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

[freerf]

Actually, the op asked for the name of the man, or men, that founded the Catholic Church. We discussed the founding and I provided scriptures with an explanation. You denied that interpretation, but seem to be unwillling to share how you know when your interpretation is correct, or incorrect. That speaks for itself. I will not detract from the topic of the thread any longer. I’ve given you more than enough opportunties to tell us and it’s evident you’re not going to answer.

Perhaps next time rephrase your question if you’re not getting the answer you’re looking for, rather than merely stating “you didn’t answer my question” over and over.

You asked “how [do] you know when your interpretation is correct, or incorrect”
I’ve stated many times: I believe my interpretation is correct when it is harmoneous with scripture.

I think if you review the thread you will see I’ve answered you this over and over again. Not sure what size megaphone i need here. . but I agree: enough.

Peace.

 

[freerf]

freerf;7618216:

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.

Which is it?

St. Ignatius approximately 107AD

Which is what?

 

[Prodigal_Son1]

Perhaps next time rephrase your question if you’re not getting the answer you’re looking for, rather than merely stating “you didn’t answer my question” over and over.

You asked “how [do] you know when your interpretation is correct, or incorrect”
I’ve stated many times: I believe my interpretation is correct when it is harmoneous with scripture.

I think if you review the thread you will see I’ve answered you this over and over again. Not sure what size megaphone i need here. . but I agree: enough.

Peace.

Being ‘harmonious with scriptures’ is based on a correct interpretation. It doesn’t answer the question.

 

[Prodigal_Son1]

Which is what?

You said you’d concede that Jesus founded the Church, then you said it was in 1054.

But I provided part of St. Ignatius’ writing using the term ‘Catholic Church’ dated 107AD.

 

[freerf]

Which is it?

St. Ignatius approximately 107AD

I like your quote. It is very much in harmony with what i’ve been saying. After all, you must realize that Catholic means universal.

So to quote Ignatius, "Wherever the bishop shall appear, there let the multitude [of the people] also be; even as, wherever Jesus Christ is, there is the ***Universal ***Church. "

Exactly.

 

[freerf]

You said you’d concede that Jesus founded the Church, then you said it was in 1054.

But I provided part of St. Ignatius’ writing using the term ‘Catholic Church’ dated 107AD.

I said “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 could also state that the eastern orthodox church, in so far as it belongs to the universal church, was founded by Jesus Christ, or the Protestant church, etc…

In 1054 there was a schism. At this point it can reasonably be said the “Catholic Church was founded” with the same sentiment in which the OP uses the word for other churches. Perhaps I should say the “roman catholic church” was born. maybe that helps clarify.

Using the term “Catholic Church” in a letter proves that he was referring to the Roman Catholic Church, as it exists today? A more accurate translation would state the “universal chruch”.

 

[Prodigal_Son1]

I like your quote. It is very much in harmony with what i’ve been saying. After all, you must realize that Catholic means universal.

So to quote Ignatius, "Wherever the bishop shall appear, there let the multitude [of the people] also be; even as, wherever Jesus Christ is, there is the ***Universal ***Church. "

Exactly.

Ok, I see you’ll interpret anything to read as you want it to read. Read all of St. Ignatius’ writings and get back to us on how much more you agree with.

Still like to know how you know your interpretation is ‘harmonious’ with scriptures, since that is based on an interpretation being correct, or incorrect.

I have a 24 hour shift starting in the morning. I’ll check back then to see if you decided to share your ‘infallible’ knowledge with us, or not.

 

[freerf]

Ok, I see you’ll interpret anything to read as you want it to read. Read all of St. Ignatius’ writings and get back to us on how much more you agree with.

Still like to know how you know your interpretation is ‘harmonious’ with scriptures, since that is based on an interpretation being correct, or incorrect.

I have a 24 hour shift starting in the morning. I’ll check back then to see if you decided to share your ‘infallible’ knowledge with us, or not.

The same way every other man knows: study scripture & pray.

Peace.

 

[Prodigal_Son1]

I said “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 could also state that the eastern orthodox church, in so far as it belongs to the universal church, was founded by Jesus Christ, or the Protestant church, etc…

In 1054 there was a schism. At this point it can reasonably be said the “Catholic Church was founded” with the same sentiment in which the OP uses the word for other churches. Perhaps I should say the “roman catholic church” was born. maybe that helps clarify.

