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

[joe370]

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.

That seems fair! Since you have already addressed the OP, and admitted that Jesus is the founder of the Catholic Church, I guess it would be OK for me to digress a bit: The universal church was comprised of how many protestant churches from the 1st century to the 16th century? I am pretty sure the figure is zero unless I am missing something, and I am not being flippant; just trying to assess the makeup of the universal church leading up to the reformation.

 

[joe370]

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

Which post; I must have overlooked it. Perhaps free meant that both the EOC and the CC make the claim that Jesus founded each respective church circa AD 33, on Pentecost. I guess the real question should be: which one of these 2 churches should a Christian want to belong to, leaving all of the PC’s out of the equation, for none of them were formed until the 16th century, at best.

 

[freerf]

Freerf, you said to Prodigal:

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?

Certainly within an individual denomination there is a hierarchy, and if one is lead to a specific denomination, the elders of that denomination should be consulted. If you and I are in the same denomination, we should consult an elder. If we are in different denominations, than we should do what we’ve historically always done: round up the troops and war! j/k.

I find that within most mainstream Protestant denominations there is not that much variability in the fundamentals, or mere christianity as CS Lewis put it. We may differ on post vs pre tribulation, etc., but that stuff isn’t so important. there are those who believe in gay marriage, etc., but this stuff is rather easily refuted through scripture.

Is there a need for one church, one supreme church leading all? I don’t see it. To me that kind of power seems likely to lead astray.

 

[freerf]

That seems fair! Since you have already addressed the OP, and admitted that Jesus is the founder of the Catholic Church, I guess it would be OK for me to digress a bit: The universal church was comprised of how many protestant churches from the 1st century to the 16th century? I am pretty sure the figure is zero unless I am missing something, and I am not being flippant; just trying to assess the makeup of the universal church leading up to the reformation.

that goes without saying as the Protestant movement is by definition constrained to a time period.

 

[joe370]

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

It is not too often that a Protestant brother or sister is going to flat out admit that Jesus Christ founded the one Catholic Church on Kepha, on Pentecost, circa AD 33, in Jerusalem, but Freerf has come the closest thus far.

It seems the rationale among protestants is simple: every church regardless of denomination, is the universal church founded by Jesus. I don’t get it but if it makes sense to them, so be it…

 

[joe370]

that goes without saying as the Protestant movement is by definition constrained to a time period.

Just wanted to make sure we were on the same page. So, since the reformation, and until Jesus’ second coming, any new church be it the 16th century or the 25th century, can rightfully claim to belong to the universal church just as the CC has rightfully made that claim since Pentecost?

The questions don’t need to be one way; please feel free to ask me anything; I used to be a protestant.

 

[freerf]

It is not too often that a Protestant brother or sister is going to flat out admit that Jesus Christ founded the one Catholic Church on Kepha, on Pentecost, circa AD 33, in Jerusalem, but Freerf has come the closest thus far.

It seems the rationale among protestants is simple: every church regardless of denomination, is the universal church founded by Jesus. I don’t get it but if it makes sense to them, so be it…

Thank you. But I think you’re mistake about the rationale.

I believe that the universal church is a group of people, not a denomination. Therefore, individuals within the Catholic, Protestant, Baptist, Angelican, etc, can be members. Only Christ knows. It doesn’t matter what their denomination is! It’s a matter of mere Christianity, their faith, love, etc., not which club you joined.

I was not trying to state that Jesus Christ was intending to start the Catholic Church as it exists today.

 

[freerf]

Just wanted to make sure we were on the same page. So, since the reformation, and until Jesus’ second coming, any new church be it the 16th century or the 25th century, can rightfully claim to belong to the universal church just as the CC has rightfully made that claim since Pentecost?

The questions don’t need to be one way; please feel free to ask me anything; I used to be a protestant.

No you seem very gracious. I think my above post helps clarify. No denomination has the right to call itself the universal church. The universal church is a body of believers, and known by Christ alone, irregardless of denomination.

