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

[freerf]

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…

I’ll tell you truthfully Joe, you and GaryTaylor are everything I love about Catholics. If more people debated as you have, with Openness, Patience, Grace and Love, there’d be far more converts to the Catholic faith.

What is the flaw with petra/petros?

 

[joe370]

freerf;7618943]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.

Absolutely, it certainly encourages individual study of the bible, which is so awesome, but it also allows the individual to do something Jesus never intended.

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?

I don’t really see a huge difference between the EOC and the CC, and I have studied the teachings of both extensively, and I believe the key is their shared tradition, at least leading up to the 11th century schism. Also, if one of the protestant churches could trace their lineage all the way back to the apostolic age, that would definitely speak volumes in my book, but not enough for me to leave the CC built on Peter!!! Trying to choose between 2 churches (not including the eastern/oriental offshoots of the EOC) - is a tad easier than trying to choose between hundreds.

"

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.

Well, you sort of dodged that one but that’s cool brother.

 

[freerf]

"

Well, you sort of dodged that one but that’s cool brother.

lol. suppose i did. i’m certainly no expert on establishing churches biblically.

 

[Cinette]

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.

*In Eph 4:4-6 we read “There is one body and one Spirit, just as you were called to the one hope of your calling, one Lord, one faith, one baptism, one God and Father of all, who is above all and through all and in all.”

Jesus also prayed that we would be one just as He and the Father are one.

freerf, denominations are a sub-set of Luther’s Protestant revolt. Though they are part of the body of Christ they have largely mis-interpreted his teachings. You may not like to hear this but it is the truth. Keep an open mind and study the truth of Jesus’ teachings.

Cinette*

 

[joe370]

I’ll tell you truthfully Joe, you and GaryTaylor are everything I love about Catholics. If more people debated as you have, with Openness, Patience, Grace and Love, there’d be far more converts to the Catholic faith.

What is the flaw with petra/petros?

Well, for starters there is the grammatical one. Please see the attachment to this post and just click on the thumbnail.

I was told as a non-Catholic that Jesus said: you are petros (pebble referring to Simon) - and on this petra (immovable rock referring to Jesus) - I will build my church. Just from the grammatical perspective alone, do you see what I saw so long ago?

 

[freerf]

Absolutely, it certainly encourages individual study of the bible, which is so awesome, but it also allows the individual to do something Jesus never intended.

I don’t really see a huge difference between the EOC and the CC, and I have studied the teachings of both extensively, and I believe the key is their shared tradition, at least leading up to the 11th century schism. Also, if one of the protestant churches could trace their lineage all the way back to the apostolic age, that would definitely speak volumes in my book, but not enough for me to leave the CC built on Peter!!! Trying to choose between 2 churches (not including the eastern/oriental offshoots of the EOC) - is a tad easier than trying to choose between hundreds.

"

Well, you sort of dodged that one but that’s cool brother.

"it certainly encourages individual study of the bible, which is so awesome, but it also allows the individual to do something Jesus never intended. "
Problem here is that these days Protestants are better known for being devout than are Catholics. Perhaps this is my bias, but it seems common among the devout Catholics i know to mourn the lack of devoutness among the Catholic bretheren. In other words, I see no evidence that Catholics are any less prone to “doing things Jeus never intended.”

It does seem the EOC and CC differences are minor. (Besides the authority of the Pope and Mariology - two biggies.)

 

[freerf]

Well, for starters there is the grammatical one. Please see the attachment to this post and just click on the thumbnail.

I was told as a non-Catholic that Jesus said: you are petros (pebble referring to Simon) - and on this petra (immovable rock referring to Jesus) - I will build my church. Just from the grammatical perspective alone, do you see what I saw so long ago?

no. was it originally in greek or aramaic? the protestants always use greek and it seems the cathoilcs, aramaic.

 

[joe370]

no. was it origionally in greek or aramaic? the protestants always use greek and it seems the cathoilcs, aramaic.

That was another reason, but not the point I was hoping to make in that last post. If the second rock (Jesus) - is referring back to the first rock, (Simon) - both rocks have to be the same, but they are not if the second rock is referring to Jesus. The adjective “this” (rock) - refers to the nearest preceding noun, but under the protestant premise, not embraced by too many protestant scholars anymore, the second rock is suppose to be referring to another unknown rock which is suppose to be referring to Jesus which is grammatically impossible.

