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

[PRmerger]

It was an inadvertant omission. Truth should be listed. There is no Christianity without Truth.

You stated: “In this “spiritual and universal church” one cannot know” and gave a list of items. I disagree wholeheartedly. One can know to the extent to which it is possible for a human being to know. We can be certain insofar as the bible makes it certainly clear. Some issues are vague.

So which is the truth, then, regarding baptism?

Lutherans, who are members of this “spiritual and universal church” proclaim baptism saves you; You do not. Both are members of this universal church which, it appears, seems to be allowing contrary doctrines.

Either it saves you or it does not. Both cannot be true. And one member says it does and one member says it doesn’t.

How can this “spiritual and universal church” teach contrary doctrines?

 

[PRmerger]

We can be certain insofar as the bible makes it certainly clear.

Sadly, there are about 30,000 (the number is arguable, conceded) examples that the bible is most certainly UNCLEAR about a majority of things.

I find no comfort from people (Catholic or Protestant) who try cast dogma which is biblically vague as a certitude.

Fair enough.

Biblically vague, however, is the norm in Scripture. :sad_yes:

It is true that as a Catholic, you can have a certitude about certain issues due to your faith in your Church, which I cannot,

Again, fair enough.

Yet you seem to have accepted the Church’s certitude about the canon of Scripture. You cannot know that the Didache is not inspired but that the Gospel of Mark is, with certitude, unless you concede that the authority of the Catholic Church was correct in discerning this.

I prefer to keep it simple: Jesus Christ and Him Crucified.

Simple is good.

It’s just you cannot ignore the remainder of Scriptures–thousands of verses, as opposed to one verse in Corinthians: “Jesus Christ and Him Crucified.”

Catholics have been accused of “adding to” Scripture. But I think it’s much worse to ignore Scripture and reduce it to one verse.

 

[joe370]

Freerf, PRmerger said:

Yet you seem to have accepted the Church’s certitude about the canon of Scripture. You cannot know that the Didache is not inspired but that the Gospel of Mark is, with certitude, unless you concede that the authority of the Catholic Church was correct in discerning this.

I don’t know what I would say to that one from a protestant perspective; I didn’t then, and I still don’t now, again from that perspective. Your thoughts friend???

 

[PRmerger]

ITo me, that seems to obfusicate the significance of Jesus laying down His life. Was that not enough?

Indeed it was.

However, that must be understood with some nuance, for even you don’t believe that it was “enough”–otherwise, the logical conclusion is that you believe that every single human creature is saved merely by His atoning death on the cross. Even the atheistic, satanic, Jesus-cursing, human-hating person.

 

[PRmerger]

I find the Catholic teaching of Christianity far more “obfuscating” than the typical Protestant one. In fact, much of the recent clarity and reformations within the catholic church is in response to Protestantism. Use of the common language in mass, translations of the bible to common languages, etc. In fact, Protestantism simplifies mere Christianity whereas Catholicism clearly adds much to it.

This is a curious comment indeed!

If Protestantism is so simple, why is a sermon necessary in your worship services? (And if you’re like a lot of Protestants I know, the sermon is the main focus of the worship service. Sometimes it’s 45 minutes long!)

If Protestantism is so simple why is this a four volume set?

If Protestantism is so simple, why do you have seminaries?

If Protestantism is so simple, why do you have bible studies?

 

[freerf]

Well, that did not answer the first question, which was: So the Catholic Church, (which you said was founded by Jesus) - founded by Jesus Christ eventually left the teachings of Jesus Christ???

I appreciate good natured sarcasm as much as the next guy but you still did not answer the question, which was: Where can those teachings of Jesus, that the Catholic Church walked away from, now be found?

Again, you did not answer the question, which was: when did the CC leave the teachings of Jesus and from what teachings of Jesus did the CC walk away? The CC did not walk away from Mariology; according to the common misconception of some protestants this was an innovation on the part of the CC, kind of like sola scriptura for protestants.

Your first question: I said the Catholic Church, in so far as it belongs to the universal church, was founded by Jesus Christ. You claim the “Catholic Church” was founded by Jesus. i say that Jesus founded the universal church. The difference here has been discussed several times.

Second Question: This was not sarcasm. This is a fundamental prot. belief. For example, God-like worship of Mary. Now I know you won’t agree with this assesment, but it is an example commonly used by protestants, and if true, as it sometimes is, than it is a valid break from the bible.

Third Question: same as second. the catholic church created dogma such as immaculate conception that is a break from the bible. (Prot. and East. orthodox agree on this one.)

