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

[Radical]

You can pay for the air fare, cause i sure am not.

well that’s just great…Rider nation flies all over the place for a questionable cause and you Saskabushers aren’t prepared to fund this noble endeavor. Typical.

 

[Cinette]

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

*You keep saying that the Catholic Church has been corrupted. To say that the Catholic Church has been corrupted is to say that Jesus didn’t keep his promise and that the Holy Spirit did not lead the Church into all truth. The Holy Spirit erred. Its as simple as that!

I enjoy the debates on Catholic Answers. I have been very busy and limited myself mostly to merely reading the postings on this whenever I get a chance. I have debated and been acquainted with the OP for sometime now and know him to be a very devout and charitable person as are many of the other posters.

I have to say that since you appeared on this thread you have been hostile from the start which does not qualify you as an honest participant in a debate. You have been vicious at times.

I cannot interact with people like you and if that is all you can contribute then I would appreciate you not responding to my post. I just felt I needed to say what I said in my first paragraph.

Cinette*

 

[Dokimas]

Being right is not the same as being condescending.

You are absolutely correct. It’s not the communicating truth in real love that’s condescending. It’s the attitude behind the words (whether true or untrue) that’s condescending.

There was not one word that even hinted at that.

That’s your opinion which differs from others.

If you were talking to an atheist, you would speak the Truth to them. Does that make you condescending?

Correct.

No. Neither does my Church being right make me condescending

.

Your church has NOTHING to do with whether or not you are condescending. You do it all by yourself.

Of course, that is debatable as seen by Radical who makes no original arguments

Funny coming from some who most likely won’t accept it when I thank you for your oppinon. Most likely you’ll say, 'It’s not my oppinion; it’s what the CC teaches so it is true." I doubt if you come up with anything original. BTW, Solomon would agree when in Ecclesiastes he said there’s nothing new under the sun.

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.

Speaking as one that has been sarcastic, I understand what happens. People twist what you say, or at least misunderstand, and it happens over and over again so it’s human (unfortunately) to get sarcastic.

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.

Trust me I don’t take it person. I just thought you’d like to know how you come accross, in a condescending mannor whether you know it or not.

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).

The Truth lead should lead me to Jesus, who is the Truth. Jesus encourages me to fellowship with fellow believers. I do that and some of them are catholic. I love enjoying Jesus with fellow believers no matter what church they go to. There’s no fellowship when one condescends to another.

 

[fbl9]

well that’s just great…Rider nation flies all over the place for a questionable cause and you Saskabushers aren’t prepared to fund this noble endeavor. Typical.

Well at least i can say you do have a sense of humor.

 

[PRmerger]

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.

It seems, then, that you misunderstood my post, guanophore. I was not saying that they perform the Lord’s Supper with bad intentions or insincerely. My post was in response to Radical’s claim that his church’s ritual of the Lord’s Supper was “as the Lord meant it to be.”

My church has the Lord’s supper as the Lord meant it to be, thanks for asking

As he admits to many non-Scriptural additives in his ritual, how can he know it was “as the Lord meant it to be”?

Answer: he can’t. He has added many man-made traditions, in addition to some which converge with Sacred Tradition.

 

[Radical]

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

No, I do not. IMHO the (invisible) Church founded by Christ consists of all those possessed of the Holy Spirit (be they labelled Catholic, Lutheran, Pentecostal, etc.) The (visible) Church founded by Christ consists of all the institutions where those possessed of the Holy Spirit gather to worship (be they labelled Catholic, Lutheran, Pentecostal, etc.) Unity is achieved through the Spirit and exists notwithstanding man’s disagreements.

Do you believe the church you are attending presently is free from corruption…

Nope…we are a fallible lot, but we try to eliminate whatever we can identify as corruption. I just think we have done a better job of it than you Catholics. Hope that clarifies something for you.

 

[StevenFrancis]

I am told by non-Catholics that the Catholic Church, in communion with Rome, is not the church founded by Jesus Christ circa 33 AD, in Jerusalem. Please give me the name of the man, or men, that founded the Catholic Church in communion with Rome, and when, just as I have done below, regarding just a few of the very first reformed churches?

The Lutheran church – 1517 AD, founded by Martin Luther, an ex-monk of the Catholic Church in communion with Rome.

The Anabaptist church – 1520 AD, founded by Nicholas Storch, and Thomas Münzer, former Lutherans.

The Mennonite church – 1525 AD, founded by Grebel, Mantz, and Blaurock, in Switzerland, as an offshoot of the Anabaptist chruch.

The Baptist church – 1606 AD, founded by John Smyth, who launched it in Amsterdam, as an offshoot of the Mennonites.

