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

[Dokimas]

How many people have requested you provide evidence for your statement? Yet, you’re still avoiding presenting any.

See, that’s how your posts are interpreted as ‘anti’. You assert our beliefs are wrong, just because you say so? That seems to be posts intending to inflame since you provide no evidence that can be rebutted. It is a game when one avoids direct answers…

I have no proof handy to share. I was just giving a possible answer to the question. There are those who believe Constantine started an era of the CC.

 

[elvisman]

thanks for the reminder…someone reported me and I ended up with a 5 point infraction…have no idea how many demerits I am allowed.

I’ve been busted for a LOT less.
That’s why I gave you the warning . . .

 

[Prodigal_Son1]

I have no proof handy to share. I was just giving a possible answer to the question. There are those who believe Constantine started an era of the CC.

So, you assert ‘Constantine’ and when I asked, like many others, for proof you asked me if I really wanted proof. Now you say you have no proof ‘handy’, and you say you’re not playing games? That type charade takes away any credibility one may have had in a sincere discussion. You don’t see the ‘anti’ in that type activity?

 

[elvisman]

I have no proof handy to share. I was just giving a possible answer to the question. There are those who believe Constantine started an era of the CC.

Then don’t blurt out falsehoods unless you are fairly certain as to WHY you believe in them.

 

[Radical]

It’s cool - just keep** it to the debate at hand.
Now . . . let’s carry on, brother.

nah, I done

 

[Dokimas]

So, you assert ‘Constantine’ and when I asked, like many others, for proof you asked me if I really wanted proof. Now you say you have no proof ‘handy’, and you say you’re not playing games? That type charade takes away any credibility one may have had in a sincere discussion. You don’t see the ‘anti’ in that type activity?

I had no intention of playing games. If you want to argue this point, go right ahead. However, if you feel you need to continue to blast me for not responding as you wanted, why not do it in private. I’ll wait for you personal message. Thank you.

As for ‘seeing anti…’ of course I don’t see something that is NOT there.

 

[adrift]

NO games and no submitting. Are you really interested in evidence?

I am. I may not agree but I wish to understand why you believe as you do. Just because I might challenge what you say does not mean that I am not interested in it. You (meaning me too) should have some reasoning for belief.

 

[Prodigal_Son1]

I had no intention of playing games. If you want to argue this point, go right ahead. However, if you feel you need to continue to blast me for not responding as you wanted, why not do it in private. I’ll wait for you personal message. Thank you.

As for ‘seeing anti…’ of course I don’t see something that is NOT there.

I am not blasting you for ‘not responding as I wanted’. I am trying to communicate to you that it takes away any credibility one has when they infer they have evidence and then announce they have none, but continue with the assertion that we are wrong. I’m sorry you can’t see how it is perceived as ‘anti’, but it appears an assertion without support is merely a statement against for the sake of being against. That’s what I meant about being ‘anti’.

I am not going to ask for evidence anymore, and I will take short assertions without support with a grain of salt. I will also keep an eye on my sodium levels.

 

[guanophore]

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

Who is that? There exists no such authoritative enitity!

Further, the achievement of one competent act does not mean the ancient Church ever managed a second competent act.

LOL.

So then, how do you make the leap from the NT being reliable wrt historical matters, to the CC being infallible (which isn’t a historical matter, but a theological one)?

I don’t. The Church is infallible because Jesus makes it so. This was the case three centuries before the bible was assemble.

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

Sacred Tradition
Radical;7549224:

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

The Head of the Church is Christ, and the Soul of the Church is the HS. These divine elements prevent the Church from fallibility.

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

It appears that God is totally absent from your equation.

rather it is a argument involving a number of circles.

I have noticed that everyone tends to go in circles when God is absent from the equation.

 

[PRmerger]

my apologies…I had meant it as a bit of light-hearted teasing, but obviously you and others found it offensive…and who knows, perhaps light-hearted teasing is inappropriate too. In any event, I am sorry.

Yes. Sometimes humor does not translate well.

 

[guanophore]

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

This is a certain kind of history, though, Radical. It is the history of God acting within the human temporal experience. Good scholars who are unwilling to take into account the supernatural elements of the historical events will fall short of the reality.

What you seem to be trying to do is forward a perspective on history that contains no divine actions or elements.

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

Faith is an element, certainly. For example, if a person does not believe that Jesus is God, or that He really said the words “Upon this Rock I will build my Church”, then it certainly would not be possible to accept the Catholic view. However, there are historical testimonies to the Catholic position, in addition to the act of faith.

Well from my point of view, the church of the first century believed … (here we need to check with Catholic theologians)

Were you under some misapprehension that theologians determine what the Church believes and teaches?

