Protestants - When did the Catholic Church Begin?

[Steadfast]

That was a joke.

Far be it from me to insult those fine men in the Society of Jesus and many of them were very fine men indeed.

Better than I for sure.

I was just trying to make a (subtle?) point: historically the jesuits were considered to be the main proponents of and purveyors of casuistry. So much so in fact that “jesuitical” is a word used to describe a crafty person who, by dint of clever word-play can make black seem white.

My point was, simply, that using the qualifier “indirect” to apply to absolutes like “truth” and “falsehood” is a very “jesuitical” thing to do.

Good thing for me that I have been fairly well inoculated against such things.

 

[ahem]

No. The Church include the community of believers. Those who have been baptized in Christ are members of the Church.

I don’t even want to know where you start coming up with galaxies, animals, and plants. Heaven is for mankind, not material things or animals or plants.

Animals may have souls that give them life, but their soul ease to exist once the animal died. Only the soul of the human being is immortal.

This is my whole point–you claim that the church and kingdom are the same, but note that the rule of God expands beyond the church preexists the church, so the church had a beginning point, and Christ reigns over the church, but not only the church. He reigns over all, and always has been king.

 

[Steadfast]

Manny,

I am sorry that you are saddened by my defection.

I have written a lot about it here and elsewhere.

In all, taking a measured view, I would say that it was among the very best things I’ve ever done so there is no reason for you to be saddened by it.

Cheer up!

 

[Contarini]

So the church includes the galaxies, the animals, and plant kingdom, in your view? How are they baptized?

The Church is the means through which all creation is reconciled to God, so in a sense, sure.

Edwin

 

[ahem]

The Church is the means through which all creation is reconciled to God, so in a sense, sure.

Edwin

Now that’s something with which I can agree–the that Jesus as redeemer works his redemption through the church!

It’s just that they (planets, plants, animals, angels, et al) are not members of the church, and thusly the church and kingdom are not synonymous. The kingdom has always been.

 

[Mannyfit75]

This is my whole point–you claim that the church and kingdom are the same

No I did not say that. I said the Church is the Kingdom of Heaven on Earth. Jesus give keys of the kingdom of heaven to Peter. He build his Church upon Peter.

The heaven where God, and angels are is unseen. It is a place where the Glory of God is manifested. These are two different things.

The Church in the End will be the New Jerusalem and it will be taken up into heaven to meet its Groom, the Lamb of God.

but note that the rule of God expands beyond the church preexists the church, so the church had a beginning point, and Christ reigns over the church, but not only the church. He reigns over all, and always has been king.

God is the ruler of all things. I have no disagreement with that.

 

[inkaneer]

I have posted links like these that follow before. How can we be accused of using a derogatory term when Catholic Churches themsealves use it?

saintmarysbrooks.com/

saintgabrielchurch.com/

sfarcc.org/

First in the way it is used. Protestants use it as a derogatory term. Catholics use it as an alternative to “Latin Rite” or to distiguish from a Byzantine Catholic church. Sometimes in the past Catholics used it to more or less "rub it in on their protestant neighbors. I know of one parish that was refused permission to build a Catholic church in a certain municipality that was predominently protestant. The property happened to be between a Methodist church and a Presbyterian one. Those two churches engaged legal council to block the construction. After a period of court hearings the court ruled that the building could be built. And the first pastor, a wiley old Irishman, had a big sign in front that proudly displayed the name “St. Bernard Roman Catholic Church” much to the disdain of the neighboring churches. The next pastor changed it to “St. Bernard Catholic Church” and on the second line, “Latin Rite” I agree though that any Catholic Church that has the word “Roman” on a sign or even stationary should remove it. We are the Catholic Church, the “Ecclesia Kata holos” as Ignatius called it.

 

[criollo]

I’ve lost track of where I read this, but somewhere on Catholic Answers, someone wrote that the Anglican church has bishops going back to St. Augustine of Canterbury. The truth of the matter is that Anglicanism and the Church of England were unknown before the Reformation. The Christian church in England for over a thousand years up to the Reformation was the Catholic church-Roman.
The first bishops of Henry VIII’s new church rejected the Papacy and therefore rejected the Catholic church. The rejection of the Papacy was soon followed by the rejection of a number of other Catholic doctrines. A different religious body ie the Church of England was born.
Faithful Catholic men and women were greatly persecuted for adhering to the ancient faith brought to England by St.Augustine.
The Reformation in England was state-led, hence the fact that the Church of England has all the ancient churches and bishoprics.These things don’t make the Church of England the historic church. It is the Catholic church that is the true and ancient Christian church in England.

