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

[joe370]

Take care that you are not speaking to yourself.

Well Dokimas, since the primary question is: Please give me the name of the man, or men, that founded the Catholic Church, and when, I suppose it is only right for me to keep asking you that question, but if you don’t want to answer the question with a simple answer just let me know brother:

With respect and kindness I ask again, since the question is the very point of this thread: Please give me the name of the man, or men, that founded the Catholic Church, (if in fact you believe that man’s name is not Jesus Christ) - and when that man or men founded the Catholic Church, just as I can do with each and every protestant church, and perhaps we can all find some closure regarding this thread before it ends? For example, if you were to ask me you started the Lutheran church, I wouldn’t dance around the question; I would simply answer directly by saying: Martin Luther in the 16th century.

What do you say we just keep things real simple?

 

[joe370]

Dok, I asked free:

Just wanted to make sure we were on the same page. So, since the reformation, and until Jesus’ second coming, any new church be it the 16th century or the 25th century, can rightfully claim to belong to the universal church just as the CC has rightfully made that claim since Pentecost?

To which you replied:

The claim of anyone is not the issue. Only God sees the heart. Not all that say, “Lord, Lord” belong to the Body of Christ.

This is what I mean. I ask a very simple question and you ignore it. Honestly, what’s the point to a friendly debate if we are having 2 different conversations. Of course I will respond to you response: Yes, I agree, only God sees the heart. Not all that say, “Lord, Lord” belong to the Body of Christ.

 

[joe370]

Freerf,

Maybe you can answer my question, since no protestant has answered it yet. Please show us where it is written or taught in the Bible, in Apostolic Tradition, or by the ECF’s, that any man has been given the authority to go and start his own church because he disagrees with the original teachings of Jesus Chirst’s original church.

Rainman, the answer is simple and honest, and every protestant brother and sister, deep down, knows it: nowhere!!! The practice of sola scriptura was never taught by Jesus or His apostles or their successors, to the many many many generations…until the 16th century reformation, which reformed nothing, as can be attested by Martin Luther, the father of protestantism.

Sola scriptura was a 16th century innovation designed to help the reformers deal with their frustrations regarding the indulgence abuses, along with a few others, in certain parts of the CC. Sadly, all that transpired was the transference of authority from the CC to each and every sola scriptura proponent with their bible in hand, guiding them. I am certainly not making it up. For example, I could start a church tomorrow and teach whatever, based on my judgment of scripture alone; in essence, I become my own magisterium, and this has been going on since the reformation, which for all practical purposes, sadly looks more like a deformation each and every year; I don’t see how it can ever lead to unity, as much as I pray that it will.

 

[onenow1]

I hope my opinions line up with the teachings and truths of Jesus. I DON’T want Him to bend to my understandings.

Hi, Doki
Your answer above seems to me a little unsure ? As far as Jesus bending the truth, you know that is not true, He cannot ! The head rules the body Doki, not visa, versa. In the end we must all choose the most likely church that proposes to us all the truths of Jesus. The Church of Jesus Christ the Catholic Church.

BTW, do you ask yourself that question too?.

Indeed we learn everyday and with Gods Grace; Thus far the preponderence of evidence lies in Biblical and Historical writings, I try not to have any bias toward other communities and will always listen carefully to them; Easy to say, hard to do.

Peace

 

[freerf]

Why did you not include the word “truth” there, freerf?

I think, perhaps, you omitted it because you understand that in the above paradigm the Truth as revealed by Christ is obfuscated. In this “spiritual and universal church” one cannot know

• does baptism save you
• or is it an ordinance
• should it be done by immersion
• or by sprinkling
• if Jesus is God the Son, or simply the son of God (I am astounded to only recently learn, after 46 years studying Christianity, that there are folks who propose this, using Scripture to back them up)
• if the day of rest is Saturday or Sunday
• if we die and have eternal life or simply have “soul sleep”
• if we must eat His flesh and drink His blood, or simply perform an anamnesis
• if the pope is the vicar of Christ, or the antichrist?
• etc etc etc

This “spiritual and universal church” is left to flounder, and, if indeed “baptism now saves you”, and this “spiritual and universal church” does not proclaim this universally, the destiny of someone’s eternal soul may lie in peril.

