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

[Nicea325]

Nope…we are a fallible lot, but we try to eliminate whatever we can identify as corruption. I just think we have done a better job of it than you Catholics. Hope that clarifies something for you.

A better job? How? By founding ANOTHER man-made church which HAS NO SCRIPTURAL authority from Jesus. Thanks for clarifying something that you merely deny.

 

[PRmerger]

right…as a man I rarely live in a world of absolute knowledge.

This is a misunderstanding of Catholicism. It does not proclaim to have “absolute knowledge” only “infallible revealed knowledge” as revealed by the Holy Spirit.

This distinction is key.

 

[PRmerger]

This is a call and question from God himself, and therfore he has granted me the authority to determine (for myself) the correct answer to that question…and for all the matters that flow from it (which IMHO includes the question of whether the CC is free from corruption as it claims). Did you not exercise that same authority yourself?.

I don’t believe you actually believe the above, Radical. Each man is free to determine for himself who Jesus is?

So you’d give the thumbs up to your son who declares, after prayer and discernment, that Jesus is NOT God but a good teacher?

 

[PRmerger]

All they have is the threads that have been preserved through the Catholic Church, and what has been extracted from the Holy Scriptures.

Indeed. Sadly, this is too true. :sad_yes:

 

[GreggAlvarez]

Speaking as one that has been sarcastic, I understand what happens. People twist what you say, or at least misunderstand, and it happens over and over again so it’s human (unfortunately) to get sarcastic.

Trust me I don’t take it person. I just thought you’d like to know how you come accross, in a condescending mannor whether you know it or not.

The Truth lead should lead me to Jesus, who is the Truth. Jesus encourages me to fellowship with fellow believers. I do that and some of them are catholic. I love enjoying Jesus with fellow believers no matter what church they go to. There’s no fellowship when one condescends to another.

Well, I guess the only thing I can say is that I am not condescending. Trust me. I will be sarcastic, but in a nice tone. Unless I use that sarcasm for rational scrutiny like Radical has ignored. THEN, my condescending tone will show, but I am not BEING condescending. I will just show how condescending I can be. But, I have learned from much Eucharist Adoration the past few days that using sarcasm and condescension to defend Truth does less for the Truth than what I attempt. So, I may use sarcasm against you but in good manner. I use rational scrunity-ous sarcasm and a condescending tone to those who think they know more than me but only because we are all on the same level here. But, I will actually BE condescending for use of my argument or anywhere because that has got me into trouble.

We good?

Anyway, Jesus built a Church which the gates of the underworld will not pass through. According to Adam and Eve, the gates of the underworld destroys its prey with lies and deceit (which go hand in hand). Now, is this today’s Catholic Church? We are the only ones who claim Truth without inconsistencies. Many will disagree and you are part of that many, but how many Christian forms have formed since the time of the Reformation based on Sola Scriptura itself? They need a final authority to proclaim Sola Scriptura as final authority anyway, which completely obliterates its own notion. There could be some other forms that claim Sacred Tradition. Got any?

 

[GreggAlvarez]

This is a misunderstanding of Catholicism. It does not proclaim to have “absolute knowledge” only “infallible revealed knowledge” as revealed by the Holy Spirit.

This distinction is key.

John 16:13,23

*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.

On that day you will not question me about anything.*

 

[panevino]

…
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 …

OT had a general and ministerial priesthood
Exo19:6 And ye shall be unto me a kingdom of priests, and an holy nation. These [are] the words which thou shalt speak unto the children of Israel.

So did the NT
1pet2: 5 Ye also, as lively stones, are built up a spiritual house, an holy priesthood, to offer up spiritual sacrifices, acceptable to God by Jesus Christ.

1pet2:9 But ye [are] a chosen generation, a royal priesthood, an holy nation, a peculiar people; that ye should shew forth the praises of him who hath called you out of darkness into his marvellous light:

A bishop is entitled to the title priest also, and clearly has a ministerial role

Rom15:16 International Standard Version (©2008)
to be a minister of the Messiah Jesus to the gentiles in the priestly service of the gospel of God, so that the offering brought by gentiles may acceptable, sanctified by the Holy Spirit.