(beliefs) weren’t lost in one moment, nor were N-Z added in a single moment. The change is significant enough that it isn’t appropriate to call the two (the 1st century church and the modern CC) the same church…no more appropriate than claiming that the game played in the 1890’s is the same game we now know as American Football. So perhaps the answer is these three guys: Mr. Innovation, Ms. Development and Father Time.

I am interested to know which beliefs you think have changed.

 

[guanophore]

You mean the teachings of the apostles or the teachings of the Roman Catholic Church?

The Teaching of the Apostles is infallibly preserved in the Catholic Church (which is not “Roman”).

How exactly are you judging whether or not a bishop taught heresy? By what standard do you deem them a heretic?

The definitions in the Catechism, Canon Law, Ecumenical Councils, all based upon the Holy Scriptures.

They were preserved in the New Testament writings.

Yes, but how those writings are to be understood was not.

We already established that a succession of bishops from the apostles does not in and of itself mean that the teachings of the apostles were preserved unadulterated.

No, but then, no one here was ever claiming that it did.

So, you proposed and debunked your own strawman. Did that help you any?

**

So when a Catholic points to the succession of bishops in the Roman church as proof for apostolic authority, we can agree that such a claim bears no weight, since, as you said, 80 percent of bishops within an apostolic linage fell into heresy.**

It may carry no weight with you, Brian, but Catholics do not dismiss the promises of God with such dispatch. We believe what He said when He sent His HS to guide the Church into “all Truth”. No amount of bishops falling into heresy will prevent the promises of Jesus from being fuflilled.

Brian_Culliton:

So it is fair to say that by whatever standard you used to determine those bishops as heretical, the same standard should be used to determine if the bishops you claim have the “gift of infallibility” are heretical as well.

Since the gift of infallibility applies to the Church, and not individuals, that would just be another rabbit trail for you. However, knock yourself out.

That would be fair, correct? Is it also fair to say that since the teachings of the apostles were preserved in the writings of the New Testament, that it should be the standard by which we make our determination?

The NT is certainly authoritative, and is a sure standard to be used in the determination of Truth.

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

I guess we read it differently.

He was told to teach and defend the doctrine of the apostles that was taught to him by the authority given to Paul by Christ.

Yes. His authority in this matter came from Paul. It is apostolic authority.

 

[guanophore]

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

By what standard did you determine this?

Do you not consider the New Testament a reliable historical source?

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

This seems like it would be a fundamental definition.

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

If you beleive the Church is a “Spiritual entity” then how come spirituality has no place in your research?

It appears that your definition of “church” represents a significant departure from what the Apostles believed and taught.

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

What if Peter was not a bishop, but an Apostle, and he was in Rome, with Paul laying a foundation for the Church? How does that change anything?

I think that the easiest changes to demonstrate are:

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

A change in leadership style does not constitute a change in doctrine.

b) the Marian doctrines…Mary isn’t given much mention (beyond her virginity at conception to birth) in the NT or the Apostolic Fathers, whereas she is central to everything that goes on in Catholicism these days.

This is simply a false statement, and also does not reflect any change in doctrine, as you claimed.

The contrast could hardly be any greater…I haven’t researched the position of the historians on this, but I gotta think that they would, for the most part (like me), see that grand innovations have been added to the initial faith over the centuries.

Since you have not shown any innovations to the faith, it would be hard to determine if any changes had happened.

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

Yes. It would also be impossible to substantiate, given the plethora of his references to the opposite.

 

[guanophore]

what disagreement…there is a consensus that, when Christ used “rock”, he was referring to Peter. There is a consensus that Peter didn’t preside as a bishop at Rome.

What does it mean to you to “preside”?

I don’t see a conflict…did you actually think that referring to Peter as “rock” in Palestine somehow made Peter the bishop of Rome decades later? How odd

They are related, but not dependent. Peter would have carried the gifts and calling of being the Rock no matter where He ended up. God chose to send him to Rome to build the foundation of the Church in that city.

 

[guanophore]

The above paragraph is as condescending as much as it lacks charitability.

IT is becoming increasingly obvious that these sentiments color the vast majority of Radical’s posts.

 

[Dokimas]

I am. I may not agree but I wish to understand why you believe as you do. Just because I might challenge what you say does not mean that I am not interested in it. You (meaning me too) should have some reasoning for belief.

Would you change your opinion if the evidence was strong enough?

I agree that we should have reasons for belief.

BTW, I don’t care exactly when the CC in it’s present state started. The evidence does not point to the first century. This does NOT mean that God doesn’t use it to His glory, it just means the church Jesus inagurated is far bigger than the CC, IMO.

