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

[Dokimas]

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.

I’m under the impression the early REFORMERS didn’t want to exit the RCC or the CC. They saw needs for reforming and wanted the church to change. The church refused and kicked them out or worse. What were they to do if the church had changed enough from the 1st century church that it needed to change back yet refused?

 

[Dokimas]

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…

Either you don’t consider me protest, for whick I’m glad, or you missed my post on the universal church.

 

[Dokimas]

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.

The claim of anyone is not the issue. Only God sees the heart. Not all that say, “Lord, Lord” belong to the Body of Christ.

 

[Dokimas]

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.

Sounds like something I’ve been trying to say. Thank you for stating it far better. God bless.

 

[Dokimas]

Amen.

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

Here’s the sad part. It’s those that elivate the Body from the neck down that fits your quote. The rest of us want the Head to direct us and discipline us.

 

[Dokimas]

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.

Good description of His church.

 

[Cinette]

I’m under the impression the early REFORMERS didn’t want to exit the RCC or the CC. They saw needs for reforming and wanted the church to change. The church refused and kicked them out or worse. What were they to do if the church had changed enough from the 1st century church that it needed to change back yet refused?

*Oh Dokimas you keep repeating the same inaccurate statements, so far from the truth. It is not as if you have not heard the truth many times over but you choose to ignore it. It is your choice.
:banghead:
*

 

[Dokimas]

*Oh Dokimas you keep repeating the same inaccurate statements, so far from the truth. It is not as if you have not heard the truth many times over but you choose to ignore it. It is your choice.
:banghead:
*

Take care that you are not speaking to yourself.

 

[PRmerger]

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.**

Why did you not include the word “truth” there, freerf?

I think, perhaps, you omitted it because you understand that in the above paradigm the Truth as revealed by Christ is obfuscated. In this “spiritual and universal church” one cannot know

• does baptism save you
• or is it an ordinance
• should it be done by immersion
• or by sprinkling
• if Jesus is God the Son, or simply the son of God (I am astounded to only recently learn, after 46 years studying Christianity, that there are folks who propose this, using Scripture to back them up)
• if the day of rest is Saturday or Sunday
• if we die and have eternal life or simply have “soul sleep”
• if we must eat His flesh and drink His blood, or simply perform an anamnesis
• if the pope is the vicar of Christ, or the antichrist?
• etc etc etc

This “spiritual and universal church” is left to flounder, and, if indeed “baptism now saves you”, and this “spiritual and universal church” does not proclaim this universally, the destiny of someone’s eternal soul may lie in peril.

Truth is very, very important. One’s eternal destiny is at stake.

(Yes, if one is invincibly ignorant, that is another story. Fodder for another thread of course!)

 

[Dokimas]

Why did you not include the word “truth” there, freerf?

I think, perhaps, you omitted it because you understand that in the above paradigm the Truth as revealed by Christ is obfuscated. In this “spiritual and universal church” one cannot know

• does baptism save you - No* or is it an ordinance
• should it be done by immersion Whenever possible.****
• or by sprinkling When the person can’t be immersed.* if Jesus is God the Son, or simply the son of God (I am astounded to only recently learn, God the Son, the Son of God.* if the day of rest is Saturday or Sunday. Romans 14 says all days are the same.* if we die and have eternal life or simply have “soul sleep” To be absent from the body is to be present with the Lord, according to Paul.* if we must eat His flesh and drink His blood, or simply perform an anamnesis - no eating ot the Flesh of Jesus. I have no clue what ‘perform an anamnesis’ is.* if the pope is the vicar of Christ, or the antichrist? neither* etc etc etc

This “spiritual and universal church” is left to flounder, and, if indeed “baptism now saves you”, and this “spiritual and universal church” does not proclaim this universally, the destiny of someone’s eternal soul may lie in peril.

Truth is very, very important. One’s eternal destiny is at stake.

(Yes, if one is invincibly ignorant, that is another story. Fodder for another thread of course!)

 

[rainman10]

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.

Freerf,

Maybe you can answer my question, since no protestant has answered it yet. Please show us where it is written or taught in the Bible, in Apostolic Tradition, or by the ECF’s, that any man has been given the authority to go and start his own church because he disagrees with the original teachings of Jesus Chirst’s original church.

 

[Prodigal_Son1]

Ye, which one of us doesn’t?

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.?

Neither. They stated their’s as truth, appearing without any question. That’s called infallible.

 

[rainman10]

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

Peace.