 

[freerf]

Freerf, PRmerger said:

I don’t know what I would say to that one from a protestant perspective; I didn’t then, and I still don’t now, again from that perspective. Your thoughts friend???

It is inline with the idea of a universal church. There is no problem there.

 

[freerf]

This is a curious comment indeed!

If Protestantism is so simple, why is a sermon necessary in your worship services? (And if you’re like a lot of Protestants I know, the sermon is the main focus of the worship service. Sometimes it’s 45 minutes long!)

If Protestantism is so simple why is this a four volume set?

If Protestantism is so simple, why do you have seminaries?

If Protestantism is so simple, why do you have bible studies?

Not simple as in simplistic. Only less convoluted as compaired to Catholicism. It was a comment in response to your post on “obfuscate” - which is a great word btw.

 

[freerf]

Cinette:
I’ve answered every one of your questions. I’ve answered the op’s original question. What is so amazing? Review my posts please.

 

[freerf]

*Joe you won’t get an answer.

Do you seriously think that after more than 900 postings and you repeating the question many times and every time meet with evasion, you are going to get an answer now?

I am beginning to think that Dokimas’s presence on CAF is suspect because I notice that he joined CAF in June 2009 and in that time has posted 5200 times!! You, on the other hand joined in May 2007 and your postings number 3100 plus.

While you are selective and thoughtful in whatever you post, Dokimas cannot make the same claim. So…?

A serious debater would answer questions.

Cinette *

Ask Joe, I’ve answered this question. Please stop stating this falsehood.

 

[joe370]

Hey Freerf, things like worshiping Mary are too silly to respond to, as I’m sure you agree, and you agreed that if something is supported by scripture it should be believed, and Mary’s sinlessness is, but this too is irrelevant to the thread so, let me see if I’ve got it right, regarding the thread:

When Jesus said, I will build my church and guide my church into all truth until the end of time, Jesus was specifically referring to the Catholic church, the Eastern Orthodox church (offshoots of the EOC) - the Anglican church and every single Protestant church, past, present and future? That is what Jesus meant when He said: I will build my church?

Yes or no, and then perhaps you could sell that idea to me because I didn’t get it as a former protestant?

 

[PRmerger]

Not simple as in simplistic. Only less convoluted as compaired to Catholicism. It was a comment in response to your post on “obfuscate” - which is a great word btw.

This does not change anything. Use whatever word you desire–simple/simplistic/unconvoluted/non-obfuscatory.

It still prompts the questions:

Why do you need to hear a sermon on Sundays?

Why the need for Bible College and seminaries?

And here’s a very trenchant question, freerf: have you ever attended a bible study?
(I’m really looking for your response–it’s not simply rhetorical.)

 

[freerf]

So which is the truth, then, regarding baptism?

Lutherans, who are members of this “spiritual and universal church” proclaim baptism saves you; You do not. Both are members of this universal church which, it appears, seems to be allowing contrary doctrines.

Either it saves you or it does not. Both cannot be true. And one member says it does and one member says it doesn’t.

How can this “spiritual and universal church” teach contrary doctrines?

The universal church has at it’s head Jesus Christ, not a man. There is no group of men who solely represent it, it has no tax-exempt status with the IRS, and there is no paperwork to fill out for membership. There is no human person that can feed us all the answers. We must rely on the holy spirit, prayer and Gods grace. Is one of us wrong? Certainly. The idea that the church cannot possibly be wrong is a Catholic notion and foreign to Protestants.

I am confident that Jesus Christ knows the answer to that question. I am comfortable with my answer, that baptism does not save a man by it’s own merit. We are save by Jesus Christ. If you are comforted in the belief that your infant child will go to heaven do to the mere miracle of baptism, so be it. I find the idea that we go to hell for merely not being baptised contrary to the merciful and loving God I read about in the gospel.

I can ask you many of the same questions about the Catholic Church: how is it that this church, chosen by God as His one church can teach falsely? how is it the Church can have active Priests administering His body and Blood while molesting children? The answer is the same. Isn’t that obvious? God allows us freedom to make mistakes.

I understand that because you believe one will go to hell if they’re not baptised that it makes the issue very important. I get that. I just don’t share your belief nor do I see a reasonable justification for it.

 

[PRmerger]

The universal church has at it’s head Jesus Christ, not a man. There is no group of men who solely represent it, it has no tax-exempt status with the IRS, and there is no paperwork to fill out for membership. There is no human person that can feed us all the answers. We must rely on the holy spirit, prayer and Gods grace. Is one of us wrong? Certainly. The idea that the church cannot possibly be wrong is a Catholic notion and foreign to Protestants.

