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

[elvisman]

Really Joe? How many times are you going to ask the same question? Here is my answer, the Roman Church was founded by Leo IX in 1054.

Thank God.
The Catholic Church was founded by Christ in the 1st Century.

I don’t even know what the “Roman Church” is. As far as I know - it doesn’t exist.

 

[guanophore]

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?

This is an excellent question, and really has a lot more to do with our conception of Peter as the foundation stone than anything else. There were certain gifts and responsibilities given to Peter that were given to no one else. He was charged by Christ to feed and care for the flock. He was given special graces to strengthen his brethren. These are called the Petrine Gifts, and these responsibilities were passed on to his successors. This is the main reason that the Bishop of Rome is considered to be the visible sign of unity for the Church. Jesus told the him “Simon, Simon, listen! Satan has demanded to sift all of you like wheat, 32 but I have prayed for you that your own faith may not fail; and you, when once you have turned back, strengthen your brothers.” Luke 22:31-33

Therefore all that want to persevere in faith must be included in the prayer for Peter.

 

[guanophore]

Has the Catholic Church officially interpreted all Scripture? If not, why?

This question is off topic in this thread. It is also unclear what you might mean by "interpret all “Scripture”. If you are talking about a verse by verse dogmatic elaboration,then no. There is no need to do this, because the Catholic Church is not a “bible based” Church in the sense that modern American Evangelical ecclesial communities are. The Catholic Church was founded by Christ, and the doctrine committed to her was whole and entire before a word of the NT was ever written. We receive the doctrines of the faith through the paradosis, and find them confirmed in the Holy Scriptures. For us, the Bible is a reflection of our faith, but not the source of it.

 

[guanophore]

The catechism says this:

100 The task of interpreting the Word of God authentically has been entrusted solely to the Magisterium of the Church, that is, to the Pope and to the bishops in communion with him. (CCC)

So if you are reading your Bible at home and want to know how to interpret a passage, any passage, what do you do? Do you pick up the phone and call your bishop? Or is there a database somewhere, like on the internet, where one can go get the official interpretation?

How does it work?

We read Scripture through the lens of Sacred Tradition, the Word of God, preserved infallibly in the Church. That perspective, in the NT called “The Way” is presented in an organized way in the Catechism of the Catholic Church. Any interpretation of scripture is permissible, so long as it is contained in the Apostolic Faith that was handed down to us.

There is a “Faith Database”, but I have found it difficult to navigate. “Official interpretation” will always be consistent with the teachings of the Church. The Word of God preserved in Sacred Tradition,a nd the Word of God in the Scripture are both from the same Source, and therefore, cannot contradict each other.

 

[guanophore]

Didn’t Jesus teach His disciple to teach other what He told them?

Matthew 28:
18 And Jesus came and spoke to them, saying, "All authority has been given to Me in heaven and on earth.
19 "Go therefore and make disciples of all the nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit,
20 “teaching them to observe all things that I have commanded you; and lo, I am with you always, even to the end of the age.” Amen.

We need to be very careful when we say something Jesus told His disciples are not for the multitude.

Yes, we do need to be very careful. We also need to take care to understand what we are reading in it’s context. Jesus gave the Teaching Authority to His Apostles. They sent forth persons who were authorized to teach. Many “disciples” took it upon themselves to teach what they thought Christ delivered, but they were not sent by the Apostles. They were considered heretics, and some of them wolves among the sheep. All persons who are not under the Teaching Authority appointed by Christ are at risk of being out of order, no matter how well intentioned they may be.

How on earth can you make a claim highlighted in blue??

I DO NOT disagree with a catholic teaching just to disagree AND I’m NOT anti-catholic. I’d appreciate it if you’d stop making these false claims directly or by implication.

You embrace ideas that were spawned by anti-catholics. Even if your intention is not to be anti-catholic, the theology you embrace is.

 

[guanophore]

Really Joe? How many times are you going to ask the same question? Here is my answer, the Roman Church was founded by Leo IX in 1054.

Oh and by the way, Luther was a FRIAR not a MONK. I would expect Roman Catholics to at least get that right.

How do you account for the 22 non-“Roman” rites in the Catholic Church that are also in communion with the Bishop of Rome? Do you think they popped into existence in 1054?