ἱερουργοῦντα ierourgounta 2418 V-PAP-ASM serving like priest

Acts6:6 Whom they set before the apostles: and when they had prayed, they laid [their] hands on them.

 

[Dokimas]

Hi, Dokimas,

Actually, no … but, after reading your multiple non-answers to specific questions, and apparent demand that God make His Will known in a manner acceptable to you - this should come as no surprise.

Here’s why we get no where: I make NO such demand. Quite the contrary, I ask God to hlep me to understand.

Not only won’t we get anywhere because of such comments, I have no interest in the rest of your post. If you’re wrong at the start, why should I think the rest of your post will be any different. Sorry I’m so short sighted that way. Now can you see I must pray that God helps me to understand and why I shall make NO demands of Him.

Just an aside: I’ve seen a couple of posters claim Radical attacks (I don’t agree but that’s not my point). I hope they are a dilligent to share with others like you that attack those of opposing understandings (not to mention they do the same. I guess it the humanity in us cuz we ALL do it from time to time. None of us should throw stones, least of all me. BTW, I’m not throwing stones just observing ).

 

[Irish_Polock]

I suspect that every one participating on this thread has seen the list…and I have given my reasons for dismissing the list as manufactured and unimportant

Indeed we have seen the patristic evidence of the bishopric of St. Peter, and we have also seen your denial of this truth, none of which has been very compelling.

First, surely you can’t think that I could not find scholarly support for all the opinions that I have expressed on this thread. The funny thing is that I don’t even have to look to Protestant scholars to support my position, as there are plenty of Catholic scholars that will serve the purpose. Irish Pollock observed: “You have mentioned in this tread, dissidents and apostates in the Catholic Church. Do we have them? Sure we do (especially in academia).” I believe that he got that bit right…

I believe one could look at any theological matter that has officially been taught by the Church and find a Catholic scholar whom has gone against any particular teaching, as promulgated by the Magisterium. This would be especially true in modern times of the Jesuits.

the percentage of conservative Catholics is probably substantially lower among the highly educated than amongst the general population. In that sense education is not a friend of either conservative Catholicism or conservative Protestantism (aka fundamentalism). The path of modern scholarship seems to lead away from a rigid conservative viewpoint and it is easier and easier to find scholarly support for positions that are not favorable to conservative Catholicism.

I would beg to differ, the liberal Catholic theology that you have used to support your claims is not the norm, and is nothing new to Catholicism. The deceiver has had his wolves in the fold from the beginning, I will admit that this is true. Grace be to God, that these wolves have not prevailed in there assault of the Church Christ has established. As Catholics we are assured (from Sacred Scripture) that this is impossible for the deceiver to achieve.

If you can honestly deduce a “consensus” of all scholarly theologians on this matter Radical, I would be willing to listen to their argument, but the fact is, is that the Catholic Church has but one authority whom is infallible on matters of faith and morals, all others are subject to the deceiver and this would be why I would not take the opinion of a rogue scholar over that of the Magisterial teaching. This would not be “cult like” as you would say, but a affirmation of the word of God, and the Traditions of the Church as they have been passed down.

Second, I have absolutely no interest in trying to go through a detailed analysis of the ECFs with the Catholics on this thread. I believe that I could tell you exactly how it would play out. First, Prodigal Son1 would be offended every step of the way. After a number of posts on the matter I still don’t believe that either Irish Pollock or Guanophore have truly understood the consensus that Sullivan pointed to…it would (literally) take forever to go through a detailed analysis of what one would have to cover…and any intrepretation that does not support their traditional point of view would be merely dismissed as the spiteful act of a liberal dissident or of a Protestant. That is the way it has been so far and that is the way it would continue. Frankly I can’t see any purpose in that endeavor,…can you?

Would you agree that this “traditional” view is the same espoused by the Church on this subject? If so, what would you consider those whom espouse a far different view then the Church they belong to?

Is your ecclesiastical community free of dissent? If not, would you not agree that using such a dissenter to ratify my opinion about your own community as disingenuous?

