If the 12 apostles did not belong to the Catholic church...

[CEM5]

If the 12 apostles did not belong to the Catholic church, as many protestants claim, and the apostles did not belong to any one Protestant church, as catholics claim, then, to what church, in the world today, did the apostles belong?

the Apostles belonged to the Catholic Church, and the (Roman) Catholic Church has its ties to Peter the first Pope, in an unbroken link. History shows this, and whoever is Peter’s successor, holds the “keys to the kingdom” that Christ gave, and this Church is the one that Christ promised the gates of hell would never prevail.

Any church that separates from the Catholic Church no longer has that protection, for it is the Pope who is the successor of Peter and Christ’s representative on earth.

St Ignatius,born in Syria, around the year 50; died at Rome between 98 and 117, who was made Bishop of Antioch (successor of Bishop Evodius) by St Peter, was the first to use the word “Catholic” to describe the Church. (Smyrnæans 8),

newadvent.org/fathers/0109.htm

Chapter 8. Let nothing be done without the bishop
See that you all follow the bishop, even as Jesus Christ does the Father, and the presbytery as you would the apostles; and reverence the deacons, as being the institution of God. Let no man do anything connected with the Church without the bishop. Let that be deemed a proper Eucharist, which is [administered] either by the bishop, or by one to whom he has entrusted it. Wherever the bishop shall appear, there let the multitude [of the people] also be; even as, wherever Jesus Christ is, there is the Catholic Church. It is not lawful without the bishop either to baptize or to celebrate a love-feast; but whatsoever he shall approve of, that is also pleasing to God, so that everything that is done may be secure and valid.

 

[CEM5]

I would like to ask here, what ‘everyone else’s God-given authority’ that the Pope has usurped and eliminated from them?

The Pope has not usurped nor eliminated anyone else’s God-given authority. God gave us authority of Free Will, and this the Pope upholds of course.

As for the authority to speak “ex-cathedra” about doctrines infallibly, on matters of faith and morals, THAT is what Christ bestowed on Peter and his successors, - those who hold the keys to kingdom so that whatsoever they bind on earth will be bound in heaven and whatsoever they loose on earth will be loosed in heaven. Those keys of authority were not given to everyone!

Everyone is free to do what they want, but then must suffer the consequences of their “free” choice: either good consequences or bad consequences.

 

[CEM5]

So you guys basically think that God founded one church and then didn’t leave an supernatural way for it to guarantee that it would never like screw up or whatever?

Christ promised that the Church would be guided in all truth and that the gates of hell would never prevail.

The Church as a whole, with its doctrines and infallible teachings on matters of faith and morals, is the protection that Christ guaranteed. The Catholic Church would NEVER, (as you say) “screw up” in those doctrinal matters.

As for individuals in the Church (this includes the religious figures), God did not promise infalliblity. Christ warned us that there would be wolves among His sheep in the Church and to beware of these false “prophets” lest we fall prey to their twisted words and be lured aways from the teachings as handed on by Paul and the Apostles.

Thank the Lord for His promise!

 

[Izdaari]

They were Jews. Since they were Jews who believed Jesus was the Messiah, they were technically Messianic Jews, although they may not have agreed with all that usually means today.

 

[CEM5]

They were Jews. Since they were Jews who believed Jesus was the Messiah, they were technically Messianic Jews, although they may not have agreed with all that usually means today.

They did not call themselves that; they called themselves followers of the Way at first, then in Antioch (book of Acts) they were first called Christians. No more Jew, Gentile or other label - just plain old Christians - everyone ONE in Christ.

blessings,

 

[dianaiad]

So you guys basically think that God founded one church and then didn’t leave an supernatural way for it to guarantee that it would never like screw up or whatever?

SnakeMauler, we either have free will—with everything that comes with that, or we don’t. If we DO, then it has to be possible for people to fall away from Him. It even has to be possible for EVERYbody to do so. Certainly the bible is full of examples of entire populations that have done precisely that.

God solves the problem by starting over.

He’s had to do that a lot, because human beings, having free will, tend to use it.

 

[scottm]

You may over characterize this yourself. What is this unlimited universal power (?) and jurisdiction over what?

Haven’t you read the CCC? I purports to apply to the 22 branches of Eastern Catholicism, and by logical extension to the whole of Eastern Orthodoxy should unification occur. This unquestioanbly erases the Jesus-given authority of all apostles save Peter. (My priest takes the position that the CCC is not binding on Eastern Catholics. No controversies have arisen, so it’s an untested theory.) If in fact you are right in saying that the Pope of Rome does not have blanket authority all over the planet, then let’s change the wording of the CCC accordingly. The Orthodox would love you.

