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

[Prodigal_Son1]

Set aside the fact you’re being very argumentative, let me respond that the Bible makes it clear at least some of the essentials. I’m sure your church teaches essentials, doesn’t it?

Being the smart individual you seem to be, you don’t need my help in discovering the essentials for salvation. If you have trouble finding them, private message me and I’ll see if I can help. This seems to be off topic, thus not the place for it.

Please tell us where in scriptures ‘essentials’ is all that is important?

We have many different people teaching different essentials as necessary. Provide the scriptures that show us who has the authority to determine what is essential and what is not.

See the problem?

 

[rinnie]

Please tell us where in scriptures ‘essentials’ is all that is important?

We have many different people teaching different essentials as necessary. Provide the scriptures that show us who has the authority to determine what is essential and what is not.

See the problem?

And hopefully when he searches these scriptures looking for (ESSENTIAL’S) he will come across who has authority to teach. Then he will find the Scripture that will lead him to the true teacher.

The Scripture that States the CHURCH is the PILLAR of ALL TRUTH!! Then this shall lead to the ONE HOLY CATHOLIC and APOSTOLIC CHURCH:thumbsup:

 

[Brian_Culliton]

Are you ready for some football? Apparently not… or else you are ignoring me.

If Super Bowls already existed when the championship game was played they would not have later called it a Super Bowl. That would have been very confusing. But you are telling me that apostles were really bishops even though they were never addressed as such, and they appointed bishops, who were addressed as such, to oversee the churches they established. That is strange.

So, if I understand you correctly, you consider all the apostles to be the first bishop of whatever churches they founded. This means Peter was simultaneously the bishop of every church he was involved in establishing. It would be impossible for any apostle to oversee all the churches they established. Furthermore, the concept tends to diminish the roles of the bishops they appointed, or rather, the Holy Spirit appointed.

It was not an apostle’s job to oversee local churches; it was their job to preach the Gospel and lay the foundation of the churches they established through their preaching. There is a difference between apostles and bishops, and you Catholics are trying to blur the distinction to bolster your ideology.

Here is a good example of how that ideology plays out in the Catholic Encyclopedia. I looked up two well known bishops of the late first century, Clement of Rome and Ignatius of Antioch, to see how they were viewed with respect to their succession from the apostles. I found exactly what I expected to find, an unfair bias towards Clement’s relationship to Peter from that of Ignatius’.

In view of Clement’s succession, the Catholic Encyclopedia asserts, by virtue of the following quote, that Peter was the first bishop of Rome.

St. Jerome himself in several other places follows this opinion, but here he **correctly states **that Clement was the fourth pope. . (C.E. Clement of Rome)

In view of Ignatius’ succession, the Catholic Encyclopedia, by virtue of the following quote, inserts doubt as to whether or not Peter had anything to do with Antioch’s founding. And even if one supposed he did establish that church, they are led to believe the importance of it is not significant.

If we include St. Peter, Ignatius was the third Bishop of Antioch and the immediate successor of Evodius. (C.E. Ignatius of Antioch)

An objective view of these two successions, using the same sources of tradition, would conclude that there is no difference in importance or authority between the two bishops. But the Catholic Encyclopedia, which does not attempt to be objective, elevates the importance of Peter in the Roman succession and diminishes his importance in the Antioch succession.

To you that might not be a big deal, but to me it is. The bias I see in the Catholic Encyclopedia is the same bias I see in your comments. Irenaeus says nothing about Peter being a bishop in Rome, yet you think he does because that is what you believe. When he says, “Peter and Paul founded the church,” you see, “Peter was the first bishop of Rome.” It’s not fact it’s ideology.

 

[Dokimas]

The Catholic Church is a Body. Your church is a group of Ears.

[BIBLEDRB]1 Cor 12:13-25[/BIBLEDRB]

I hope you were listening to that last verse, my brother Ear.