As I have already stated in this tread, there is no “consensus” of scholars such as Sullivan has alluded to. This has been his opinion in the matter of apostolic succession in the patristic err, which the liberal Jesuits have tried to promulgate in recent times. This is nothing new or profound, in fact Sullivan has followed suit many persons within his own order with this same theology (that he mentions within his work). Why should we now take them any more seriously then the Church has in the past? I would think that if there was indeed a scholarly “consensus” it would be addressed by Rome officially and definitively.

(cont.)

 

[Irish_Polock]

That being said, if you (or any one following along) would like to see support for the opinions that I have expressed, here are some scholarly works that I would recommend:

a) Unity and Diversity in the New Testament by James Dunn. This will give you an idea of what the earliest church looked like, what were its unifying beliefs and what were its diverse forms.

b) From Apostles to Bishops by Francis Sullivan. It examines the NT and ECFs (up to Cyprian) in detail to understand how the monoepiscopacy developed over time and was not the original universal design

c) Making a Meal of It by Ben Witherington. This study of the Lord’s Supper descibes it as it originally existed.

d) The Eucharist in the West by Edward Kilmartin This work shows that the idea of a real somatic presence was still not universally held at the time of Augustine.

e) Mary in the New Testament, edited by Raymond Brown et al. This work demonstrates the weakness of Catholic efforts to find the Marian doctrines in scripture.

I would like to remind you that you have held us Catholics to a certain standard, I would expect you to adhere to such a standard of scholarly work done within the past 25 years. Could you go through your above list, and weed out any work not done within the past 25 years? Also, a search outside of the dissenters and evangelical protestants could be beneficial to your argument.

Taken together, those works (which analyze the NT and the ECFs in depth) nicely support my view that the ancient Church differed substantially from modern Catholicism (which has added a whack of Marian doctrines, a somatic real presence and a clerical hierarchy, among other things, to the original deposit of faith.) It is not that I choose modern scholarship over the ECFs. Rather, it is that I choose the modern understanding of what the ECFs had to say over the conservative Catholic interpretation. This is not to say that you couldn’t respond with a number of modern scholars of your own (supporting your view…except for “Sullivan’s consensus”)…but the the conservative Catholic claim (that the study of the ECFs will cause one to realize that the Catholic Church is the one true Church) is simply wishful thinking on the part of such conservatives. Obviously such a study hasn’t convinced many, many Protestant scholars and has in fact, caused many Catholic scholars to abandom strict/conservative Catholicism. It is, IMHO, simply arrogant to believe that the other side (either Protestantism or conservative Catholicism) can not produce a coherent argument for its position…it is simply my opinion that the Protestant argument is superior. .

I take it that you do not read the works of those whom might agree with the orthodox Catholic ‘consensus‘?
If this is true, it is of little wonder that you have deduced this opinion that the Church is in error somehow.

So we know via Sacred Scripture that Jesus taught that the Church has been protected as seen in St. Matt 16: 18-19, 28:20:

18 And I tell you, you are Peter, and on this rock I will build my church, and the powers of death shall not prevail against it. 19 I will give you the keys of the kingdom of heaven, and whatever you bind on earth shall be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven." (Matthew (RSV) 16)

20 teaching them to observe all that I have commanded you; and lo, I am with you always, to the close of the age." (Matthew (RSV) 28)

Which ecclesiastical community would this be Radical, that Jesus spoke of in these versus? Do you think of Jesus as a faulty architect? Perhaps a false prophet? I would assume this to be your in your opinion. It is obvious that you believe the Catholic Church has fallen into error and is no longer teaching truth, so the gates of hell have prevailed against the Church as we Catholics know it… in your opinion. Or do you believe the Catholic Church to never have taught truth, and not to be the Church Jesus spoke of within the NT.

I would suggest that the conservative Catholic POV is the one that is increasingly viewed w/i scholarly circles as the out of date, flat earth view.

