J
JohnMPhilomena
Guest
Tick-tock.
Nothing. Still silence.
Nothing. Still silence.
Please give me the name of the man, or men, that founded the Catholic Church, and when...
- Status
P
PJM
Guest
The New Testament [100% written by men known today to have been the first Catholics] has in excess of 100 references to JUST ONE CHURCH. Even the referenes to mutiple “churches” reference the One Faith, One set of Doctrine, and One set of Sacrament, and speak of other geographical locations, as a result of growth.
**Here are a few of my favorits: **
**Acts.20:28 **“Take heed to yourselves and to all the flock,[SNGULAR] in which the Holy Spirit has made you overseers, to care for the church [SINGULAR] of God which he obtained with the blood of his own Son. “
Eph. 2:19-20 “So then you are no longer strangers and sojourners, but you are fellow citizens with the saints and members of the household of God, [singular] built upon the foundation of the apostles and prophets, ***Christ Jesus himself being the cornerstone, *** in whom the whole structure [SINGULAR] is joined together and grows into a holy temple [SINGULAR] in the Lord; [SINGULAR]] in whom you also are built into it for a dwelling place of God in the Spirit. “
**Eph. 4: 4 -8“There is one body Only One Church] and one Spirit, Only One set of beliefs] just as you were called to the one hope that belongs to your call, one Lord, [Only One God] ONLY one faith, [Only One set of doctrine and dogma] **one baptism, By water in the Trinity] one God and Father of us all, who is above all and through all and in all. But grace was given to each of us according to the measure of Christ’s gift. "
**John 14: 16-17 ** " And I [Jesus] will pray the Father, and he will give you another Counselor, to be with you for ever, **even the Spirit of truth, **whom the world cannot receive, because it neither sees him nor knows him; you know him, for he dwells with you, and will be in you."
John 17: 14-19 ** " I [Jesus] have given them thy word;[God the Father who is One with Christ] and the world has hated them because they are not of the world, even as I am not of the world. I do not pray that thou shouldst take them out of the world, but that thou shouldst keep them from the evil one. Sanctify them in the truth; thy word is truth. As thou didst send me into the world, so I have sent them into the world. **[19] *And for their sake I consecrate myself, that they also may be consecrated in truth. *… ONLY the CC has both the Holy Spirt and Jesus Himself ever present in Her midst to guide, guard, protect and proclaim the TRUTH on matters of Morals and Faith.
Jesus founded the Catholic Church; a new Faith, and the New “ever-lasting Covenant,” curia 30-35 AD. [All SINGULAR]. “Jesus came into the district of Caesare’a Philip’pi,” [Mt. 16:13] which Jesus choose as it was the locaton of the areas largest and most active Pagan Temple. To point out that the worship of false gods must end! His was a BETTER WAY!
Christ Message was clear: He came to Redeem by the Cross and SAVE by and through His new Faith, new religion, New Covenant, His One Church. He apointed Peter as the head of that Church and gave to him the necessary unlimited power of Governance over it; [That’s the meaning of “binding and loosning.”], knowing full well that He would soon be fulfilling his earthy mission. Thus he gave Peter and through Peter and his successors[had to be in order to fulfill the mandate of Matt. 28:19-20], the Catholic Church [all that is necessary for salvaton], the “very key’s to the” Kingdom of heaven.
Salvation is Still exclusively from Christ; BUT now it is to flow THROUGH His One Church.
Shortly before He freely choose to die, Christ establishes for ever; His new Covenant, and gants exclusive power to use it to His Apostles and His new Catholic Church.
**Luke.22: 20 ***And likewise the cup after supper, saying, "This cup which is poured out for you is the new covenant in my blood. *
1Cor.11: 25 **In the same way also the cup, after supper, saying, “This cup is the new covenant in my blood. Do this, as often as you drink it, in remembrance of me.” **
**2 Cor.3: 16 **who has made us competent to be ministers of a new covenant, not in a written code but in the Spirit; for the written code kills, but the Spirit gives life."
Mt. 16: 15 He [Jesus] said to them, “But who do you say that I am?” Simon Peter replied, “You are the Christ, the Son of the living God.” And Jesus answered him, “Blessed are you, Simon Bar-Jona! For flesh and blood has not revealed this to you, but my Father who is in heaven. And I [singular] tell you, you are Peter, [singular] and on this rock [singular] I will build my [singular] church, and the powers of death shall not prevail against it. [singular] 19 I [God singular] will give you [singular] the keys of the kingdom of heaven, and whatever you [singular] bind on earth shall be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven.”
