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

[Prodigal_Son1]

And I thought you said you aren’t making this personal. This is very personal and WRONG. I’ve NEVER said or implied your understanding to be lesser. I most ALWAYS say ‘IMO’. You, however, say ‘this is fact because …’

I’d appreciate it is you’d stop saying things that aren’t true. There’s no room for discussion until you stop.

I assure you, I am not trying to make this personal. I am just turning the tables on the accusations you place against Catholics towards you.

If you take what we believe as ‘facts’ then understand that’s why we believe them. They are facts to us.

I’ll concede on your point, that maybe you’re not intentionally trying to make it personal. You’ll just have to realize that disagreeing with what we say is saying we are wrong, thereby making our theology ‘lesser’. We are just disagreeing with you, because we believe what we believe because we believe it to be factual. That’s not going to change.

Dokimas, I want you to also understand that there are times I ask sincere questions, but never receive answers. I do however get these ‘personal’ accusations which have appearances of avoiding the questions.

 

[Prodigal_Son1]

Going to my Mom’s 80th birthday party. Take care.

I sincerely hope your mother has a blessed and happy birthday. Enjoy the day with her.

 

[GreggAlvarez]

I just noticed I made a few grammar errors that were not fixable due to the size of the post. I would quote it in another post, but… I am too lazy. However, if anybody notices and makes it a big deal, I will correct it and any misunderstandings perceived from it. I will take full blame for it. Other than that, I hope it helps add to the discussion although it is a little tangential.

God bless!

 

[Radical]

I just joined … read some posts … and would like to offer a comment or two.

thanks, you have presented a good opportunity for me to respond to the whole bunch of Catholics participating on this thread

While, this has been mentioned before … it appears it needs repeating. Matthew 16:18 identifies the Man (Jesus Christ) Who founded His Church on Peter - and gave Peter the Keys to Kingdom as a sign of authority Christ had just bestowed.

yes, that verse has been mentioned repeatedly…the question is whether the modern CC can legitimately claim to be the church that Christ spoke of…you are convinced they are one and the same, and I am convinced that they are as different as cats and dogs…some similarities, but definitely two different species.

It seems that the gist of this thread (from the OP on) has been, “Hey you Protestants, you belong to a man-made church b/c we can point to its human founder. We Catholics point to Christ as the founder of our church and so we have the true Church.” (The OP really strikes me as being a bit of a taunt) Two things:

1. Protestants don’t recognize the “pass the baton” type of apostolic succession as legitimate or necessary and so we too claim that God was involved in the founding of our Churches (which are legitimately called Churches)…we see apostolic succession as being achieved through succeeding the apostles in preaching sound doctrine and the true gospel and in possessing the same Spirit as the apostles …that is what we recognize as proper apostolic succession and why we understand that we enjoy apostolic succession as much, or even more, than the CC.
2. Protestants firmly believe that the CC has added a number of man-made traditions to its dogmas/doctrines. These man-made traditions have caused (what is known as the CC) to stray from the doctrinal purity possessed by the Church founded by Christ. As such, I think that the best answer to the OP is Mr. Development, Mrs. Innovation and Father Time (this trinity pointing to the gradual accumulation of man-made tradition)

WRT #2 I find it rather odd that the Catholics (and Prodigal Son1 in particular) on this thread seem so terribly offended by that answer. Apparently it is quite acceptable to dismiss Protestant Churches as being “man-made”, but (in the face of that criticism of Protestantism) it is the height of condescension and “anti-Catholicism” to say that Catholic doctrine has been corrupted by man-made additions. What exactly do Catholics expect? If I believed that Catholic doctrine was pure, then I would have joined the CC decades ago…surely you must anticipate that I believe that Catholic doctrine has been corrupted and that the CC is not equivalent to the Church founded by Christ.

 

[PRmerger]

1. Protestants firmly believe that the CC has added a number of man-made traditions to its dogmas/doctrines.

But, Radical, don’t you see how disingenuous this is to object to “Catholic man-made traditions” when you have them yourself?