 

[Petergee]

BTW, I don’t care exactly when the CC in it’s present state started. The evidence does not point to the first century. This does NOT mean that God doesn’t use it to His glory, it just means the church Jesus inagurated is far bigger than the CC, IMO.

Really? A “church” divided into innumerable quite separate and competing organisations, which are often openly hostile to each other, is exactly the opposite of what Jesus said that the Church that He founded would be - that she would be as completely One as He and His Father are One, that she would be a light on a hill to shine for all men so they could obviously see her, that she would last as one visibly united body from the beginning to the Last Day, and that she would know and teach God’s Truth and never fall into error,

ISTM if you’re going to trust the accuracy of the Bible, then if the Church that Jesus founded isn’t the Catholic Church and the Catholic Church alone, then it must be some other organisation. The Catholic Church, which as everyone agrees is answerable to no other authority on earth, can’t be simply part of the Church Jesus founded. It’s got to be all or nothing.

Apart from anything else, the Catholic Church has been teaching for 2000 years that she and she alone is the true Church Jesus founded. If she has been telling us a lie in that respect, then she can’t possibly be part of the true Church.

And more broadly, every one of the tens of thousands of different independent and separate organisations which all claim to be followers of Jesus, teaches doctrines which contradict the doctrines of many of the other organisations. Obviously in each case only one of these doctrines is true and the contradictory ones are in error. All the contradicting organisations can’t all be part of the church that Jesus founded which holds His Truth.

And yes actually the historical and other evidence does point to the Catholic Church starting in the first century. Not “in its present state”, that’s true; just as the Kingdom of England, in its present state, looks very different from the Kingdom of England in the time of Alfred the Great. But I hope you’re not going to deny that it’s the same kingdom.

 

[Dokimas]

Really? A “church” divided into innumerable quite separate and competing organisations, which are often openly hostile to each other, is exactly the opposite of what Jesus said that the Church that He founded would be - that it would be as completely One as He and His Father, that she would be a light on a hill to shine for all men so they could obviously see her, that she would last as one visibly united body from the beginning to the Last Day, and that she would know and teach God’s Truth and never fall into error,

Give me the name of any Christian church group including the CC. No matter what group you mention, there’s not the unity you speak of.

ISTM if you’re going to trust the accuracy of the Bible, then if the Church that Jesus founded isn’t the Catholic Church and the Catholic Church alone, then it must be some other organisation. The Catholic Church, which as everyone agrees is answerable to no other authority on earth, can’t be simply part of the Church Jesus founded. It’s got to be all or nothing.

 

[Prodigal_Son1]

Would you change your opinion if the evidence was strong enough?

I agree that we should have reasons for belief.

BTW, I don’t care exactly when the CC in it’s present state started. The evidence does not point to the first century. This does NOT mean that God doesn’t use it to His glory, it just means the church Jesus inagurated is far bigger than the CC, IMO.

You really should quit inferring an evidence you don’t have. It is very misleading in a dialogue such as these.

Most Catholics, especially converts, have already searched for evidence. Through scriptures and research we’ve been led to the Catholic Church, by the Holy Spirit.

Your disagreement is based on your own opinion when you present statements without support. We’ve shown you writings from the Church of the first century that support what we’ve been saying on these forums, but you’ve chosen not to respond to those writings.

Christ did not start a collection of Churches, with slight to great differences in doctrine. The only Church, supported by historical evidence, to have been in existence since the first century is the Catholic Church. This is a fact you, and others, have not been able to dispute with evidence. There’s a reason for that.

 

[Prodigal_Son1]

Give me the name of any Christian church group including the CC. No matter what group you mention, there’s not the unity you speak of.

So you believe Christ started His house divided? I totally disagree.

It’s an organism, not an organization. The Body of Christ is living and made up of it’s member, Jesus being the Head.

Check history and see the Catholic Church for hundreds of years with all Protestant Churches having roots through that Catholic Church.

I’m not quite sure it’s been 2000 yrs, but that’s for another discussion. That being said, just because some one or organization makes a claim, doesn’t make it true. Isn’t that kind of circular reasoning?

So we can take it ‘your organized’ Church’s claims are not true, by your statement. It seems by your own statements that you’ve placed yourself in circular reasoning and there is no Church man can depend on as having His truth. What happened to the Church Christ built?

It’s the similarities (or lack of the correct ones) that make the Body of Christ or makes a person an unbeliever. God is able to deal with our differences.

What was Paul repeatedly writing about to all those Churches, to have the same mind and judgment?