Celibate clergy is a discipline and only applies to Latin Rite.

But it’s a controversy because Romans rule the world. Infant eucharist is another controversy because Romans rule the world.

I would like to ask here, what ‘everyone else’s God-given authority’ that the Pope has usurped and eliminated from them?

Maybe there’s something in this here thread on the discussions going on this month. Posts 26 & 28 certainly raise an important issue.

forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?t=503582

 

[jmcrae]

Try here. cannons 4,6 and 7

newadvent.org/fathers/3801.htm

I believe these discuss the assignment of bishops.

Okay. It’s still not obvious that there is no Pope. There is nothing explicitly restricting the Bishop of Rome to particular borders.

 

[JonNC]

What version of the text are you reading, or where in the text are you finding that? I am not seeing anything that pertains to the assignment of Bishops or Patriarchs, other than the re-admittance of some who had been heretics.

Canon 6:
“Let the ancient customs in Egypt, Libya, and Pentapolis prevail: that the Bishop of Alexandria have jurisdiction in all these, sine the like is customary for the Bishop of Rome also. Likewise in Antioch and the other provinces, let the Churches retain their privileges. And this is to be universally understood: that if any one be made bishop without the consent of the Metropolitan, the Great Synod has declared that such a man ought not to be a bishop. If, however, two or three bishops shall from natural love of contradiction, oppose the common suffrage of the rest, it being reasonable and in accordance with the ecclesiastical law, then let the choice of the majority prevail.”

Jon

 

[jmcrae]

Canon 6:
“Let the ancient customs in Egypt, Libya, and Pentapolis prevail: that the Bishop of Alexandria have jurisdiction in all these, sine the like is customary for the Bishop of Rome also. Likewise in Antioch and the other provinces, let the Churches retain their privileges. And this is to be universally understood: that if any one be made bishop without the consent of the Metropolitan, the Great Synod has declared that such a man ought not to be a bishop. If, however, two or three bishops shall from natural love of contradiction, oppose the common suffrage of the rest, it being reasonable and in accordance with the ecclesiastical law, then let the choice of the majority prevail.”

Jon

Where does it state that the Bishop of Rome has no role in this, or that he is to be restricted? Or that if the Metropolitans become schismatic, that the Pope would not be able to supply jurisdiction for the Church there?

 

[JonNC]

Where does it state that the Bishop of Rome has no role in this, or that he is to be restricted?

I didn’t say the pope has no role. As nonCatholics go, I’ve been pretty supportive of the importance to all of Christianity of the pope. the issue is not that he is restricted, but that the council didn’t recognize his role as that which the CC considers his role.

Or that if the Metropolitans become schismatic, that the Pope would not be able to supply jurisdiction for the Church there?

Who became schismatic, is a debate that has gone on for a long, long time. My only hope is that you guys would settle the matter with each other.

Jon

 

[Reuben_J]

Haven’t you read the CCC?

It therefore looks like you have a problem with the CCC in part or whole. It’s rather sad because when we have a teaching we reject it.

I purports to apply to the 22 branches of Eastern Catholicism, and by logical extension to the whole of Eastern Orthodoxy should unification occur. This unquestioanbly erases the Jesus-given authority of all apostles save Peter. (My priest takes the position that the CCC is not binding on Eastern Catholics. No controversies have arisen, so it’s an untested theory.) If in fact you are right in saying that the Pope of Rome does not have blanket authority all over the planet, then let’s change the wording of the CCC accordingly. The Orthodox would love you.

All I can say is that the Pope is what he is because Jesus himself said so. Either we reject Jesus’ word or we have to accept it as a reaality and binding. I cannot see it either way. This has been debated here umpteenth times and I cannot see any way where we can circumvent’s Jesus word.

But it’s a controversy because Romans rule the world. Infant eucharist is another controversy because Romans rule the world.

So we are throwing politic into it. I must admit that kind of technique is always effective in finalizing an argument. But why throw the baby with the bathtub?

Infant eucharist? Huh?

 

[joe370]

Hi Jon…

Hi Joe,
The question is, if there is one visible Church, which one is it? I would agree that it was the early undivided Church. But today the Church is divided, and in schism.
I would even agree about the importance of AS, as it speaks to unity. Of course, we can see that even AS hasn’t always preserved unity.

AS has preserved doctrinal truth in Jesus’ established church though, in my humble opinion. Jon, what’s the difference between me (leaving the CC) - and starting my own church and Martin Luther or Calvin or Zwingli (leaving the CC) and starting their own church, with the exception of the fact that these men were much more learned than me as well as smarter? If I start my church can I still claim apostolic succession?