I am confident that Jesus Christ knows the answer to that question. I am comfortable with my answer, that baptism does not save a man by it’s own merit. We are save by Jesus Christ. If you are comforted in the belief that your infant child will go to heaven do to the mere miracle of baptism, so be it. I find the idea that we go to hell for merely not being baptised contrary to the merciful and loving God I read about in the gospel.

I can ask you many of the same questions about the Catholic Church: how is it that this church, chosen by God as His one church can teach falsely? how is it the Church can have active Priests administering His body and Blood while molesting children? The answer is the same. Isn’t that obvious? God allows us freedom to make mistakes.

I understand that because you believe one will go to hell if they’re not baptised that it makes the issue very important. I get that. I just don’t share your belief nor do I see a reasonable justification for it.

Please just answer the question, freerf.

How can a church, which teaches truth, teach contradictory doctrines?

 

[freerf]

This does not change anything. Use whatever word you desire–simple/simplistic/unconvoluted/non-obfuscatory.

It still prompts the questions:

Why do you need to hear a sermon on Sundays?

Why the need for Bible College and seminaries?

And here’s a very trenchant question, freerf: have you ever attended a bible study?
(I’m really looking for your response–it’s not simply rhetorical.)

I love your vocabulary. trenchant. nice.

Simply put, to study the bible, to fellowship, to pray. . .I’m probably forgetting something. . .

Yes, I’ve been to many bible studies.

 

[guanophore]

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.

Oh, I assure you we have heard it many times before.

The reason we ask for your source is because we know it is not part of the once for all deposit of faith that was handed down by the Apostles.

 I believe my interpretation is correct when it is harmonious with scripture.

The problem with this, freerf, is that there are as many interpretations of scripture as there are belly buttons. So basically, what you are saying is that you know you are right when you understand scripture in accordance with your preconceived notions.

   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.

There are two problems with what you have written here. One is that there is no disharmony between the Church and the Scripture. The Catholic Church produced the New Testament, that is why there is perfect harmony.

Secondly, you seem to be suffereing from a misunderstanding about the nature of the Church. It is the Church that teaches about the liberty to believe in Jesus Christ and Him Crucified. You have this liberty because it has been preserved when your spiritual ancestors departed from the Apostolic faith.

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

It seems this way to you, freerf because you are suffering from a deficient concept of “Church”. I think it if you are willing to consider the facts, you will find that God never changed a persons name without a great significance to their identity and ministry.

There is also no “rather than” going on. Jesus is THE Rock, and He affirmed that Peter made a rocky statement because it was revealed to him by the Father. Jesus grafted Simon bar Jonah into Himself, making him a foundation stone upon which He built His Church. There is no separation between the newly created Peter, his profession of faith, the Church founded by Christ, and the person of Jesus. You are creating false dichotomies.

How do you know? When the catechism says so? Because of your confidence in the succession of Peter?

Yes, in part. The Catechism is a "sure norm’ for the Apostolic faith. Catechism means “to faithfully echo”. The Teachings of the Apostles have been preserved infallibly by the HS int he Church.

And yes, because of our confidence in the succession from Peter. But that confidence is in God, who is the One who promised to preserve His Church in “all Truth”. We believe His very great and precious promises never to leave the Church orphaned,

Sigh. I do believe many Catholics have amazing faith.

How can you tell?

I’ve already told you many times why i believe in a “universal chruch”. It is harmoneous with scripture. Yes, that is my opinion.

It is also another remnant of Apostolic Teaching that has not yet been lost by your ecclesial commnity.

You seem to think that this is a flawed approach. . .as if believing in something because it is harmoneous with the Catholic Church is better. Why would that be?

'Because when you separate the Scriptures from the Faith that produced them, misunderstandings happen.

It is not my intention to get you to believe anything. it is not my issue. if God wants you to believe, He will show you in His time. In fact, it is others here that want me to believe in the succession of Peter, the necessity of 1 church, etc.

Yes. Part of the mission of CAF is evangelistic. We want to address the deficiencies that exist among our separated brethren.

That, in my opinion, has not been properly established as necessary.

Perhaps you will be open minded enough to give us a chance to establish it?

Certainly there is a historical Tradition for this belief, but that does not make it so. I believe scripture says a lot about erroneous traditions.

Yes. It is essential to distinguish between Sacred Tradition (the Word of God in the Church) and human traditions.

