Did Jesus Start the Catholic Church?

[Cinette]

I’m shocked, Cinette!!

I just can’t believe you would say this! “Just a game…” Oh, N-o-o-o-o-o-o-o-o

But, after careful analysis - I would say that the previous posts have been just evasions with the cloak of accusing others of ‘un-"C"hristian’ activites. You would think that the real ‘un-Christian’ antics would be the deception, gamesmanship and sheer bluff at what should, in all honesty, be considered a serious topic.

I’m serious as a heart-attack on this one: the deception in his posts are simply a disgrace, his evasions are nothing but intellectual dishonesty. But, his claim to being offended is probably quite genuine! Being called out repeatedly to actually respond in an adult manner to defend what one claims to be his belief - and then hiding, evading and ignoring the challenge is a disgrace.

Alas, Cinette, I, too, have lost patience. If it were not for the quality of the response from the other posters, I would have probably lost heart a long time ago! You would not be the only one to be surprised if we were to receive an actual adult response - you know … something that simply transcends his oft used statement: “I don’t believe Jesus started the Catholic Church”.

By the way, Cinette, sometimes what is left of my memory plays tricks on me … if I did not ask you what is the most significant reason you think Jesus started the Catholic Church - let me ask you now…

For me, it is neatly presented in Matthew 16 - here is Christ quizzing the Apostles - and probably getting frustrated with their ineptitude … when God the Father tells Peter the answer! And, Christ announces to everyone - and that includes us! - that “…mere flesh did not reveal this to you - but my heavenly Father!” So, here is the All-Powerful God, having from all eternity selected Peter to be the First Leader of the Catholic Church - and then Christ gives Peter the Keys to the Kingdom to symbolize Peter’s authority… and then Peter blows it!!! And, Christ calls him a devil! Christ knew form all eternity that Peter would not only miss the messge of the Cross in Matt 16 - but ten chapters later - Matthew is telling us how Peter denied Christ three times!

If this had been a human institution - it surely would have simply fallen under the weight of the Judas’ betrayal, Peter’s denial, and the other ten running away in the Garden.

Looking forward to your answser.

God bless

Don’t forgot also that Peter experienced the Transfiguration before he denied Jesus three times!

Matt 16 is today’s Gospel reading at Mass and it sent little shivers down my spine - it is wonderful and consoling.

As to your question, I think I need to pause and reflect because I have never thought about it before.

God bless
Cinette

 

[Cinette]

He established the Church as a means of attaining salvation. We are not saved BY the Church - but we are ALL saved THROUGH it. That’s why it is called the Fullness of Christ (Eph. 1:22-23), the Pillar and foundation of Truth (1 Tim. 3:15) and the Body of christ himself (1 Cor. 12, Col. 1:18, Acts 9:4-5)

That’s the short answer, but the Biblical evidence for it is overwhelming - when read in context.

Some of our non-Catholic friends like to think that Jesus established a Lone Ranger system - which is overwhelmingly debunked by Scripture.

*I was thinking of tqualey’s question and of course the first thing that came to my mind is Salvation and it should end there but you are right elvisman the answer is much more than that. Maybe you should begin a thread posing that question tqualey.

God bless*

 

[Nicea325]

Well I’m done with this site. I will not respond, although I have answers, because of the following:

**Originally Posted by tqualey **
Hi, Elvisman,

It’s official … my right hand won the quarter from my left!

So, tell me, what is the most significant reason you think Jesus started the Catholic Church?

Looking forward to your answer.

Originally Posted by tqualey
God blessI’m shocked, Cinette!!

I just can’t believe you would say this! “Just a game…” Oh, N-o-o-o-o-o-o-o-o

But, after careful analysis - I would say that the previous posts have been just evasions with the cloak of accusing others of ‘un-"C"hristian’ activites. You would think that the real ‘un-Christian’ antics would be the deception, gamesmanship and sheer bluff at what should, in all honesty, be considered a serious topic.

I’m serious as a heart-attack on this one: the deception in his posts are simply a disgrace, his evasions are nothing but intellectual dishonesty. But, his claim to being offended is probably quite genuine! Being called out repeatedly to actually respond in an adult mann.

**Originally Posted by Cinette **
rev kevin does not respond because he has no response!

In the face of the fullness of truth and all the evidence of the scriptures and history, rev kev is stumped! Therefore he finds an excuse that tqualey and elvisman are offensive.

It is just a game and I lost patience a long time ago. I salute you both tqualey and elvisman for your patience and endurance.

I shall be very surprised if you get a proper response!

God bless all er to defend what one claims to be his belief - and then hiding, evading and ignoring the challenge is a disgrace.

