History of the Roman Catholic Church

[luckyfredsdad]

For Catholics,
"We believe that the Holy Scriptures are completed, explained and interpreted by Holy Tradition and that this is found in the seven Ecumenical Councils and the Consensus of the Greek Fathers. of the early centuries.

There is no competition between the Scriptures and Holy Tradition
they compliment each other!

Anglican Catholic.

 

[Snerticus]

For Catholics,
"We believe that the Holy Scriptures are completed, explained and interpreted by Holy Tradition and that this is found in the seven Ecumenical Councils and the Consensus of the Greek Fathers. of the early centuries.

There is no competition between the Scriptures and Holy Tradition
they compliment each other!

Anglican Catholic.

Bravo!!! :clapping:

 

[brkn1]

Paul says Scripture is, in your translation, profitable, and in mine, useful. In neither case does he say Scripture is indispensable or is it the only means by which we hear God’s word.

The sufficiency to prepare men for good works, not to teach them all there is to learn about the faith, which is the common misperception. That is what is clear.

I would say that the simple Gospel presented in Scripture is indispensable.
If Paul claimed that Holy Scripture is able to “make thee wise unto salvation through faith which is in Jesus Christ.”, then how can some other way be put forth to do the same thing?
Man’s traditions are what make Paul’s claim and the simple Gospel to none effect.

The RCC Traditions say that Jesus did not die as our Substitute, which is the simple Gospel. They make the Gospel to none effect with that claim and doom those who buy into man’s traditions.

 

[Protestant101]

Long before any Protestant church! LOL.

But to be a bit more precise, about 33 A. D.! “Thou art Peter and upon this rock…”

So are you going to show us from official Catholic writings WHEN THEY SAY THE CATHOLIC CHURCH STARTED?

It’s all too easy to quote some obscure book that most have never heard of, much less could get their hands on to evaluate what you quote here. I am not interested in what other people teach; I am trying to verify what Catholics officially teach as the date that their denomination started? This topic is about the history of the Catholic Church. Lets hear what they officially teach. Do they teach 33 Ad as the beginning? If so, where?

I could easily make similar quotes that say the oposite - much history is activist in nature, and denominations tend to quote only those which lend support to their views.

I will be waiting for yours, and other forum member’s replies on this important question.

 

[raumzeitmc2]

There is something about oral tradition that makes it less reliable than Scripture. Man’s oral transmission tends towards error, as you point out about false traditions.

I’m afraid, my friend, you have absolutely no idea whatsoever of what you are talking about here. Real tradition, by definition, absolutely does not tend toward error!

Let’s look at the dictionary definition:

Tradition:

An inherited, established, or customary pattern of thought, action, or behavior (as a religious practice or a social custom).

b: a belief or story or a body of beliefs or stories relating to the past that are commonly accepted as historical though not verifiable. (just because you read that Christ walked on water, doesn’t mean you can verify that as a fact, any more than you could by simply having been told about it.)

2: the handing down of information, beliefs, and customs by word of mouth or by example from one generation to another without written instruction. (absolutely nothing here about unreliability or tending “towards error.” )

merriam-webster.com/dictionary/tradition

Moreover, any given interpretation of the Bible, handed down generation after generation, constitutes a tradition!

But please, just read this:
On the Reliability of Oral Tradition

Paul speaks about how the Holy Scriptures are able to “make thee wise unto salvation through faith which is in Jesus Christ.”
Paul next explains: “All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness:
That the man of God may be perfect (complete), throughly furnished unto all good works.” [2 Timothy 3:16-17]

Paul is very clear about the sufficiency of the Holy Scriptures in the above verses, which could not include any RCC scriptures, since none existed then.

Oh please! Listen, the “man of God” the celibate Paul is referring to here is the celibate St.Timothy, a man infinitely more acquainted with the faith and teaching of the apostles than some uninstructed modern busying himself with wrestling bible texts could ever hope to be! Timothy you see, had been personally catechized by the apostle and was an eye witness to the events of the day.

But now it’s absolutely crucial that you understand this one fact: the term “man of God” is a technical term; in the Old Testament it refers to only to a patriarch or a prophet, never once does it refer to a lay person. In the New Testament, it refers exclusively to St. Timothy.

