Please give me the name of the man, or men, that founded the Catholic Church, and when...

[Radical]

No, Radical. It is not a circular argument, but a spiral one.

"We are not basing the inspiration of the Bible on the Church’s infallibility and the Church’s infallibility on the word of an inspired Bible.

…and that isn’t exactly the circle I described either

On the first level we argue to the reliability of the Bible insofar as it is history.

If this is true, then the authorities that should be referenced are historians…the best historians that we can find and their opinions should be what we follow in determining if the Bible is reliable wrt what it says happened. Please note how that has worked so far on this thread. I refer to the consensus of historians and it is met with no end of protest b/c it doesn’t echo what the Vatican has declared.

(Please note to all involved, I am using “Vatican” to mean the conservative hierarchy of the CC.)

From that we conclude that an infallible Church was founded.

and how do you do that exactly? It can’t be that b/c the ancient Church managed to accumulate a set of historically reliable documents. Such does not make the documents scripture. Further, the achievement of one competent act does not mean the ancient Church ever managed a second competent act. So then, how do you make the leap from the NT being reliable wrt historical matters, to the CC being infallible (which isn’t a historical matter, but a theological one)? Isn’t it by way of this circle:

a)The Bible teaches that the CC is infallible…*but how do you know that is what the Bible teaches when it doesn’t contain those exact words? *

b) B/c the CC says so…but how do you know that the CC is right in what it says?

c) b/c the Bible teaches that the CC is infallible, so the CC must be right in how it interprets the Bible.

This is not a circular argument…

rather it is a argument involving a number of circles.

 

[KathleenGee]

Radical,

Your position is essentially that the Church is run by men. And with human beings, everything is generally speaking, relative.

The difference is that the very heart of the Word of God, catechesis, and the sacraments – including Holy Orders – is indeed Jesus Christ, and as such, the Church is a sacrament through the Holy Spirit.

In essence, it is God Himself Who is the source of the Catholic faith and its teachings. It takes another act of faith to believe that the Catholic Church is indeed Christ’s bride here on earth.

 

[Radical]

If you would like to use Catholic Scholar’s to validate your position, I would encourage you to use a Catholic in good standing within the Church…The ‘Issue” is that you’re trying to use a very liberal theologian who has in the past has taught heretical teachings that are outside of what the Church actually has taught.

We are talking history here…if we want to know what happened in history, then we should reference good scholars w/o regard to whether they are also good conservative Catholics WRT their beliefs…otherwise you are just rigging the deck to get the result that you desire.

Your Mormonism analogy has no merit, we all know that the Mormons are grasping for straws in their theology.(except the Mormons obviously)

right and the LDS might well say: Your comparison of our situation to that of conservative Catholics has no merit, we all know that those Catholics are grasping for straws in their theology.(except those Catholics obviously)

 

[Radical]

It takes another act of faith to believe that the Catholic Church is indeed Christ’s bride here on earth.

Agreed absolutely…this is a point I am trying to make here. Don’t tell me that history demonstrates that Christ founded the Catholic Church, b/c that is a personal interpretation only…and one that, IMHO, is losing a little more credibility every few years. It is a conclusion that is made through an act of faith.

 

[Stephen168]

Agreed absolutely…this is a point I am trying to make here. Don’t tell me that history demonstrates that Christ founded the Catholic Church, b/c that is a personal interpretation only…and one that, IMHO, is losing a little more credibility every few years. It is a conclusion that is made through an act of faith.

Which leads you into answering the OP. If not Christ, who?

 

[Radical]

Which leads you into answering the OP. If not Christ, who?

Well from my point of view, the church of the first century believed A, B, C, D, E, F, G, H, I, J, K, L and M. (here we need to check history) In contrast, again from my POV, the modern CC believes A-J, doesn’t believe K-M and now also believes N-Z. (here we need to check with Catholic theologians) K-M weren’t lost in one moment, nor were N-Z added in a single moment. The change is significant enough that it isn’t appropriate to call the two (the 1st century church and the modern CC) the same church…no more appropriate than claiming that the game played in the 1890’s is the same game we now know as American Football. So perhaps the answer is these three guys: Mr. Innovation, Ms. Development and Father Time.

