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

[Dokimas]

This is certainly true of Luther, especially in the beginning,and for King Henry. They wanted the church to bend to accomodate their way of thinking and moral choices.

However, when a person rejects the teaching of the church, they don’t need to be “kicked out”. For the most part, they have excommunicated themselves by rejecting the doctrines of the faith. This was the case for Luther.

You are also correct that there were some people that perpetrated torture and death upon those who did not conform. Some people were unjustly accused (some women, for example who appeared to be too powerful so were accused of being witches, like Joan of Arc).

The “needs for reforming”, though were in the people, not the doctrine. This is where the problem still lies today. People will always be in need of reform, but the Teaching of Christ is not.

What was it that the early ‘reformers’ disagreed with that the CC refused to change? Don’t you like to remind us of the doctrines Luther and the others agreed with you on and disagreed with us about?

The need for reform was with practices like indulgences, not the people.

The teachings of Christ, as you say, will NEVER need reforming. The teaching of churches usually need tweeking, the sooner the better.

I like the way Jesus handled sin, “Your sins are forgiven, go and sin no more”. He didn’t place special deeds or special prayers to show repentance.

 

[Dokimas]

During the Reformation, certain persons decided that this verse did not apply anymore.

And I can see why: the abuses were terrible by the leaders. Power corrupts, absolute power, well you know the rest.

 

[guanophore]

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.

I agree that there are things that seem perfectly clear in the Bible, but you have to admit, there is a different way to interpret every verse. The reason that Jesus founded His church on people, rather than writings (however Holy) is because some issues ARE vague. There are judgements that must be made that cannot be made by the pages of the Holy Writ. This is precisely why the Bible cannot be “the final authority”. As a book, it does not have the qualities to exercise authority.

I find no comfort from people (Catholic or Protestant) who try cast dogma which is biblically vague as a certitude.  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, such as Mariology.  I prefer to keep it simple: Jesus Christ and Him Crucified.

I can see why this would be disconcerting to a person whose faith is extrapolated from the pages of the book.

We have this surety, though because of the once for all deposit of faith to the Church.

2 Peter 1:19-21

19 So we have the prophetic message more fully confirmed. You will do well to be attentive to this as to a lamp shining in a dark place, until the day dawns and the morning star rises in your hearts. 20 First of all you must understand this, that no prophecy of scripture is a matter of one’s own interpretation, 21 because no prophecy ever came by human will, but men and women moved by the Holy Spirit spoke from God.

This deposit is preserved in the Sacred Tradition, through which we understand those things that seem vague.

 I find the Catholic teaching of Christianity far more "obfuscating" than the typical Protestant one.

This may be because of the attitude with which you approach.

It could also be because you seem to have a lack of undertanding about the nature of the One Faith.

In fact, much of the recent clarity and reformations within the catholic church is in response to Protestantism.

Yes. The Church has always dealt with heresies through councils, and the defining of doctrines to clarifly for the faithful how to stay off the road to perdition.

 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.

I hope you are presently using your time to do a little study about history, freerf. If you do, then you will find that it was the Catholic Church that has always been producing bibles in the common languages. You will discover that it was a Catholic who invented the printing press, and that the first book he printed was the Holy Bible.

I can see why it would appear that “Catholicims adds” to the faith, since you have received a truncated version of the faith. Much of the Apostolic faith was cut off during the Reformation, the children of the reformation, by default, inherited the “readers digest” version of the faith. Bibles with books taken out, A Faith with essential doctrines removed. Of course it would seem from your perspective that Catholics “added” rather than the Reformers “subtracting”.

You believe that baptism is essential to salvation.  To me, that seems to obfusicate the significance of Jesus laying down His life.  Was that not enough?

Yes we take Jesus at His word when He taught that one must be “born from above by water and Spirit” to enter the Kingdom of God. It is interesting that Protestants take the scripture literally when it supports an anti-Catholic position, but when taking it literally is “too Catholic” all of the sudden it is “symbolic”

I think you will agree that Jesus’ shed blood will not save everyone. One must enter into His death and resurrection in order to benefit from His shed blood. We do that through baptism.

 

[guanophore]

For whatever reason there is a strange misconception that Protestants can only believe things which are explicitly stated in the bible. Why do people think this?? It is not true.