 

[Radical]

continuing:

This is the real answer to the thread - and, if you look carefully you will find that there is a direct line from Peter to Benedict XVI the preseent Bishop of Rome - and the documentation is in this link… So, we have the founding and the continuation or succession of Christ’s Church.

I suspect that every one participating on this thread has seen the list…and I have given my reasons for dismissing the list as manufactured and unimportant

After reading many of your posts… but, not all, so I may have missed something here… it appears that you are a bit short on any documentation for your opinions, appearing to go for those who deny some aspect of the Catholic Church’s teachings - and essentially claiming that they are right.

First, surely you can’t think that I could not find scholarly support for all the opinions that I have expressed on this thread. The funny thing is that I don’t even have to look to Protestant scholars to support my position, as there are plenty of Catholic scholars that will serve the purpose. Irish Pollock observed: “You have mentioned in this tread, dissidents and apostates in the Catholic Church. Do we have them? Sure we do (especially in academia).” I believe that he got that bit right…the percentage of conservative Catholics is probably substantially lower among the highly educated than amongst the general population. In that sense education is not a friend of either conservative Catholicism or conservative Protestantism (aka fundamentalism). The path of modern scholarship seems to lead away from a rigid conservative viewpoint and it is easier and easier to find scholarly support for positions that are not favorable to conservative Catholicism.

Second, I have absolutely no interest in trying to go through a detailed analysis of the ECFs with the Catholics on this thread. I believe that I could tell you exactly how it would play out. First, Prodigal Son1 would be offended every step of the way. After a number of posts on the matter I still don’t believe that either Irish Pollock or Guanophore have truly understood the consensus that Sullivan pointed to…it would (literally) take forever to go through a detailed analysis of what one would have to cover…and any intrepretation that does not support their traditional point of view would be merely dismissed as the spiteful act of a liberal dissident or of a Protestant. That is the way it has been so far and that is the way it would continue. Frankly I can’t see any purpose in that endeavor,…can you?

That being said, if you (or any one following along) would like to see support for the opinions that I have expressed, here are some scholarly works that I would recommend:

a) Unity and Diversity in the New Testament by James Dunn. This will give you an idea of what the earliest church looked like, what were its unifying beliefs and what were its diverse forms.

b) From Apostles to Bishops by Francis Sullivan. It examines the NT and ECFs (up to Cyprian) in detail to understand how the monoepiscopacy developed over time and was not the original universal design

c) Making a Meal of It by Ben Witherington. This study of the Lord’s Supper descibes it as it originally existed.

d) The Eucharist in the West by Edward Kilmartin This work shows that the idea of a real somatic presence was still not universally held at the time of Augustine.

e) Mary in the New Testament, edited by Raymond Brown et al. This work demonstrates the weakness of Catholic efforts to find the Marian doctrines in scripture.

Taken together, those works (which analyze the NT and the ECFs in depth) nicely support my view that the ancient Church differed substantially from modern Catholicism (which has added a whack of Marian doctrines, a somatic real presence and a clerical hierarchy, among other things, to the original deposit of faith.) It is not that I choose modern scholarship over the ECFs. Rather, it is that I choose the modern understanding of what the ECFs had to say over the conservative Catholic interpretation. This is not to say that you couldn’t respond with a number of modern scholars of your own (supporting your view…except for “Sullivan’s consensus”)…but the the conservative Catholic claim (that the study of the ECFs will cause one to realize that the Catholic Church is the one true Church) is simply wishful thinking on the part of such conservatives. Obviously such a study hasn’t convinced many, many Protestant scholars and has in fact, caused many Catholic scholars to abandom strict/conservative Catholicism. It is, IMHO, simply arrogant to believe that the other side (either Protestantism or conservative Catholicism) can not produce a coherent argument for its position…it is simply my opinion that the Protestant argument is superior. .

You know there is an entire organization that claims the earth is flat … but, I do not think main stream scientists really reference them when presenting an idea…

I would suggest that the conservative Catholic POV is the one that is increasingly viewed w/i scholarly circles as the out of date, flat earth view.

