Did Jesus Start the Catholic Church?

[rinnie]

Jesus told Nicodemus unless a man be born of water and the Holy Spirit he cannot enter heaven.

Being born of water and Spirit would make him a participant of his Divine Nature. He is to baptised in the NAME not names of the 3 Persons, because the 3 persons are One.

Not to imply 3 gods but 3 persons having the Nature of God, and being One.

It is by this that Christ revealed to us 3 things. The POWER of the Father, the WISDOM of the Son and the LOVE of the Holy Spirit all ONE in NATURE OF GOD.

He gave this authority to his disciples telling them Go to the ends of the earth, and not to worry he is with them, he left his presence with them leading HIS CHURCH,

He told Peter I am with you through the day that are coming until the consummation of the world.

Did Jesus start the CC? Of course he did, that was he whole reason in comming to save us. By his death he saved us, and by his life he saves us. It is his living in this world by the means of the Church that we continue to be saved. Rather Mystical or physical he is still saving souls.

 

[rinnie]

Also where did the teaching of the CC ever state that his Physical body was more then his Mystical body, or vice versa? I was taught that they were equal.

I was taught always taught that when he said Iam the Door, To Peter he had given the keys to function as the Door Keeper. The Saviors function as the visible Shepherd over the visible flock was drawing to an end.

He would transfer that function to the head shepherd before withdrawing his visible presence to the Throne of Heaven where he would be the invisible Head and Shepherd.

Show me where this teaching is not the teaching of the CC.

 

[tqualey]

Hi, Rinnie,

I distinctly remembrer (Post #875) that you said that would be your LAST TIME in going over this material. There was no request for an encore. But, if you are interested in continuing (3 consecutive posts may not have been enough…) please consider opening a new theread. Thanks.

Now, what was the element that convinced you that Jesus started the Catholic Church?

I truly would enjoy reading your response to that question.

God bless

Also where did the teaching of the CC ever state that his Physical body was more then his Mystical body, or vice versa? I was taught that they were equal.

I was taught always taught that when he said Iam the Door, To Peter he had given the keys to function as the Door Keeper. The Saviors function as the visible Shepherd over the visible flock was drawing to an end.

He would transfer that function to the head shepherd before withdrawing his visible presence to the Throne of Heaven where he would be the invisible Head and Shepherd.

Show me where this teaching is not the teaching of the CC.

 

[guanophore]

Why is it a false premise. Because it goes against your teachings?

Yes. It represents a significant departure from the Teaching of the Apostles, who instructed the disciples that baptism replaces circumcision as the entrance rite into the New Covenant.

 Because its up to the individual. Jesus was **PRESENTED** to God by his parents not baptized.

This is not accurate, Kev. Jesus was brought for circumcision, which is what was directed as the initiation rite into the Old Covenant. No one asked His permission, or required His consent. He was considered (as were all children) included in the covenant by virtue of His parents faith.

Why did Jesus wait until he was older to be baptized?

Jesus was not sanctified by baptism, but rather, sanctified the waters of baptism by joining the HS to them when He entered them. This was the initiation of His public ministry.

Besides, His cousin was not at work yet when He was an infant.

Thats not what I said. I said: Originally Posted by rev kevin
Sure we make all kind of decisions for our children but the one that we cannot make for them is the one about accepting Christ. No one can make that most important decision for them.

I know. I read it. What I was asking is, why do you reject the Apostolic Teaching that baptism replaces circumcision in the New Covenant?

What bondage of sin? Jesus paid the price of that sin already.

Yes, He paid the price for everyone, but not everyone benefits from His sacrifice. Only those who receive it by grace, through faith benefit. All those who do not continue to be slaves to sin. Baptism is the manner in which we are joined to Him in His death and resurrection, and whereby the bondage to sin is broken by the HS.

Not all the time its not.

Ok, let’s say for the sake of discussion that a person is baptized again even though they believed their first baptism was valid. How do you set aside the Apostolic Teaching that there is only ONE BAPTISM?

OK so we can’t renew our baptism but you can.

Sure you can. People set aside the Apostolic Teaching on a daily basis in this country. There is freedom of religion, and each man can do what he believes is right in his own eyes.