Actually I think it is many Protestants them selves who have this strange misconception. Catholics know that Protestants hold many extrabiblical doctrines that are traditions of men, such as Sola Scriptura, Sola fide, etc.

Many Protestants believe these doctrines come from the Scripture because they read them into it.

What is true, however, we believe all dogma must be supported by the bible.

This is a Catholic concept, but when it is removed from Catholic faith, we see that any number of diametrically opposed doctrines can be supported with Scripture.

We believe the bible is sufficient as the basis for all our beliefs.

This is a good example of an extrabiblical tradition.

One which happens to be contradicted by the Scriptures themselves.

To answer your question, the bible does not say this. But your question is obviously loaded, which is probably why no one bothers to answer it.

That is ok. It needs to be asked.

We both believe your church left the teachings of Jesus Christ.

Yes. An interesting proposition, since Protestants have only recieved an abbreviated version of the Teachings.

 This thread is naturally hung-up on the idea that there is a need for 1 physical, all-powerful earth representative for Christ

I am not sure where you get this, or what you mean by it. What does it mean to be “all powerful”?

Do you think Catholics believe the Church is, or should be, omnipotent?

named the Catholic Church.

We are aware that the One visible Church on earth founded by Christ was called “Catholic” by the Apostles and their successors.

Upon this premis the entire thread hangs. Consider that if there is no true need for this, or a succession of Peter, your questions become trivial.

Yes, I agree. If the Bible is not telling the Truth, and there really is no once for all Deposit of Fatih that needs to be guarded and passed on in one peice,then the fact that the Church is founded by Christ is indeed, triviial. There is really no “One Faith” to preserve.

Third question: this is a big topic. I don’t want to derail the thread but there are many, many areas of Catholic teaching protestants take exception to. Starters? mariology.

You don’t believe Christ was born of a virgin?

As to when any individual church failed in the teachings of Jesus? Immediately. Already in the new test. there are divisions within the newly established church.

freerf, the Truth is not defined by those who depart from it. Yes, there were schism and heresies from the beginning. These happen in order to make the True Church more visible.

The Church never failed. Individuals departed from her, causing dissention and division.

Jude 19
19 It is these worldly people, devoid of the Spirit, who are causing divisions.

1 Cor 11:18-20
8 For, to begin with, when you come together as a church, I hear that there are divisions among you; and to some extent I believe it. 19 Indeed, there have to be factions among you, for only so will it become clear who among you are genuine.

The factions do not derail the Church, only purify her, and make her more visible as genuine.

All free peoples have a variety of opinion. Even the apostles of Christ had a variety of opinion. Why should we all suddenly agree about everything in the bible? that is not human nature.

You are right, of course. There are as many opinions as there are belly buttons. Why should we agree on the Bible? Because it was produced by One Faith, and reflects One Faith. Everything in it must be consistent with the Sacred Tradition that produced it.

You are right, it is not human nature. However the Church has divine nature. Her Head is Christ, and she is ensouled by the Holy Spirit. these divine elements are what bring about the unity of the faith, not the human nature.

The bible is, after all, complex. We do agree to a remarkable extent on the vast majority of the issues. It seems strange that even the CC and Orthodox can’t seem to agree - so by your own standards you disqualify yourself.

Certainly there are wounds to unity that are still in need of healing.

 

[guanophore]

The universal church has at it’s head Jesus Christ, not a man.

You are creating a false dichotomy, freerf, as Jesus was also a man. All authority was given to Him, and He gave it to His Apostles. It is through this authority that he teaches and preserves His One Church.

Why is it that you think Jesus is incapable of using men for His purpose?

There is no group of men who solely represent it,

If this were true, then His Teaching to “take it to the Church” would be rather meaningless, would it not?

It is also interesting that the successors of the Apostles all thought differently. You would think that the HS would be able to preserve the Truth for just one generation, would you not?

There is no human person that can feed us all the answers.

Fortunately, we dont’ need “all the answers”. Many things can remain in mystery. However He did give to one person the specific responsibility to feed and care for his flock. And that person to his successor. It is a mystery why one would want to be separted from the one given responsibility to feed and care for His flock.

We must rely on the holy spirit, prayer and Gods grace.  Is one of us wrong?  Certainly.

No, both things are true. The HS will not reveal something to a single individual, or group of believers, that contradicts what He has already revealed to the church. That is why it is so important to read the Scriptures through the lens of what He has already revealed.