Truth is very, very important. One’s eternal destiny is at stake.

(Yes, if one is invincibly ignorant, that is another story. Fodder for another thread of course!)

It was an inadvertant omission. Truth should be listed. There is no Christianity without Truth.

You stated: “In this “spiritual and universal church” one cannot know” and gave a list of items. I disagree wholeheartedly. One can know to the extent to which it is possible for a human being to know. We can be certain insofar as the bible makes it certainly clear. Some issues are vague.

I find no comfort from people (Catholic or Protestant) who try cast dogma which is biblically vague as a certitude. It is true that as a Catholic, you can have a certitude about certain issues due to your faith in your Church, which I cannot, such as Mariology. I prefer to keep it simple: Jesus Christ and Him Crucified.

I find the Catholic teaching of Christianity far more “obfuscating” than the typical Protestant one. In fact, much of the recent clarity and reformations within the catholic church is in response to Protestantism. Use of the common language in mass, translations of the bible to common languages, etc. In fact, Protestantism simplifies mere Christianity whereas Catholicism clearly adds much to it.

You believe that baptism is essential to salvation. To me, that seems to obfusicate the significance of Jesus laying down His life. Was that not enough?

We have just as much certitude about those issues as you do.

 

[freerf]

Freerf,

Maybe you can answer my question, since no protestant has answered it yet. Please show us where it is written or taught in the Bible, in Apostolic Tradition, or by the ECF’s, that any man has been given the authority to go and start his own church because he disagrees with the original teachings of Jesus Chirst’s original church.

For whatever reason there is a strange misconception that Protestants can only believe things which are explicitly stated in the bible. Why do people think this?? It is not true. What is true, however, we believe all dogma must be supported by the bible. We believe the bible is sufficient as the basis for all our beliefs.

To answer your question, the bible does not say this. But your question is obviously loaded, which is probably why no one bothers to answer it.

No protestant would agree with the premis of your statement: that we left a church because we disagree with the original teachings of Jesus Christ’s original church. Nor would the eastern orthodox. We both believe your church left the teachings of Jesus Christ.

 

[joe370]

Hey freerf, you said:

No protestant would agree with the premis of your statement: that we left a church because we disagree with the original teachings of Jesus Christ’s original church. Nor would the eastern orthodox. We both believe your church left the teachings of Jesus Christ.

I’ve got to run but just wanted to seek clarification real quick: So the CC founded by Jesus Christ eventually left the teachings of Jesus Christ?

Where can those teachings of Jesus, that the CC walked away from, now be found?

Also, when did the CC leave the teachings of Jesus and from what teachings of Jesus did the CC walk away? Talk to you a little later…

 

[BILL_PICK53]

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.

Jesus Christ found the Cathloic Church in 33ad

 

[pablope]

For whatever reason there is a strange misconception that Protestants can only believe things which are explicitly stated in the bible. Why do people think this?? It is not true.
To answer your question, the bible does not say this. But your question is obviously loaded, which is probably why no one bothers to answer it.

No protestant would agree with the premis of your statement: that we left a church because we disagree with the original teachings of Jesus Christ’s original church. Nor would the eastern orthodox. .

What is true, however, we believe all dogma must be supported by the bible. We believe the bible is sufficient as the basis for all our beliefs.

Then why does everybody not come to the same conclusions about the meanings, about dogma? Just to name a few: confession, baptism-sprinkling vs immersion, Eucharist-real or not…how come there are different conclusions? And how come each Protestant denomination has its own belief-Lutherans vs calvinists vs methodists vs baptists and so forth? It seems only the CC and the Orthodox have the same basis beliefs in dogma as compared to the rest.

We both believe your church left the teachings of Jesus Christ

How so? Can you cite proofs, citations, studies…and the like?