The CC and EOC in my humble opinion, comprise the one (albeit divided) - visible church founded By the Jesus Christ circa AD 33, historically speaking, and I am not implying that all of the PC’s are not part of Jesus’ mystical Body, for they truly are as per the CCC. I simply cannot give you the name of the person that founded this one divided church, other than JC. However, I can give you the name of the founder of every PC and his/her name is not Jesus and he/she did not establish his/her church in the 1st century, in Jerusalem, on Pentecost, the birth of Jesus’ church. For me, it really came down to the CC or the EOC and not the offshoots of the EOC. That was my logical approach to the matter long ago.

Who are their successors? Is it only those in AS? That to me is a human development, not that there’s anything wrong with human Traditions. I disagree with the CC and OC that my clergy are not valid. Heck, I disagree with those in the OC who say Catholic clergy are not valid.

Regarding apostolic succession, we can rule out all PC’s for they were/are offshoots of the CC. They hit the AS reset button so to speak. Apostolic succession for each and every PC begins with the founder of each and every PC. For example, the Lutheran church has succession that goes all the way back to Martin Luther and it stops there, because (however it happened) - ML eventually left the CC. Does that seem reasonable to you? The CC has succession that goes all the way back to the apostles. The EOC has succession that goes all the way back to the apostles. I had to make a choice as to which one of these churches were in fact the church of Matthew 16, forever guided by the HS into all truth, and of course I chose the CC. Like I said to tester:

The successors of the apostles received the infallible teachings from the apostles and continued to promulgate those teachings, and their successors did the same, and this has been going on for almost 2000 years, and I believe that truth has been safeguarded via this transmission of truth only because I believe that the HS has been ineffably guiding this transmission of truth for almost 2000 years, and He will continue to do so until Jesus returns. I give all the credit to Jesus Christ, as opposed to the leaders of the CC, for safeguarding infallible truth. How He does it, I have no idea. I simply have faith that He can and did, so that every generation can access the same infallible truths that the 1st generation followers were so fortunate to have access to. The big question for me was:

which church (EOC or CC) - after the east west split in the 11th century, continued to claim to be the church built on Kepha? After all Jesus did say:

18And I say also unto thee, That thou art Peter, and upon this rock I will build my church; and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it.

19And I will give unto thee the keys of the kingdom of heaven: and whatsoever thou shalt bind on earth shall be bound in heaven: and whatsoever thou shalt loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven.

And the EOC doesn’t seem to believe that Jesus built His church on Kepha; they believe His church was built on Peters confession, and that, by itself, makes no sense to me. Regarding the Anglican church, I eventually learned that In the reign of King Henry VIII the church of England began to separate from the jurisdiction of the Bishop of Rome. This was a culmination of a number of schisms involving the Eastern Church, and the protestant movement protesting obvious corruption in certain parts of the Catholic Church. After altercations between Henry and the pope, Henry decided too to break away from the CC to form his own church, (the church of England) - with the Archbishop of Canterbury as the chief bishop and principal leader of the Church of England. It stand to reason that if he can claim apostolic succession then I could to, if I broke away from the CC and started my own church?

In all honesty, I believe “on this rock” referrs to more than just the confession of Peter, but I don’t believe that this extends to what the CC currently claims it to be. The primacy of Peter’s chair as Bishop of Rome is not, in my view, the sumpremacy Rome claims today.

That’s cool Jon. As a former protestant, I decided that the CC was as close as I could get to the church founded by Jesus.

 

[jmcrae]

That’s cool Jon. As a former protestant, I decided that the CC was as close as I could get to the church founded by Jesus.

Same here. The early Church may have had more of the appearance of the various Orthodox Churches, but the unifying factor is missing, with them, today - the only Church in existence right now that is both Apostolic and available to all of the human inhabitants of the earth, is the Catholic Church. “A parish close to home” is an important criterion, for me, and there are no Orthodox Churches in my neighborhood. And if I move to Africa for some reason, I can join the Catholic parish that is in within walking distance of that house, without having to change religions.

 

[joe370]

Jmcrae, that’s a good point. A very important criterion for me was:

The church to which I belong must be founded by Jesus (as opposed to mere man//woman) - in Jerusalem circa AD 33 on Pentecost. By definition the CC is the only church that is truly universal in the sense that it has existed through every century since Pentecost and, like you said, is everywhere, just about. I doubt it is N. Korea. I wonder if there are any Churches there??? Jesus said that his church would have its origin in Jerusalem, and expand throughout Judea and Samaria and eventually to the ends of the earth, and only the CC can make that claim.

Same here. The early Church may have had more of the appearance of the various Orthodox Churches, but the unifying factor is missing, with them, today - the only Church in existence right now that is both Apostolic and available to all of the human inhabitants of the earth, is the Catholic Church. “A parish close to home” is an important criterion, for me, and there are no Orthodox Churches in my neighborhood. And if I move to Africa for some reason, I can join the Catholic parish that is in within walking distance of that house, without having to change religions.