Because the Kingdom of heaven is their's.

I don’t think you can support this assertion, but I challenge you to try. The Apostles taught that we are all born under the yoke of slavery to sin because of the sin of Adam.

:hmmm: I have a :newidea: its not worth me :banghead: my head over this question.

No need to bang your head, Kev. It is very simple. The Aposltes baptised infants because infants were circumcised. Peter was clear that the promise of new life by being born again of water and spirit was for them, and their children.

And so is our’s.

OK. In this country, there is freedom of religion. People can get rebaptized every day if they want.

Nothing says if they misunderstood him or understood him about this. I’m not saying Peter wasn’t called Rock but for what reason?

Jesus made Peter Rocky so that Peter could be grafted into the foundation of the Church.

 

[guanophore]

Now, I realize that you will not resond to this - as you have failed to respond to other posts. But, this post is not for you alone - but, for all those who are wondering if Crhist started the Catholic Church. And, as you know, He did. The only real issue is what do you plan on doing with this informaiton. Embracing man-made religions and the traditions of men because **the Church of Christ (Catholic Church) has failed from time to time **is truly throwing the Baby out with the bath water! PbloPicasso brought up the problem of quitting Christ because of Judas’ betrayal, or Peter’s three-time denial, or the other ten for fleeing in the Garden. Step back (from your current situation) and look at the Big Picture of a Loving Christ Who gave us the Catholic Church as the vehicle for our salvation.

God bless

An excellent and very detailed response Tom. I am only going to take issue with this tiny piece. I think it is critical to differentiate between the Holy, infallible Bride of Christ and the fallible and sometimes wicked men who are members of her. Most of our separated brethren have a deficient notion of the Church, thinking that it is only “the body of believers here on earth”. They do not recogize the hierarchy instituted by Christ, that He is the Head, that the HS is the Soul, or the suffering and victorious parts of the Church. It is the divine elements that make her Holy. Therefore, it communicates more accurately to say that “because there were wolves among the sheep from time time” rather than to say that Christ or the HS have “failed”.

 

[rinnie]

Hi, Rinnie,

I distinctly remembrer (Post #875) that you said that would be your LAST TIME in going over this material. There was no request for an encore. But, if you are interested in continuing (3 consecutive posts may not have been enough…) please consider opening a new theread. Thanks.

Now, what was the element that convinced you that Jesus started the Catholic Church?

I truly would enjoy reading your response to that question.

God bless

Simple the covenant’s.

The first was with Adam.
The second Noah.
The third Abraham.
The fouth Moses.
The fifth David and Solomon.

The Sixth is the NEW COVENANT with all humanity through Jesus Christ. He left us with his Church.

The last will be the Seventh for all eternity and the end of time.

All for for our Salvation. God’s plan to save each of us in whatever time we lived in. Each was made through a covenant mediator. Ours is now Christ through his Church where he is stil our mediator.

But if you want me gone, fine I will be gone, I am out of here. But quit asking me questions then.

Kev I want to show you one thing before I leave. You are going to get some deep understanding on Peter on this. Be right back gotta do some work. (I have a home business and customer is on the way in now.)

But the Church founded by Jesus himself and guided by the Holy Spirit interprets the bible without falling into error. Just as He promised us the CC is always here to teach us.

It is him guiding us by being our Divine Teacher.

 

[tqualey]

Hi, Guanophore,

Your point is well taken and I stand corrected. I was more focused on the wolves impersonating the sheep instead of the Shepherd!

Thanks.

God bless

An excellent and very detailed response Tom. I am only going to take issue with this tiny piece. I think it is critical to differentiate between the Holy, infallible Bride of Christ and the fallible and sometimes wicked men who are members of her. Most of our separated brethren have a deficient notion of the Church, thinking that it is only “the body of believers here on earth”. They do not recogize the hierarchy instituted by Christ, that He is the Head, that the HS is the Soul, or the suffering and victorious parts of the Church. It is the divine elements that make her Holy. Therefore, it communicates more accurately to say that “because there were wolves among the sheep from time time” rather than to say that Christ or the HS have “failed”.