 

[NotWorthy]

I only quoted you.

Ahem, I certainly hope you are playing with this statement.

Because you know that Manny predicated the sentence with “This is a common lie” (paraphrase). You seemed to have left that sentence out in your “quoting of” Manny.

This tactic is typical of those like Jack Chick and really reveals your true colors.

Again, I hope you are simply playing with Manny with that statement.

 

[ahem]

No I did not say that. I said the Church is the Kingdom of Heaven on Earth. Jesus give keys of the kingdom of heaven to Peter. He build his Church upon Peter.

The heaven where God, and angels are is unseen. It is a place where the Glory of God is manifested. These are two different things.

The Church in the End will be the New Jerusalem and it will be taken up into heaven to meet its Groom, the Lamb of God.

God is the ruler of all things. I have no disagreement with that.

Wonderful. I apologize if I misstated any assertion on your part. We are in agreement. Look at your post 223 and I think you can see how I misunderstood you.

I hope this explains why my allegiance is to Jesus and His rule. He commissioned the proclamation of the kingdom of God.

 

[ahem]

Ahem, I certainly hope you are playing with this statement.

Because you know that Manny predicated the sentence with “This is a common lie” (paraphrase). You seemed to have left that sentence out in your “quoting of” Manny.

This tactic is typical of those like Jack Chick and really reveals your true colors.

Again, I hope you are simply playing with Manny with that statement.

I think if you go back and read his post you’ll find it is ambiguous at best, and only when I returned to read it again does it speak differently from what I understood.

 

[abcd]

That was a joke.

Far be it from me to insult those fine men in the Society of Jesus and many of them were very fine men indeed.

Better than I for sure.

I was just trying to make a (subtle?) point: historically the jesuits were considered to be the main proponents of and purveyors of casuistry. So much so in fact that “jesuitical” is a word used to describe a crafty person who, by dint of clever word-play can make black seem white.

My point was, simply, that using the qualifier “indirect” to apply to absolutes like “truth” and “falsehood” is a very “jesuitical” thing to do.

Good thing for me that I have been fairly well inoculated against such things.

Steadfast–

I take it you are Lutheren. Is that Elca or Missouri Synod?

 

[NotWorthy]

I think if you go back and read his post you’ll find it is ambiguous at best, and only when I returned to read it again does it speak differently from what I understood.

Here is what he said:

here is another Protestant lie. The Catholic Church is not the Church founded by Jesus Christ 2,000 yrs ago.

Here is how you quoted him:

Originally Posted by Mannyfit75

If that was done intentionally, it is deliberate distortion. We usually expect this from Jack Chick, but not from people who are truly Christian.

If it was because of ambiguity, then I’d apologize to Manny (if I were you) and we can all hold hands and sing Kumbaya!!!

 

[ahem]

Here is what he said:

Here is how you quoted him:
If that was done intentionally, it is deliberate distortion. We usually expect this from Jack Chick, but not from people who are truly Christian.

If it was because of ambiguity, then I’d apologize to Manny (if I were you) and we can all hold hands and sing Kumbaya!!!

I already apologized for my response to his ambiguity upthread 3 or 4 posts. This isn’t even your argument–he did not use a colon, but a period. Not even semicolon.

I cannot speak to your Jack Chick characterization, whatever he is about. If he is anti-Catholic, then you may owe me an apology, if you’re sincerely into apologies.

 

[Grace_Seeker]

Here is what he said:

Here is how you quoted him:
If that was done intentionally, it is deliberate distortion. We usually expect this from Jack Chick, but not from people who are truly Christian.

If it was because of ambiguity, then I’d apologize to Manny (if I were you) and we can all hold hands and sing Kumbaya!!!

Note the punctuation Manny used after the word “lie” – it is a period. Thus, though if one has read much of what Manny has written before you know he didn’t mean what he said, all that Ahem did was quote the next sentence (i.e. a complete independent thought) exactly as Manny posted it. Ahem only has 46 total posts, he may not be familiar with Manny’s point of view and is just taking him at his written word.

