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

[Prodigal_Son1]

I concede that the Catholic Church, in so far as it belongs to the universal church, was founded by Jesus Christ. I can’t put it more simply than that.

I think the printing press was invented sometime in the mid 1400’s, so the fact that the history of the evolving church is not well-documented should be a surprise to no one.

In fact, the greek orthodox have just as much claim to being the “true church” as the catholic church. They consider you guys the scism. How about that?

I see no reason to disprove something that was never successfully proven in the first place: that there is a necessity for 1 chosen earthly church, rather than a universal church of believers.

I always have to wonder about people that bring up the great schism, as if it justifies hundreds, possibly thousands, of denominations. If it’s between Catholic and Orthodox, in your honest opinion, why aren’t you a member of one or the other?

Please show us, with scriptures, examples of this universal Church, similar to today’s multitude of denominations with slight to great differences in doctrines?

 

[Dokimas]

Now you say Christ built a Body of Christ, which you say were the Churches, but you cannot bring yourself to say that Christ found the Catholic Church? Do you not think that the Catholic Church is a part of the body of Christ, according to your own definition?

What purpose does telling us about Paul’s warning serve? We are of the body of Christ, which is His Church. The Catholic Church is not an individual.

I thought I was very clear: my church is NOT part of the Body of Christ becasues organizations are not, people ARE. So if mine is not what do you think I think about yours? I’m not anti my church, so guess what, I’m not anti your church either. Just making what I think is the Bible’s definition of church.

Paul started churches. Where they any less churches that Jesus was a part of? Didn’t Jesus say where two or three are gathered in His Name, there’d He be?

You ask me about my sharing Paul’s warning. Look at your responses: the church fathers this …, the church fathers that… How about Jesus only this or that? Focus, Focus, Focus. Vital!

 

[Prodigal_Son1]

I thought I was very clear: my church is NOT part of the Body of Christ becasues organizations are not, people ARE. So if mine is not what do you think I think about yours? I’m not anti my church, so guess what, I’m not anti your church either. Just making what I think is the Bible’s definition of church.

Actually, it sounds very confusing, or an extreme avoidance of stating all Churches are a part of the body of Christ, if it includes the Catholic Church. Just stating what it has appearances of.

Paul started churches. Where they any less churches that Jesus was a part of? Didn’t Jesus say where two or three are gathered in His Name, there’d He be?

Jesus did say that, ONLY to an audience of His Apostles. That was when He was explaining the authority of the Church.

You ask me about my sharing Paul’s warning. Look at your responses: the church fathers this …, the church fathers that… How about Jesus only this or that? Focus, Focus, Focus. Vital!

The men Christ chose and appointed were the first Church fathers. Those that followed were successive in nature. I prefer to believe the first Christians practiced Christinity more correctly than any of the ‘modern day thinkers’ others prefer to follow.

We’ve been saying Jesus built a Church, Jesus chose and appointed men over that Church, Jesus said the gates of hell would not prevail over His Church and that the Holy Spirit would guide them in all truth. The focus seems to be lacking in…, well better check your eye.

 

[freerf]

Hi, Freerf,

This took a bit longer than I anticipated … brevity is still the soul of wit! Page 1 of 2

I really do not see how your response is addressing the OP’s question. Besides, the idea of a metaphor is to provide an explanation of one thing by using another thing - usually more tangible - to provide an example. While the metaphor of a tree can be valid in addressing teh question of the Man that founded the Catholic Church - and, that would be Jesus Christ, it appears that you had some problems in this area. Maybe I can help…

The basic error here is one of logic. One can not start out by asserting the point they are about to prove and then go on from there. If you are going to use a tree metaphore, then you must take it back to the seed or root or trunk - FROM WHICH all branches stem. In so doing, you will need to name the main body (seed, root or trunk) and give a time frame along with a verifiable reference. Let me give you an example: Jesus Christ founded the Catholic Church on Peter in about 33AD (Matt 16:18). Now, it is your turn.