 

[jmcrae]

Jmcrae, that’s a good point. A very important criterion for me was:

The church to which I belong must be founded by Jesus (as opposed to mere man//woman) - in Jerusalem circa AD 33 on Pentecost. By definition the CC is the only church that is truly universal in the sense that it has existed through every century since Pentecost and, like you said, is everywhere, just about. I doubt it is N. Korea. I wonder if there are any Churches there???

There are Bishops assigned there, and from what I understand, the Church is able to do its work without the knowledge of the press, or the local government. Obviously it is very dangerous there, and makes Rome during the first century look pretty tame. I have heard it said that there are more martyrs of the Catholic faith in the 20th century than in the previous 19 centuries, combined, and we can guess where they are, can’t we? They are very brave.

Jesus said that his church would have its origin in Jerusalem, and expand throughout Judea and Samaria and eventually to the ends of the earth, and only the CC can make that claim.

 

[JonNC]

Originally posted by Joe370

That’s cool Jon. As a former protestant, I decided that the CC was as close as I could get to the church founded by Jesus.

Same here.

And you both know, that I give thanks to God that His Spirit has led to the Catholic Church, where you are blessed in word and sacrament. I also give thanks that I have “met” both of you here to share our faith in the One who saves.

The early Church may have had more of the appearance of the various Orthodox Churches, but the unifying factor is missing, with them, today - the only Church in existence right now that is both Apostolic and available to all of the human inhabitants of the earth, is the Catholic Church. “A parish close to home” is an important criterion, for me, and there are no Orthodox Churches in my neighborhood. And if I move to Africa for some reason, I can join the Catholic parish that is in within walking distance of that house, without having to change religions.

I think on the first point, Orthodox may disagree about the unifying factor. On the second, the size of the CC compared to the OC (not entirely of their doing) and even my Lutheran Church is a decided advantage for you.

Jon

 

[jmcrae]

I think on the first point, Orthodox may disagree about the unifying factor. On the second, the size of the CC compared to the OC (not entirely of their doing) and even my Lutheran Church is a decided advantage for you.

Yes, but think about how it got that big - it was by not being restricted to a specific ethnic group. Everyone can become Catholic.

In theory, everyone can become Lutheran, but it is really seen as a German thing, and non-Germans would feel like outsiders there. The Greek Orthodox Church is also open to everyone in theory, but again, it is really only “home” to people whose native language and culture is Greek.

The Catholic Church, on the other hand, is just as strange to everyone - it doesn’t follow any particular ethnic culture or language - and that’s what makes the parish in Africa just as much “home” as my parish down the street here - the elements that make it Catholic in union with the Pope don’t belong to any ethnic group - and thus, they belong to all, equally.

 

[Mike2010]

SnakeMauler, we either have free will—with everything that comes with that, or we don’t. If we DO, then it has to be possible for people to fall away from Him. It even has to be possible for EVERYbody to do so. Certainly the bible is full of examples of entire populations that have done precisely that.

God solves the problem by starting over.

He’s had to do that a lot, because human beings, having free will, tend to use it.

Okay, so using your way of thinking, God would have already had to start over from the LDS church because of changing doctrines which differ from the start with JS.

In the Bible, when entire populations fell away, God didn’t “start over or fix the problem” by starting a new religion.

 

[Pregustator]

Yes, but think about how it got that big - it was by not being restricted to a specific ethnic group. Everyone can become Catholic.

In theory, everyone can become Lutheran, but it is really seen as a German thing, and non-Germans would feel like outsiders there. The Greek Orthodox Church is also open to everyone in theory, but again, it is really only “home” to people whose native language and culture is Greek.

The Catholic Church, on the other hand, is just as strange to everyone - it doesn’t follow any particular ethnic culture or language - and that’s what makes the parish in Africa just as much “home” as my parish down the street here - the elements that make it Catholic in union with the Pope don’t belong to any ethnic group - and thus, they belong to all, equally.

Lutheranism is seen as a “German thing”? I wonder how many Lutherans not of German ancestry are shaking their heads right now. Lutheranism is most certainly not an ethnically Germanic confession. It is the state religion of Sweden, of Denmark, and of Norway, incidentally, and has spread 'round the world. Not to the extent of Roman Catholicism, but to classify it as a “German” church in this day and age is rather wide of the mark.

The Greek Orthodox Church may be quite Greek, but it is only one component of the broader Orthodox Church, bear in mind. That having been said, all of the other Orthodox churches are ethnically-designated as well.