Indeed, this would remain to be seen, but I would argue that there is no “consensus” in any sense of the word amongst scholars in this matter, although like you have said in a previous post “ a scholarly consensus” would not be detrimental to the truth, after all, I could certainly provide a “consensus of scholars” whom agree Jesus was indeed a influential persona of 1st century - but not the Son of God as the Gospel has proclaimed. I would hope we both would know this to NOT be the truth of the matter, consequently as a result of the Catholic Church officially proclaiming it so.

I will agree with Shakespeare’s Launcelot - along with other poster in this tread: “…but at the length truth will out."

 

[Radical]

The purpose of CAF is to dialogue. As far as I can see, Fb19 gave you a perfectly legitimate and logical challenge - given your current evasions. And, what do you do with it, feign to compliment it, and then ridicule the idea with impossible nonsense - “…300 guys who all claim…”

Really, why not just admit that you were right the first time … Fb19 did have a great idea -and then, instead of engaging in nonsense - start working on the answer!

well let’s lookat that again, b/c it seems that you (and most Catholics here) missed my point

here is what Fb19 said

What i would really like to see is a protestant defend the doctrine of the trinity without the use of any catholic writings. The oppontent would be oneness pentacostalism. Both use sola scripture, both would cite their verses…

and here is my response

Here’s what I would suggest: get about 300 guys who would all claim to possess the same apostolic succession, each could claim that their teaching is the tradition/teaching put forward by the apostles, each would claim to be guided by the Holy Spirit and each would refer to the same scriptures to argue their case. We would hold it at Nicea, argue for a while and at the end we would have a vote…who knows, it might just work.

I understood Fb19 to be describing what he thought was an impossible task. My response pointed out that the “impossible task” Fb19 described, if done in a precise fashion, would differ little from what was done in 325 AD. I don’t recognize the NT as “catholic writings” and it seems that Fb19 contemplated the use of scriptures for his challenge. So I wonder, what did they cite in 325 to get the job done, that I (or my Oneness opponent) would need to cite now? It seems to me that the Trinity can be argued from scripture and that is what mainly happened in 325. If it worked back then, it could work again.

Now, how did you manage to see “ridicule” in my answer?

I personally would be very interested in unique and original Protestant thinking on the Trinity - that did not borrow heavily from the Catholic Church. Here is your chance to enlighten us all - if such a document actually does exist. Now, if it doesn’t exist, not only is Fb19 correct, but you really have much less of logical ledge of stand on…

Give it a try and let’s see what you can do…

that would be getting rather off-topic, wouldn’t you agree?.

 

[SteveVH]

No, I do not. IMHO the (invisible) Church founded by Christ consists of all those possessed of the Holy Spirit (be they labelled Catholic, Lutheran, Pentecostal, etc.) The (visible) Church founded by Christ consists of all the institutions where those possessed of the Holy Spirit gather to worship (be they labelled Catholic, Lutheran, Pentecostal, etc.) Unity is achieved through the Spirit and exists notwithstanding man’s disagreements.

Nope…we are a fallible lot, but we try to eliminate whatever we can identify as corruption. I just think we have done a better job of it than you Catholics. Hope that clarifies something for you.

Yes, thank you. You would not join the Catholic Church because you believe it is not pure or devoid of corruption, but you would join another church that suffers from the same maladies. I get it.

 

[Stephen168]

Yes, thank you. You would not join the Catholic Church because you believe it is not pure or devoid of corruption, but you would join another church that suffers from the same maladies. I get it.

He doesn’t answer the OP either

Which leads you into answering the OP. If not Christ, who?
Radical;7549811:

Well from my point of view, the church of the first century believed A, B, C, D, E, F, G, H, I, J, K, L and M. (here we need to check history) In contrast, again from my POV, the modern CC believes A-J, doesn’t believe K-M and now also believes N-Z. (here we need to check with Catholic theologians) K-M 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.

So your answer to the OP, is you don’t know.

Rather, my answer is that the question in the OP is not framed well at all.

So on the OP’s question of when? You don’t know.

The answer is well conceived. There are two main Protestant groups on this issue. The first accepts the fact the Catholic Church was founded by Christ and then says, “so what.” They continue with various reasons why it doesn’t matter. After all, many were Catholics when they started their new variety of Christianity. The second group rejects the fact the Catholic Church was started by Christ but has nothing to offer in return; like an anti-catholic tantrum. The OP’s questions puts the spotlight on the ‘tantrum Protestants.’