Again, same problem as before: you must prove this point - it is NOT a given. You will need to supply some kind of evidence for the “each branch is the ‘true church’” hypothesis and that would - from the context of your sentence - mean Christ established more than one church … or, multiple branches to continue with your metaphore.

But, we still need to stay within the context of the OP’s question - and this means the origin(s) must be named for these multiple branches. In my opinion, up to this point, it appears to me that the responses have been evasive.

What is your evidence for a ‘Universay Church’ - especially if it is separated from the One founded by Jesus Christ on Peter? Truly, merely making statements that appear as fact does not make them a fact. In addition to Matt 16:18 and other Scriptural references about Peter being the one selected by Christ to found His Church upon. Here are three well researched links you may find helpful. I would appreciate any link you can supply to suppport your position.

catholic.com/thisrock/1992/9202vbv.asp

catholic.com/library/Peter_Primacy.asp

catholic.com/library/Peter_and_the_Papacy.asp

Simply stated a so-called ‘Universal Church’ where individual ‘branches’ contradict one another’s doctrines is a contradiction in terms. The idea behind such a church would be evident by consistency of doctrine. I submit that the only Church to have such a consistency has the Bishop of Rome as its head.

Continued…

I wish I could respond to your post in kind, giving the response it deserves. Alas, I cannot at this time.

In response to the question of “logic,” it seems to me there has not yet been logically established the necessity for 1 earthly church, as opposed to the “universal church” i propose. Peter’s succession is all-important to your premis, yet this has not been proven beyond a reasonable doubt either. There are many logical explainations for what the “rock” is upon which Christ’s church was built. Rock=faith is quite reasonable, as is rock=jesus, etc. Without the dogma of Peter’s succession, your framework collapses.

Regardless, the Eastern Orthodox have just as much right to call the Catholic Church a schism as the Catholics do to call the EO a schism. In fact, they do call your church the schism. So, to respond less “evasively” to the OP’s question, suppose I cite the year 1054, and the person of Pope Leo the IX. Refer to the East-West Schism of 1054.

It is terribly difficult to dodge this important historical schism of the “true church”, and the implications it has for your belief in the Catholic Church’s continuity, yet somehow the OP didn’t seem to list it.

 

[Prodigal_Son1]

I wish I could respond to your post in kind, giving the response it deserves. Alas, I cannot at this time.

In response to the question of “logic,” it seems to me there has not yet been logically established the necessity for 1 earthly church, as opposed to the “universal church” i propose. Peter’s succession is all-important to your premis, yet this has not been proven beyond a reasonable doubt either. There are many logical explainations for what the “rock” is upon which Christ’s church was built. Rock=faith is quite reasonable, as is rock=jesus, etc. Without the dogma of Peter’s succession, your framework collapses.

Regardless, the Eastern Orthodox have just as much right to call the Catholic Church a schism as the Catholics do to call the EO a schism. In fact, they do call your church the schism. So, to respond less “evasively” to the OP’s question, suppose I cite the year 1054, and the person of Pope Leo the IX. Refer to the East-West Schism of 1054.

It is terribly difficult to dodge this important historical schism of the “true church”, and the implications it has for your belief in the Catholic Church’s continuity, yet somehow the OP didn’t seem to list it.

Again you pitch the great schism, yet you’re not Orthodox? Why don’t you belong to one of the Churches to claim to be the one true Church?

 

[GaryTaylor]

I concede that the Catholic Church, in so far as it belongs to the universal church, was founded by Jesus Christ. I can’t put it more simply than that

Backwards actually with dated, existing history to prove it. Do you have some proof the Universal Church existed before the Catholic “Mystical Body of Jesus Christ”?

I think the printing press was invented sometime in the mid 1400’s, so the fact that the history of the evolving church is not well-documented should be a surprise to no one.

Actually the original existing letters [seven] of Ignatious of Antioch exist from 104-110. And of course Irenaeus of Lyons, etc.

In fact, the greek orthodox have just as much claim to being the “true church” as the catholic church. They consider you guys the scism. How about that?