 

[elvisman]

Agreed absolutely…this is a point I am trying to make here. Don’t tell me that history demonstrates that Christ founded the Catholic Church, b/c that is a personal interpretation only…and one that, IMHO, is losing a little more credibility every few years. It is a conclusion that is made through an act of faith.

**If the writings of the Early Church aren’t good enough for you - exactly what criteria do you require to prove the Church’s historicity? We have writings from the time of the Apostle John stating the existence of the Catholic Church. You can’t make that claim about your church - WE can.

**I can easily reject the idea that there was a Revolutionary War in the United states in the 18th century but that doesn’t make it any less true. Like ALL revisionists - the onus would be on ME to debunk the fact that there was a war. Therefore - please provide some proof that the Catholic Church DOESN’T go back to Christ.

Well from my point of view, the church of the first century believed A, B, C, D, E, F, G, H, I, J, K, L and M. (here we need to check history) In contrast, again from my POV, the modern CC believes A-J, doesn’t believe K-M and now also believes N-Z. (here we need to check with Catholic theologians) K-M weren’t lost in one moment, nor were N-Z added in a single moment. The change is significant enough that it isn’t appropriate to call the two (the 1st century church and the modern CC) the same church…no more appropriate than claiming that the game played in the 1890’s is the same game we now know as American Football. So perhaps the answer is these three guys: Mr. Innovation, Ms. Development and Father Time.

Show me some evidence of these “changes”.

 

[Brian_Culliton]

Not only that, the Teaching is infallibly protected from error by the Holy Spirit. Bishops only benefit from this gift of infallibility to the extent that they cling to the Teachings and remain in unity with the One Church.

You mean the teachings of the apostles or the teachings of the Roman Catholic Church? How exactly are you judging whether or not a bishop taught heresy? By what standard do you deem them a heretic?

The Apostolic authority resides in the succession. The Teachings are committed to the bishops, and it is their duty to perserve them.

In order for your theory to be true, you would have to show that none of the authentic Teaching was preserved anywere, by anyone.

They were preserved in the New Testament writings.

We already established that a succession of bishops from the apostles does not in and of itself mean that the teachings of the apostles were preserved unadulterated. So when a Catholic points to the succession of bishops in the Roman church as proof for apostolic authority, we can agree that such a claim bears no weight, since, as you said, 80 percent of bishops within an apostolic linage fell into heresy. So it is fair to say that by whatever standard you used to determine those bishops as heretical, the same standard should be used to determine if the bishops you claim have the “gift of infallibility” are heretical as well. That would be fair, correct? Is it also fair to say that since the teachings of the apostles were preserved in the writings of the New Testament, that it should be the standard by which we make our determination?

Are you suggesting that the bishops do not have any different authority than the rest of the believers?

Bingo! They have a higher responsibility, but not a higher authority. No bishop has or ever had the authority to establish doctrine. That foundation was laid by the apostles. I hope you understand from what I pointed out in my last post, that what Titus received from Paul was not apostolic authority. He was told to teach and defend the doctrine of the apostles that was taught to him by the authority given to Paul by Christ.

 

[Radical]

If the writings of the Early Church aren’t good enough for you -

They are the evidence that we work from…they are as good as we got

… exactly what criteria do you require to prove the Church’s historicity?

criteria or evidence? I have asked how much divergence from the early church is allowed before we designate what we have as a different church.

We have writings from the time of the Apostle John stating the existence of the Catholic Church. You *can’t *make that claim about your church - WE can.

sure I can…and I will. The true Church is a Spiritual entity that exists apart from the myth of apostloic succession. I have scripture saying that my church was founded by Christ…b/c my local church is a part of that true Spiritual Church.

I can easily reject the idea that there was a Revolutionary War in the United states in the 18th century but that *doesn’t *make it any less true. Like ALL revisionists - the onus would be on ME to debunk the fact that there was a war.