Is it not a Catholic teaching that we know not who is saved? (Outside of Saints, i believe)

 

[freerf]

Which post; I must have overlooked it. Perhaps free meant that both the EOC and the CC make the claim that Jesus founded each respective church circa AD 33, on Pentecost. I guess the real question should be: which one of these 2 churches should a Christian want to belong to, leaving all of the PC’s out of the equation, for none of them were formed until the 16th century, at best.

798 and 806. there is a nuance that Prodigal is incapable of understanding.

 

[PRmerger]

I walk by faith brother, and so should all Christians. Faith in God, not a Church.

You cannot separate God from His Church.

For the only way you know what God has revealed is because the Church–the Catholic Church–has revealed it to you.

 

[joe370]

freerf;7618866]Certainly within an individual denomination there is a hierarchy, and if one is lead to a specific denomination, the elders of that denomination should be consulted. If you and I are in the same denomination, we should consult an elder. If we are in different denominations, than we should do what we’ve historically always done: round up the troops and war! j/k.

LOL… So, take it to the church for deliberation. Seems scriptural and logical. Did Jesus leave the world a way for these autonomous teaching churches, with opposing beliefs, to settle their differences???

I find that within most mainstream Protestant denominations there is not that much variability in the fundamentals, or mere christianity as CS Lewis put it. We may differ on post vs pre tribulation, etc., but that stuff isn’t so important. there are those who believe in gay marriage, etc., but this stuff is rather easily refuted through scripture. Is there a need for one church, one supreme church leading all? I don’t see it. To me that kind of power seems likely to lead astray.

One church guided by the holy spirit, teaching one thing regarding anyone teaching, is more likely to lead folks astray, versus the protestant practice of sola scriptura which frees up any sola scriptura proponent to pick up his or her bible, interpret his or her bible and start a church, basing his or her teachings on his or her unique interpretation of his or her bible. I could go start a church tomorrow and no one has any right to stop me; something just doesn’t seem right about that. Say what you want about the CC (you as in anyone) - but division didn’t really rear its ugly head until the practice of Sola scriptura, and I doubt that Jesus is a big fan of that undertaking; you know what I mean?

 

[freerf]

Just wanted to make sure we were on the same page. So, since the reformation, and until Jesus’ second coming, any new church be it the 16th century or the 25th century, can rightfully claim to belong to the universal church just as the CC has rightfully made that claim since Pentecost?

The questions don’t need to be one way; please feel free to ask me anything; I used to be a protestant.

If there is no succession of Peter, is there still a necessity for 1 church?

 

[joe370]

You cannot separate God from His Church.

For the only way you know what God has revealed is because the Church–the Catholic Church–has revealed it to you.

That is so true PR. One thing for sure: if the Catholic Church never existed from the 1st century to the 5th century, there would be no holy Bible. No Catholic church would mean no Protestant churches either. Either the CC was founded by God and continues to be guided by God, which means the CC can be trusted, thanks to God, and therefore everyone should want to belong to the CC founded by God, or the CC failed…

 

[PRmerger]

That is so true PR. One thing for sure: if the Catholic Church never existed from the 1st century to the 5th century, there would be no holy Bible. No Catholic church would mean no Protestant churches either. Either the CC was founded by God and continues to be guided by God, which means the CC can be trusted, thanks to God, and therefore everyone should want to belong to the CC founded by God, or the CC failed…

Amen.

It seems that Christians want to serve a decapitated Christ. Christ without His Body.

 

[freerf]

LOL… So, take it to the church for deliberation. Seems scriptural and logical. Did Jesus leave the world a way for these autonomous teaching churches, with opposing beliefs, to settle their differences???

One church guided by the holy spirit, teaching one thing regarding anyone teaching, is more likely to lead folks astray, versus the protestant practice of sola scriptura which frees up any sola scriptura proponent to pick up his or her bible, interpret his or her bible and start a church, basing his or her teachings on his or her unique interpretation of his or her bible. I could go start a church tomorrow and no one has any right to stop me; something just doesn’t seem right about that. Say what you want about the CC (you as in anyone) - but division didn’t really rear its ugly head until the practice of Sola scriptura, and I doubt that Jesus is a big fan of that undertaking; you know what I mean?