Well they are not far off, they still fall away at the 8th ecumenical council, which leaves them not in Communion as of yet. But I have much repect for those getting ready to cross the river. Not an easy comfortable life choice, but it is the Way! What historic evidence do you have dating back to the apostles “such as Peter and Paul establishing the Church in Rome”? Any first century documentation to confirm this Greek theory? We actually have Roman, Jewish and Christian writtings to confirm the Catholic Church in Rome with Peter and Paul and then of course theres the Bible. Upon the Rock. Peter the Rock? You remember the Gospel of Matthew verse?

I I see no reason to disprove something that was never successfully proven in the first place: that there is a necessity for 1 chosen earthly church, rather than a universal church of believers.

I suppose if I didn’t belong to the “Mystical Body of Jesus Christ” the Catholic Church I would be saying something similiar. But the evidence is so overwhelming one must quickly conclude, the Catholic Church “Mystical Body of Jesus Christ” started by Peter and Paul, and spread by the Apostles an those elected by the Apostles. In the one true “Mystical Body of Jesus Christ”. Its not that there’s no reason to disprove it, its impossible. All one needs do is supply the evidence, links, letters from early centurys, authors, elect, anything?

So what do you have for Historical evidence to support these claims?

God Bless, Gary

 

[freerf]

I always have to wonder about people that bring up the great schism, as if it justifies hundreds, possibly thousands, of denominations. If it’s between Catholic and Orthodox, in your honest opinion, why aren’t you a member of one or the other?

Please show us, with scriptures, examples of this universal Church, similar to today’s multitude of denominations with slight to great differences in doctrines?

I’m not a memeber because I have not been led by God to join either church. To join the Catholic church, i must believe all it’s dogma, which i do not. If i were to join, I’d instantly become a heritic for disbelief, though I cannot force myself to believe. I therefore believe that if God wanted me to be a member, He would give me faith of belief in the Catholic Church. I take the fact that this faith has not been given as evidence that I’m not to intentionally join a church in which I’d immediately become a heritic.

I’m not a member because I believe both churches are in error. I use the example, because it’s a historical fact. I thought that’s what you guys wanted. . .

 

[GaryTaylor]

I’m not a memeber because I have not been led by God to join either church. To join the Catholic church, i must believe all it’s dogma, which i do not. If i were to join, I’d instantly become a heritic for disbelief, though I cannot force myself to believe. I therefore believe that if God wanted me to be a member, He would give me faith of belief in the Catholic Church. I take the fact that this faith has not been given as evidence that I’m not to intentionally join a church in which I’d immediately become a heritic.

I’m not a member because I believe both churches are in error. I use the example, because it’s a historical fact. I thought that’s what you guys wanted. . .

May well be the Lord has you on the path your on for a very good reason. He’s showed me lessons which took years to learn. Keeping an opening mind and daily contemplative prayer to the Lord, I’m convinced He will show you the way. Unless you just refuse to change your an deny the truth in Gods will and existence. There’s not many ways to live a life in communion with God, theres only one.

Reading the lifes of the Saints, has a great impact also.

You cannot pray daily and sin at the same time, its impossible. You have to quit one or the other. I would make an honest effort for a year of prayer and reading. Give God the opportunity to enter your Soul. Like you are longing for God to enter your Soul, He is longing to enter your Soul. The need has always been there, the only thing missing is the desire.

Seek God first, and He will slowly show the way as you can handle it. You just may not be ready for all this all at once. And He would know that. Its not perfection, its about moving in the right direction.

Anyway, God Bless You. You sound like you already have accepted many of Gods truths. Work on the others they will come. Life is drop in the bucket my friend. This one is worth getting right though. Eternity can’t compare to life on earth.

 

[freerf]

Backwards actually with dated, existing history to prove it. Do you have some proof the Universal Church existed before the Catholic “Mystical Body of Jesus Christ”?

Actually the original existing letters [seven] of Ignatious of Antioch exist from 104-110. And of course Irenaeus of Lyons, etc.