May I suggest you suspend your opinions and provide some evidence for any of the positions you have put forward. I think this would really allow for a discussion with less of an edge or attitude…

well, I haven’t kept track…haven’t even bothered to read all the responses to my posts, but IIRC, lately I have been deemed unintelligent, ignorant and a member of a Johnny-come-lately bunch. If you are really concerned about an “edge or attitude” may I suggest that you talk to your fellow Catholics? That edge is another reason that I couldn’t be bothered to discuss this matter at length…

God bless

Thanks, and may God bless you as well. Cheers!

 

[Dokimas]

Well, the only Church that has taught Church authority since the dawn of Christianity is the Catholic Church.

At least you are called “Christian” by all Christians. We do not even get that much from most. For example, most non-Catholics think it is bad to pray God’s Friends in Heaven because that is “for God alone”. (Why? I have no clue.) But, some do not think we worship anybody besides God. But, then they think that prayer is something that is for God and God only, which in the most literal sense means that they think we are idolatrous despite what they think. Some even think we are idolatrous despite what we say. Little do they realize that all prayers to ANYBODY go directly to Christ, the One Mediator, and through Him. Anyway, you get my point. We are even hated by our own separated brothers.

In any event, being wrong does not make you lesser. It just means you are wrong. That has no significance in superiority or inferiority. You are separated. Sometimes you seem “anti-”. That in no way equates to “lesser”. The perspective here from you is equating untruth with inferiority. That is the wrong perspective. The point is the Church teaching Truth does not make any person inferior because they are wrong. It just means the person is wrong. Nothing more. Nothing less. Do not read too much into it.

“The Holy Spirit and the Bride say, ‘Come’… Let the one who thirsts come forward, and the one who wants it receive the gift of life-giving water.” (Rev 22:17) Christ and His Church will be waiting to receive you when you are ready.

Do you have any clue how condescending this is? Again, not that I care. It’s just that rhetoric like this will never make me want to be part of an organization you espouse. (I don’t just mean you, but all who think what you’re telling me is correct and should be said.)

 

[Dokimas]

But, Radical, don’t you see how disingenuous this is to object to “Catholic man-made traditions” when you have them yourself?

I’m going to go out on a limb here and I hope Radical corrects me if I’m wrong, so here goes…

I’ll ‘bet’ that Radical’s understandings have been told, on this forum, they are man-made traditions long before he said anything you are responding to. In fact, you have told me repeatedly that my understandings are man-made traditions, so for you to say this to Radical has little meaning for me.

 

[RedDawgMCM]

To clarify something PR said since it seems everyone got confused over which Jude, that would be St. Jude Thaddeus, who was in fact one of the 12. Sorry just being a stickler…

Radical, can you provide a chapter and verse for where Bartholomew performed “signs and wonders”?

And Jude?

And Matthias?

 

[RedDawgMCM]

Radical,
Believing in the Primacy of St. Peter/ the Pope/ however you want to refer to it isn’t a “conservative” Catholic idea. It is a Catholic idea to be sure but if you don’t believe in Petrine primacy, you can’t truly call yourself Catholic…

As for the books you cited I think I like the Bible and Jesus’ idea on the Lord’s Supper since I don’t feel he needed an interpreter, thanks…

“You have mentioned in this tread, dissidents and apostates in the Catholic Church. Do we have them? Sure we do (especially in academia).”

I believe that he got that bit right…the percentage of conservative Catholics is probably substantially lower among the highly educated than amongst the general population. In that sense education is not a friend of either conservative Catholicism or conservative Protestantism (aka fundamentalism). The path of modern scholarship seems to lead away from a rigid conservative viewpoint and it is easier and easier to find scholarly support for positions that are not favorable to conservative Catholicism.

 

[fbl9]

WRT #2 I find it rather odd that the Catholics (and Prodigal Son1 in particular) on this thread seem so terribly offended by that answer. Apparently it is quite acceptable to dismiss Protestant Churches as being “man-made”, but (in the face of that criticism of Protestantism) it is the height of condescension and “anti-Catholicism” to say that Catholic doctrine has been corrupted by man-made additions. What exactly do Catholics expect? If I believed that Catholic doctrine was pure, then I would have joined the CC decades ago…surely you must anticipate that I believe that Catholic doctrine has been corrupted and that the CC is not equivalent to the Church founded by Christ.