 

[tqualey]

Hi, Rinnie,

Thank you for your response.

All I am asking is that you stay focused on this thread. If you want to discuss other topics, then opening up another thread would be the appropriate action.

God bless

Simple the covenant’s.

The first was with Adam.
The second Noah.
The third Abraham.
The fouth Moses.
The fifth David and Solomon.

The Sixth is the NEW COVENANT with all humanity through Jesus Christ. He left us with his Church.

The last will be the Seventh for all eternity and the end of time.

All for for our Salvation. God’s plan to save each of us in whatever time we lived in. Each was made through a covenant mediator. Ours is now Christ through his Church where he is stil our mediator.

But if you want me gone, fine I will be gone, I am out of here. But quit asking me questions then.

Kev I want to show you one thing before I leave. You are going to get some deep understanding on Peter on this. Be right back gotta do some work. (I have a home business and customer is on the way in now.)

 

[onenow1]

Hi
This may have been mentioned previously, St. Paul was in Rome as a prisoner and a Roman citizen, probably with some rights similiar to bail ? St. Peter would surely have had to been careful with his identity and be protected by the Christian community as a leader.

God Bless

 

[tqualey]

Hi, OneNow1,

Forgive my slowness… yes, St. Paul was sent to Rome as a prisoner… beginning with arrest in Jerusalem in Acts 21 until Paul is delivered to Rome as prisoner in Acts 28. But, I had never thought he would be concered with ‘identify theft’…

Yes, I think St. Paul was in type of ‘house arrest’… as opposed to being in a jail cell as he was in other areas. The Christian Community was very supporting to St. Paul throughout his missionary journeys.

But, honest, I am really at a loss … what does this have to do with Jesus starting the Catholic Church?

God bless

Hi
This may have been mentioned previously, St. Paul was in Rome as a prisoner and a Roman citizen, probably with some rights similiar to bail ? St. Peter would surely have had to been careful with his identity and be protected by the Christian community as a leader.

God Bless

 

[onenow1]

Hi, OneNow1,

Forgive my slowness… yes, St. Paul was sent to Rome as a prisoner… beginning with arrest in Jerusalem in Acts 21 until Paul is delivered to Rome as prisoner in Acts 28. But, I had never thought he would be concered with ‘identify theft’…

Yes, I think St. Paul was in type of ‘house arrest’… as opposed to being in a jail cell as he was in other areas. The Christian Community was very supporting to St. Paul throughout his missionary journeys.

But, honest, I am really at a loss … what does this have to do with Jesus starting the Catholic Church?

God bless

Hi tqualey,
Tieing the dots together hopefully.

St. Peter was the chosen Rock {Matt. 16: 18} St. Peter as a spokesman for the Church stood up with the eleven lifted up his voice: { Acts 2: 14 - 47} and 3000 were added to the Catholic Church that actually began with Christs words to St. Peter on this Rock I will build Church. The office of St. Peter is occupied currently by Benedict Vl. :compcoff:

God Bless
.

 

[tqualey]

Hi, OneNow1,

I do not have any problem with that …

It was really the identify protection that had me wondering.

For me, the two biggest things that convinces me about Jesus having started the Catholic Church is the succession from Peter to Benedict XVI - despite some wolves disguised as sheep - there is this thread that runs the length form the Apostles to present time.

And, the second one is that despite some less than saintly men who have occupied Peter’s Chair - none of them TAUGHT heresy. The same Faith we hold today was believed by the Apostles.

When you look around and see so many of the Protestant denominations accepting homosexual conduct as acceptable, I am just amazed. This would have been one item that I never would have thought would go by the boards - after all, it is condemned in both OT and NT. But, that is not the way these changeable groups see it now!

God bless

Hi tqualey,
Tieing the dots together hopefully.

St. Peter was the chosen Rock {Matt. 16: 18} St. Peter as a spokesman for the Church stood up with the eleven lifted up his voice: { Acts 2: 14 - 47} and 3000 were added to the Catholic Church that actually began with Christs words to St. Peter on this Rock I will build Church. The office of St. Peter is occupied currently by Benedict Vl. :compcoff:

God Bless
.