Alas, Cinette, I, too, have lost patience. If it were not for the quality of the response from the other posters, I would have probably lost heart a long time ago! You would not be the only one to be surprised if we were to receive an actual adult response - you know … something that simply transcends his oft used statement: “I don’t believe Jesus started the Catholic Church”.

Originally Posted by elvisman
I had 2 Jehovah’s Witnesses at my door this weekend. I talked with them for about 30 minutes. When they ran out of answers, they abruptly ended the conversation - just like you just did.

When ya’ll can grow up and act like Christians then we can talk but remarks like these are uncalled for. rude, and I guess the way of the CC. But I guess the mediator don’t see anything wrong with these kind of personal attacks.

Rev Kevin,quick question? What exactly is your point of being here? Perhaps you should be in an all-exclusive Baptist site? Sorry,but you are not going to change anyone’s Catholics beliefs with your ex-Catholic views and Baptist beliefs. No offense,but at times it seems you are trying to prove the Catholic positions as wrong and that Baptist have it all-right? No faithful Catholic here is going to accept your Baptists beliefs,so why really bother at all?

 

[Cinette]

Well I’m done with this site. I will not respond, although I have answers, because of the following:

**Originally Posted by tqualey **
Hi, Elvisman,

It’s official … my right hand won the quarter from my left!

So, tell me, what is the most significant reason you think Jesus started the Catholic Church?

Looking forward to your answer.

Originally Posted by tqualey
God blessI’m shocked, Cinette!!

I just can’t believe you would say this! “Just a game…” Oh, N-o-o-o-o-o-o-o-o

But, after careful analysis - I would say that the previous posts have been just evasions with the cloak of accusing others of ‘un-"C"hristian’ activites. You would think that the real ‘un-Christian’ antics would be the deception, gamesmanship and sheer bluff at what should, in all honesty, be considered a serious topic.

I’m serious as a heart-attack on this one: the deception in his posts are simply a disgrace, his evasions are nothing but intellectual dishonesty. But, his claim to being offended is probably quite genuine! Being called out repeatedly to actually respond in an adult mann.

**Originally Posted by Cinette **
rev kevin does not respond because he has no response!

In the face of the fullness of truth and all the evidence of the scriptures and history, rev kev is stumped! Therefore he finds an excuse that tqualey and elvisman are offensive.

It is just a game and I lost patience a long time ago. I salute you both tqualey and elvisman for your patience and endurance.

I shall be very surprised if you get a proper response!

God bless all er to defend what one claims to be his belief - and then hiding, evading and ignoring the challenge is a disgrace.

Alas, Cinette, I, too, have lost patience. If it were not for the quality of the response from the other posters, I would have probably lost heart a long time ago! You would not be the only one to be surprised if we were to receive an actual adult response - you know … something that simply transcends his oft used statement: “I don’t believe Jesus started the Catholic Church”.

Originally Posted by elvisman
I had 2 Jehovah’s Witnesses at my door this weekend. I talked with them for about 30 minutes. When they ran out of answers, they abruptly ended the conversation - just like you just did.

When ya’ll can grow up and act like Christians then we can talk but remarks like these are uncalled for. rude, and I guess the way of the CC. But I guess the modiator don’t see anything wrong with these kind of personal attacks.

*Excuses! Excuses!

You will not* respond because you cannot - you just do not have the answers and you refuse to consider the scriptures quoted in tqualey and elvinmen’s postings. You refuse to reflect on the truth of the scriptures.

If that is not dishonest then I do not know what is.

I am sorry for you rev kevin.

God bless
Cinette

 

[fbl9]

What do we have to gloat about? We are but an echo of those that came before us, and the shadow of those after us. Do we really want the shadow to sound like this.

What then would be the point of rev kev responding if we are not going to consider his words. And all we are going to do is run roughshod over them.

 

[Curious_Seed]

If it is true that Jesus started the Church [Matthew 16:18], did He start the Catholic Church?

Does Matthew 16:18 refer to Christian precepts or Christian organization; if both or either, necessarily Catholic?

Are John 21 and Acts Christian or uniquely Catholic?

Was it understood by anyone, including Peter, that Jesus had named him [Peter] as their leader?

Did Saint Paul - who clarified much to the Romans, Corinthians, Ephesians, et al - disabuse them that Peter is the head of the Church and that a successor to him needed to be acknowledged?

Did the Catholic Church embrace the office of Pope initially, or was it much later and then resorting to historical “backdating” to justify it?