Well they are not far off, they still fall away at the 8th ecumenical council, which leaves them not in Communion as of yet. But I have much repect for those getting ready to cross the river. Not an easy comfortable life choice, but it is the Way! What historic evidence do you have dating back to the apostles “such as Peter and Paul establishing the Church in Rome”? Any first century documentation to confirm this Greek theory? We actually have Roman, Jewish and Christian writtings to confirm the Catholic Church in Rome with Peter and Paul and then of course theres the Bible. Upon the Rock. Peter the Rock? You remember the Gospel of Matthew verse?

I suppose if I didn’t belong to the “Mystical Body of Jesus Christ” the Catholic Church I would be saying something similiar. But the evidence is so overwhelming one must quickly conclude, the Catholic Church “Mystical Body of Jesus Christ” started by Peter and Paul, and spread by the Apostles an those elected by the Apostles. In the one true “Mystical Body of Jesus Christ”. Its not that there’s no reason to disprove it, its impossible. All one needs do is supply the evidence, links, letters from early centurys, authors, elect, anything?

So what do you have for Historical evidence to support these claims?

God Bless, Gary

I don’t find the evidence overwhelming. I find it lukewarm. I find it tediously legalistic and unnecessary, even foreign to the loving God I read about in the Gospel, the God who so often ask nothing but faith and acceptance. . .in Himself. Now the response, “you just don’t want to believe” is certainly coming. It will only weaken your position in my opinion.

Ah, Peter the rock. The foundation of your dogma. It is Jesus and faith in Jesus upon which His church is built, not a man.

 

[Prodigal_Son1]

I don’t find the evidence overwhelming. I find it lukewarm. I find it tediously legalistic and unnecessary, even foreign to the loving God I read about in the Gospel, the God who so often ask nothing but faith and acceptance. . .in Himself. Now the response, “you just don’t want to believe” is certainly coming. It will only weaken your position in my opinion.

Ah, Peter the rock. The foundation of your dogma. It is Jesus and faith in Jesus upon which His church is built, not a man.

Christ clearly built His Church upon Peter, evening renaming him as such. No name changes happened in the Bible without significant implications.

Caesarea Philippi was a mountain, which primarily consisted of a massive rock. Originally, Caesarea Philippi was Panion, the city of the Greek God Pan. Pan was the God of shepherds and flocks, among other things. It was believed by people of the time of Christ and before, that there was an entrance to a great abyss, or hades/hell, located in the mountain.

Panion had statues of Zeus, as well as Pan, on this pagan holy place.

Why, of all places, did Christ choose Caesarea Philippi, so named Caesarea in honour of Caesar Augustus? Herod the Great, Herod Philip, had built a temple to Augustus there. This place, where men worshipped side by side the forces of nature and political power, was the place chosen by our Lord. The same place His divinity was professed by Peter.

This was the place He re-named Simon, Kipha, rock, Peter. This was the place He said He would give the keys to the Kingdom of Heaven to Peter. The same place He stated, “…and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it.”

Name changes in the Bible were significant. Name changes in the Old Testament always included explanations. Abram becomes Abraham because God will make of him a great nation. Jacob becomes Israel because he contended and had power with God and with men and prevailed.

Simon becomes Peter, Kipha/rock, because his strength of faith would have Christ’s Church built upon it.

To understand the symbolism of the “keys”, I suggest reading the passage containing Isaiah 22:22.

Isa 22:22 And I will lay the key of the house of David upon his shoulder: and he shall open, and none shall shut: and he shall shut, and none shall open.

1Chron 9 details the specifics of the keys.

The person who was designated as the keeper of the keys was the “right hand man” of the king. He literally sat at the right hand of the king’s throne.

1Ch 29:23 And Solomon sat on the throne of the Lord as king instead of David his father, and he pleased all: and all Israel obeyed him.

The keeper of the keys serves as prime minister to the King. He sits upon the earthly throne…until Christ returns.

 

[freerf]

May well be the Lord has you on the path your on for a very good reason. He’s showed me lessons which took years to learn. Keeping an opening mind and daily contemplative prayer to the Lord, I’m convinced He will show you the way. Unless you just refuse to change your an deny the truth in Gods will and existence. There’s not many ways to live a life in communion with God, theres only one.