What i would really like to see is a protestant defend the doctrine of the trinity without the use of any catholic writings. The oppontent would be oneness pentacostalism.
Both use sola scripture, both would cite their verses but with no authority to back either one.
Out side of Catholism one picks and chooses which belfiefs the catholic church got “right”.
Just exactly how do you know the doctrines you Radical, beleive to be pure are pure.

 

[Radical]

What i would really like to see is a protestant defend the doctrine of the trinity without the use of any catholic writings. The oppontent would be oneness pentacostalism.

hey, sounds like a great idea to me…but I don’t think it should be a one on one thing.

Here’s what I would suggest: get about 300 guys who would all claim to possess the same apostolic succession, each could claim that their teaching is the tradition/teaching put forward by the apostles, each would claim to be guided by the Holy Spirit and each would refer to the same scriptures to argue their case. We would hold it at Nicea, argue for a while and at the end we would have a vote…who knows, it might just work.

 

[PRmerger]

Here’s what I would suggest: get about 300 guys who would all claim to possess the same apostolic succession, each could claim that their teaching is the tradition/teaching put forward by the apostles, each would claim to be guided by the Holy Spirit and each would refer to the same scriptures to argue their case. We would hold it at Nicea, argue for a while and at the end we would have a vote…who knows, it might just work.

This is curious, Radical.

Do you know that these “about 300 guys” were bishops? And that they celebrated the Eucharist? And deferred to the pope?

 

[GreggAlvarez]

Do you have any clue how condescending this is? Again, not that I care. It’s just that rhetoric like this will never make me want to be part of an organization you espouse. (I don’t just mean you, but all who think what you’re telling me is correct and should be said.)

No… But, I do have idea of how condescending it was NOT. Being right is not the same as being condescending. There was not one word that even hinted at that. If you were talking to an atheist, you would speak the Truth to them. Does that make you condescending? No. Neither does my Church being right make me condescending.

Of course, that is debatable as seen by Radical who makes no original arguments but just creates verisimilitudes from other sketchy opinions and poses them as legitimate information. Look at his last post. The sarcastic and cynical tone completely shows his credulosity for anything that has a hint of alleged claims against the Catholic Church and this should tell you why most if not all people reading his stuff are incredulous towards his uncharitable posts.

But anyway, I was actually trying to comfort you and let you know that we are in a worse boat than you, but that does not make us inferior or superior. Truth is irrelevant to that. Look at St. Paul who every so often made sure his audience did not think he was taking advantage of his authority and his having the Truth (as well as seen it). Disclaimer: I am not comparing myself to Paul.

Make sense? Do you believe me? Well, if not, know that I am not at all being condescending despite your opinion. (That may seem harsh but it is true.) Please know I was just trying to make you feel better about other people supposedly name-calling. Think nothing of it.

And it is Truth that should draw you to the Church. Not people who make attacks lead you away from it (although that assumption was ill-founded, on mine anyway).

 

[GreggAlvarez]

hey, sounds like a great idea to me…but I don’t think it should be a one on one thing.

Here’s what I would suggest: get about 300 guys who would all claim to possess the same apostolic succession, each could claim that their teaching is the tradition/teaching put forward by the apostles, each would claim to be guided by the Holy Spirit and each would refer to the same scriptures to argue their case. We would hold it at Nicea, argue for a while and at the end we would have a vote…who knows, it might just work.

Or you could get 300 Bibles and make up something called “Sola Scriptura” because seeing is believing, trivialize the power of the Holy Spirit, read one verse out of the 30000-verse context and end up with 300 more denominations.

Please stop the sarcastic insults. I wrote this so you could see the absurdity of your post. How about using some of that “logic” you allegedly claimed you use so we can have a mature conversation?

 

[guanophore]

For the nonce, I will continue to proffer that the ritual which Radical’s church performs is NOT found in Scripture, but rather has many added traditions. That there may be degrees of convergence with Sacred Tradition is true. However, it still remains that the words/music/company/protocol are not found in Scripture (words of consecration notwithstanding.)