The idea that the church cannot possibly be wrong is a Catholic notion and foreign to Protestants.

Not just Catholic, but an Apostolic teaching that is held by all communities founded by Apostles, even those not in communion with the successor of Peter.

Maybe it is foreign to Protestants to take Jesus at His word that He would lead the Church into “all Truth”?

I am comfortable with my answer, that baptism does not save a man by it's own merit.  We are save by Jesus Christ.

Honestly, freerf. I hope you are able to remain at CAF long enough for you to get some of your wild ideas corrected.

No Catholic believes that baptism saves “by its own merit”, whatever that means. If you think there is no divine merit in baptism, then you are rejecting the Scriptures.

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.

Thanks.

I appreciate your approval for this miracle, though I would not call it “mere”.

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.

Well…as I said, there are as many interpretations of scripture as there are belly buttons.

John 3:18-19
18 Those who believe in him are not condemned; but those who do not believe are condemned already, because they have not believed in the name of the only Son of God.

We all enter the world in a state of condemnation due to original sin. Who can rescue us from this body of death?

Mark 16:16-17
16 The one who believes and is baptized will be saved; but the one who does not believe will be condemned.

Baptism is the means by which the saving blood of Christ is applied to the individual.

Your statement is like standing in Goshen the night of Passover, saying “I can’t believe that the loving, merciful God would kill my firstborn just because I don’t have blood applied to my door”.

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?

She cannot. The disobedience of individuals does not make the teaching false.

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

There are wolves among the sheep.

The answer is the same. Isn’t that obvious? God allows us freedom to make mistakes.

Yes, of course. The gift of infallibility was given to the Church, not to individuals.

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.

Actually, we don’t We entrust the unbaptized to the mercy of God.

I think, if you are willing to study what the Scriptures really say about baptism, you may find reasonable justification.

Salvation is a “free gift”. There is nothing we can do to earn it.

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.

Yes, there are fallible men who are members of the Church. However, the idea that this is all there is to Church is a reflection of the truncated gospel you have received. The Church is MUCH more than just the fallible men on this earth. It is the divine elements of the Church that maker her infallible, not the human. The Body of Christ, like Jesus, is incarnational, with both divine and human natures

yes, the Church can only teach Truth, and not error, because Christ is her Head, and He cannot err, and the HS is her Soul, and the HS cannot err.

 

[guanophore]

Again, he established a universal church. I think we’ve gone over this definition a lot. Perhaps the breakdown is that you guys feel Jesus’ church must be of a similar character as my church or your church. It must have four walls, a roof, a sign up sheet, it must have a library and artifacts, it must be physically traceable through histroy, like the lineage of David to Jesus himself.

You are right that there must be similar character, but none of these things you mentioned are what was given to us by the Apostles. Instead, the four characteristics of the Church founded by Christ are that it is One, Holy, Catholic, and Apostolc. This last mark corresponds with your last statement, that it is physically traceable through history. Since you have some time away from posting, perhaps you will go back and read this entire thread, where you will find numerous historical references to the Apostolic Succession.

I don’t see why this must be so. And no one has demonstratedi why this must be so.

Since you appear to have accepted the Catholic Teaching that the Scriptures are inspired and inerrant, perhaps this will be sufficient “demonstration” for you?

Jude 3-4

Beloved, while eagerly preparing to write to you about the salvation we share, I find it necessary to write and appeal to you to contend for the faith that was once for all entrusted to the saints.

The faith was “once for all” entrusted to the Church by the Apostles. This is called the “deposit” of faith. It is comprised of two strands, sacred tradition and sacred scripture. We are not at liberty to change either of them. Both must be preserved exactly as they have been handed down to us. The bishops, as the successors of the Apostles, have the major responsibilitiy for this.

1 Tim 6:20 Timothy, guard what has been entrusted to you.

We believe His church is a church comprised of people that transcends denominations.  Some Catholics will be part of it, some will not.  Some Prot too.  The church teaches truth in so far as it lines up with the Word of God, Jesus' will, and the holy spirit.

Yes. All that you have said here is Catholic. I do not think you realize, though that the Word of God is as much infallibly preserved in the Church as it is in Scripture.

It clarifies that you have your toe in the Tiber.