[BIBLEDRB]1 Cor 12:25[/BIBLEDRB]

Not so fast. Jesus is God’s Word. God has only one Word, so the Bible is the written Word of God only insofar as it derives from Jesus. As stated above, Jesus has a Body; that Body is the Church; and it was the Church that decided what alleged scriptures were really inspired by God.

If your Bible has red letters you really ought to pay attention to them.

[BIBLEDRB]Matthew 5:17-20[/BIBLEDRB]

Again, that last verse.

[BIBLEDRB]Matthew 5:20[/BIBLEDRB]

This “we teach the essentials” is a race to the bottom. You want to get rid of all the smells and bells because they’re too Catholic. So you make baptism optional because you think faith is what saves. Then you make Communion optional because you think it’s just a symbol. You ditched the other Sacraments a long time ago—except marriage.

Marriage is the one you realize you can’t get rid of because of the force of natural law; and also you may know what happens to those who commit premarital sex according to Revelation 21:8. So you recognize that SOMETHING supernatural happens during the marriage ritual that makes the marital act legal in God’s eyes.

It’s a ritual. It does something supernatural.

That’s a Sacrament.

In your church.

:newidea:

Thank you for your opinion. Seems you think you’ve got it all figured out.

 

[Matthew_P_Muehl]

Thank you for your opinion. Seems you think you’ve got it all figured out.

I find it interesting that all the scripture writings that have been presented to you on this matter is nothing more than an OPINION…

Matthew

 

[Prodigal_Son1]

I find it interesting that all the scripture writings that have been presented to you on this matter is nothing more than an OPINION…

Matthew

They offered no comment on the scriptures, the interpretation or anything else, except for the condescending remark ‘Seems you think you’ve got it all figured out.’ As if they have it figured out more than anyone else here. Didn’t address the authority of who decides essentials, or really any question put forth for them to explain to us for that matter.

 

[Dokimas]

I find it interesting that all the scripture writings that have been presented to you on this matter is nothing more than an OPINION…

Matthew

That’s where you misunderstand: the Bible quoted is not opinion. The understanding of the meaning of those Bible verses are opinion. The key is - do we understand as God intended?

 

[trdchubi]

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.

http://www.orthodox-christianity.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/03/timeline_ezg_11.gif

This is according to the Orthodox Catholic church

 

[Dokimas]

They offered no comment on the scriptures, the interpretation or anything else, except for the condescending remark ‘Seems you think you’ve got it all figured out.’ As if they have it figured out more than anyone else here. Didn’t address the authority of who decides essentials, or really any question put forth for them to explain to us for that matter.

Kind of a ‘catch 22’. We offer different understandings and you guys go on attack saying you’re protecting the CC from anti-catholic teaching.

I realize my statement sound condescending. I couldn’t come up with a better way to share my point of view on what was said.

Funny, I make statements that makes it seem I’m not sure what I believe and get called out for it. Then I make definitive statements and am called anti-catholic. Neither understandings of what I say are true.

It’s pretty obvious what some of the essentials are. I’ve shared them on more than one occassion and get condescended to, misrepresented, etc. So what’s the use?

 

[Prodigal_Son1]

Kind of a ‘catch 22’. We offer different understandings and you guys go on attack saying you’re protecting the CC from anti-catholic teaching.

I realize my statement sound condescending. I couldn’t come up with a better way to share my point of view on what was said.

Funny, I make statements that makes it seem I’m not sure what I believe and get called out for it. Then I make definitive statements and am called anti-catholic. Neither understandings of what I say are true.

It’s pretty obvious what some of the essentials are. I’ve shared them on more than one occassion and get condescended to, misrepresented, etc. So what’s the use?

There are thousands, if not hundreds, of denominations with slight to great differences in doctrine, due to interpretation of scriptures. Those ‘essentials’ are just as different according to those different interpretations.

Who, according to scriptures if you like, has the authority to decide what ‘essentials’ are important?

You claim that we are wrong, on just about everything we discuss through these forums, which indicates you know what is right. Please answer the question so we know how you know who has that authority to decide which essentials are right.