You should look at it this way: The onus is on the fellow that goes against the consensus of those in the know. If you want to say that there wasn’t such a Revolutionary War then you have the onus to explain away the existing consensus among historians that there was such a war…and if you want to claim that Peter was the first bishop of Rome then you should legitimately explain away the consensus among historians that says that he wasn’t…and that, of course, isn’t the only thing that conservative Catholics need to start explaining away

Therefore - please provide some proof that the Catholic Church DOESN’T go back to Christ.

Show me some evidence of these “changes”.

I think that the easiest changes to demonstrate are:

a) the change in leadership style that ended with the monarchical bishop and the infallible Papacy…in this regard, I think the consensus among historians is that extensive developments took place

b) the Marian doctrines…Mary isn’t given much mention (beyond her virginity at conception to birth) in the NT or the Apostolic Fathers, whereas she is central to everything that goes on in Catholicism these days. The contrast could hardly be any greater…I haven’t researched the position of the historians on this, but I gotta think that they would, for the most part (like me), see that grand innovations have been added to the initial faith over the centuries.

c) the real somatic presence (RSP)…there is a growing consensus among those who have studied Augustine, that this “Doctor of the Church” didn’t believe in a real somatic presence. Such a possibility is, of course, unacceptable to the conservative Catholic b/c it is too improbable to declare that the (RSP) existed from the outset, but that a Doctor of the Church didn’t believe it…but, as I said, that building scholarly consensus is your problem and not mine.

 

[Irish_Polock]

We are talking history here…if we want to know what happened in history, then we should reference good scholars w/o regard to whether they are also good conservative Catholics WRT their beliefs…otherwise you are just rigging the deck to get the result that you desire.

You have yet to substantiate your claim Radical, you keep saying that it is the “consensus of historians” although this remains to be seen. Sullivan’s opinion is not quite a “consensus” by any stretch of the imagination.

You have made this claim Radical, the burden of proof is yours. Show us Catholics how history has proven the primacy of St. Peter to be false. You have said yourself that

The historical documents are there for any one to see.

Again, I ask you, please show us how you have come to this conclusion using these said “historical documents”.

 

[Stephen168]

Well from my point of view, the church of the first century believed A, B, C, D, E, F, G, H, I, J, K, L and M. (here we need to check history) In contrast, again from my POV, the modern CC believes A-J, doesn’t believe K-M and now also believes N-Z. (here we need to check with Catholic theologians) K-M weren’t lost in one moment, nor were N-Z added in a single moment. The change is significant enough that it isn’t appropriate to call the two (the 1st century church and the modern CC) the same church…no more appropriate than claiming that the game played in the 1890’s is the same game we now know as American Football. So perhaps the answer is these three guys: Mr. Innovation, Ms. Development and Father Time.

So your answer to the OP, is you don’t know. Do you even have a Tidwell/Camp moment to to place the founding of the Catholic Church in time?

 

[Dokimas]

Constantine

 

[PRmerger]

…and that isn’t exactly the circle I described either.

Of course it isn’t. Because the CC’s authority comes from a spiral argument, as I’ve shown, not the circular argument you presented.

The circular argument has never been presented by the CC. You are arguing against a CC that exists only in the figment of your imagination.

 

[Prodigal_Son1]

Constantine

Do you believe the early Church fathers, prior to Constantine, were the same as Constantine, since their writings are very Catholic in nature?

 

[mark_a]

The Amish church – 1693 AD, founded by Jacob Amman, a Swiss Bishop.

A Catholic bishop??

 

[elvisman]

Constantine

PROVE it.

That is a laughable charge that even most Protestant theologians don’t adhere to.

 

[Stephen168]

Constantine

What year?

 

[Petergee]

Constantine

Presumably you mean the famous Roman Emperor Constantine I (not the later emperors, or the later pope of that name).
He never even became a Catholic himself. He spent most of his life as a polytheist and a sun-worshipper, then on his deathbed he finally became a Christian. But even then he didn’t become a Catholic; he joined the Arian heresy which the Catholic Church had fiercely repudiated and condemned.

The claim is indeed utterly ludicrous, but for some reason surprisingly common among anti-Catholics. I guess because Emperor Constantine I is just about the only historical personage from late ancient history whose name they know.