Using the term “Catholic Church” in a letter proves that he was referring to the Roman Catholic Church, as it exists today? A more accurate translation would state the “universal chruch”.

We know what ‘Catholic’ means. It is also the name of the early Church, the same as it is named today.

As I said, 24 hour shift starts in the morning and I don’t have anymore time for ‘semantics’.

 

[Prodigal_Son1]

The same way every other man knows: study scripture.

Peace.

I do study it. You still haven’t answered, but it’s quite evident you’re not going to, or you have no answer.

Goodnight.

 

[lifetree]

… It was founded on Pentecost, see Acts2 …

This is a common mis-understanding, that the Church was founded at Pentecost !! At the time of the Reformation, the ecumenical council at Trent, defined the clerical priest hood as beginning when Jesus said “do this in remembrance of me” … therefore, if the clerical priest hood was initiated at the time of the last supper, then the Catholic church was initiated at the at the same time.

 

[freerf]

We know what ‘Catholic’ means. It is also the name of the early Church, the same as it is named today.

As I said, 24 hour shift starts in the morning and I don’t have anymore time for ‘semantics’.

nor do you seem to have time for nuance.

 

[freerf]

Being ‘harmonious with scriptures’ is based on a correct interpretation. It doesn’t answer the question.

I believe you are profoundly incorrect. . .i know it is harmonious via study and prayer. What is wrong with this?

How do you know your interpretation is correct if not through scriptural study and prayer? (I’ve asked you this also, yet you have not answered.)

 

[fbl9]

In 1054 there was a schism. At this point it can reasonably be said the “Catholic Church was founded” with the same sentiment in which the OP uses the word for other churches. Perhaps I should say the** “roman catholic church**” was born. maybe that helps clarify.

Using the term “Catholic Church” in a letter proves that he was referring to the Roman Catholic Church, as it exists today? A more accurate translation would state the “universal chruch”.

Roman catholic is easier to use than ,Latin rite Catholic, which is our true name. The use of Roman Catholic came about as an taunt of the “reformers”.

 

[freerf]

Roman catholic is easier to use than ,Latin rite Catholic, which is our true name. The use of Roman Catholic came about as an taunt of the “reformers”.

no offense intended. only used it to make a distinction.

 

[joe370]

Actually, the op asked for the name of the man, or men, that founded the Catholic Church. We discussed the founding and I provided scriptures with an explanation. You denied that interpretation, but seem to be unwillling to share how you know when your interpretation is correct, or incorrect. That speaks for itself. I will not detract from the topic of the thread any longer. I’ve given you more than enough opportunties to tell us and it’s evident you’re not going to answer.

Actually free did answer the question, although I am not sure what he means when he says that the universal (catholic) - church belongs to the universal church, but he did admit that that the CC was founded by Jesus Christ.

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.

 

[Prodigal_Son1]

I believe you are profoundly incorrect. . .i know it is harmonious via study and prayer. What is wrong with this?

How do you know your interpretation is correct if not through scriptural study and prayer? (I’ve asked you this also, yet you have not answered.)

Answering questions with questions still? Now, lol as you did before. It answers nothing.

I believe in Christ and His promises to be with His Church until the consummation of time, and to send the Holy Spirit to make all things known to it, and that the gates of hell shall not prevail against it. It’s all very scriptural.

 

[Prodigal_Son1]

Actually free did answer the question, although I am not sure what he means when he says that the universal (catholic) - church belongs to the universal church, but he did admit that that the CC was founded by Jesus Christ.

Then he changed it to being founded in 1054. Guess the wind changed directions.

 

[freerf]

Answering questions with questions still? Now, lol as you did before. It answers nothing.

I believe in Christ and His promises to be with His Church until the consummation of time, and to send the Holy Spirit to make all things known to it, and that the gates of hell shall not prevail against it. It’s all very scriptural.

Amazing. Yet, you yourself answer no questions. none. not one that i’ve put forth. I’ve tried and tried to answer your questions to the best of my ability despite your mocking tone. Very well.

Love is more important than knowledge.

I lol’d because of your response to my apology. it seemed to lack a certain Christian something or other. . .

 

[joe370]

Freerf, you said to Prodigal:

You asked “how [do] you know when your interpretation is correct, or incorrect”
I’ve stated many times: I believe my interpretation is correct when it is harmoneous with scripture.

What are you and I to do when we both, moved by the HS, believe that our opposing interpretations are harmonious with scripture? Who has the authority to settle the matter for us?