Not that I have a boat but it would be like me saying:

I will build my boat and on this boat I will build a mast. You know what I mean? Both boats are mine, or at least I wish. LOL…

 

[freerf]

Well, God Bless you all who’ve treaded with me patiently, and Peace to those who have not (you know who you are. lol.).

Family members giving me the boot.

 

[joe370]

Hey Free…

Problem here is that these days Protestants are better known for being devout than are Catholics. Perhaps this is my bias, but it seems common among the devout Catholics i know to mourn the lack of devoutness among the Catholic bretheren. In other words, I see no evidence that Catholics are any less prone to “doing things Jeus never intended.”

Well, I’m not sure about that but like the former non-Catholic John Henry Newman said: “We can believe what we choose. We are answerable for what we choose to believe,”
and that applies to all Christians, including catholic christians.

I believe that if we, as Christians belonging to the CC, defer to the church faithfully, in spite of the good and bad found from within the church, then we can’t go wrong. I choose to believe that the CC is that Perfect beacon of light for the world, founded by Jesus Christ, forever guided by the holy Spirit. I trust in in the CC whole-heartedly because I trust that God is that divine light guiding her through this rough and tumble world. Trust me though, it didn’t happen over night.

Well, I’ve got to catch some zzzz’s; talk to you later brother.

 

[guanophore]

Many catholics, IMO, are truly Christian which means they are part of the church Jesus founded. Christians make up the church, not an organization.

Both things are true. Jesus founded an organization with a visible structure, and visible authority. It is comprised of individual Christians, but that is not all. The Head of the Church is Christ, and the Soul of the Church is the HS. It is these divine elements that make her infallble.

 

[guanophore]

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.

I am curious to see some historical support for this assertion. :coffeeread:

 

[guanophore]

IMO, Jesus inspired His disciples to go and make disciples all over the place. Where they went, they spread the Gospel of Jesus Christ. Where the Gospel was received, the new Chrsitians gathered in groups. These groups of ‘called out ones,’ called out of the world into the Body of Christ, were the churches.

Paul warned against focusing in on individuals including himself. Jesus uses people to plant and to water but it is He who give the increase. Those who plant and those that water are nothing, Jesus is everything.

Of course what you are saying is true, but it appears that your model is lacking the structure ane authority appointed by Christ.

 

[guanophore]

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.

You seem to be leaving out some of the Bible in your definition, specifically the references to what may seem to “Catholic” for you, such as the structure and the authority of that Body.

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?

Yes, but He never commanded them to be in isolation from the authority He appointed over them to shepherd them.

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!

Jesus chose not to be “only”. He chose to be born into a family, and He chose to make all those who believe in Him part of that family. There is no such thing as “Jesus only”.

The reason we look at history through the eyes of the early Fathers is because they were the disciples of the Apostles, and understood most clearly what they believed and taught. We can better understand the meaning of the scriptures through their writings, because they represent the faith that produced teh NT.

 

[Prodigal_Son1]

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

Nothing like being in a debate and announcing you have to leave for the opposing side to take a personal swipe. I wonder how that validates their argument?

Is this the Christian tone you mentioned earlier?

 

[Dokimas]

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

Then maybe you gave the answer to the question in the op, Prodical. Thank you. Look how many posts it took. Wow.

 

[Dokimas]

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.

Ye, which one of us doesn’t?

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**.

Any way you can rewrite this so it doesn’t sound condescending? This is not helpful to conversation. Actually I’m not sure if this condescending or mocking or both.?

 

[Dokimas]

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”.

Is that the reason some here like to call non-catholic Christians protestant and tell us they do so because we are protesting, to taunt us?

I’m not protesting anything. I don’t call myslef protestant. BTW, how did the term ‘protestant’ come about? Who used the term first?

 

[Dokimas]

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.

Any question you fire at someone should be fair game for you to answer, wouldn’t you say?

 

[Dokimas]

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?

You both can’t be moved by the Holy Spirit.