Friars and Monks both embrace the Monastic lifestyle.

 

[Petergee]

The official name of the Church is The Catholic Church - the Roman was a nickname given to us by the Anglicans.

Actually the Anglicans invented it in the 17th century as a term of abuse for Catholics, implying that they are traitors to both their country and to the “real Catholic Church”(, i.e. the Anglican denomination).

To my knowledge Constantine was an Arian and was later baptised a Catholic on his death bed. Actually he was a polytheist/sun worshipper for nearly all of his life. He became a Christian, but an Arian heretic, on his deathbed. He never became a Catholic and spent most of his reign trying to stamp out Catholicism.

So how could he have reformed the Catholic Church? Besides, do you realise that you are calling Jesus a liar? That he abandoned His Church!

Another excellent question which non-Catholics constantly refuse to address.

 

[Prodigal_Son1]

Who is your ‘interpreter’ of scriptures?

When I’m correct, the Holy Spirit. When I’m incorrect, myself.

Hey Doki,

I think you might have overlooked my question, following up this part of our discussion shown above. How do you know when you’re correct and incorrect?

Before we say this is off topic it relates in our interpretations over the Church Christ built as told in scriptures.

 

[rinnie]

This is an excellent question, and really has a lot more to do with our conception of Peter as the foundation stone than anything else. There were certain gifts and responsibilities given to Peter that were given to no one else. He was charged by Christ to feed and care for the flock. He was given special graces to strengthen his brethren. These are called the Petrine Gifts, and these responsibilities were passed on to his successors. This is the main reason that the Bishop of Rome is considered to be the visible sign of unity for the Church. Jesus told the him “Simon, Simon, listen! Satan has demanded to sift all of you like wheat, 32 but I have prayed for you that your own faith may not fail; and you, when once you have turned back, strengthen your brothers.” Luke 22:31-33

Therefore all that want to persevere in faith must be included in the prayer for Peter.

:extrahappy: In my personal opinion there is no other scripture that can be any clearer to show that Peter is the leader of the Sheep then this scripture. None!!

First as we see JESUS prayed for Peter, now that in itself is pretty awesome. Then we hear that Jesus prayed that Peters faith would prevail. now we all know if Jesus asks for something WELL!! You can bet on it.

Next we know Peter did screw up, Jesus just told him he did, he denied Christ. Three times, but as You know and I know, God KNOWS ALL!! He knew Peter would be capable of doing what was asked of him. God knows a heart, plus he knows what we will do before we even do it.

He knew the Love of Peter for him. and he knew the faith of Peter, even better then Peter himself did.

And as we both know that God knows the outcome or as they say, the answer to the question before the question is even asked!

 

[rinnie]

How do you account for the 22 non-“Roman” rites in the Catholic Church that are also in communion with the Bishop of Rome? Do you think they popped into existence in 1054?

Friars and Monks both embrace the Monastic lifestyle.

You know guan, do they not understand that we our all one family? That the Roman rite is just that a certain Rite that they we called to by God.

Do they not understand that a Sacrament is a Sacrament. That we all follow one faith. They we are together in our beliefs?

 

[Nicea325]

To my knowledge Constantine was an Arian and was later baptised a Catholic on his death bed.

Actually is the other way around. He was baptized by an Arian on his death bed. Did not matter,the baptism was legit.

 

[Nicea325]

Originally Posted by Mikeoffaith
Really Joe? How many times are you going to ask the same question? Here is my answer, the Roman Church was founded by Leo IX in 1054.

Really Mike? Please provide me the historical documents confirming the “Roman” Church was founded in 1054?

 

[Matthew_P_Muehl]

Has the Catholic Church officially interpreted all Scripture? If not, why?

Please tell me what Church Christ gave authority to in Faith and Morals?

Where do you or anyone outside The Catholic Church have ANY AUTHORITY to interpret
Scripture?
You may want to look at 2Peter1:20-21.

Matthew

 

[Reg_Ifter]

Please tell me what Church Christ gave authority to in Faith and Morals?

Where do you or anyone outside The Catholic Church have ANY AUTHORITY to interpret
Scripture?
You may want to look at 2Peter1:20-21.