The Sacred Tradition cannot be erroneous, but traditions of man can be. Not all of them are necessarily problematic, either.

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

You are creating another false dichotomy here. There is not separation between God and His Holy Bride, the Church. The Church is His Body,a nd the means through which we are made fit to dwell with Him for eternity.

 

[freerf]

Please just answer the question, freerf.

How can a church, which teaches truth, teach contradictory doctrines?

The church is comprised of men. Men are fallable. The church can be fallable.

You believe the Catholic Church can only teach truth and is incapable of error? that’s a new one to me.

 

[freerf]

Oh, I assure you we have heard it many times before.

The reason we ask for your source is because we know it is not part of the once for all deposit of faith that was handed down by the Apostles.

The problem with this, freerf, is that there are as many interpretations of scripture as there are belly buttons. So basically, what you are saying is that you know you are right when you understand scripture in accordance with your preconceived notions.

There are two problems with what you have written here. One is that there is no disharmony between the Church and the Scripture. The Catholic Church produced the New Testament, that is why there is perfect harmony.

Secondly, you seem to be suffereing from a misunderstanding about the nature of the Church. It is the Church that teaches about the liberty to believe in Jesus Christ and Him Crucified. You have this liberty because it has been preserved when your spiritual ancestors departed from the Apostolic faith.

It seems this way to you, freerf because you are suffering from a deficient concept of “Church”. I think it if you are willing to consider the facts, you will find that God never changed a persons name without a great significance to their identity and ministry.

There is also no “rather than” going on. Jesus is THE Rock, and He affirmed that Peter made a rocky statement because it was revealed to him by the Father. Jesus grafted Simon bar Jonah into Himself, making him a foundation stone upon which He built His Church. There is no separation between the newly created Peter, his profession of faith, the Church founded by Christ, and the person of Jesus. You are creating false dichotomies.

Yes, in part. The Catechism is a "sure norm’ for the Apostolic faith. Catechism means “to faithfully echo”. The Teachings of the Apostles have been preserved infallibly by the HS int he Church.

And yes, because of our confidence in the succession from Peter. But that confidence is in God, who is the One who promised to preserve His Church in “all Truth”. We believe His very great and precious promises never to leave the Church orphaned,

How can you tell?

It is also another remnant of Apostolic Teaching that has not yet been lost by your ecclesial commnity.

'Because when you separate the Scriptures from the Faith that produced them, misunderstandings happen.

Yes. Part of the mission of CAF is evangelistic. We want to address the deficiencies that exist among our separated brethren.

Perhaps you will be open minded enough to give us a chance to establish it?

Yes. It is essential to distinguish between Sacred Tradition (the Word of God in the Church) and human traditions.

The Sacred Tradition cannot be erroneous, but traditions of man can be. Not all of them are necessarily problematic, either.

You are creating another false dichotomy here. There is not separation between God and His Holy Bride, the Church. The Church is His Body,a nd the means through which we are made fit to dwell with Him for eternity.

Sorry brother. Too late. I don’t have time to respond. Sorry.

 

[PRmerger]

how is it the Church can have active Priests administering His body and Blood while molesting children?

Ah. So there you have it. What I call the CAFs version of Godwin’s Law.

Godwin’s law (also known as Godwin’s Rule of Nazi Analogies or Godwin’s law of Nazi Analogies) is a humorous observation made by Mike Godwin in 1990 which has become an Internet adage. It states: “As an online discussion grows longer, the probability of a comparison involving Nazis or Hitler approaches 1.” In other words, Godwin put forth the sarcastic observation that, given enough time, all discussions —regardless of topic or scope —inevitably wind up being about Hitler and the Nazis. Also the poster who mentioned Nazis loses all debates/discussions they had in said topic, and their insults are nullified.

Here’s the CAF version of Godwin’s Law I’m proposing: “As an online discussion about the CC grows longer, the probability of a reference to sexual abuse by priests approaches 1”

However, the poster who mentions the abuse loses all debates/discussions said in topic, and his insults are nullified.

I dunno if you’ve made a reference the abuse scandal prior to today, but at under 700 posts you’re well within the top 5 posters who’ve invoked the CAFs version of Godwin’s Law so quickly.

 

[PRmerger]

The church is comprised of men. Men are fallable. The church can be fallable

Yet you believe some men were infallible, at some points in their lives, yes?

(Think Matthew, Mark, Luke, John, Paul…)

Or do you believe that Paul erred when he wrote he preached “Christ and Him crucified”?