Yes, I think you are right on this point. I’ve seen many hippy churches, flirty fishing in the name of Christ, ect. So, I agree. You win that point. Although in defense of sola-scriptura, it certainly encourages individual study of the bible. Even among Catholics, Catholic bible-literacy is joked about (certainly those here on these forumns are exceptions). Regarding division, the great schism was a big division, was it not? that wasn’t based on sola-scriptura was it?

“Did Jesus leave the world a way for these autonomous teaching churches, with opposing beliefs, to settle their differences??? ” Well, I’m thinking. . .obviously there are those times in scripture there is a call for unity. . . Don’t say you’re a follower of this person or that person, etc…and times of dispute, such as when the apostles disputed requirements for the gentiles.

The simple answer is, that he did through His life. Turn the other cheek, etc. Again, in my opinion, most of these differences are not too significant in the big picture.

 

[Radical]

If there is no succession of Peter, is there still a necessity for 1 church?

welcome to the thread freerf…I will be gone for the next week or so, but between you and Dokimas it looks like the non-catholic view will be well presented. May you and Doki be blessed with the patience of Job. Cheers

 

[freerf]

You cannot separate God from His Church.

For the only way you know what God has revealed is because the Church–the Catholic Church–has revealed it to you.

I agree with this. I’d just disagree as to what His church is. It’s a spiritual, and universal church, not defined by denomination, but by faith, grace, love and the holy spirit.

 

[joe370]

If there is no succession of Peter, is there still a necessity for 1 church?

That was a question that was key to my conversion, once I stopped buying into the silly petra/petros argument. Jesus said:

And I tell you that you are Peter, (cephas) - and on this rock (cephas) - I will build my church, and the gates of Hades will not overcome it. I will give you the keys of the kingdom of heaven; whatever you bind on earth will be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth will be loosed in heaven.”

The second rock clearly refers back to the preceding rock. Even the church’s worst enemy, from within and without, will fail to topple the church built by Jesus, on Peter. Jesus’ church, built on Peter is still in the process of being built up, living stone by living stone, on Peter, even though Peter died in the first century, so to me, yes, it is necessary. Jesus did not stop building His church on Peter upon Peter’s demise. Even in light of some of the bad popes that held the office of Peter, Jesus’ promise will never be broken, for nothing is impossible for God? God is indeed awesome…

 

[Cinette]

not from the first century, no

you misunderstand me…nothing like the modern CC existed in the first century. If you are really, really looking for the men who founded the CC, I’ll give you a start, but I expext the list will be quite long (if done properly and thoroughly), but here goes:

a) let’s give Ignatius a spot on the list for his effort in creating a monoepiscopacy

b) the author(s) of the Protoevangelium of James deserves a spot on the list for his/their efforts in popularizing the perpetual virginity of Mary (tis somewhat ironic that a couple of popes rejected the work).

c) Constantine gets a spot. Before he came along the Church was often a victim of the state and was separated from the state, but he made the Church an institutional partner of the state and that connection was a trademark of Catholicism for centuries.

d) the men of the 4th century Antiochene school get a spot for introducing the somatic real presence.

well that is it for starters…you know, I actually think that there is a book in this (something like Kung’s History of the Catholic church) and probably also a rather interesting thread…I just might go to some Protestant cite and pose your question, supply my 4 starters and see what shakes out of the tree. Would you want to see the result if I did?

*What is evident is your evasiveness to answer questions. Your hostility, ignorance of history, stubbornness, sheer narrow mindedness and lack of power of analysis is recorded for all to read. If you keep a copy of this thread and re-read it in two years from now you will be startled by what you have written. You won’t believe you wrote these posts. That is of course, if you mature and evolve.

I would like you to answer my question regarding what or who you believe you are protesting against - since you list yourself as Protestant.

Cinette *

 

[freerf]

welcome to the thread freerf…I will be gone for the next week or so, but between you and Dokimas it looks like the non-catholic view will be well presented. May you and Doki be blessed with the patience of Job. Cheers

Cheers.