation of all the Church Catholic. I do not believe that the Roman Catholic Church is the same as that Church but is a branch of that church and just as I stated earlier, All of Orthodoxy is also part of that same church. And this is not to deny any other claimants to that same church.

 

[rev_kevin]

benedictus2;7533795]If baptism does not forgive sins then what does St Peter mean in 1 Peter 3 when he said “baptism saves you”?

In baptism we identify with Jesus Christ, who separates us from the lost and gives us new life. Its not the ceremony that saves us but faith in Christs death and resurrection. Baptism is a symbol of the transformation that happens in the hearts of those who believe.

 

[rinnie]

In baptism we identify with Jesus Christ, who separates us from the lost and gives us new life. Its not the ceremony that saves us but faith in Christs death and resurrection. Baptism is a symbol of the transformation that happens in the hearts of those who believe.

Hi Rev Kev. Now we have to go back and see what Baptism truly is. Now is it a symbol or is at an actual outpouring of the Holy Spirit. See what I am saying?

We are taught that Baptism is an outward sign, instituted by Christ to give Grace.

Now Baptism is a Sacrament. It is something that is done outwardly to show something that takes place inward.

Now with that said, if Baptism takes faith, a baby cannot be Baptised. What Baptism IS first of all it is what configures us to Christ. It seals us with the Spiritual Mark. It is what makes us belong to Christ.

Now Baptism is our MARK of belonging to Christ. No sin can erase this mark. Even if sin prevents Baptism from bearing the fruits of Salvation.

That is why Baptism given once cannot be repeated. Type in 1280 of the CCC. It will explain this better.

Since the earliest of times, Baptism has been administered to Children. It is a Gift of God that does NOT require any human merit.

 

[rinnie]

Grace is a free gift that we could never earn. But because of his Love Christ gives us Grace by his death on the Cross free and clear by Baptism.

He seals us with him, he accepts us as his own, No questions asked.

Now from Grace we can gain faith, only by Grace. Now once we continue to grow in faith we gain more Grace. And the more Grace we gain the more faith.

Look at this another way, if it took faith to be baptised then we are in a way saying that Christ did not earn us Salvation by his Cross alone by giving us Baptism. That is how we gained our Salvation, Baptism, forgivenss of Sins.

We are all BORN into Original sin, if faith could save us from sin, why did we need a Savior? See what I mean? It took someone Perfect and free from Sin to pay for our Sin.

That is the whole reason that Christ had to die on the Cross. because we had sin. It took that death of a sinless Man to pay for our sins.

That is why we say that Christ was the New Adam, what Adam lost for us by sin, Christ got back for us.

 

[joe370]

Joe-

It isn’t that simple. I believe that Christ is the foundation of all the Church Catholic. I do not believe that the Roman Catholic Church is the same as that Church but is a branch of that church and just as I stated earlier, All of Orthodoxy is also part of that same church. And this is not to deny any other claimants to that same church.

So it’s your belief that the protestant churches, the eastern orthodox church (including the eastern and oriental offshoots of that church) - and the catholic church (including the protestant offshoots of the catholic church) - are all branches/offshoots of the one church founded by Jesus Christ, circa AD 33, on Pentecost, in Jerusalem???

 

[tqualey]

Hi, Rinnie,

I think what you actually defined was what is a Sacrament - and nothing specific to Baptism. Here is a link to the Catechism of the Catholic Church on Baptism: scborromeo.org/ccc/p2s2c1a1.htm

I have no idea why you said “…a baby cannot be Baptised…” but this IS NOT the teaching of the Catholic Church. Please tell me this is just a typo on your part. Here is a link that may be helpful: catholic.com/thisrock/2002/0201frs.asp

In my opinion, if you are going to be of any help to Rev Kev, you will need to proof your work.

God bless

Hi Rev Kev. Now we have to go back and see what Baptism truly is. Now is it a symbol or is at an actual outpouring of the Holy Spirit. See what I am saying?

We are taught that Baptism is an outward sign, instituted by Christ to give Grace.

Now Baptism is a Sacrament. It is something that is done outwardly to show something that takes place inward.

Now with that said, if Baptism takes faith, a baby cannot be Baptised. What Baptism IS first of all it is what configures us to Christ. It seals us with the Spiritual Mark. It is what makes us belong to Christ.

Now Baptism is our MARK of belonging to Christ. No sin can erase this mark. Even if sin prevents Baptism from bearing the fruits of Salvation.

That is why Baptism given once cannot be repeated. Type in 1280 of the CCC. It will explain this better.

Since the earliest of times, Baptism has been administered to Children. It is a Gift of God that does NOT require any human merit.

 

[tqualey]

Hi, Joe370

I am getting a little lost here with all of these branches and sub-branches… They might be easier to follow if they did not contradict one another! Actually, when one just looks how one contradiction rules out another - well, either they are all the traditions of men … or our God is a very confused Being!

God bless

So it’s your belief that the protestant churches, the eastern orthodox church (including the eastern and oriental offshoots of that church) - and the catholic church (including the protestant offshoots of the catholic church) - are all branches/offshoots of the one church founded by Jesus Christ, circa AD 33, on Pentecost, in Jerusalem???

 

[Prodigal_Son1]

Joe-

It isn’t that simple. I believe that Christ is the foundation of all the Church Catholic. I do not believe that the Roman Catholic Church is the same as that Church but is a branch of that church and just as I stated earlier, All of Orthodoxy is also part of that same church. And this is not to deny any other claimants to that same church.

Scriptures tell us that the Apostles were the foundation of the Church and Christ was the cornerstone… In scriptures, we don’t see a number of Churches with different doctrines, neither slight or great. Scriptures seem clear to me that there was an authoritative Church. There are no examples of differences being acceptable, or people in disagreement starting another Church.