It was not my intention to be irritating. What our separated brethren do with “the Lord’s supper” is primarily in imitation from Catholic sources, such as the Mass, and the Scripture. Music, company, and protocol are found in these Catholic sources.

I was not trying to suggest the degree of departure from the Sacred Tradition does not invalidate the ceremony. For them, it is a representation, and it is as authentic as they are able to make it. They do it with good intentions, and most of them have continued with what they have received, just as we do. How can they know how far it has departed in the course of the last 500 years of drifting? I think they really do celebrate their memorial sincerely and beliveing that the contents of it are from Scripture.

 

[itsjustdave1988]

**I have the answer…according to St. Maximus of Constantinople, **who was matryed in the 7th cent., a saint and respected theologian of the Eastern Orthodox and the Catholic Church. This is what he had this to say about who founded the Catholic Church…

“How much more in the case of the clergy and Church of the Romans, which from old until now presides over all the churches which are under the sun? Having surely received this canonically, as well as from councils and the apostles, as from the princes of the latter (Peter and Paul), and being numbered in their company, she is subject to no writings or issues in synodical documents, on account of the eminence of her pontificate …even as in all these things all are equally subject to her (the Church of Rome) according to sacerodotal law. And so when, without fear, but with all holy and becoming confidence, those ministers (the popes) are of the truly firm and immovable rock, that is of the most great and Apostolic Church of Rome.” (Maximus, in J.B. Mansi, ed. Amplissima Collectio Conciliorum, vol. 10)

“If the Roman see recognizes Pyrrhus [Patriarch of Constantinople] to be not only a reprobate but a heretic, it is certainly plain that everyone who anathematizes those who have rejected Pyrrhus, anathematizes the see of Rome that is, he anathematizes the Catholic Church. I need hardly add that he excommunicates himself also, if indeed he be in communion with the Roman see and the Church of God… It is not right that one who has been condemned and cast out by the Apostolic see of the city of Rome for his wrong opinions should be named with any kind of honour, until he be received by her, having returned to her — nay, to our Lord — by a pious confession and orthodox faith, by which he can receive holiness and the title of holy… Let him hasten before all things to satisfy the Roman see, for if it is satisfied all will agree in calling him pious and orthodox. For he only speaks in vain who thinks he ought to persuade or entrap persons like myself, and does not satisfy and implore the blessed pope of the most holy Church of the Romans, that is, the Apostolic see, which from the incarnate Son of God Himself, and also by all holy synods, according to the holy canons and definitions, has received universal and supreme dominion, authority and power of binding and loosing over all the holy Churches of God which are in the whole world — for with it the Word who is above the celestial powers binds and looses in heaven also. For if he thinks he must satisfy others, and fails to implore the most blessed Roman pope, he is acting like a man who, when accused of murder or some other crime, does not hasten to prove his innocence to the judge appointed by the law, but only uselessly and without profit does his best to demonstrate his innocence to private individuals, who have no power to acquit him.” (St. Maximus, a letter to Marinus, a priest of Cyprus, cited by The Catholic Encyclopedia, “St. Maximus of Contantinople”; the same letter is cited as Letter to Peter, in Mansi x, 692).

[p.s. after being persuaded of his error by St. Maximus, Pyrrhus consented to go to Rome, where in fact he condemned his former teaching, and was reconciled to the Church by the pope.]

“The extremities of the earth, and all in every part of it who purely and rightly confess the Lord look directly towards the most holy Roman Church and its confession and faith, as it were to a sun of unfailing light, awaiting from it the bright radiance of the sacred dogmas of our Fathers according to what the six inspired and holy councils have purely and piously decreed, declaring most expressly the symbol of faith. For from the coming down of the incarnate Word amongst us, all the Churches in every part of the world have held that greatest Church alone as their base and foundation, seeing that according to the promise of Christ our Saviour, the gates of hell do never prevail against it, that it has the keys of a right confession and faith in Him, that it opens the true and only religion to such as approach with piety, and shuts up and locks every heretical mouth that speaks injustice against the Most High.” (St. Maximus of Constantinople, letter from Rome, cited by The Catholic Encyclopdia, “St. Maximus of Contantinople”; the same work is found in Opuscula theologica et polemica, Migne, Patr. Graec. vol. 90).