 

[fbl9]

no offense intended. only used it to make a distinction.

None taken i was just pointing out that at that time we were not known as roman catholic, but as catholics of the latin rite.
You do realise it is a contradiction to use roman to describe catholic.

 

[freerf]

Hey freerf, you said:

I’ve got to run but just wanted to seek clarification real quick: So the CC founded by Jesus Christ eventually left the teachings of Jesus Christ?

Where can those teachings of Jesus, that the CC walked away from, now be found?

Also, when did the CC leave the teachings of Jesus and from what teachings of Jesus did the CC walk away? Talk to you a little later…

Seems like we kinda keep running around in circles a bit. To answer your first question, I refer you to our belief in a universal church which is not denomination specific. This thread is naturally hung-up on the idea that there is a need for 1 physical, all-powerful earth representative for Christ named the Catholic Church. Upon this premis the entire thread hangs. Consider that if there is no true need for this, or a succession of Peter, your questions become trivial.

Second question: in the bible.

Third question: this is a big topic. I don’t want to derail the thread but there are many, many areas of Catholic teaching protestants take exception to. Starters? mariology.

As to when any individual church failed in the teachings of Jesus? Immediately. Already in the new test. there are divisions within the newly established church.

 

[freerf]

Then why does everybody not come to the same conclusions about the meanings, about dogma? Just to name a few: confession, baptism-sprinkling vs immersion, Eucharist-real or not…how come there are different conclusions? And how come each Protestant denomination has its own belief-Lutherans vs calvinists vs methodists vs baptists and so forth? It seems only the CC and the Orthodox have the same basis beliefs in dogma as compared to the rest.

How so? Can you cite proofs, citations, studies…and the like?

All free peoples have a variety of opinion. Even the apostles of Christ had a variety of opinion. Why should we all suddenly agree about everything in the bible? that is not human nature. The bible is, after all, complex. We do agree to a remarkable extent on the vast majority of the issues. It seems strange that even the CC and Orthodox can’t seem to agree - so by your own standards you disqualify yourself.

Yes, but others have done it far more eloquently. This is also a huge topic. There are many books on this subject.

 

[pablope]

All free peoples have a variety of opinion.

 

[freerf]

Well, seems like the thread has run it’s course.

Peace all! God Bless.

 

[pablope]

Well, seems like the thread has run it’s course.

Peace all! God Bless.

Very close…1000 post limit. So wrap up your conclusion/s.

Peace to you too…

 

[freerf]

freerf;7621187:

If you actually do a real study, the CC and orthodox do agree, the traditions (small t) may differ. I think the only hindrance to unity is the issue of papacy and it is not even dogma, it is more on the political side.

Well, I feel that i’ve answered your questions satisfactorily previously (I’m sure you can understand it is a bit tedious responding to 6 different people within the same thread) so i’ll just respond to the above as it’s so very clearly incorrect and easily disputed. Review immaculate conception and eastern orthodox. this is a dogmatic difference.

“if you do a real study” . . .

Peace.

 

[freerf]

Rainman, the answer is simple and honest, and every protestant brother and sister, deep down, knows it: nowhere!!! The practice of sola scriptura was never taught by Jesus or His apostles or their successors, to the many many many generations…until the 16th century reformation, which reformed nothing, as can be attested by Martin Luther, the father of protestantism.

Sola scriptura was a 16th century innovation designed to help the reformers deal with their frustrations regarding the indulgence abuses, along with a few others, in certain parts of the CC. Sadly, all that transpired was the transference of authority from the CC to each and every sola scriptura proponent with their bible in hand, guiding them. I am certainly not making it up. For example, I could start a church tomorrow and teach whatever, based on my judgment of scripture alone; in essence, I become my own magisterium, and this has been going on since the reformation, which for all practical purposes, sadly looks more like a deformation each and every year; I don’t see how it can ever lead to unity, as much as I pray that it will.

Hi Joe, I responded to this in 894. And I agreed with you: nowhere.

Peace.