Even if it were true that Jesus founded a Church to formally promulgate the faith - and not through individually inspired saints alone - Matthew 16:18, John 21, and Acts are arguably not uniquely of Catholic perspective, at least not by the converted living at the time.

 

[m8g8]

What then would be the point of rev kev responding if we are not going to consider his words. And all we are going to do is run roughshod over them.

I agree with this. When a non-Catholic states their reason why they don’t believe in the Church, or Christanity in general, the replies they receive become offensive. People write to them as if they’re stupid for not changing their views, so I feel for Rev. This should be a friendly discussion, not people writing with a bad tone.

Anyway… my answer to this question is yes. Not only because of scripture, but all the miracles (such as my Mum’s TB being cured at Lourdes), my cure from the green scapular and Our Lady of Fatima etc… Also, the only non-Catholic incorruptibles are an Orthodox Saint (I can’t remember his name) and a Hindu, who was described as being very Christ-like.

These to me indicate to me that the Catholic Church has something promising that sets it apart from others.

 

[tqualey]

Hi, Fbl9,

You have some interesting points here, but, I think you mistake or have mis-characterized what has actually taken place here. To the best of my knowledge no one appears to have been gloating. What we have witnessed is a cowardly refusal - no - make that a cowardly repeated refusal to respond in defense of one’s own position.

The poster made repeated claims yet failed to provide any evidence except his own opinion. His classic response was, “I don’t believe …(whatever the topic was at the time)” and ended it there. Coining and re-coining definitions that attempted to fit his point of view, evading topics, ignoring posts and, as Benedictus2 wisely pointed out, ‘moving the goal post’ when there was nothing left to do.

Elvisman repeatedly provided scriptural, historic and ECF references to refute this apostate’s claims that Christ did not found the Catholic Church. The idea of allowing such wild and unsubstantiated statements to go unchallenged would be a type of denial of Faith.

Let me invite you to re-read his earlier posts (in the later one’s he spends all his time claiming to be offended and refusing to respond because of this offense!) If you are already familiar with his earlier writings, then maybe you think I have been too harsh with him (I can’t speak for the others here). Honestly, that is a personal opinion that you are certainly entited to. All I can say is that I attempted to be logical, civil and informative - and, I was not called down by a mod in anything I wrote.

The invitation to join an all-Baptist site sounded like an excellent idea to me. Who knows, he may find fellow apostates and have agreeable and self-congratulatory conversations amongst themselves as they discuss John Smyth having founded their group in 1609 and it has been splintering ever since!

God bless

What do we have to gloat about? We are but an echo of those that came before us, and the shadow of those after us. Do we really want the shadow to sound like this.

What then would be the point of rev kev responding if we are not going to consider his words. And all we are going to do is run roughshod over them.

 

[elvisman]

If it is true that Jesus started the Church [Matthew 16:18], did He start the Catholic Church?

Does Matthew 16:18 refer to Christian precepts or Christian organization; if both or either, necessarily Catholic?

Are John 21 and Acts Christian or uniquely Catholic?

Was it understood by anyone, including Peter, that Jesus had named him [Peter] as their leader?

Did Saint Paul - who clarified much to the Romans, Corinthians, Ephesians, et al - disabuse them that Peter is the head of the Church and that a successor to him needed to be acknowledged?

Did the Catholic Church embrace the office of Pope initially, or was it much later and then resorting to historical “backdating” to justify it?

Even if it were true that Jesus founded a Church to formally promulgate the faith - and not through individually inspired saints alone - Matthew 16:18, John 21, and Acts are arguably not uniquely of Catholic perspective, at least not by the converted living at the time.

I think that the problem you have is with the title, “Catholic.”

---

Whether or not the Church was called Catholic from the lips of Jesus is irrelevant. It came to be known as the Catholic Church. We know from the writings of the Early Church that it was called the Catholic Church in the first century. There is no other ecclesial entity that can make this claim. Ignatius of Antioch, who was a student of John the Apostle called it the Catholic Church.

---

Your question as to whether or not this verse or that one is uniquely Catholic is has as many possible answers as there are Protestant denominations. Every verse can be taken out of context – and usually are. I can tell you this - the entire Bible, when read in context – is uniquely Catholic because we believe in everything that Jesus and the Apostles taught and carried it on over the centuries. We have the Writings of the Early Church to illustrate the very Catholic beliefs such as Infant Baptism, Transubstantiation, confessing to a priest, the Real Presence in the Eucharist, the Marian Doctrines and so on.