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

The Anglican Church – 1534 AD, founded by King Henry VIII, as a direct result of the Pope not granting him a divorce from Catherine of Aragon.

The Presbyterian church – 1560 AD, founded by John Knox, in Scotland.

The Congregationalist church (The Puritans) – 1583 AD, founded by Robert Brown, in Holland.

The Episcopalian church – 1784 AD, founded by Samuel Seabury in the American Colonies; an offshoot of the Church of England.

The Quakers - 1647 AD, founded by George Fox, in England.

The Methodist church – 1739 AD, founded by John and Charles Wesley, in England.

The Evangelical church – 1803 AD, founded by Jacob Albright, originally a Methodist, who broke away and founded his own church.

The Mormon church – 1829 AD, (also call themselves “Latter Day Saints”) - was founded by Joseph Smith.

The Seventh Day Adventists – 1831 AD, founded by William Miller.

Jehovah’s Witnesses – 1872 AD, founded by Charles Taze Russell.

Well, in spite of what your friends say, our founder is…

Jesus, The Christ - between 28 - 33 AD along with the Holy Spirit, the Father, and the men Simon, renamed “Cephas” by our Lord, who later migrated to Rome, and Saul, renamed Paul by our Lord who also ended up in Rome. Cephas/Peter, being the rock that Jesus built his Church, and having been personally asked three times by our Lord to watch and tend his lambs/sheep, did so, as the apostle of prime authority during the apostles earthly lives. Eventually from Rome, where he then, in essence, was the first Pope.

Hope this helps,

Peace,

Steven

 

[Radical]

I have to say that since you appeared on this thread you have been hostile from the start which does not qualify you as an honest participant in a debate. You have been vicious at times.

I never intended to be hostile or vicious and am sorry if you took something I typed in that way…my intention has been to firmly state my position (in answer to the OP and the multitude of posts criticizing both me and what I have had to say).

 

[fbl9]

Nope…we are a fallible lot, but we try to eliminate whatever we can identify as corruption. I just think we have done a better job of it than you Catholics. Hope that clarifies something for you.

Given your statement there is no absolute way you can really determine just what is corruption. For you to say what is corruption you must have authority to do so.And you just admitted here that you have not that abilty.

 

[guanophore]

• I have to say that since you appeared on this thread you have been hostile from the start which does not qualify you as an honest participant in a debate. You have been vicious at times.

This has been my observation as well, Cinette. I also am keeping in mind that this hostility is a defense, and strength of one’s defense is proportionate to the degree to which they feel assailed.

Obviously, if Radical were to accept that the Catholic Church is the one started by Christ, and that the adjustments of the episcopal structure are within her purview to make through the authority granted her by Christ, he would have to submit to that authority. Clearly, he is strongly kicking against the goads in this manner.

Many Americans have problems with authority. Our country was founded upon rebellion against authority, both political, and religious. The “don’t tread on me” mentality is in our blood.

 

[tqualey]

Hi, Dokimas,

Actually, no … but, after reading your multiple non-answers to specific questions, and apparent demand that God make His Will known in a manner acceptable to you - this should come as no surprise.

Ultimately, God has chosen to act in multiple ways to get His message of Salvation throught the Church He founded on Peter. He walked around and physically chose 12 Apostles, and then there were Disciples… God chose to have the lots turn in favor of the replacement for Judas but then knocked Saul off of his horse. As I recall… He whispered in the faint breeze to one Prophet and parted the Red Sea for another. One would think He has infinite tools at His disposal…

Now, one of those tools was how His message actually spread throughout at least large sections of the known world by the time wrote the Book of Revelations. But, there are no details written in Scripture about exactly this happened (as we have a lot of details on how Christ picked the Apostles or how Moses parted the Red Sea). But, just look around you.

The message of Salavation through the Blood of Jesus Christ through the Church He chose to establish on the foundation of Peter has now been spread to all continents. That is the reality as clearly as the brightness of the sun when you look at it and not turn your back, bury your face and close your eyes … and challenge others on where is the sun!

God bless

Are we getting anywhere?

 

[guanophore]

It seems, then, that you misunderstood my post, guanophore. I was not saying that they perform the Lord’s Supper with bad intentions or insincerely. My post was in response to Radical’s claim that his church’s ritual of the Lord’s Supper was “as the Lord meant it to be.”

You are right, I did understand your post as saying that the man made traditions that are followed by Radical and other similar ecclesial communites were lacking in intention and sincerity, just because they are lacking in authenticity.