 

[tqualey]

Hi, Freerf,

God loves you too much to do that! He will not force you because you have not only free will, but an excellent mind - and now you have us showing you the way. The rest is really up to you… and, yes, that means the burden of responsibility lies squarely on your shoulders. Claiming God has not given you (sufficient?) grace? faith? will power? courage? - you name it - to make the choice appears to be presumptious - and, a matter you will have to eventually address…

What you are really saying is that you have made up your mind and you are not going to change it… no matter where God’s Grace (insufficient though it seems to you) leads. The idea of joining to become a heretic is simply unsound. You join because you have ACCEPTED the grace given by God. You remain where ever you are - but, look at the faulty logic you are using to try and justify your position.

You talk about errors in ‘both churches’ but fail to identify the men who founded the man-made church you belong to. If you have reduced the number to two - and effectively claim Christ founded both, please tell me how this came about? If you have eliminated the OC because it dates itsef >1,000 after Christ’s birth, then the issue how do you eliminate the Church founded by Christ on Peter?

Ultimately, you either believe Holy Scripture or you don’t - you either belive the Words of Christ or you don’t. And, honeslty, you have not made a case that you really believe Christ did not found the Catholic Church … in fact, I think you even agreed with that idea. So, if believing in the Church founded by Christ is something you can not do - how can you believe in any not founded by Christ?

Pleae, take the time to read the links I provided. They really will answer your questions - and will put to shame these anti-Catholic arguments you have been working with.

God bless

I’m not a memeber because I have not been led by God to join either church. To join the Catholic church, i must believe all it’s dogma, which i do not. If i were to join, I’d instantly become a heritic for disbelief, though I cannot force myself to believe. I therefore believe that if God wanted me to be a member, He would give me faith of belief in the Catholic Church. I take the fact that this faith has not been given as evidence that I’m not to intentionally join a church in which I’d immediately become a heritic.

I’m not a member because I believe both churches are in error. I use the example, because it’s a historical fact. I thought that’s what you guys wanted. . .

 

[tqualey]

Hi, Dokimas,

We are not discussing the relative merits of the Packers being really the best football team in 2011 - this will be the subject of debate until next year’s Super Bowl! The differentce here is that there are a lot of opinions of analysis on individual plays made by individual members - and all these opinions are all fairly valid … and all worth about the same amount…

There is an active dicsussion on Who founded the Catholic Church - and I really have not been able to find out your answer. There has been a lot of talking around the issue - I will certainly give you that - but, we are really talking a historical point. We can ask in a similar vein, who won the Battle of Hastings in 1066? While different people may decided to offer various answers - the only one that is correct is William the Conquerer. And the reason for this is that there are all of these historical (secular) records.

So, if you do not believe Matt 16:18 and all of the links I provided to Freerl - well, now you have these secular links that are ROCK solid. There were no other groups of folks claiming to follow Christ who were not Catholic. And, if you can identify them - then do so and, in your enthusiasm for answering that question, please tell us who founded that group?

Here is the challenge - Google the Battle of Hastings and look at the various links - make a determination as to how these posters decided that William the Conquerer actually won that battle. Apply the same logic to the OP’s question. Look at the documents - and if you do not accept Scripture then look at the Early Church Fathers - follow a time line from Christ to wherever you want to stop - but, note that the line keeps on going to Benedict XVI and will continue after him.

God bless

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.

 

[tqualey]

Hi, Freerf,

You will be challenged on this ‘Universal Church’ over and over again for two major reasons:

1.) It is non-Scriptural and it is not part of the writings of the Early Church Fathers.

2.) It only exists in the minds of those who claim the Catholic Church was not founded by Christ.

There is no evidence for a ‘Universal Church’ that is different from the Catholic Church, founded by Christ on Peter and traces is historic line from him to Benedict XVI.

If you were to argue that there really is a “Tooth Fairy” because money was left under your pillow after you lost a tooth - you would be challenged on this, too. Even though, those who challenged you most probably also received money under their pillow when they lost teeth!

So, if Christ did not found the Catholic Church - who did? And if Christ did found the Catholic Church don’t you think He would protect it from error?

God bless

No. None of the above.

Again, he established a universal church. I think we’ve gone over this definition a lot. Perhaps the breakdown is that you guys feel Jesus’ church must be of a similar character as my church or your church. It must have four walls, a roof, a sign up sheet, it must have a library and artifacts, it must be physically traceable through histroy, like the lineage of David to Jesus himself.