Reading the lifes of the Saints, has a great impact also.

You cannot pray daily and sin at the same time, its impossible. You have to quit one or the other. I would make an honest effort for a year of prayer and reading. Give God the opportunity to enter your Soul. Like you are longing for God to enter your Soul, He is longing to enter your Soul. The need has always been there, the only thing missing is the desire.

Seek God first, and He will slowly show the way as you can handle it. You just may not be ready for all this all at once. And He would know that. Its not perfection, its about moving in the right direction.

Anyway, God Bless You. You sound like you already have accepted many of Gods truths. Work on the others they will come. Life is drop in the bucket my friend. This one is worth getting right though. Eternity can’t compare to life on earth.

Thank you.

I already believe the most important truth - that Jesus is the son of God, the Christ, that He died for my sins, etc. The Catholic belief that it is also necessary for me to believe in the Catholic church (in addition to what I already believe) is a major reason for me not to believe the Catholic Church. Can I not just place my faith and love in Jesus? Is that not enough? Apparently not.

Though I do love Her in many ways, I just don’t believe in Her as I do God.

God Bless you too.

 

[SyCarl]

Jesus clearly founded one Church. However, this does not mean that it remained one Church in organization… Whenever man is involved things can go astray. God did not want man to fall but we did. God did not want Israel to falter but it did. Jesus did not want the Church to divide but it did.

It should be noted that when the word church is used in Scripture it can refer to different things. For example, when Paul wrote to the churches in Galatia, he was obviously using it to refer to the individual congregations. Elsewhere it is used to refer to the whole body of Christ such as in Colossians 1:18… Sometimes it refers to an institution as in Matthew 18:17

However, the visible institutional church and the true body of Christ did not coincide exactly since the institution could contain those who didn’t believe. Augustine recognized this when he wrote of the difference between the true body of the Lord, those who would be with Him in eternity, and the mixed body which included those who would not. This visible mixed church was not the true body of Christ.

The second rule is about the twofold division of the body of the Lord; but this indeed is not a suitable name, for that is really no part of the body of Christ which will not be with Him in eternity. We ought, therefore, to say that the rule is about the true and the mixed body of the Lord, or the true and the counterfeit, or some such name; because, not to speak of eternity, hypocrites cannot even now be said to be in Him, although they seem to be in His Church. And hence this rule might be designated thus: Concerning the mixed Church. Now this rule requires the reader to be on his guard when Scripture, although it has now come to address or speak of a different set of persons, seems to be addressing or speaking of the same persons as before, just as if both sets constituted one body in consequence of their being for the time united in a common participation of the sacraments.

Augustine (On Christian Doctrine, 3:32)
newadvent.org/fathers/12023.htm

As long as there was one unified institutional church, it could be said to include the true Church even though the institution itself was not the true Church founded by Jesus. As long as there is one true believer in the world, the gates of Hades have not prevailed against the Church. This is illustrated by an Old Testament example in the remnant that remained in Elijah’s time even if it appeared to him that all had apostatized.

When I look at the Church Fathers I see quite a diversity of beliefs tolerated without penalty. One obvious example is Cyprian of Carthage and his dispute with Pope Stephen concerning baptism by heretics. Augustine, in his anti-Donatist writings, would later praise Cyprian for maintaining unity with Church despite the disagreement. It might also be noted that Stephen did not excommunicate Cyprian as a result of his views. However, this acceptance of diversity did not last.

Once the institutional Church started to exclude those who disagreed with it, there arose a situation where the true body of Christ was contained in more than one institutional Church, assuming that at least some of those who were excluded would be with Jesus in eternity. Each part of the fractured church can claim descent from the original institution as they both teach things that the original allowed. That one may have retained the old name does not change this reality.

It can be looked at as the trunk of a tree sprouting branches, each of which is separate but which can both claim the same trunk as its origin. As such there is no single institutional church that contains the whole body of Christ, the churches from the Reformation have the same right to claim descent from the original Church as do the Catholic and Orthodox Churches.