How can he not believe that he is doing things the way the Lord means for them to be? His ecclesial community has been cut off from the Apostolic Faith for 500+years. All they have is the threads that have been preserved through the Catholic Church, and what has been extracted from the Holy Scriptures. From his point of view, that is the "fullness’ of the faith.

As he admits to many non-Scriptural additives in his ritual, how can he know it was “as the Lord meant it to be”?

Answer: he can’t. He has added many man-made traditions, in addition to some which converge with Sacred Tradition.

I think the most damaging and deceptive man -made tradition that causes this is that of Sola Scriptura. That is the source and fount of all the heresies that emanate from it, rejection of the real presence, the priesthood, and the Apostolic succession among them.

 

[tqualey]

Hi, Radical,

The purpose of CAF is to dialogue. As far as I can see, Fb19 gave you a perfectly legitimate and logical challenge - given your current evasions. And, what do you do with it, feign to compliment it, and then ridicule the idea with impossible nonsense - “…300 guys who all claim…”

Really, why not just admit that you were right the first time … Fb19 did have a great idea -and then, instead of engaging in nonsense - start working on the answer!

I personally would be very interested in unique and original Protestant thinking on the Trinity - that did not borrow heavily from the Catholic Church. Here is your chance to enlighten us all - if such a document actually does exist. Now, if it doesn’t exist, not only is Fb19 correct, but you really have much less of logical ledge of stand on…

Give it a try and let’s see what you can do…

God bless

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.

 

[tqualey]

Hi, ItsJustDave1988,

Thank you for this quote from St. Maximus of Constantinople - I was ignorant of his writings - and now, I have some work to do!

God bless

**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…

 

[guanophore]

No, I do not. IMHO the (invisible) Church founded by Christ consists of all those possessed of the Holy Spirit (be they labelled Catholic, Lutheran, Pentecostal, etc.) The (visible) Church founded by Christ consists of all the institutions where those possessed of the Holy Spirit gather to worship (be they labelled Catholic, Lutheran, Pentecostal, etc.) Unity is achieved through the Spirit and exists notwithstanding man’s disagreements.

This is consistent with the Teaching of the Catholic Church, with the addition of the structure that was set in place by Christ. The visible Church is that which is in unity with the Apostles, and the successors appointed by them.

I just think we have done a better job of it than you Catholics. Hope that clarifies something for you.

Sometimes I wonder what it would be like if all the corruptions in the communities of our separated brethren were plastered on the news like those of Catholics.

The truth is that people are pretty much the same wherever you go, and the same degree of corruption exists.

The biggest difference that makes the Catholic Church such a big target is that she has received the gift of infallibilty from Christ, and therefore, must be held to a higher standard. When her members act in a corrupted fashion, the scandal is worse,because she has the fullness of the faith.

 

[Prodigal_Son1]

Sometimes I wonder what it would be like if all the corruptions in the communities of our separated brethren were plastered on the news like those of Catholics.

The truth is that people are pretty much the same wherever you go, and the same degree of corruption exists.

The biggest difference that makes the Catholic Church such a big target is that she has received the gift of infallibilty from Christ, and therefore, must be held to a higher standard. When her members act in a corrupted fashion, the scandal is worse,because she has the fullness of the faith.

The other big difference is length of history of various Churches. With over 2000 years of history, the Catholic Church has more corruption visible than Churches 500 years or much less old.

 

[guanophore]

Given your statement there is no absolute way you can really determine just what is corruption. For you to say what is corruption you must have authority to do so.And you just admitted here that you have not that abilty.

C’mon, fb! Be realistic! We all know that authority is granted by virtue of the belly button. Anyone that has one can become authoritative on scripture and doctrine. Such a physical member allows one to discern what corruption is based upon it’s infinite wisdom to discern “sound doctrine” and to interpret the scriptures in a vacuum, separated from the faith that produced them.

Saying that Radical has not this ability is dismissing the omnipotence of the navel. :tsktsk:

 

[tqualey]

Hi, Radical,

Thank you for responding… Now we have some work to do. For the sake of brevity I will only address the two points you have enumerated.

Concerning whether someone changes their belief structure based on new informaiton and a new understanding of previously held informaiton - this is not an easy matter. If it were as logical and simple as pointing out that “2 + 2 = 5” is incorrect … there would be no need for Faith. No matter what, every person of every religion has something of themselves invested in this religion. Making a change means changing part of self - and that is neve easy. But, it should be noted that for most of us, it is easier to change our beliefs than our behavior. Here is an analogy: the diabetic who makes a steady diet our of ice cream and cake probalby has no need for more ‘information’ - he is in active denial concerning the information he already has. By the time he realizes that he has lost his vision, kidneys and legs - compliance with proper diet, exercise and medication is a bit late - but, still possible. He does not have to lose more!