God Bless,
Pat
T
The_Old_Medic
Guest
The Catholic Church has an unbroken line of succession, from Jesus Christ right down to Pope Benedict XVI. Jesus appointed the Apostle Peter as his earthly successor (“Thou art Peter, and upon this rock I shall build my church”).
Peter then chose HIS successor, and so on for the first couple of hundred years. The successive Popes all knew that they were subject to martyrdom, so they made arrangements to be covered, “just in case”.
Then, the leaders of the Church, appointed by the pope, began meeting after the death of the previous Pope, and they selected the new leader.
This has been done, in an unbroken chain, right down through the centuries.
Martin Luther himself acknowledged that the Popes had apostolic succession. He never denied that, he rebelled against what he felt were abuses and excesses (most of which he was correct about).
Peter then chose HIS successor, and so on for the first couple of hundred years. The successive Popes all knew that they were subject to martyrdom, so they made arrangements to be covered, “just in case”.
Then, the leaders of the Church, appointed by the pope, began meeting after the death of the previous Pope, and they selected the new leader.
This has been done, in an unbroken chain, right down through the centuries.
Martin Luther himself acknowledged that the Popes had apostolic succession. He never denied that, he rebelled against what he felt were abuses and excesses (most of which he was correct about).
B
Brian_Culliton
Guest
The Christian church – 33 AD, Jesus Christ
The catholic (universal) church – 33 AD – 325 AD. The Ante-Nicene period.
The “reformed” (my word) Catholic Church – 325 AD, Constantine
The Roman Catholic Church – 445 AD, Leo the Great
C
Cat_Herder
Guest
What’s the difference, old friend?
J
joe370
Guest
I am confused. Brian are you suggesting that Leo (440-61) - founded a reformed CC in communion with Rome, which means you must believe that Leo’s predecessor, Sixtus III (432-440) did not belong to said reformed RCC to which Leo belonged, but actually belonged to the catholic (universal) church – 33 AD – 325 AD - even though it’s a fact that Leo (the first man to be given the titles pope) - was unanimously elected by the people to succeed Sixtus?
What’s the difference between the Christian church – 33 AD, Jesus Christ and the the catholic (universal) church – 33 AD – 325 AD. The Ante-Nicene period.
J
Jim_Dandy
Guest
“Methodism” began in 1738. Wesley founded his first independent Methodist community in 1739.
There were no denominations in A.D. 33. Denominationalism began with Protestantism in the 16th century.
It is uncertain exactly who founded the Church at Rome. In the introduction to Romans, the translators of the (Protestant) Revised Standard Version wrote this:
“He [St. Paul] intended . . . to stop at Rome, where the church had already been established by others.”
The translators of the (Catholic) New American Bible wrote this in the introduction to Romans:
“The existence of a Christian community in Rome antedates Paul’s letter there. When it arose, likely within the sizeable Jewish population at Rome, and how, we do not know.”
From Ask an Apologist at Catholic Answers:
–quote–
While it is possible that Peter founded the local church in Rome, and while some early Church Fathers do credit its founding to him and to the apostle Paul (see the tract “Peter’s Roman Residency,” linked below, for quotations), the Catholic Church’s claims for Peter’s primacy as Bishop of Rome do not depend on whether or not Peter was the actual founder of the local Catholic church in Rome. All that the Church’s claims for Peter’s primacy is based on is Jesus’ own selection of Peter to be the earthly head of his universal Church (cf. Matt. 16:18-19). Because history records that Peter went to Rome, was the Bishop of Rome, and died there, the Bishop of Rome is the acknowledged successor to Peter as head of the universal Church.
Recommended reading:
Peter’s Roman Residency
Peter’s Primacy
Peter and the Papacy
–end quote–
(the links did not copy - they are links to articles in the Catholic Answers Library)
What does this mean, please?
Jim Dandy
G
GaryTaylor
Guest
I’m confused with this? What do you see as a difference from Catholic Universal and Roman Catholic?
J
Jim_Dandy
Guest
Citation(s), please?
Note: The name of the Church is Catholic.
“Where the bishop appears, there let the people be, just as where Jesus Christ is, there is the Catholic Church” Ignatius, Bishop of Antioch, Letter to the Smyrnaeans, A.D. 107. Ignatius’ teacher, the Apostle John, died c. 100.