And here’s your proof:

biblestudytools.net/OnlineStudyBible/bible.cgi?word=%22MAN+OF+GOD%22&section=0&version=niv&new=1&oq=&NavBook=2ti&NavGo=3&NavCurrentChapter=3

So it’s just beyond ludicrous for someone, 20 centuries removed the apostles, and never Catechized, to presume even the remotest comparison between himself, and his understanding of the Christian faith, and that of St. Timothy’s! Just ludicrous.

No offense.

 

[Always_For_Him]

I would say that the simple Gospel presented in Scripture is indispensable.
If Paul claimed that Holy Scripture is able to “make thee wise unto salvation through faith which is in Jesus Christ.”, then how can some other way be put forth to do the same thing?
Man’s traditions are what make Paul’s claim and the simple Gospel to none effect.

The RCC Traditions say that Jesus did not die as our Substitute, which is the simple Gospel. They make the Gospel to none effect with that claim and doom those who buy into man’s traditions.

The Catholic Church is WHO orally taught these gospels, the whole NT, for centuries before they wrote it down. The Catholic Church KNOWS what it says and what it means.

 

[Always_For_Him]

So are you going to show us from official Catholic writings WHEN THEY SAY THE CATHOLIC CHURCH STARTED?

It’s all too easy to quote some obscure book that most have never heard of, much less could get their hands on to evaluate what you quote here. I am not interested in what other people teach; I am trying to verify what Catholics officially teach as the date that their denomination started? This topic is about the history of the Catholic Church. Lets hear what they officially teach. Do they teach 33 Ad as the beginning? If so, where?

I could easily make similar quotes that say the oposite - much history is activist in nature, and denominations tend to quote only those which lend support to their views.

I will be waiting for yours, and other forum member’s replies on this important question.

You have been told a million times. Since the word catholic MEANS universal, it was used very early on. The first writings of calling it the “Universal” Catholic Church are in 107AD. By those writings, it is obvious that it had been in use for a long time as the whole world knew what the Universal Church was. You are part of a church founded by a human in the 1800’s. Claims of being a prohpet, which have proven to be FALSE, aside, Christ established a CHURCH, that is the Catholic Church founded on Peter and the Apostles. Just because you believe something else that is less than 200 years old, does not prove the Catholic Church or it’s gift of Christ, the Deposit of Faith, wrong.

 

[Ferde_Rombola]

I would say that the simple Gospel presented in Scripture is indispensable.

There’s no question about that, but it’s an incomplete thought. The simple Gospel is indispensable so long as you mean the entire Gospel. Taking little pieces of it and making them count as the whole Gospel is a perversion of the message. Protestants do not believe the entire Gospel. They will swear up and down that they are true to Jesus and believe in His word, but they are quick to throw out entire passages of his message when it doesn’t suit their beliefs. Just as their 16th Century fathers did.

If Paul claimed that Holy Scripture is able to “make thee wise unto salvation through faith which is in Jesus Christ.”, then how can some other way be put forth to do the same thing?

Sacred Tradition does not mimic Scripture, it supplements it. The Lord said to the Apostles, “I have much more to tell you, but you cannot bear it now. When he comes, however, being the Spirit of truth, he will guide you to all truth.” Jn.16:13 That makes it clear that not all truth is to be found in Scripture. Though protestants claim Jesus meant that only for the Apostles, they are wrong. Their claim is nothing but a self serving opinion with no support in Scripture at all.

The Gospels of Mark and Luke are both entirely derived from Sacred Tradition. Mark learned all he wrote from Peter and Luke never knew Jesus at all, but got his Gospel from his own interviews with the principles. That’s tradition and it can’t be denied.

Man’s traditions are what make Paul’s claim and the simple Gospel to none effect.

That’s nothing but an unsubsupported opinion. “Man’s traditons” is too vague to mean anything. What traditions are you talking about. The Sacred Tradition the Catholic Church relies on has a history. We didn’t just pull it out of a hat. It’s many centuries old and has a continuity which can’t be ignored.

The RCC Traditions say that Jesus did not die as our Substitute, which is the simple Gospel. They make the Gospel to none effect with that claim and doom those who buy into man’s traditions.

Can you document what you said? Where does the Catholic Church say what you claim?