And if thousands of other men, after studying scripture and praying, come to the conclusion that their interpretations are harmonious with scripture and yours is not, how do you know yours is the correct one?

 

[Prodigal_Son1]

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

Speaking of condescending…

I respond to questions and I appreciate responses to my questions. Answering questions with questions provides no answer at all. There seems to be a pattern with certain posters.

 

[onenow1]

The year 1054, by the person of Pope Leo the IX.
Refer to the East-West Schism of 1054.

In my opinion, the significance of this doesn’t amount to a hill of beans, but merely points to a resonable date at which one could say the Catholic Church was founded. Why is it not significant to me? Because i don’t believe in 1 church and the succession of Peter, but in a spiritual, universal church.

Hi, Freef

Indeed this is your opinion ! My question to you is, would Jesus subscibe to your opinion or anyone elses if it were false? I think this is an important question to ponder along with succession and the Church. Matt. 16: 19

Comment: Jesus came in a body,it must have been important for Him to do so.

God Bless

 

[rinnie]

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.

Good! Then we both agree, that the Church that was started by Christ on the day of Pentecost by the comming of the Holy Spirit is for sure the Universal (Catholic Church)!

Now the CC is God leading us by the help of the Holy Spirit. It uses humans to do the leading but by no means are they led by Human Minds, for they are led by God through the Holy Spirit.

It is also Spiritual not only by its leader, but by its Sacraments. Especially the Eucharist which is the actual Body of Christ, which is needed for eternal life. For Christ himself told us where the Church is, he is. Christ told us that if you do not eat and drink you have no life in you. Now what other Church is there that claims to have the actual Living Christ in the Eucharist besides the CC?

So as Christ set it up, you will know the true Church by the Sacraments. The whole bible shows us that. The Sacraments are revealed through scripture.

Jesus Christ is who came down and taught his disciples how he wanted his Church to be established, how it was to work, and how he would also be there in the form of the Eucharist to lead us to eternal life.

He appointed 12 Men, Peter as the Leader to feed the Sheep.

If you agree that the Church is universal you must also then agree it is Catholic. And the Christ is defined as Universal. The CC is ONE, and it is for everyone. IF Christ did not start the CC and choose Men his Apostles to lead it, what do you do with the whole N.T, then? You would have to ignore it, and throw it out.

 

[Dokimas]

Neither. They stated their’s as truth, appearing without any question. That’s called infallible.

I don’t understand your response. Don’t you think your understanding from the CC is the truth, thus appearing without any question, thus infallible?

 

[Dokimas]

Hi, Freef

Indeed this is your opinion ! My question to you is, would Jesus subscibe to your opinion or anyone elses if it were false?

The answer is absolutely no. I hope my opinions line up with the teachings and truths of Jesus. I DON’T want Him to bend to my understandings.

BTW, do you ask yourself that question too?

Comment: Jesus came in a body,it must have been important for Him to do so.

Makes sense to me. I even think I understand why. Or not.

God Bless

And God bless you and yours.

 

[Prodigal_Son1]

I don’t understand your response. Don’t you think your understanding from the CC is the truth, thus appearing without any question, thus infallible?

I assume that Protestants, like Catholics, believe what they know as truth is factual. If it’s without mistake it’s infallible to us individually. How does an individual Protestant know they are correct or incorrect, since they are their own authority?

If infallible is a poor choice for a term for you, I apologize, but I fail to see the necessity of trying to continue the off topic discussion as to whether it was condescending or not. I wrote it and tried to explain to you that I did not mean intentionally to be condescending. That’s what I meant when I said ‘neither’.

 

[Dokimas]

I assume that Protestants, like Catholics, believe what they know as truth is factual. If it’s without mistake it’s infallible to us individually. How does an individual Protestant know they are correct or incorrect, since they are their own authority?

If infallible is a poor choice for a term for you, I apologize, but I fail to see the necessity of trying to continue the off topic discussion as to whether it was condescending or not. I wrote it and tried to explain to you that I did not mean intentionally to be condescending. That’s what I meant when I said ‘neither’.

God is correct and to the degree anyone agrees with Him they are correct too. I have no clue what percent of what I believe is correct. I believe quite a bit of what I believe you believe as well. I’m sure I have beliefs that are incorrect. However, I am responsible for what I believe. God will not ask me why I believed something my church told me that was incorrect, IMO. He will hold me responsible for important false understandings that I hold and that I pass on to others.

I do not think my church has all the correct answers. So I do NOT condescend when I say the CC doesn’t have all the correct answers either.