“Roman” was added to “Catholic” by the Anglicans in the 16th century.
Jim Dandy
B
Brian_Culliton
Guest
What I am referring to is authority. Leo gained the ultimate prize for the church in Rome, universal authority. Prior to Nicea, the church in Rome held authority in the west that was equal to, not higher than, other apostolic churches like Antioch and Alexandria. Examples that demonstrate this are found in Ignatius’ letter to Pollycarp, the synod in Antioch over Paul of Samosata, and the canon six of Nicia.
C
Cat_Herder
Guest
“But since it would be too long to enumerate in such a volume as this the successions of all the churches, we shall confound all those who, in whatever manner, whether through self-satisfaction or vainglory, or through blindness and wicked opinion, assemble other than where it is proper, by pointing out here the successions of the bishops of the greatest and most ancient church known to all, founded and organized at Rome by the two most glorious apostles, Peter and Paul—that church which has the tradition and the faith with which comes down to us after having been announced to men by the apostles. For with this Church, because of its superior origin, all churches must agree, that is, all the faithful in the whole world. And it is in her that the faithful everywhere have maintained the apostolic tradition” (Against Heresies 3:3:2 [A.D. 189]).
J
joe370
Guest
Okay, but I am asking for the name of the man or men that founded the Catholic Church in communion with Rome, and when??? That is the point of this thread.
B
Bran_Stark
Guest
I’m hardly an expert on the history. But everything I remember reading tells me for its first several decades, Methodism was very much a movement within the Church of England.
I quite agree.
Well that depends on how you define your words. Were (are) the Orthodox a denomination? The Arians? The Nestorians?
I know, it doesn’t matter who exactly founded the Roman Church. Some mortal, whoever it was.
Sorry for sounding abstruse. I mean that, in my opinion, the organization which calls itself “the Catholic Church”, while it is indeed part of the Catholic Church, is not the entire thing.
J
joe370
Guest
Brian Stark, you said:
Name of that mortal??? That is the point of this thread. If the CC was founded by a mere mortal, and not Jesus Christ, just as is the case with every Protestant church, of which I can provide the name of each protestant founder and when he founded it, then it should be just as simple to identify the founder of the CC in communion with Rome, and when he founded it. Your answer??? It sure would be the best way to rule out Jesus as the founder, which is what you seem to believe.I know, it doesn’t matter who exactly founded the Roman Church. Some mortal, whoever it was.
R
Reuben_J
Guest
*]Interesting. How do you get the figure 50 (AD)?
*]Does this mean that there was another church in 50 AD beside the church founded on Pentecost?
B
Bran_Stark
Guest
When I said “Church of Rome” I meant just that - the local assembly of believers in the city of Rome. And I’m pretty certain Christ never traveled to Rome…
C
Cat_Herder
Guest
Peter and Paul did. They were the chief shepherd and theologian of the Church. That is why their successor has the primacy. Please review the Irenaeus quote at the bottom of page 2 of this thread.
C
Carlan
Guest
Another typical closed mind here, Cat Herder. Could be time to dust off the sandals
It’s too bad, but we can keep praying for the light to beam at last! Carlan
B
Brian_Culliton
Guest
Leo I
B
Brian_Culliton
Guest
It would be tedious, says Irenaeus, to show the apostolic succession of all the churches founded by apostles, but for the sake of conciseness he chose to use the church in Rome as his example. Catholics will interpret this quote as the faithful everywhere must agree with the church of Rome because it is preeminent over all the churches. But that is not all what Irenaeus was saying. The preeminent authority he was referring to is the apostles, not the Roman church. This is why he could have used a different apostolic church like Antioch or Jerusalem to make his case. The faithful everywhere must agree with the church in Rome, and the church in Antioch, and likewise Jerusalem, because of their preeminent authority – that is, the apostolic authority handed down to those churches.
Elsewhere, Irenaeus makes a similar statement that clarifies his point. Nowhere in any of his works does Irenaeus point to Rome as the preeminent church, or even the one single church where one should seek the truth of the faith. Instead Irenaeus points to all the churches collectively and never places one as preeminent over another.
“Suppose there arise a dispute relative to some important question among us, should we not have recourse to the most ancient Churches with which the apostles held constant intercourse, and learn from them what is certain and clear in regard to the present question? For how should it be if the apostles themselves had not left us writings? Would it not be necessary, [in that case,] to follow the course of the tradition which they handed down to those to whom they did commit the Churches?” ( 3:4:1)
- Status