I don’t see why this must be so. And no one has demonstrated why this must be so.

We believe His church is a church comprised of people that transcends denominations. Some Catholics will be part of it, some will not. Some Prot too. The church teaches truth in so far as it lines up with the Word of God, Jesus’ will, and the holy spirit.

Hopefully this helps clarify.

 

[Dokimas]

So, if you do not believe Matt 16:18 and all of the links I provided to Freerl - well, now you have these secular links that are ROCK solid. There were no other groups of folks claiming to follow Christ who were not Catholic. And, if you can identify them - then do so and, in your enthusiasm for answering that question, please tell us who founded that group?

 

[Prodigal_Son1]

**Mat 16:17 And Jesus answering said to him: Blessed art thou, Simon Bar-Jona: because flesh and blood hath not revealed it to thee, but my Father who is in heaven.
Mat 16:18 And I say to thee: That thou art Peter; and upon this rock I will build my church, and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it.
Mat 16:19 And I will give to thee the keys of the kingdom of heaven. And whatsoever thou shalt bind upon earth, it shall be bound also in heaven: and whatsoever thou shalt loose on earth, it shall be loosed also in heaven. **

Verse 17 we see Christ specifically addressing Simon Bar-Jona and saying the Father in heaven revealed to Simon who Jesus really was.
Verse 18 starts with AND, so it’s safe to say He is still addressing Simon. Thou art Peter, this is significant as name changes by God was always significant. Abram becomes Abraham because God will make of him a great nation. Jacob becomes Israel because he contended and had power with God and with men and prevailed. Simon becomes Peter, Kipha/rock, because his strength of faith would have Christ’s Church built upon it.
Verse 19 starts again with AND, still addressing Peter here. I will give to THEE, doesn’t mention anyone else, the keys of the kingdom of heaven. Look, another AND, still addressing Peter, whatsoever THOU shalt bind on earth, it shall be bound also in heaven: and whatsover THOU loose on earth, it shall be loosed also in heaven.

I sure would like to see others, that do not agree with this, to go slowly through and explain another possible meaning. This passage speaks very clearly for itself, in my honest opinion.

 

[joe370]

Dokimas, I ask again,that is if you don’t mind answering the question: If Jesus is NOT the founder of the Catholic Church in communion with Rome, then please give me the name of the man, or men, that founded the Catholic Church, and when he or they founded the CC? Just a simple answer. For example if you asked me who started the Lutheran church I would say Martin Luther; I wouldn’t change the subject, not that I believe that is what you are doing. Again, just a historically honest answer to the question would be much appreciated.

This is not as hard as you seem to make it. Matthew 16:18 is a WONDERFUL verse. I just have a different understanding than you what church fulfills the verse.

 

[Dokimas]

Dokimas, I ask again,that is if you don’t mind answering the question: If Jesus is NOT the founder of the Catholic Church in communion with Rome, then please give me the name of the man, or men, that founded the Catholic Church, and when he or they founded the CC? Just a simple answer. For example if you asked me who started the Lutheran church I would say Martin Luther; I wouldn’t change the subject, not that I believe that is what you are doing. Again, just a historically honest answer to the question would be much appreciated.

I have done my best, You must go back over my posts. In them is my understanding.

BTW, did Luther start the church named after him or did his followers start the church and they named it for him?

 

[tqualey]

Hi, Freerf,

We really can not go about claiming the fact we are required to prove as a given … and this is not the way to conduct a discussion. Let me help untangle these conflicts … and see if we can get on the ‘straight and narrow’ when it comes to a clear discussion…

The universal church has at it’s head Jesus Christ, not a man.

As the Catholic Church defined at the Council of Nicene in 325 and formulated the Creed to summarize the doctrines Catholic believe - Jesus Christ is True God and true man. Your continued reference to a so-called ‘Universal Church’ that is not the Catholic Church has yet to be documented as existing. Really, repeatedly saying it exists does not make it so. As far as I can determine, this entire argument is built on a fantasy.

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.

Now, you have really gotten creative - and, with only 40 days to go… let’s keep the IRS out of this! There is a group of men who solely represent it - they began with the 12 Apostles and have expaded to Magisterium and the Pope. Christ gave Peter the authority to bind and lose - and this was the biggest blank check ever written! Christ put no limits on Peter or his successors. This is really an important concept - and one faithfully recorded in Matthew 16.