 

[benedictus2]

What more comentary do you want, Jesus said plain as day, just because you can’t see it is no reason to call me names and throw your rants and rages. I said I would explain it, actually I have tried numerous ways and times.

All Salvation comes from Jesus Christ. He has saved us by his physical body which he gave up for us on the Cross for our sins,

Thats it, Done deal. we are saved. We are baptised free from sin, end of story. ALmost!!

Then comes sin, again, we sin again then we lose the salvation he gave up for us, Now how do we get it back. The same way. From Jesus Christ. He promised he would not leave us orphans, he left us something. His Mystical Body the Eucharist. It is by his Mystical Body which he makes his presense to us by his bread and wine, which becomes his True Body and Blood, All we have to do is repent, ask for forgiveness and we can re-unite ourselves with him ONCE AGAIN in the Eucharist where he makes his presence. As usual just l like before in his Fathers House.

Now who is Jesus Christ, simple the second person of the Trinity. Who is the Eucharist? Simple the actual Jesus Christ. Human and Divine. I said he is just as much alive today and powerful in his Mystical Body as when he revealed to us his Physical Body. I said there is no difference, And I still mean it.

As Jesus told Thomas you believe because you have seen, blessed are those who believe and do not see.

Who was Saul persecuting the Physical body of Jesus or his Mystical Body his Church which he gave up his Physical body for. Did Jesus not say that our body is made up of many parts.

Now you show me where Jesus or any Church teaching for that fact ever said that because Jesus revealed to us his Physical body and his Mystical Body he is no longer the 2nd Person of the Trinity, and that when his Physical body died that ceased. Please show me now. Thats all I ask! You never show me where I am wrong, you just continue to accuse me of being wrong, you call me names, you say I don’t listen, I teach lies, I am stuborn …

I mean you didn’t accuse me of being a protestant, but then again didn’t you

Please show me where his human nature was ever separated from his Divine nature. I was taught that is impossible. And then show me how his Divine nature separated him from his Human Nature, Does he not sit Body and Soul and the right hand of his Father in heaven.

Did he not raise BODY and SOUL, Is he not going to come back BODY AND SOUL the same way,

Rinnie, for the last time GO ASK A PRIEST, RING CATHOLIC ANSWERS LIVE OR WRITE TO THE APOLOGISTS ON THIS BOARD. FULL STOP.

Quit being so stubborn and relying on your own understanding.

 

[onenow1]

I do not have any problem with that … God bless

Hi, again

The adventures of St. Paul in my opinion, can obescure the realities of the situations St. Peter and the Apostles may have had with the Jews, at the time.

God Bless

 

[Mikeoffaith]

This represents a real difference. Lutheran churches do not have a valid priesthood. This was rejected by the Lutherans while Luther was still alive. Without a valid priesthood there can not a valid Sacrament so that common bread and wine become the Body, Blood, Human Soul and Divinity of Christ. It really does not make a difference how much good faith you have when approaching the bread and wine at your service, it simply is the Real Presence. Simply saying it is just doesn’t make it so. Luther wanted nothing to do with the organizational Catholic Church – but, this is body that validly consecrates priests who then have the authority to act in the name of Christ and consecrate the bread and wine into the Real Presence. This is not to say that God does not bless those who act in good faith, only to say that what is necessary for a valid consecration (a valid priest) is no present in Lutheran services.

Unfortunately Tom you and I will disagree on the validity of the priesthood. I’m sure you are going down the apostolic succession route to a valid priesthood. But that’s fine. Just remember just because you think your priesthood is valid or in apostolic succession doesn’t make it so either. The statement that Luther wanted nothing to do with the organizational church is completely inaccurate. Rejecting the absolute authority of the papacy is different than getting rid of the entire organization. And if you want to define real presence of Christ being there only in the fact of having what you define as a valid priest than good for you. I question your definition of a valid priest, however I don’t believe that his questionable line of succession does not deny the real presence in your church.