 

[abcd]

I’ve lost track of where I read this, but somewhere on Catholic Answers, someone wrote that the Anglican church has bishops going back to St. Augustine of Canterbury. The truth of the matter is that Anglicanism and the Church of England were unknown before the Reformation. The Christian church in England for over a thousand years up to the Reformation was the Catholic church-Roman.
The first bishops of Henry VIII’s new church rejected the Papacy and therefore rejected the Catholic church. The rejection of the Papacy was soon followed by the rejection of a number of other Catholic doctrines. A different religious body ie the Church of England was born.
Faithful Catholic men and women were greatly persecuted for adhering to the ancient faith brought to England by St.Augustine.

How come the Roman catholic church did not excumunicate Augustine because he taught Calvinistic doctrines before there was a Calvin? As for your statement about catholic persecution, don’t forget " Bloody Mary" Catholic Queen that followed Henry the 8th.

 

[Ignatius]

Goodness, can we at least agree on this? If the Catholic Church is a man-made tradition, can someone at least tell me when the Catholic Church over-hauled the True Church?

And where was the True Church for the next X-hundred years until the Reformation could bring it back to light?

I read this on a post from yesterday:

Ignatius of Antioch, born in 50 AD, a second generation Apostle taught by St. John, and the first Martyr to be fed to the lions in the Collesium, said “Whereever Jesus Christ is, there is The Catholic Church”. That’s a long time before 600.

 

[Mannyfit75]

How come the Roman catholic church did not excumunicate Augustine because he taught Calvinistic doctrines before there was a Calvin? As for your statement about catholic persecution, don’t forget " Bloody Mary" Catholic Queen that followed Henry the 8th.

Calvin is from the 16th Century. St. Augustine is from the 4th Century. Calvin did not exist then. John Calvin distort Augustine theology and made it his own.

The Protestants weren’t any different. They persecuted Catholics in their country.

 

[John_Calvin]

The Church is the means through which all creation is reconciled to God, so in a sense, sure.

Edwin

The redemption of creation is a consequence of the death of Christ as well as that of man himself. This is explicitly stated by Paul

18 I consider that the sufferings of this present time are not worth comparing with the glory about to be revealed to us. 19 For the creation waits with eager longing for the revealing of the children of God; 20 for the creation was subjected to futility, not of its own will but by the will of the one who subjected it, in hope 21 that the creation itself will be set free from its bondage to decay and will obtain the freedom of the glory of the children of God. 22 We know that the whole creation has been groaning in labor pains until now; 23 and not only the creation, but we ourselves, who have the first fruits of the Spirit, groan inwardly while we wait for adoption, the redemption of our bodies. 24 For in hope we were saved. Now hope that is seen is not hope. For who hopes for what is seen? 25 But if we hope for what we do not see, we wait for it with patience.

The Holy Bible : New Revised Standard Version. 1989 (Ro 8:18-25). Nashville: Thomas Nelson Publishers.

Wolfhart Pannenberg was baptized into the Lutheran Church, but I believe he was a student of the great Karl Barth which would place him under Reformed influence. The redemption of creation as well as of man has long been a reformed position. Regarding this (in the context of the discussion of creation) Pannenberg wrote

The primary reference in the case of dominion over the earth is to agriculture. It also includes mining. The charge basically embraces a technical handling of earth’s treasures. All such phenomena of human cultural activity bear witness to the fact of human dominion over the earth and the animal kingdom. Only the emancipation of the modern West from commitment to the God of the Bible has replaced the thought that we are God’s stewards in our rule over his creation by the idea that we have a right to unrestricted exploitation of nature. It is illegitimate, then, to make the biblical picture of humanity responsible for the unrestricted exploitation of the earth by humanity today. Called to have dominion over the earth and all living things, humans are also members of God’s creation and in the exercise of dominion are responsible for the preservation of its order. Unlike the Genesis story we may relate this responsibility less to the order established at the beginning and see it more as responsibility for the destiny of creation in its creative development. But in this form it is truly linked to the will of the Creator and its orientation to the reconciliation and redemption of his creation.

Pannenberg, W. (1991-1998). Systematic theology. Translation of: Systematische Theologie. (2:132). Grand Rapids, Mich.: Eerdmans.

 

[Mannyfit75]

Ignatius of Antioch, born in 50 AD, a second generation Apostle taught by St. John, and the first Martyr to be fed to the lions in the Collesium, said “Whereever Jesus Christ is, there is The Catholic Church”. That’s a long time before 600.

Amen