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.

You are correct in saying that no human person can feed us all the answers - UNLESS that is Jesus Christ Who promesed us He would not leave us orphans and that Holy Spirit would guide us. Christ made that promise to Peter (the same Apostle Christ founded His Church on) and to the other Apostles. Here is where we have Apostolic Succession - and for all the Protestant groups that reciete the Nicene Creed - Apostolic means it comes from the Apostles. It comes directly from them and the Church Christ founded. It is not a vague idea of somehow following an idea and now it is ‘Apostolic’. Heads up: are you saying that Christ would found a Church were error is even possible? If that were the case then souls would believe this error and the Gates of Hell would have prevailed. This is a serious matter and one you need to follow through with logically to see where it is leading you to.

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.

You have really left the thread - and, I would recommend you consider starting a thread on your understanding of Baptism or any of the other topics you have mentioned here. For the moment, I think there are several of us who would like to you to just stick with the OP’s question and move with that.

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.

You really must give an example of a false teaching - rather than (again) state something that must be proven as a given. Remember false is actually false - not just something that you happen to diasgree with.

In no way am I ignoring child molestation - but, please, save that stinky red herring for another post. The issue is that the Grace of God can and does flow form unworthy servants - it does not dimish God’s Grace. Priests can validly consecrate bread and wine into the Body, Blood, Human Soul and Divinity of Jesus Christ although they may be in mortal sin - no matter what that grave sin may be. Your equation of the two shows less than a full knowledge of Catholic teaching on the Sacraments. The focus is on Christ and NOT the minister of the Sacraments.

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.

Again, this is off-topic. I am confident if you actually took the time to read the posts I gave to you, there would be a lot more understanding of Catholic teaching - and then you could challenge from a position of knowledge. I think this would be more constructive then the shoot in the dark approach while evading the OP’s question as so far has been demonstrated.

God bless

 

[joe370]

I have done my best, You must go back over my posts. In them is my understanding.

BTW, did Luther start the church named after him or did his followers start the church and they named it for him?

Dok, I would have remembered if you had already answered the question in a prior post. If you refuse to answer my question here and now, why would I hope to find the answer in one of your older posts? I was really hoping you would simply answer the question now that time is running out on this thread but I think I understand the avoidance. I was once in your shoes and I think I get it…

Let’s approach it from another angle: Do you believe that Jesus Christ is the founder of any one Protestant Church? Or is it that you believe that Jesus is the founder of all of the Protestant churches, leaving the CC out of it for the moment?

Martin Luther started a movement that eventually became known as the Lutheran church and ML certainly did not name the church he founded, but he gets all the credit; If not him then who?

 

[Dokimas]

Dok, I would have remembered if you had already answered the question in a prior post. If you refuse to answer my question here and now, why would I hope to find the answer in one of your older posts? I was really hoping you would simply answer the question now that time is running out on this thread but I think I understand the avoidance. I was once in your shoes and I think I get it…

Let’s approach it from another angle: Do you believe that Jesus Christ is the founder of any one Protestant Church? Or is it that you believe that Jesus is the founder of all of the Protestant churches, leaving the CC out of it for the moment?

Martin Luther started a movement that eventually became known as the Lutheran church and ML certainly did not name the church he founded, but he gets all the credit; If not him then who?

Obedient Children of God (Christians, of course) start churches all over the world and throughout the Church Age.

I’ve answered by agreeing with statements made by others on the subject.

I doubt if you’ve ever been where I am, judging from your statement.

Oh yes, part of the reason of avoiding a direct answer is because answers get distorted and misrepresented and misunderstood. That’s tiring and leads one to want to be very careful answering some questions from some posters.

 

[tqualey]

Hi, Dokimas,

I think that a small but critical qualification needs to be made at this point: It was NOT indulgences - but, the SALE of indulgences that caused the original problem. Another term for this would be simony. Those who tried to sell indulgences were guilt of a grave fault - a serious sin! Selling indulgences was NEVER a teaching of the Catholic Church - but, some of its members tried to get away with this and wee caught.

It is at this point that had Luther looked back to a most honored saint and, cooperating witht the Grace of God, followed the example of St. Catherine of Siena - there could be a St. Martin Luther honored in the Catholic Church! Here is an intersting link: newadvent.org/cathen/03447a.htm It should be noted, however, that this is really off-topic … but, would probably make for an interesting thread…

I guess I am just getting forgetful, Dokimas - but, what was your response to Who actually founded the Catholic Church?