 

[Dokimas]

Who, according to scriptures if you like, has the authority to decide what ‘essentials’ are important?

 

[Petergee]

Well, maybe you should tell me which of the following “hard evidence” (all of which is apparently believed by you) the Catholic Church endorses and which it rejects.

Irenaeus:

Peter and Paul co-founded the church in Rome, organized it, and appointed Linus the first bishop of Rome.

Tertullian:

Peter ordained Clement to the episcopate around 92 AD.

Eusebius:

Linus was appointed bishop of Rome after the martyrdom of Peter and Paul.

Augustine:

**Clement preceded Linus **in the succession from Peter. And Paul seems to have vanished from the picture.

And secular historians (not just Catholics) putting this all together, conclude that after St Peter and St Paul (who always deferred in authority to St Peter whom he never calls anything but “Cephas” i.e. “The Rock”) founded and led the church in Rome, they ordained at least 3 men, Linus, Cletus (or Anacletus) and Clement I, as the equivalent of what would later be called auxiliary bishops. After the martyrdom of Peter and Paul, the precise relationship between these three and the dates they died and passed on authority to each other are uncertain. But one thing that is unescapable is that in Rome as in other cities, one or more Apostles ordained bishops to rule the church after them who have in turn ordained more bishops to this day. And that St Peter was definitely one of these Apostles in the case of Rome. This is really indisputable historically. As the Apostles and bishops were essentially in hiding and on the run for most of the Church’s firrst 300 years, and the Christians fathful would have faced martyrdom rather than reveal to the authorities the name or whereabouts of their leader (notice St Peter even uses “Babylon” in his letter as a code word so as not to reveal to outsiders that he’s in Rome), it’s not surprising that there is no surviving contemporary first century order of succession carved in stone

The alternative is a wild conspiracy theory that, some time after the Apostles died and before today, hundreds of men in hundreds of cities all across Europe, Asia and Africa, living in countries which were often at war with or had little or no contact with each other, simultaneously decided, hey, I’m going to start prtetending that I have authority over all the other Christians in this city which I have received in succession from one of the Apostles. And the vast majority of Christians just swallowed this barefaced lie and accepted it as true.

Now which of these twoi scenarios is the rational, sober, calm historical analysis?

 

[Prodigal_Son1]

The Holy Spirit to the hearts of each one of us. It’s our job to respond accordingly.

Was it in your honest opinion to ask if our Church teaches ‘essentials’, or to tell another it ‘seems’ they ‘think’ they have it all figured out?

Didn’t Christ tell the Apostles that He has all authority to command them to do those things He chose and appointed them too?

 

[elvisman]

The Holy Spirit to the hearts of each one of us. It’s our job to respond accordingly.

Jesus didn’t give that guarantee to individuals. He gave it to the Church.

I claim nothing. I share what I understand. I almost always start or end what I say with ‘IMO.’

Precisely.
**Unfortunately - your opinion and mine don’t amount to a hill of beans. The TRUTH is all that matters. Jesus didn’t leave the truth to opinion. If he had - every one of the thousands of denominations would be right. The truth isn’t true because I believe it to be true. I believe it because it is the truth.

ALL authority belongs to Jesus.

You hit the nail on the head. ALL authority belongs to Christ – to do with as HE wills. And what did he do with that authority? Let’s look at John 16:13-15 to find out:

---

**"But when he comes, the Spirit of truth, he will guide you to ALL truth. He will not speak on his own, but he will speak what he hears, and will declare to you the things that are coming. **
**He will glorify me, because he will take from what is mine and declare it to you. **
Everything that the Father has is mine; for this reason I told you that he will take from what is mine and declare it to you."

 

[Dokimas]

So, do you believe the Holy Spirits tells people different essentials are necessary?

Nope.

Was it in your honest opinion to ask if our Church teaches ‘essentials’,

Yes.

or to tell another it ‘seems’ they ‘think’ they have it all figured out?

That was sarcasticly put but true from my perspective.