Matthew

you may want to look here

from the pro Catholic site
pugiofidei.com/unsound.htm

1. Citing 2 Peter 1:20-21 against the Protestant principle of private interpretation of Scripture. St. Peter explains, in the preceding verses, that the Apostles did not invent their claims about the glory of the Lord Jesus Christ, but saw it first hand when He revealed it to them in the Transfiguration. He then exhorts his readers to heed the “prophetic word.” He continues, “No prophecy of Scripture is a matter of one’s own interpretation, because no prophecy ever came by the impulse of man, but men borne by the Holy Spirit spoke from God.” In context, **the “interpretation” which St. Peter refers to is on the part of the prophet, not the reader. **That is, St. Peter’s point is that no prophet made up his own prophecies. The prophets spoke what they received from God to speak, just as the Apostles spoke what they received from God to speak on Mount Tabor. Hence, their words rest on divine and not human authority. 2 Peter 1:20-21 perhaps admits of a legitimate secondary application against private judgment, but this will not be convincing to an astute Protestant.

 

[Matthew_P_Muehl]

you may want to look here

from the pro Catholic site
pugiofidei.com/unsound.htm

1. Citing 2 Peter 1:20-21 against the Protestant principle of private interpretation of Scripture. St. Peter explains, in the preceding verses, that the Apostles did not invent their claims about the glory of the Lord Jesus Christ, but saw it first hand when He revealed it to them in the Transfiguration. He then exhorts his readers to heed the “prophetic word.” He continues, “No prophecy of Scripture is a matter of one’s own interpretation, because no prophecy ever came by the impulse of man, but men borne by the Holy Spirit spoke from God.” In context, **the “interpretation” which St. Peter refers to is on the part of the prophet, not the reader. **That is, St. Peter’s point is that no prophet made up his own prophecies. The prophets spoke what they received from God to speak, just as the Apostles spoke what they received from God to speak on Mount Tabor. Hence, their words rest on divine and not human authority. 2 Peter 1:20-21 perhaps admits of a legitimate secondary application against private judgment, but this will not be convincing to an astute Protestant.

Well that’s the problem with Sola-Scriptura …private interpretation for protestants!
Without the guidance of church authority anything goes does it not.
I want to see posters back up their claims with Hard Core Facts that go against church teaching Where do people get off thinking they know more about Christ and his Church (The Catholic Church)? They place themselves above the Holy Spirit that guides Christ Church… Authority is the Major problem for sure…
How about getting back to the O.P. …

Matthew

Opinions carry little weight when it comes to eternity!

 

[Dokimas]

Hey Doki,

I think you might have overlooked my question, following up this part of our discussion shown above. How do you know when you’re correct and incorrect?

Before we say this is off topic it relates in our interpretations over the Church Christ built as told in scriptures.

Time to move on.

 

[Prodigal_Son1]

Time to move on.

Why move on? It seems as if you’re avoiding the question, for some reason.

You’ve told us, in more than this one discussion, that the Holy Spirit is the interpreter of scriptures. In this thread, you qualified that statement when you told me that when you’re correct it’s the Holy Spirit, when you’re incorrect it’s you. How do you know when you’re correct or incorrect? You tell us that Catholics are incorrect, on most subjects discussed. Couldn’t that be your personal interpretation, thereby making it possible that you’re wrong?

 

[Dokimas]

Why move on? It seems as if you’re avoiding the question, for some reason.

You’ve told us, in more than this one discussion, that the Holy Spirit is the interpreter of scriptures. In this thread, you qualified that statement when you told me that when you’re correct it’s the Holy Spirit, when you’re incorrect it’s you. How do you know when you’re correct or incorrect? You tell us that Catholics are incorrect, on most subjects discussed. Couldn’t that be your personal interpretation, thereby making it possible that you’re wrong?

I am avoiding the guestion, I guess. I see NO reason to continue this with you.

 

[Prodigal_Son1]

I am avoiding the guestion, I guess. I see NO reason to continue this with you.

Then it leaves me to wonder, why? In my honest opinion, it takes away from the validity of your argument to avoid a question.

 

[Dokimas]

Then it leaves me to wonder, why? In my honest opinion, it takes away from the validity of your argument to avoid a question.

Okay, okay. I know the same way you know the CC is the church Jesus founded. I assume you know NOT becasue the CC told you so.