Because you can’t answer either question, it seems your American Football analogy isn’t very good. We knew when and who. When did you come human? When you were two cells in your mother’s womb, 19 years after that, or sometime in between? If we saw you now, you would look much different than when you were two cells, or one, or five, or 19. Would they be pictures of you or some other non-human that is not you…yet?

 

[fbl9]

well let’s lookat that again, b/c it seems that you (and most Catholics here) missed my point

here is what Fb19 said

and here is my response

I understood Fb19 to be describing what he thought was an impossible task. My response pointed out that the “impossible task” Fb19 described, if done in a precise fashion, would differ little from what was done in 325 AD. I don’t recognize the NT as “catholic writings” and it seems that Fb19 contemplated the use of scriptures for his challenge. So I wonder, what did they cite in 325 to get the job done, that I (or my Oneness opponent) would need to cite now? It seems to me that the Trinity can be argued from scripture and that is what mainly happened in 325. If it worked back then, it could work again.

Now, how did you manage to see “ridicule” in my answer?

that would be getting rather off-topic, wouldn’t you agree?.

I missed it too.
The point is niether one of yous would be able to declare the other wrong, for both are guided by the exact same words (scripture) You can not unfalibly declare the oneness postion incorrect.For in your honesty you say you can not even declare unfailably what is correct.

 

[helloeveryone]

I am told by non-Catholics that the Catholic Church, in communion with Rome, is not the church founded by Jesus Christ circa 33 AD, in Jerusalem. Please give me the name of the man, or men, that founded the Catholic Church in communion with Rome, and when, just as I have done below, regarding just a few of the very first reformed churches?

The Lutheran church – 1517 AD, founded by Martin Luther, an ex-monk of the Catholic Church in communion with Rome.

The Anabaptist church – 1520 AD, founded by Nicholas Storch, and Thomas Münzer, former Lutherans.

The Mennonite church – 1525 AD, founded by Grebel, Mantz, and Blaurock, in Switzerland, as an offshoot of the Anabaptist chruch.

The Baptist church – 1606 AD, founded by John Smyth, who launched it in Amsterdam, as an offshoot of the Mennonites.

The Amish church – 1693 AD, founded by Jacob Amman, a Swiss Bishop.

The Anglican Church – 1534 AD, founded by King Henry VIII, as a direct result of the Pope not granting him a divorce from Catherine of Aragon.

The Presbyterian church – 1560 AD, founded by John Knox, in Scotland.

The Congregationalist church (The Puritans) – 1583 AD, founded by Robert Brown, in Holland.

The Episcopalian church – 1784 AD, founded by Samuel Seabury in the American Colonies; an offshoot of the Church of England.

The Quakers - 1647 AD, founded by George Fox, in England.

The Methodist church – 1739 AD, founded by John and Charles Wesley, in England.

The Evangelical church – 1803 AD, founded by Jacob Albright, originally a Methodist, who broke away and founded his own church.

The Mormon church – 1829 AD, (also call themselves “Latter Day Saints”) - was founded by Joseph Smith.

The Seventh Day Adventists – 1831 AD, founded by William Miller.

Jehovah’s Witnesses – 1872 AD, founded by Charles Taze Russell.

I am sure all of these church’s claim they were founded by jesus christ. I know for a fact the Catholic Church claims that Jesus told Peter he was going to build his church on Peter and Peter was the first bishop of Rome. I also know that we, The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, was founded by Joseph Smith and claim he was visited by Jesus Christ and God. Also by the Angel Moroni who showed him The Book Of Mormon and so on…

 

[Radical]

The point is niether one of yous would be able to declare the other wrong,…

that is the purpose for the vote at the end…same as in 325.

You can not unfalibly declare the oneness postion incorrect. For in your honesty you say you can not even declare unfailably what is correct.

yah, the vote would determine the “winner”, but I wouldn’t go so far as to declare the thing infallible (in either case).