 

[Mikeoffaith]

Peter was selected by Christ to be in charge of the other Apostles, he had a special authority given by Christ and symbolized by the keys Here are two interesting links: the first explains Christ’s interventions with Peter catholic.com/library/Peter_and_the_Papacy.asp and the second are excerpts from several of the Early Church Fathers about Peter authority over the other Apostles catholic.com/library/Peter_Primacy.asp

Thanks for the links. I will agree that Peter had a special place among the apostles. However, I don’t believe that that special place went to any successor and even if you do follow that it was inherited by all the Bishop’s of Rome, I still do not see anything in the early church and certainly not in the early ecumenical councils that yields to Rome as an authority other than asking for an opinion and the councils making the decision.

 

[Mikeoffaith]

What part of “Whatever you bind on earth will be bound in heaven…” does not apply here? Honest, either you believe what Christ said or you don’t. Do not get me wrong, there were real abuses in the lives of many high church officials at the time of Luther – but, selling indulgences was never taught as official Catholic doctrine. This represents a major distinction and distancing – the attempted sale of indulgences or religious office or anything of a spiritual nature has always been considered simony and condemned as such. Those who did this, die not only serious wrong in the act – but, also gave public scandal to the Faithful.

So what are you getting at here, because of “whatever you bind” means that if the pope sanctions the selling of indulgences that it is OK? The fact of the matter that people even in this forum can not make a judgement of certainty what papal pronouncement is a matter of teaching and matter of opinion. It is even muddier outside of the church and can you imagine what it was like for the populace in 1517? Just because the official teaching of the church says one thing and if the pope sanctions the actions that are clearly wrong, how is one supposed to decided what is proper and what is not? If the pope comes out tomorrow and says “Condoms for everyone” what is going to be your first reaction?

 

[Mikeoffaith]

The common language at the time the Mass was being developed was Latin. St. Jerome translated the biblical languages of the OT and NT into the ‘vulgar’ or common language of the time: Latin. From this we call Jerome’s work the Vulgate. Bear in mind the ‘common cup’ had been around from the time of St. Paul. Recall that Paul wrote to the Corinthians (1Cor 11:27) about getting drunk and not receiving the Lord in a worthy manner. Honest, receiving Holy Communion under both species dates back to the early days of the Catholic Church. This is not something that Luther created, developed or initiated on behalf of the Catholic Church.

The language was Latin for who? Latin was not the common language at the time. It was the common language for the Roman Church, I would say that the more common language was probably Greek at the time and probably for most of the life in the early church except on the Italian peninsula close to Rome, I would imagine that Greek was the language of choice or one that was common. The fact that after a period of time, the only people to read and understand Latin would be the Clerics of the church, the upper class, and the well educated. The fact that any ordinary person going to mass probably missed out on most of it and it didn’t change until over 400 years after Luther that the mass was in the common language of the people rather than a language spoken by no one outside of the church.

As for the common cup, even though it was around, it wasn’t used especially for the laity. I remember as a kid and going to Mass with my uncle and thought it very bizarre that the cup was withheld from the laity. I am certainly that it was even more common before then and I know that it was common during the 15th century. And if I am not mistaken, it was also common practice for the laity to be communed only once a year. So no Luther didn’t invent it, develop it, but he did put it into routine practice which it is only right.

 

[Mikeoffaith]

I can not speak for Benedictus2, but I am happy to give you a definition of the Catholic Church. Bear in mind, this is 2,000 year old organization that has witnessed many events – from that first Pentecost Sunday to Benedict XVI today. A brief definition would go something like this: trosch.org/for/cathchur.htm A more detailed explanation can be found at this link: therealpresence.org/archives/Church_Dogma/Church_Dogma_027.htm and an even more complete definition can be found here: newadvent.org/cathen/03744a.htm
The definition I like is that the Catholic Church was founded by Christ (the Corner Stone) on Peter (the foundation) and has four visible marks: one, holy, catholic and apostolic

And you know what Tom, I think that’s great! My definition is going to be slightly different so the answer to the question of this post is going to be different. And I am certain that the Orthodox are going to have yet another take on this as well.

Blessings to you Tom.

 

[GaryTaylor]

Not believing in Apostolic Succsesion Mike?