I saw the post. That was not logic. I know logic. I may not be able to win a verse slinging match, but I do know my way around logic all too well. I have seen a few of your posts and logic has very little to do with overly biased and superficial facades. Logic is objective. I saw your atheist/Catholic post. Words cannot describe how illogical that was except for “how illogical that was”. It was completely bias and you claim logic. Richard Dawkins does that enough. We do not need a Christian setting another fine example of it.
the term “priest” is never used in the NT for any minister in the Church. It is used WRT to Christ and the Levites still serving in the temple…a priest, IMHO, is another innovation that was required once the Lord’s Supper hard been terribly distorted and the “office” of bishop had been created and exalted
So, who is supposed to be the sacramental Christ presiding at the Lord’s Supper when we do it in remembrance of Him “from the rising of the sun, even to its setting” (Malachi 1:11)? The only terrible distortion here is the idea that Christ sent out the Apostles and ONLY the Apostles as authorities in the Church without them being able to confer that authority even though Scripture clearly indicates that it could. Sure, physically and literally speaking, Christ sent those out by verbal command, but to say that all other authorities from apostolic succession through the laying on of hands is “another innovation… terribly distorted… created and exalted” especially it is clearly stated in Scripture? That, my friend, is a radical distortion. One would even question whether or not they had any authority or power in the first place if they cannot give it. Then, one would question whether or not Jesus had the authority or power to give it. Then, one would question His Divinity!
it seems that you are equating the role of apostle to the role of a bishop, making both roles to be offices and then declaring that the authority of the office could be passed on like a baton…how about some “empirical” evidence that such is all endorsed by God?
At least, you say “seem”. The initial role of Peter and His Apostles was to be the foundation of His Church so He could build it up on sturdy stone. How is He supposed to build something and not use a foundation? The priests and bishops and such are what He is using on top of that foundation through the laying of hands. When building with stones, a stone has to touch the stone below it. Admittedly, some of those are bad stones and sometimes have a negative effect (scandals, Inquisition, etc…), but God keeps His Church tall and strong despite the weeds among the crop (for lack of better stone-al terminology).
If one of those stones purposely “falls off” and does his own building, then the result is the Protestant Reformation and the multitudes of denominations that came from it.
We are the only ones that claim Peter and the Apostles as the foundations for Christ to build His Church on even though Scripture explicitly says it. For a Sola Scriptura advocate (as I am assuming you are), an explicit statement in Scripture is pure gold! Granted, some statements are taken WAY out of context, but this statement is not even taken, much less considered in context.
This is Christ’s Church and the Apostles as foundation:
*Revelations 21:14 - The wall of the city had
twelve courses of stones as its foundation, **on which were inscribed the twelve names of the twelve apostles *
of the Lamb.
Here is Peter on top of whom Christ will build His Church:
Matthew 16:17-8: For flesh and blood has not revealed this to you, but my heavenly Father. And so I say to you, you are Peter, and upon this rock I will build my church, and the gates of the netherworld shall not prevail against it.
Everybody always complains, “Christ is my Rock, not Peter!” Well, me too! But, Peter is the rock of Christ’s Church on which He could make possible His apostolic succession through… Take a guess… Wrong… Peter and His Apostles and their successors from the laying of hands explicitly in the Bible elsewhere. Where? Somewhere hidden from me… I am sure someone else can provide that answer. The gates of the netherworld has not prevailed against Christ’s Church (not to say there have no been bad people but you get my position). Satan’s most powerful weapon is untruth. He is the Prince of Lies, or so I hear.
Now, is this today’s Catholic Church? Well, if you can provide me a church that not only teaches these things but lives by them, then perhaps you have a legitimate argument. That is, find me one that has Peter and the Apostles as rock/Pope (or whatever word they use is fine) and foundation and makes His Catholic Church catholic (little c) in spirit AND Truth as Jesus taught in the Gospels. As a disclaimer for non-Catholics, I am not referring to “today’s Catholic Church” as “His Catholic Church” (the Church Christ started) in order that I be as unbias as possible in this discussion. As a disclaimer for Catholics, I certainly believe that they are both the same exact thing (except we have computers and cars and such), but I was just making it as unbias as possible.
If not, then what on God’s green Earth are you waiting for before becoming Catholic? The “Rapture”?
If you really want to know about historical evidence, take a look at the books that I have referenced on this thread…but again, the OP asks for the name of the founder of the CC and b/c of all the innovation (some of which started rather early) I can’t answer other than Mr. Innovation, Mrs. Development and Father Time
Jesus Christ is the founder of the Catholic Church. There is proof through the Church’s own teachings in contrast with other Christian forms “(not that there is another)”.