Didn’t Christ tell the Apostles that He has all authority to command them to do those things He chose and appointed them too?

I guess one could paraphrase it like that. However, what that exactly means may differ from what you and I believe even if it’s slightly different.

 

[guanophore]

And he was in Corinth, Antioch, etc. He was an apostle. The apostles were called to lay the foundation of the church, to preach the Good News. They most certainly did have authority over the church in Rome. Where did I suggest they didn’t?

You must have me mixed up with someone else.

You seem to have a hang up about whether Peter was considered the first Bishop of Rome. No I dont’ have you mixed up with anyone. I am confused about why you seem stuck on the word, and can’t see the function. Clearly the Apostles’ had authority in all the communities. Why would it matter if someone referred to them as “bishop” or “Apostle”? They are still the overseer.

 

[Prodigal_Son1]

Nope.

So what do you believe about all the diifferent claims of Holy Spirit guidance by so many different people? Please feel free to elaborate, one word ‘snap’ answers don’t share much.

Yes.

It seems hypocritical to question another’s Church without revealing what Church you attend. What is the name of the Church you attend and does it have a website?

That was sarcasticly put but true from my perspective.

But when we call you on it the subject changes to ‘oh now call me anti’?

I guess one could paraphrase it like that. However, what that exactly means may differ from what you and I believe even if it’s slightly different.

It’s really simple. Read the gospel of John, starting at chapter 13 and see who the audience is that Christ addresses until His arrest in the garden. It was the men He chose and appointed over His Church. The men He gave authority too. It was not the multitude. In my honest opinion, those who apply those things said to those men to themselves today are assuming an unrightful authority. Then the question is, is it following one’s own will or His will?

 

[guanophore]

The Holy Spirit to the hearts of each one of us. It’s our job to respond accordingly.

Except the promise that the HS will guide into “all truth” was made to the Church, not one individual. Therefore, single individuals or groups of persons can only benefit from it to the extent that they remain in communion with the One Church founded by Him.

ALL authority belongs to Jesus.

That is why, when He gave Peter the keys to the Kingdom, Peter could act with authority in the Church.

It is also why, even though His authority is exercised through the Apostles, it does diminish.

 

[Brian_Culliton]

You seem to have a hang up about whether Peter was considered the first Bishop of Rome. No I dont’ have you mixed up with anyone. I am confused about why you seem stuck on the word, and can’t see the function. Clearly the Apostles’ had authority in all the communities. Why would it matter if someone referred to them as “bishop” or “Apostle”? They are still the overseer.

One thing is for certain; you and I will never see this the same way. But for the sake of argument, what do you think were Peter’s responsibilities as an overseer?

 

[PRmerger]

One thing is for certain; you and I will never see this the same way. But for the sake of argument, what do you think were Peter’s responsibilities as an overseer?

• To proclaim the kerygma.
• To guard the deposit of faith.
• To make disciples of all nations.
• To teach us all that He has commanded.
• To be a servant of the servants of God.
• To be the principal teacher and illuminator of the faith.
• To be the primary minister of the Sacred Liturgy.
• To "preserve these principles and continually rescue them from the obfuscation and distortion they suffer under pressure from partisan viewpoints and bad habits well established in cultural models and currents of thought."
• To be a shepherd of all Christians.
• To pronounce truths in the areas of faith and morals.
• To define a certain truth and to require definitive assent of all Christians.
• To "explore the *sensus ecclesiae *before defining a truth of faith, in the clear awareness that his definition “expounds or defends the teaching of the Catholic faith” LG 25
• To diligently strive to inquire properly into that revelation and to give apt expression to its contents. ibid
• To be a symbol of the unity between Christ and His Body, the Church.
• To act in persona Christi as a visible sign, voice, and means of salvation by administering the sacraments.
  [* ]To be an announcement of hope for the whole world](http://www.catholicculture.org/culture/library/view.cfm?id=898&CFID=69061134&CFTOKEN=10593594)