God bless

What was it that the early ‘reformers’ disagreed with that the CC refused to change? Don’t you like to remind us of the doctrines Luther and the others agreed with you on and disagreed with us about?

The need for reform was with practices like indulgences, not the people.

The teachings of Christ, as you say, will NEVER need reforming. The teaching of churches usually need tweeking, the sooner the better.

I like the way Jesus handled sin, “Your sins are forgiven, go and sin no more”. He didn’t place special deeds or special prayers to show repentance.

 

[joe370]

QUOTE=Dokimas;7623643]Obedient Children of God (Christians, of course) start churches all over the world and throughout the Church Age.

Are you referring to sola scriptura advocates being obedient to scripture?

I

've answered by agreeing with statements made by others on the subject.

So, you answered my question by agreeing with statements made by others on the subject?

I doubt if you’ve ever been where I am, judging from your statement.

You doubt that I was a protestant at one time?

Oh yes, part of the reason of avoiding a direct answer is because answers get distorted and misrepresented and misunderstood. That’s tiring and leads one to want to be very careful answering some questions from some posters.

OK, but why are you avoiding a simple question? Whatever answer you give me I will respect even if I don’t agree. What’s tiring is asking the same simple question and being ignored over and over. If you don’t want to answer the question just say so, but as long as you or anyone else is participating on this thread I am obligated to ask the following:

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

 

[tqualey]

Hi, Dokimas,

Just imagine if Christ had said something like this to Peter after his denial? Do you think He could or should have stripped Peter of the authority given to him in Matt 16:18? It looks like most people would have not only fired him as the leader - but, drummed him out of the Apostle group! And that should be sufficient evidence that Isaiah 55:8 hit the nail right on the head - God’s ways are not our ways.

While none of the Popes (besides Peter) denied Christ to His Face - there have been several successors who lives lives of public scandal (as opposed to saintly lives we would have wanted them all to lead). Have no doubt about it - they will be held to account for the bad example their lives have given to others … from their contemporaries to this very generation! But, there is a bright side to this very dark cloud…!

If ever there was a group of men who had the authority to teach error in Faith and Morals - here they were! But, you know what … they never did! The same Faith held by the Apostles - is taught today. Here are just four examples:

Eucharist - it REALLY IS the Body, Blood, Human Soul and Divinity of Jesus Christ!
Baptism - it is REALLY needed to become a Child of God and Heir to the Kingdom of Heaven as it forgives sin and marks us forever as having this special grace… and it has always been open to infants!
Confession - God REALLY DOES forgive our sins THROUGH the priest - even though that priest is himself a sinful human.
Confirmation - the Holy Spirit REALLY comes and bestows His special graces on us as He marks us in a unique way through this Sacrament.

But, as interesting as this is - I still would appreciate you addressing the OPs original question. Thanks!

God bless

And I can see why: the abuses were terrible by the leaders. Power corrupts, absolute power, well you know the rest.

 

[tqualey]

Hi, Dokimas,

I fear you do Joe370 an injustice!.. to say nothing of the rest of us. I have been following your posts - and I really do not recall you clearly stating Who founded the Catholic Church. Naturally, such a response will need documentation - so, feel free to use Scripture, e.g., Matt 16:18 or any of the ECF.

From the looks of things - there was a rovolt of many different groups in the 16th Century and beyond of all those who wanted no longer to be branches on the Vine of Christ, to no longer be associated with the Bride of Christ as established by Christ Himself. But, while all of this is historic and quite documentable - none of it addresses the Church those in revolt were splittig from and Who as their Founder.

That is the OP’s quesiton and that you really have not answered. I admit that a lot of words have been spent in dancing around this issue - but, no one has come down and simply said, “Jesus Christ founded the Catholic Church around 33AD.” No one is really offering another answer - but, no one - other then the Catholic posters - are saying it was Christ (and giving verifiable references to substantiate the statement!)

As I understand the OP’s question - it is really historic, and does not call for anyone to come in with a beginning bias to evade this straight forward question. So, how about a straight forward answer?

God bless

I have done my best, You must go back over my posts. In them is my understanding.

BTW, did Luther start the church named after him or did his followers start the church and they named it for him?