 

[Radical]

Yes, thank you. You would not join the Catholic Church because you believe it is not pure or devoid of corruption,…

yes, b/c I am certain that I can identify some errors

… but you would join another church that suffers from the same maladies. I get it.

possibly suffers from some, though fewer errors…and which I can’t indentify if they do indeed exist.

 

[Radical]

OT had a general and ministerial priesthood…So did the NT

1pet2: 5 Ye also, as lively stones, are built up a spiritual house, an holy priesthood, to offer up spiritual sacrifices, acceptable to God by Jesus Christ.

1pet2:9 But ye [are] a chosen generation, a royal priesthood, an holy nation, a peculiar people; that ye should shew forth the praises of him who hath called you out of darkness into his marvellous light:

A bishop is entitled to the title priest also, and clearly has a ministerial role

Rom15:16 International Standard Version (©2008)
to be a minister of the Messiah Jesus to the gentiles in the priestly service of the gospel of God, so that the offering brought by gentiles may acceptable, sanctified by the Holy Spirit.

I don’t see any indication of a ministerial priesthood in the passages that you cited. All Christians are priests and we are all charged to fulfill the priestly duty of proclaiming the gospel (using words if necessary). Again, in the NT no person in singled out (of the royal priesthood) and identified as a (special) priest under the new covenant…unless you want to consider Christ himself. A ministerial priesthood is not mentioned.

 

[Radical]

I would like to remind you that you have held us Catholics to a certain standard, I would expect you to adhere to such a standard of scholarly work done within the past 25 years. Could you go through your above list, and weed out any work not done within the past 25 years?

Fair enough…here is the revised list:

That being said, if you (or any one following along) would like to see support for the opinions that I have expressed, here are some scholarly works that I would recommend:

a) Unity and Diversity in the New Testament (3rd ed) by James Dunn. This will give you an idea of what the earliest church looked like, what were its unifying beliefs and what were its diverse forms.

b) From Apostles to Bishops by Francis Sullivan. It examines the NT and ECFs (up to Cyprian) in detail to understand how the monoepiscopacy developed over time and was not the original universal design

c) Making a Meal of It by Ben Witherington. This study of the Lord’s Supper descibes it as it originally existed.

d) The Eucharist in the West by Edward Kilmartin This work shows that the idea of a real somatic presence was still not universally held at the time of Augustine.

e) Mary: A Catholic-Evangelical Debate by Dwight Longenecker and David Gustafson
The evangelical in this work demonstrates (IMHO) the weakness of Catholic efforts to find the Marian doctrines in scripture and the earliest ECFs.

 

[Nicea325]

Fair enough…here is the revised list:

That being said, if you (or any one following along) would like to see support for the opinions that I have expressed, here are some scholarly works that I would recommend:

a) Unity and Diversity in the New Testament (3rd ed) by James Dunn. This will give you an idea of what the earliest church looked like, what were its unifying beliefs and what were its diverse forms.

And it certainly no Protestant church can claim any historical ties to it…a well known fact!

b) From Apostles to Bishops by Francis Sullivan. It examines the NT and ECFs (up to Cyprian) in detail to understand how the monoepiscopacy developed over time and was not the original universal design

Of course the papacy developed over time. Can you name ONE office which has never developed over time? Tell us what ‘original’ design should look like? Certainly not Protestanism!

c) Making a Meal of It by Ben Witherington. This study of the Lord’s Supper descibes it as it originally existed.

As it orginally existed? Jesus walked every where-do you?

d) The Eucharist in the West by Edward Kilmartin This work shows that the idea of a real somatic presence was still not universally held at the time of Augustine.

Really? Show me the names of ECF who taught and defended a symbolic Eucharist?

e) Mary: A Catholic-Evangelical Debate by Dwight Longenecker and David Gustafson
The evangelical in this work demonstrates (IMHO) the weakness of Catholic efforts to find the Marian doctrines in scripture and the earliest ECFs.

LOL! Funny how Protestants claim Catholic efforts to find Marian doctrines and ECF’s as weak,but NOT ONE Protestant can provide a single shred of sciptural evidence Jesus’ founded Protestanism or gave any mere mortal authority to found his/her own church.