 

[lettertotim]

I would be willing to bet that God isn’t too keen on naming something as important as His “TRUE CHURCH”, “ROMAN”. Here again we find man putting his stamp on what is only Gods’ not His creations’. “Rome” is one of the many places mentioned in the Bible where something spiritually significant happened (or will happen), don’t give it so much power or you end up following after man not God.

 

[ricko]

Jesus Christ founded the Church.

(a) Christ completed the founding of His Church just before His Ascension, when He commissioned the apostles to make disciples of all nations. Earlier in His public ministry He had instituted the sacraments, chosen the twelve apostles, instructed them by word and example, and conferred on them the power of teaching, ruling, and sanctifying.

(b) The Gospels show that Christ founded the Church in the form of a visible, hierarchical society, that is, one made up of subjects and superiors who rightfully rule subjects. The Roman Pontiff and the bishops under him are the ruling hierarchy of the Church. The Church is also a monarchical society in which the Pope rules with full power, that is, with jurisdiction over the entire Church. Peter was the first head of the Church founded by Christ.

(c) After Pentecost Sunday the apostles began to carry out their mission, which through them and their successors continues and will continue until the end of time.
EWTN ewtn.com/faith/teachings/chura1a.htm

The Church did not have an official name so don’t put too much into that fact. During the early days the Church was called by various names, Church of Christ, Church of God, the Way. About 107 AD we have the first documented evidence the Church was being called “The Catholic Church”

 

[Ferde_Rombola]

so are you going to show us from official catholic writings when they say the catholic church started?

ccc 1076.

 

[Always_For_Him]

I would be willing to bet that God isn’t too keen on naming something as important as His “TRUE CHURCH”, “ROMAN”. Here again we find man putting his stamp on what is only Gods’ not His creations’. “Rome” is one of the many places mentioned in the Bible where something spiritually significant happened (or will happen), don’t give it so much power or you end up following after man not God.

The Catholic Church didn’t give itselt the name Roman. Besides, Roman is just ONE rite of 23 rites founded by the apostles and their successors that are ALL in communion with Rome.

 

[Snerticus]

ccc 1076.

Here is the full paragraph of the CCC 1076:

The Church was made manifest to the world on the day of Pentecost by the outpouring of the Holy Spirit. The gift of the Spirit ushers in a new era in the “dispensation of the mystery” the age of the Church, during which Christ manifests, makes present, and communicates his work of salvation through the liturgy of his Church, “until he comes.” In this age of the Church Christ now lives and acts in and with his Church, in a new way appropriate to this new age. He acts through the sacraments in what the common Tradition of the East and the West calls “the sacramental economy”; this is the communication (or “dispensation”) of the fruits of Christ’s Paschal mystery in the celebration of the Church’s “sacramental” liturgy. It is therefore important first to explain this “sacramental dispensation” (in chapter one). The nature and essential features of liturgical celebration will then appear more clearly (in chapter two).

 

[ricko]

I would be willing to bet that God isn’t too keen on naming something as important as His “TRUE CHURCH”, “ROMAN”. Here again we find man putting his stamp on what is only Gods’ not His creations’. “Rome” is one of the many places mentioned in the Bible where something spiritually significant happened (or will happen), don’t give it so much power or you end up following after man not God.

The name of the Church is not the Roman Catholic Church as so many Protestants think. That title was used by Protestants after the Reformation. The correct name of the Church is simply “The Catholic Church”. It consists of about 7 different rites with the Western Church being the “Latin Rite”

Hope this helps.

 

[brkn1]

The simple Gospel is indispensable so long as you mean the entire Gospel.

Can you document what you said? Where does the Catholic Church say what you claim?

The RCC does not hold to a simple Gospel. It has added an additional book to complicate what it claims to be the gospel.

I have found no RCC doctrine that agrees with the idea that Jesus Christ died as the Attoning Substitute for our sins.
RCC doctrine does not support what (Hebrews 9:28) says, "So Christ was once offered to bear the sins of many; and unto them that look for Him shall He appear the second time without sin unto salvation.

I would appreciate it if you could point me to a clear statement where the RCC claims that Jesus bore and payed for our sins on the Cross.

 

[bobregan]

For Catholics,
"We believe that the Holy Scriptures are completed, explained and interpreted by Holy Tradition and that this is found in the seven Ecumenical Councils and the Consensus of the Greek Fathers. of the early centuries.