 

[freerf]

Christ clearly built His Church upon Peter, evening renaming him as such.

Simon becomes Peter, Kipha/rock, because his strength of faith would have Christ’s Church built upon it.

Very intersting stuff. I only quote the two statements above to address directly.

I agree with the second statement, not the first. It is faith on which the church is built, faith in Jesus.

 

[GaryTaylor]

I don’t find the evidence overwhelming. I find it lukewarm. I find it tediously legalistic and unnecessary, even foreign to the loving God I read about in the Gospel, the God who so often ask nothing but faith and acceptance. . .in Himself. Now the response, “you just don’t want to believe” is certainly coming. It will only weaken your position in my opinion.

Ah, Peter the rock. The foundation of your dogma. It is Jesus and faith in Jesus upon which His church is built, not a man.

Come and communicate for a spell. It seem’s to me your caught in a very dangerous trap of bad spiritual advisors. Put preconceived thinking aside and spend the time here wisely with an open mind. You’ll learn , we all learn here. and from each other.

Instead of arriving believing you already know, seek the truth. If you feel the same way after that, what did you lose? Not a thing.

 

[Prodigal_Son1]

I agree with the second statement, not the first. It is faith on which the church is built, faith in Jesus.

According to your own private interpretation of scriptures?

Please share with us how you know when your interpretation is correct, or incorrect as the case maybe?

 

[freerf]

Come and communicate for a spell. It seem’s to me your caught in a very dangerous trap of bad spiritual advisors. Put preconceived thinking aside and spend the time here wisely with an open mind. You’ll learn , we all learn here. and from each other.

Instead of arriving believing you already know, seek the truth. If you feel the same way after that, what did you lose? Not a thing.

Very good advice. though truthfully. . .learning is a much more difficult process than merely debating. Though I do debate to learn. the emphasis should be on the learning.

Right now, I confess, I’m hungry and not in the mood. I have a pizza that should be here any moment. Sausage and pepperroni. hmmmm. I’m sure some you guys can empathise.pizza.

 

[Prodigal_Son1]

Very intersting stuff. I only quote the two statements above to address directly.

I agree with the second statement, not the first. It is faith on which the church is built, faith in Jesus.

Christ clearly built His Church upon Peter, evening renaming him as such.

Simon becomes Peter, Kipha/rock, because his strength of faith would have Christ’s Church built upon it.

They both say the same thing…

 

[freerf]

According to your own private interpretation of scriptures?

Please share with us how you know when your interpretation is correct, or incorrect as the case maybe?

This is not my own private interpretation. It is a very widely-held belief, one that has been written and debated on numerous times. I’m surpriesed you have not heard it before.

I believe my interpretation is correct when it is harmonious with scripture. As opposed to yours, which need be primarily harmonious with the catholic church. This is why you must believe in the assumption, indulgences, the papacy, etc., whereas I am afforded the liberty to merely believe in Jesus Christ and Him Crucified.

 

[freerf]

Christ clearly built His Church upon Peter, evening renaming him as such.

Simon becomes Peter, Kipha/rock, because his strength of faith would have Christ’s Church built upon it.

They both say the same thing…

it is amazing to me how many people i run into with opposing views, both of which are so “clearly obvious”. As someone else noted, saying it doesn’t make it so. What seems clearly obvious to me is that your interpretation puts the significance on Peter, rather than on God. I doubt you see how obvious that is. j/k

 

[Prodigal_Son1]

This is not my own private interpretation. It is a very widely-held belief, one that has been written and debated on numerous times. I’m surpriesed you have not heard it before.

I believe my interpretation is correct when it is harmonious with scripture. As opposed to yours, which need be primarily harmonious with the catholic church. This is why you must believe in the assumption, indulgences, the papacy, etc., whereas I am afforded the liberty to merely believe in Jesus Christ and Him Crucified.

How do you know this very widely held belief is correct? It was not debated for over a thousand years…

Please don’t take an opportunity to throw out the ‘laundry list’ of objections you may have with the Church.

The afforded liberty you take, is it your will or His?