So, let’s get started!

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.

You begin with a statement that your readers are to take on faith - but, supply no evidence to support it.

The ‘pass the baton’ approach was recognized throughout the world for the 1st thousand years of the history of hte Catholic Church. What would you think of a group that simply denied the Nazi atrocities of genocide? I think you would say that they had either a profound problem with ignorance - or - they had an agenda to support.

I previously gave you a link that clearly and chronologically provides you with a succession from Peter to Benedict XVI. Merely saying Protestants do not recognize this - yet recognize the founding of their own churches (and, really, unless you have evidence that Christ returned and revoked the mandate He gave Peter - then Protestant groups were founded on men by other men). I would enjoy reading your response to this chronological documentation from Peter forward. Note: not everyone to have the Chair of Peter was a saint, lived a saintly life - some, as you know, gave public scandal. But, just like we have US Presidents like Washington and Lincoln, we have lesser holders to the nation’s highest office.

Bottom line here is: merely refusing to ‘recognize’ something does not prove anything and it certainly does not serve as a basis for convincing anyone of anything.

1. 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)

Here you again begin with an unsubstantiated statement. Protestants may believe whatever they wish - that is not the issue - what is the issue is what is your evidence for man-made traditions by the Catholic Church? Here are just three where, in my opinion, Protestants are the ones with the man-made traditions of rejecting the Word of God and the Church He founded on Peter.

Baptism? Protestants are all over the board on this - required, but only if you want it, an ordinance, an option, only for those who profess (so infants and mentally defective are not included)

Confession? Protestants look at John 20:19-21 (here’s a link: usccb.org/nab/bible/john/john20.htm ) and simply ignore it! Now, there is a reason for ignoring it - there are no actual priests in the majority of Protestant groups (with 30,000+ out there it is difficult keeping track of who believes what).

Eucharist? Protestants look at John 6:22-71 (here is a link: usccb.org/nab/bible/john/john6.htm) and simply say that the 14 references to Jesus being Food to be eaten are metaphor - He could not have meant this (as Catholics have ALWAYS belileved) and walk away - just like the Jews who said, “This is a hard saying…”.

Ultimately, I think it comes down to a very old heresy! Try Manicheanism (here is a link: newadvent.org/cathen/09591a.htm ) The idea here is that matter is evil - and spirit is good. The idea that God’s Grace could not come from the material aspects of the Sacraments is the root problem in my opinion. In each Sacrament - there is a material (non-spirit) element that MUST be performed by a man acting in the Person of Christ - to produce Grace! Scaraments are rejected (the position of Protestants on Baptism is really quite fluid) because of this - AND - the fact that you need a priest (that ties you back to the Bishop of Rome) to celebrate the Sacrament.

Bottom Line: do not begin with a hypothesis unless you support it with data. It is only after establishing a logical foundation can you attempt to arrive at a logical conclusion.

God bless

 

[Radical]

Given your statement there is no absolute way you can really determine just what is corruption.

right…as a man I rarely live in a world of absolute knowledge. Tis like a jury trial, they must determine whether the accused is guilty and it is often the case that the jury isn’t able to determine the matter with absolute certainty, but they still must render a decision. Notwithstanding that limitation, our legal system works pretty well, but not perfectly. If I look at you, I would say that you can’t know with absolute certainty that your Magisterium is infallible…you take that as a matter of faith. Once you have taken that step of faith you can then claim to have access to absolute knowledge…but it is always contingent on your step of faith. We can both assess evidence in the formation of our determinations, but we are both fallible and therefore, non-absolute fallible determinations result.

For you to say what is corruption you must have authority to do so.

No, in order to declare that corruption exists I only need to right to form an opinion and the ability to freely state my opinion. Fortunately for you and me, burning at the stake is no longer an acceptable practice. Further, the proclamation of the gospel involves the question of “Who do you say Jesus is?” This is a call and question from God himself, and therfore he has granted me the authority to determine (for myself) the correct answer to that question…and for all the matters that flow from it (which IMHO includes the question of whether the CC is free from corruption as it claims). Did you not exercise that same authority yourself?.

 

[Nicea325]

1. 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)

Firmly believing in something does NOT make it correct or a fact of history. The CC has added a number of man-made traditions? The very church you belong to is man-made and that is a FACT! I can bet all of my life savings your church was founded by a mere mortal or several mortals. There exist tens of thousands of man-made churches each with its own set of man-made traditions. Sorry that fact may hurt your ego,but it is very true.