 

[elvisman]

They are the evidence that we work from…they are as good as we got

criteria or evidence? I have asked how much divergence from the early church is allowed before we designate what we have as a different church.

sure I can…and I will. The true Church is a Spiritual entity that exists apart from the myth of apostloic succession. I have scripture saying that my church was founded by Christ…b/c my local church is a part of that true Spiritual Church.

Actually - your church is only traceable to the 15th or 16th century - as are ALL Protestant denominations. It is an aberration of the true historical Christian Church established by Christ. As for Apostolic succession being a myth - well that is easily debunked by Scripture (Acts 1:20:26 & Psalm 109:8 for starters) - AND the writings of the Early Church.

As for divergence from what the Early Church looked like and what it looks like now - you’ve got to be kidding. The Church is a living, growing entity and has grown from the acorn to the oak - the mustard seed to the mustard plant. It was never intended to remain as it was when Christ established her. If ANYBODY’s church looks like the 1st century Church - that is a tell-tale sign that they’re in the wrong church.

You should look at it this way: The onus is on the fellow that goes against the consensus of those in the know. If you want to say that there wasn’t such a Revolutionary War then you have the onus to explain away the existing consensus among historians that there was such a war…and if you want to claim that Peter was the first bishop of Rome then you should legitimately explain away the consensus among historians that says that he wasn’t…and that, of course, isn’t the only thing that conservative Catholics need to start explaining away

The writings of the Fathers claim that he WAS the first Bishop of rome and I have not read ONE historian who claims differently.

I think that the easiest changes to demonstrate are:

a) the change in leadership style that ended with the monarchical bishop and the infallible Papacy…in this regard, I think the consensus among historians is that extensive developments took place

b) the Marian doctrines…Mary isn’t given much mention (beyond her virginity at conception to birth) in the NT or the Apostolic Fathers, whereas she is central to everything that goes on in Catholicism these days. The contrast could hardly be any greater…I haven’t researched the position of the historians on this, but I gotta think that they would, for the most part (like me), see that grand innovations have been added to the initial faith over the centuries.

c) the real somatic presence (RSP)…there is a growing consensus among those who have studied Augustine, that this “Doctor of the Church” didn’t believe in a real somatic presence. Such a possibility is, of course, unacceptable to the conservative Catholic b/c it is too improbable to declare that the (RSP) existed from the outset, but that a Doctor of the Church didn’t believe it…but, as I said, that building scholarly consensus is your problem and not mine.

**Again - I challenge you to study the writings of the Church Fathers with regard to the Real Presence, the Papacy and the Marian dogmas. **
YOUR statement about the Fathers:
"They are the evidence that we work from…they are as good as we got."

---

Well, my friend - you asked for it:
**Peters Primacy - We have the testimonies of ****Ignatius of Antioch, Irenaeus, Clement of Alexandria, Letter of Clement to James, Cyprian, Cyril of Jerusalem, Optatus, Ambrose of Milan, Augustine.

The Real Presence is unanimously testified to by the Fathers - too numerous to list. I will, if you want, though.**

---

**The Marian Doctrines (her Assumption, Immaculate conception, Perpetual virginity, et al) are testified to by Father after Father anfter Father including **Origen, Hilary of Poitiers, Athanasius, Epiphanius, Jerome, Didymus the Blind, Ambrose of Milan, Augustine, Cyril of Alexandria, Leporius, Justin Martyr, Irenaeus, Hippolytus, Ephraim the Syrian and Gregory Nazianzen, Romanos the Melodist - to name a few.

 

[Irish_Polock]

We are talking history here…if we want to know what happened in history, then we should reference good scholars w/o regard to whether they are also good conservative Catholics WRT their beliefs…otherwise you are just rigging the deck to get the result that you desire.

I would hope this might help.

, namely, that rock refers to the person of Peter. In John the title was granted at what may have been their first meeting (1:42). Thus when the name was given is open to question, but that the name was given by Jesus to Peter seems fairly certain. Matthew continues that upon this rock—that is, upon Peter—the church will be built.the consensus of the great majority of scholars today is that the most obvious and traditional understanding should be construed

There seems to be a disagreement with the “consensus” of scholar’s. How odd.