 

[joe370]

freerf;7621158]Seems like we kinda keep running around in circles a bit. To answer your first question, I refer you to our belief in a universal church which is not denomination specific. This thread is naturally hung-up on the idea that there is a need for 1 physical, all-powerful earth representative for Christ named the Catholic Church. Upon this premis the entire thread hangs. Consider that if there is no true need for this, or a succession of Peter, your questions become trivial.

Well, that did not answer the first question, which was: So the Catholic Church, (which you said was founded by Jesus) - founded by Jesus Christ eventually left the teachings of Jesus Christ???

Second question: in the bible.

I appreciate good natured sarcasm as much as the next guy but you still did not answer the question, which was: Where can those teachings of Jesus, that the Catholic Church walked away from, now be found?

Third question: this is a big topic. I don’t want to derail the thread but there are many, many areas of Catholic teaching protestants take exception to. Starters? mariology.

Again, you did not answer the question, which was: when did the CC leave the teachings of Jesus and from what teachings of Jesus did the CC walk away? The CC did not walk away from Mariology; according to the common misconception of some protestants this was an innovation on the part of the CC, kind of like sola scriptura for protestants.

 

[Cinette]

Seems like we kinda keep running around in circles a bit. To answer your first question, I refer you to our belief in a universal church which is not denomination specific. This thread is naturally hung-up on the idea that there is a need for 1 physical, all-powerful earth representative for Christ named the Catholic Church. Upon this premis the entire thread hangs. *Exactly freerf - that IS THE QUESTION! Jesus said to Peter …"…and upon this rock I will build my Church and the gates of hell will not prevail against it and I shall be with you always…" What is that Church?

The main question of the OP is “Please give me the name of the man, or men, that founded the Catholic church, and when…” That is it. That is the question.

• Consider that if there is no true need for this, or a succession of Peter, your questions become trivial. Why bring this up? It is irrelevant apart from being far from the truth. This could be for another thread.

Second question: in the bible. Who canonized the bible? Who translated the bible from Greek and Hebrew?

Third question: this is a big topic. I don’t want to derail the thread but there are many, many areas of Catholic teaching protestants take exception to. Starters? mariology.It is completely understandable that as a non-Catholic there are many things that you will find hard to understand but, as you said, you do not want to derail the thread.

As to when any individual church failed in the teachings of Jesus? Immediately. Already in the new test. there are divisions within the newly established church.*Certainly and there are heretics to this day. This does not affect the Church and the truth. Remember Jesus is the head of the Church and the Holy Spirit is the heart. With God on our side how can the Church fail?

So please freerf, just answer the question. Don’t join the “evasion brigade” - just answer the question. The question has been repeated over and over and over again and still noone, NOONE has had the courage to speak up! Amazing!

*

 

[Cinette]

Well Dokimas, since the primary question is: Please give me the name of the man, or men, that founded the Catholic Church, and when, I suppose it is only right for me to keep asking you that question, but if you don’t want to answer the question with a simple answer just let me know brother:

With respect and kindness I ask again, since the question is the very point of this thread: Please give me the name of the man, or men, that founded the Catholic Church, (if in fact you believe that man’s name is not Jesus Christ) - and when that man or men founded the Catholic Church, just as I can do with each and every protestant church, and perhaps we can all find some closure regarding this thread before it ends? For example, if you were to ask me you started the Lutheran church, I wouldn’t dance around the question; I would simply answer directly by saying: Martin Luther in the 16th century.

What do you say we just keep things real simple?

*Joe you won’t get an answer.

Do you seriously think that after more than 900 postings and you repeating the question many times and every time meet with evasion, you are going to get an answer now?

I am beginning to think that Dokimas’s presence on CAF is suspect because I notice that he joined CAF in June 2009 and in that time has posted 5200 times!! You, on the other hand joined in May 2007 and your postings number 3100 plus.

While you are selective and thoughtful in whatever you post, Dokimas cannot make the same claim. So…?

A serious debater would answer questions.

Cinette *