---

**As for the Pope question – it is the same as any other situation in Church history when something was called into question or challenged by dissidents. The Church makes proclamations and decrees when a doctrine or belief is challenged. This the case with the doctrine of the holy Trinity proclaimed at Nicaea in the 4th century, the Hypostatic Union in the early 5th century and so on. These were ALWAYS core beliefs by were proclaimed necause of heretical challenges.

 

[elvisman]

I agree with this. When a non-Catholic states their reason why they don’t believe in the Church, or Christanity in general, the replies they receive become offensive. People write to them as if they’re stupid for not changing their views, so I feel for Rev. This should be a friendly discussion, not people writing with a bad tone.

I would disagree in this particular case - and some others.**

In my 7 years on this forum - there are many instances when a non-Catholic makes some claims, yet refuses to answer when challenged about them. They beat around the bush or simply repeat their preposterous claims as if they had never been challenged by anybody. They go from thread to thread playing Devil’s Advocate - and in most cases, maligning the Church unfairly.

This is not only unfair - it is uncharitable.

 

[tqualey]

Hi, M8g8,

“What would be the point of responding …?” He simply failed to respond - and was repeatedly asked to do so. Personally, I fatigued of his evasion, so I simply called him to respond and then identified where he repeatedly failed to do so.

No one called him names or questioned his parentage - but, I for one was distressed at his repeated attacks on the Catholic Church and when he was asked to defend this position to see no response, and evasive response, a change in definitions or a ‘goal post’ mover! This is cowardly behavior and certainly indicates a lack of intellectual honesty when confronted with a position not consistant with the one he claims to hold.

You are certainly free to question anyone’s approach in how they send a post. But, I would recommend you look carefully at the argument (or in his case, non-arguement) being made. To merely claim something because you believe it and offer no objective for this belief is fine - the fist time. But, then to challenge others repeatedly and ignore their posts repeatedly tells me that there is another agenda at work here.

On another topic, your statement about the Catholic Church, “…has something promising…” setting it apart from other religions - do you think that is Jesus Christ?

God bless

I agree with this. When a non-Catholic states their reason why they don’t believe in the Church, or Christanity in general, the replies they receive become offensive. People write to them as if they’re stupid for not changing their views, so I feel for Rev. This should be a friendly discussion, not people writing with a bad tone.

Anyway… my answer to this question is yes. Not only because of scripture, but all the miracles (such as my Mum’s TB being cured at Lourdes), my cure from the green scapular and Our Lady of Fatima etc… Also, the only non-Catholic incorruptibles are an Orthodox Saint (I can’t remember his name) and a Hindu, who was described as being very Christ-like.

These to me indicate to me that the Catholic Church has something promising that sets it apart from others.

 

[tqualey]

Hi, Curious Seed,

This thread is about to end. The answer to your questions lies in the previous posts - but, for a really great summary, check out Elvisman post #1068 - truly he hits the nail on the head.

As you look back over the merely secular history it has always amazed me that the source of all your questions can be grouped with the 16th Century (and thereafter) Protestants. This is not to say that there were not devious teachings and heresies in the first century (St. Paul addressed this!) but, the real focal point appears to be 'Age of Enlightenment" onward.

Now, don’t you wonder just what had been taking place during the first 1,500 years when it comes to the religion you claim? From a strict demonstration of secular facts - the Catholic Church was the Church founded by Christ. When you look at religious history and the history of the ECF - there simply is no room for reasonable doubt.

God bless

If it is true that Jesus started the Church [Matthew 16:18], did He start the Catholic Church?

Does Matthew 16:18 refer to Christian precepts or Christian organization; if both or either, necessarily Catholic?

Are John 21 and Acts Christian or uniquely Catholic?

Was it understood by anyone, including Peter, that Jesus had named him [Peter] as their leader?

Did Saint Paul - who clarified much to the Romans, Corinthians, Ephesians, et al - disabuse them that Peter is the head of the Church and that a successor to him needed to be acknowledged?

Did the Catholic Church embrace the office of Pope initially, or was it much later and then resorting to historical “backdating” to justify it?

Even if it were true that Jesus founded a Church to formally promulgate the faith - and not through individually inspired saints alone - Matthew 16:18, John 21, and Acts are arguably not uniquely of Catholic perspective, at least not by the converted living at the time.

 

[m8g8]

Hi, M8g8,

“What would be the point of responding …?” He simply failed to respond - and was repeatedly asked to do so. Personally, I fatigued of his evasion, so I simply called him to respond and then identified where he repeatedly failed to do so

…

On another topic, your statement about the Catholic Church, “…has something promising…” setting it apart from other religions - do you think that is Jesus Christ?

God bless

Hi.