 

[SteveVH]

If I believed that Catholic doctrine was pure, then I would have joined the CC decades ago…surely you must anticipate that I believe that Catholic doctrine has been corrupted and that the CC is not equivalent to the Church founded by Christ.

Just curious. Do you believe the church you are attending presently is free from corruption and is equivalent to the Church founded by Christ? If not, I guess I don’t understand your argument.

Thanks.

 

[guanophore]

 Protestants don't recognize the "pass the baton" type of apostolic succession as legitimate or necessary and so we too claim that God was involved in the founding of our Churches

It was necessary for Protestants to jettison this aspect of the Apostolic Tradition. When they became disgusted with the corrupt clerics who claimed to embrace and embody the Apostolic Authority, they wanted to remove the corruption. In doing so, they removed the Apostolic Teaching by denying that it existed. Clearly it was not apparent in the persons who were to have been safeguarding the paradosis.

(which are legitimately called Churches)…

A new definition of “Church” was also needed at the Reformation. It was necessary to jettison the Apostolic definition of “Church” in favor of one that could excluse those clerics who were perceived as corrupt. The four marks of the Church that had defined “church” since the first century were re-interpreted, reorganized, and redefined so that that Apostolic Succession could be excised.

we see apostolic succession as being achieved through succeeding the apostles in preaching sound doctrine and the true gospel and in possessing the same Spirit as the apostles …

This is an authentic component of the Apostolic Succession. However, to limit it to this requires the abrogation of a great deal of scripture, as well as historical documents.

It is one reason that Catholics understand Protestants to teach “a different gospel” than the one that was handed down to us from the apostles.

that is what we recognize as proper apostolic succession and why we understand that we enjoy apostolic succession as much, or even more, than the CC.

Yes, of course!

Protestants firmly believe that the CC has added a number of man-made traditions to its dogmas/doctrines. These man-made traditions have caused (what is known as the CC) to stray from the doctrinal purity possessed by the Church founded by Christ.

Indeed, there is no other way to understand this, since modern Protestants have been separated from the doctrine of the faith for 500 years. They have a faith that has not been handed down intact, but has been extricated from the Holy Scriptures, which themselves have been truncated.

Naturally when one is cut off from part of the Truth, it would appear that those who have all of it have “added”.

A similar accusation is made by modern fundamentalists who think that Catholics “added” to the Scriptures.

They have no idea that the Reformers removed them.

As such, I think that the best answer to the OP is Mr. Development, Mrs. Innovation and Father Time (this trinity pointing to the gradual accumulation of man-made tradition)

There is no match for innovation that was implemented by the Reformers. Whereas, it is against the Teaching of the Apostles for us to innovate doctrine, Protestants are free (having rejected this instruction) to innovate on a daily basis.

 Apparently it is quite acceptable to dismiss Protestant Churches as being "man-made", but (in the face of that criticism of Protestantism)  it is the height of condescension and "anti-Catholicism" to say that Catholic doctrine has been corrupted by man-made additions. What exactly do Catholics expect?

I expect that people will study to show themselves approved. When people study the history, it becomes clear that the Church founded by Christ, is Catholic.

If I believed that Catholic doctrine was pure, then I would have joined the CC decades ago…surely you must anticipate that I believe that Catholic doctrine has been corrupted and that the CC is not equivalent to the Church founded by Christ.

No, I would not presume to anticipate that. Some people come here to CAF and learn, then accept the truth.

 

[fbl9]

hey, sounds like a great idea to me…but I don’t think it should be a one on one thing.

Here’s what I would suggest: get about 300 guys who would all claim to possess the same apostolic succession, each could claim that their teaching is the tradition/teaching put forward by the apostles, each would claim to be guided by the Holy Spirit and each would refer to the same scriptures to argue their case. We would hold it at Nicea, argue for a while and at the end we would have a vote…who knows, it might just work.

Sounds like a plan shouldn’t be too hard to find at least 300 differing opinions than your group. You can pay for the air fare, cause i sure am not.