 

[rinnie]

Hi, Rinnie,

I think what you actually defined was what is a Sacrament - and nothing specific to Baptism. Here is a link to the Catechism of the Catholic Church on Baptism: scborromeo.org/ccc/p2s2c1a1.htm

I have no idea why you said “…a baby cannot be Baptised…” but this IS NOT the teaching of the Catholic Church. Please tell me this is just a typo on your part. Here is a link that may be helpful: catholic.com/thisrock/2002/0201frs.asp

In my opinion, if you are going to be of any help to Rev Kev, you will need to proof your work.

God bless

Maybe you should go back and read my work first I know what I said, Rev said you have to have faith to be Baptised. I said that if you need to have faith to be Baptised then a Baby could not be baptised then. Thats what I said.

Now if you could show me where I said that a baby could not be baptised I will admit my mistake. But that is not what I said:shrug:

As a matter of fact in my last sentence I even confirmed that Babies being Baptised were a normal Practice of the Early Church. I never denied Baptism for infants. I confirmed it!

 

[tqualey]

Hi, Rinnie,

Sure, in Post #850 you made the follow two statements:

Now Baptism is a Sacrament. It is something that is done outwardly to show something that takes place inward.

Now with that said, if Baptism takes faith, a baby cannot be Baptised. What Baptism IS first of all it is what configures us to Christ. It seals us with the Spiritual Mark. It is what makes us belong to Christ.

(Bold text added for emphasis.) Baptism does take Faith, Rinnie, and when it comes to infant Baptism, that is supplied by the adult Godparents to speak for the baby.

As a matter of fact … your second to last sentence says:

Since the earliest of times, Baptism has been administered to Children.

Protestants allow “Children” to be Baptized if they can say that Christ is their personal Savior and they make a act of belief and request baptism. This is something that “Babies” can not do and this is what I addressed. Most Protestant groups reject infant baptism and this is why I thought your explanation was misleading at best.

I do not know about anyone else, but I found your post was lacking in both clarity and content. Maybe those links I provided you with will help in the development of ideas in this area… Considering that you have yet to explain or address your statement clarifying the position that God is the Chruch, I did not want this item on infant baptism to go by the board.

Ultimately, this thread is about Jesus and the start of the Catholic Church. It could be that views on infant baptism would be more appropriate for another thread?

God bless:

Maybe you should go back and read my work first I know what I said, Rev said you have to have faith to be Baptised. I said that if you need to have faith to be Baptised then a Baby could not be baptised then. Thats what I said.

Now if you could show me where I said that a baby could not be baptised I will admit my mistake. But that is not what I said:shrug:

As a matter of fact in my last sentence I even confirmed that Babies being Baptised were a normal Practice of the Early Church. I never denied Baptism for infants. I confirmed it!

 

[benedictus2]

Here are where your errors lie.

Now in the N.T Jesus introduced the Son of God who tabernacled among Men.** He showed us first his Physical Body as the Church**

,

The Church does NOT teach that the Church is the Physical Body of Jesus Christ , it is the Mystical Body of Jesus Christ.

What dwells in the tabnacle of Christ, His Physical Body, while on earth.

What??!!! Christ’s Physical Body dwells in the Tabernacle of Christ?!! Your theology just went up one notch in the weirdness scale.

God of course, he was the SOUL.

God is the Soul of the Physical Body of Christ? That IS NOT CHRISTIAN THEOLOGY.

I think you need to read about the Hypostatic Union.

Now the mystery begins. What is the Church here on earth then? Is it Visible? If the CC is visible as we are taught then God has to be VisibLe also then.

Did I not say that you are meandering into pantheism? The CC is visitable but God IS NOT visible because God IS NOT the CC.

God became visible in Christ but Christ is NOT the Catholic Church.

So how is God Visible then.

Simple. God IS NOT visible. We make His presence known but we are not God.

Simple, and this is what I have been saying all along. While Christ was made Visble to others in the Physical Body, which we call the 2nd person of the Trinity,

And this is where your theology has gone awry. Christ’s Physical Body IS NOT THE SECOND PERSON OF THE TRINITY. Before Christ had a physical body He was already the Second Person of the Trinity.

Rinnie, please you rely too much on your own musings. You read bits and pieces, misunderstand them and then post them as Catholic Doctrine when they are just products of your own erroneous theologizing.

The 2nd Person of the Trinity always was and always will be Christ.

Yes! From the beginning there was always the Second Person of the Trinity. When that Second Person became Incarnate, we called Him Jesus Christ. That Second Person who became Incarnate, was never, will never be the Catholic Church because that Second Person is God – No beginning, no end. The Catholic Church had a beginning.

By continuing to post what you are posting you leading people to error. Although hopefully they will have enough discernment to know that this is not Catholic Doctrine.

Please Rinnie, take my advice. Call in to Catholic Answers Radio, ask a priest or write to any of the Apologists on this board. Quit trying to rationalize your error. No amount of attempts at interpretation will ever make the Catholic Church the Second Person of the Trinity and therefore God.

You are spreading error.

 

[rinnie]

What does the faith of the God Parents have to do with the infant having Faith. Rev Kev said that you must have faith to be Baptised. This is not the teaching of the RCC. As I stated if faith were a requirement babys could not be Baptised. Then I stated that Baptism of infants have always been a Practice of the RCC.

And what I showed him, Christ has given us the Sacraments in the Church for a reason. To show how an outward sign the pouring of water over the head of an Infant, is in turn and inward sign the pouring of the Holy Spirit.

As far as the Church being the building of God, Jesus himself compared it to the building of God. The stone the builders rejected has become the corner stone. That has always been taught in the RCC.