I just read saw this thread today, so only read the first ten pages before skipping to the last. I did get the feeling that people were annoyed Rev won’t change his opinion, but I haven’t been reading the whole thread, so I may have missed something.

And yes, I do believe that It’s Jesus It’s lovely to be part of the Church which Jesus is leading. However, it’s difficult enough for Catholics to go to Heaven, so I worry what it will be like for people who can’t receive the sacraments.

 

[fbl9]

Hi tqualy
What i posted about gloating was how your post to rev kev sounded.

What i do agree with is rev kev was not being intelectually honest and moving the ‘goal posts’…

But for him to nail down the defination of the true church’s beleifs he would have concede that it was indeed the Catholic church that defined those beleifs in the first place. And with typical baptist theology rev kev plays the victim.

 

[tqualey]

Hi, M8g8,

I think you will find the thread quite interesting and enlightening - please, see how it progresses…

As I understand it, God has a role for each of us - and He wills the salvation of all! So, to accomplish these goals, I think we need to stay on point with regards to the Church’s teachings and pray for all that we may be more open to the Grace of God in our lives.

God bless

Hi.

I just read saw this thread today, so only read the first ten pages before skipping to the last. I did get the feeling that people were annoyed Rev won’t change his opinion, but I haven’t been reading the whole thread, so I may have missed something.

And yes, I do believe that It’s Jesus It’s lovely to be part of the Church which Jesus is leading. However, it’s difficult enough for Catholics to go to Heaven, so I worry what it will be like for people who can’t receive the sacraments.

 

[tqualey]

Hi, Fbl9,

Thank you for your opinion.

Now, in keeping with the thread … tell me … what is the most significant reason you believe that Jesus started the Catholic Church.

God bless

Hi tqualy
What i posted about gloating was how your post to rev kev sounded.

What i do agree with is rev kev was not being intelectually honest and moving the ‘goal posts’…

But for him to nail down the defination of the true church’s beleifs he would have concede that it was indeed the Catholic church that defined those beleifs in the first place. And with typical baptist theology rev kev plays the victim.

 

[fbl9]

Hi, Fbl9,

Thank you for your opinion.

Now, in keeping with the thread … tell me … what is the most significant reason you believe that Jesus started the Catholic Church.

God bless

Simple; one day i set out to prove that the non-denom i felt was the ‘true’ church and it seemed no matter where i turned to in the bible i kept running into Catholic teaching.
On top of that it was the only church that had history behind it, and the only church that claimed it had authority.

 

[Cinette]

*I believe Jesus started the Catholic Church to provide us with all the resources we need for our salvation. We have the Bible which emanated from Tradition, Church History - these things teach us about the Church and revelation provided by Jesus. We have the Sacraments to sanctify and provide graces which strengthen us. The Church becomes involved in our daily lives and with its wisdom it is an endless source of comfort and guidance.

Jesus knew we would need spiritual nourishment and care.

As usual I am off to do something - no time to check my posting but if I have left anything out I have no doubt that tlqualey will fill in the gaps.

God bless you all
Cinette*

 

[RedDawgMCM]

I will add this as I have contributed in this thread but haven’t truly answered the question…

I believe Jesus started the Catholic Church because the bible and the first 1500 years of church history tell me so.

[BIBLEDRB]Matt 16:16-19[/BIBLEDRB]
Jesus founds Church on Peter…

[BIBLEDRB]Isaiah 22:20-25[/BIBLEDRB]
…Referencing this passage in Isaiah…

[BIBLEDRB]John 21:15-19[/BIBLEDRB]
…Tells Peter…"Yo, Rock I gotta go, take care of my sheep…

[BIBLEDRB]Acts 1:15-21[/BIBLEDRB]
…Peter assumes control and appoints the first of 2000 years of folks into a line of apostolic succession…

1800 years later Jesus’ mama appears to a young woman in France and tells her I am the Immaculate Conception confirming one of only two Dogmas ever issued Ex Cathedra in Church history…

 

[guanophore]

Well I’m done with this site. I will not respond, although I have answers, because of the following:

You are not going to answer because others think you have no valid answer? That seems rather self defeating, dont’ you think?

When ya’ll can grow up and act like Christians then we can talk but remarks like these are uncalled for. rude, and I guess the way of the CC. But I guess the modiator don’t see anything wrong with these kind of personal attacks.

It seems that you are helpless in the face of Catholics that know their scriptures, and their history. No one is attacking you, rev kevin. We are observing that you have embraced a deficient notion of “church” that represents a significant departure from what the Apostles believed and taught.

Refusing to answer because one of the members was able to give a successful and reasoned defense of his faith to some JW’s that came to his door is a very poor excuse.