There is no competition between the Scriptures and Holy Tradition
they compliment each other!

Anglican Catholic.

Bullseye! Very well put.

 

[Ferde_Rombola]

The RCC does not hold to a simple Gospel. It has added an additional book to complicate what it claims to be the gospel.

I have found no RCC doctrine that agrees with the idea that Jesus Christ died as the Attoning Substitute for our sins.
RCC doctrine does not support what (Hebrews 9:28) says, "So Christ was once offered to bear the sins of many; and unto them that look for Him shall He appear the second time without sin unto salvation.

I would appreciate it if you could point me to a clear statement where the RCC claims that Jesus bore and payed for our sins on the Cross.

Sorry, not playing your game. You first and I’ll be happy to accomodate you. I asked you to document your accusations against the Catholic Church and you have not done it. You have simply made more accusations. I’d also like you to document those as well.

Firing off one unsupported accusation after another is not debate, my friend. Back up your statements or retract them.

 

[Always_For_Him]

The RCC does not hold to a simple Gospel. It has added an additional book to complicate what it claims to be the gospel.

I have found no RCC doctrine that agrees with the idea that Jesus Christ died as the Attoning Substitute for our sins.
RCC doctrine does not support what (Hebrews 9:28) says, "So Christ was once offered to bear the sins of many; and unto them that look for Him shall He appear the second time without sin unto salvation.

I would appreciate it if you could point me to a clear statement where the RCC claims that Jesus bore and payed for our sins on the Cross.

You are espousing what you THINK that Catholics teach. We WROTE the Bible brkn1. It is those who have separated themselves from Christ’s Church through the reformation that don’t hold to the correct gospel and don’t support what the Bible ACTUALLY, CONTEXTUALLY says. You can’t take OUR Bible, make changes to it, personally interpret it, then tell us what it means. That is what you and all non-Catholics as a result of the reformation who have come to believe in the teaching of man are doing. You obviously don’t see it that way, but that is exactly how it is. Luther and the reformers took our Bible, made changes, added to it, took away from it, re-interpreted it and taught that as Truth. 500 years later that is all non-Catholic Churches know. That is NOT Apostolic Truth. It is teaching of man.

 

[Rocky]

The RCC does not hold to a simple Gospel. It has added an additional book to complicate what it claims to be the gospel.

I have found no RCC doctrine that agrees with the idea that Jesus Christ died as the Attoning Substitute for our sins.
RCC doctrine does not support what (Hebrews 9:28) says, "So Christ was once offered to bear the sins of many; and unto them that look for Him shall He appear the second time without sin unto salvation.

I would appreciate it if you could point me to a clear statement where the RCC claims that Jesus bore and payed for our sins on the Cross.

From paragraph 615 of the *Catechism of the Catholic Church: *

615"For as by one man’s disobedience many were made sinners, so by one man’s obedience many will be made righteous." (Rom 5:19) By his obedience unto death, Jesus accomplished the substitution of the suffering Servant, who “make himself an offering for sin,” when “he bore the sin of many,” and who “shall make many to be accounted righteous,” for “he shall bear their inquities.” (Isa 53:10-12) Jesus atoned for our faults and made satisfaction for our sins to the Father. (Cf. Council of Trent (1547)S 1529).

616 It is love “to the end” that confers on Christ’s sacrifice its value as redemption and reparation, as atonement and satisfaction. He knew and loved us all when he offered his life.

 

[Protestant101]

You have been told a million times. Since the word catholic MEANS universal, it was used very early on. The first writings of calling it the “Universal” Catholic Church are in 107AD. By those writings, it is obvious that it had been in use for a long time as the whole world knew what the Universal Church was. You are part of a church founded by a human in the 1800’s. Claims of being a prohpet, which have proven to be FALSE, aside, Christ established a CHURCH, that is the Catholic Church founded on Peter and the Apostles. Just because you believe something else that is less than 200 years old, does not prove the Catholic Church or it’s gift of Christ, the Deposit of Faith, wrong.

You counted did you? I have been told a few times; but quite a few of those times, I have been given different answers!! And from Catholics too!

If its too much for you to show me specific quotes in official Catholic writings that say definitely when the Catholic Church was born; I can understand that, given the way you talk to people.