Question for non-Catholics

[WesSmith]

OK. Not sure what that has to do with the thread…

The purpose was to refute the fallacious statement that you made, which was relevant to the discussion

Like for example, scriptural support for the practice of sola scriptura, something I could not find as a former sola scriptura advocate. I digress though…

First, you never answered my claim, you just raised a new one, which does not mean that my claim was invalid. Second, there is overwhelming support for sola scriptura, read what James White has written about that topic

OK. You told me who founded your church but not who founded the Catholic Church.

The modern day RCC with all of its pagan traditions can most closely be traced back to the many reforms made to the church by the Roman Emperor Constantine. His fusion of the church and paganism is where the modern RCC got much of its teaching from. Thus, I would say the RCC is a product of the Roman Empire. There are extensive writings about this topic that explain motive for this, and further proof.

 

[guanophore]

Yes, you clearly are, because you asked the question in the first places. That shows that you feel it is important I can show you who founded my physical church or building.

Perhaps not a “building” as such, but scripture states that the Church is God’s building, and therefore, it is visible on earth. I think there is an assumption being made. Your assumption is that the Church is not a physical, material, tangible, recognizable presence in this world, and the Apostles taught differently. The Catholic assumption is based on what the Apostles taught.

I literally had to chuckle a bit when I read this. My favorite thing about Catholics is their faith. Truly, they have amazing levels of faith. I just live how you can regurgitate ideas and fervently believe them just because your church teaches they are true, even if you have absolutely no scriptural support whatsoever.

Indeed, this is what Christians did for the first 20 years before the NT began to be penned. Christians “received” the faith from the Apostles. They did not “extract” it from the pages of any books.

How do you think a Protestant (people who broke from the RCC because they need to have scriptural support for everything- something the church doesn't offer) would think that an empty statement like you made, with no substantiation, carries any authority?

I do not think that people who espouse the error of sola scriptura will accept the authority of any Catholic assertion that cannot be “proved” with the Scriptures.

Show me SCRIPTURE that proves your statement.

I gave an example in my last post, so I will wait for your reply on that before I give another.

Well, on second thought…

1 Tim 3:14-15

14 I hope to come to you soon, but I am writing these instructions to you so that, 15 if I am delayed, you may know how one ought to behave in the household of God, which is the church of the living God, the pillar and bulwark of the truth.

How is Timothy to know where the household of God is, if it is invisible? How can the Church be a pillar and bulwark of the truth if it is not of this world?

Why did Jesus have to build his Church on a rock IN THIS WORLD if it did not exist tangibly here?

All your support for church teaching comes long after the apostles.

Can you give an example of this?

You think a church teaching of 250 is official. That is not the apostolic church.

Well, we see it differently, but thank you for pointing out the difference. We believe that the Church founded by Christ has continued from the time that He founded it until now, and that it is visible in the four marks of that Church. So for us, the teaching of 240, 492, 1500 and today is the apostolic Church.

I answered your questions already, but I’ll put it real simply- Jesus Christ founded the church I belong to. I belong to the heavenly church which he created.

God bless you

Thank you for participating in the thread. Where was the Church you belong to in 250?

 

[LivingWaters7]

The modern day RCC with all of its pagan traditions can most closely be traced back to the many reforms made to the church by the Roman Emperor Constantine. His fusion of the church and paganism is where the modern RCC got much of its teaching from. Thus, I would say the RCC is a product of the Roman Empire. There are extensive writings about this topic that explain motive for this, and further proof.

What were the specific reforms made by Constantine? Also, please cite the specific extensive writings that you are referring to.

 

[joe371]

WesSmith;12199887]The purpose was to refute the fallacious statement that you made, which was relevant to the discussion

You said: “I literally had to chuckle a bit when I read this. My favorite thing about Catholics is their faith. Truly, they have amazing levels of faith. I just live how you can regurgitate ideas and fervently believe them just because your church teaches they are true”. And I responded with: OK. Not sure what that has to do with the thread… What fallacious statement?

First, you never answered my claim, you just raised a new one, which does not mean that my claim was invalid. Second, there is overwhelming support for sola scriptura, read what James White has written about that topic

OK. You said: “even if you have absolutely no scriptural support whatsoever. How do you think a Protestant (people who broke from the RCC because they need to have scriptural support for everything- something the church doesn’t offer) would think that an empty statement like you made, with no substantiation, carries any authority? Show me SCRIPTURE that proves your statement.”

My answer: There is no scriptural passage that says Jesus founded the CC, ergo the OP.

The modern day RCC with all of its pagan traditions can most closely be traced back to the many reforms made to the church by the Roman Emperor Constantine. His fusion of the church and paganism is where the modern RCC got much of its teaching from. Thus, I would say the RCC is a product of the Roman Empire. There are extensive writings about this topic that explain motive for this, and further proof.

What pagan traditions embraced by the CC today did the Roman Emperor Constantine introduce? So, your answer to the OP, is the Roman Emperor Constantine?

 

[House_Harkonnen]

Thought I’d take another stab at it - Question for non-Catholics (specifically Protestants as opposed to Eastern Orthodox):

Do you believe that Jesus Christ founded the Catholic Church circa AD 33, in Jerusalem, on Pentecost, and that the apostles and their successors, belonged to the Catholic Church? If not then which church in the world today did the apostles belong to, and what is the name of the person that founded the Catholic Church, and when? Please be specific! For example if you asked me who founded the Lutheran church, and when, I would say: Martin Luther, in the 16th century i.e. ML was responsible for the movement that led to the Lutheran churches in the world today.

Do you believe that Jesus Christ founded the Catholic Church circa AD 33, in Jerusalem, on Pentecost, and that the apostles and their successors, belonged to the Catholic Church?

He founded the catholic church, not the Roman Catholic Church. And the apostles belonged to that church.

and what is the name of the person that founded the Catholic Church, and when? Please be specific!

That’s like asking who founded France. The question doesn’t make sense. The Roman Catholic denomination developed over time.

 

[joe371]

He founded the catholic church, not the Roman Catholic Church. And the apostles belonged to that church.

That’s like asking who founded France. The question doesn’t make sense. The Roman Catholic denomination developed over time.

The Catholic Church in the 4th, 5th,6th century was different than the RCC in those same centuries?

If so then what is the name of the person that founded the Roman Catholic Church, and when?

How is asking what is the name of the person that founded the Roman Catholic Church the same as asking: who founded France?

 

[LivingWaters7]

The Catholic Church in the 4th, 5th,6th century was different than the RCC in those same centuries?

If so then what is the name of the person that founded the Roman Catholic Church, and when?

How is asking what is the name of the person that founded the Roman Catholic Church the same as asking: who founded France?

I think the poster you are responding to already provided his view. There is no individual that founded the “Roman Catholic Church”. He said that it “developed over time”. I’m sure he will provide his own expansion on his thoughts, but I’m assuming it is something along the lines of a belief that the “Roman Catholic Church” evolved from the original “Catholic Church”, gradually accepting extraneous beliefs and practices that were not part of the original, and that this development is not analogous to the founding of, for example, the LDS church by Joseph Smith, or various other churches that have their own specific founders.

 

[joe371]

I think the poster you are responding to already provided his view. There is no individual that founded the “Roman Catholic Church”. He said that it “developed over time”. I’m sure he will provide his own expansion on his thoughts, but I’m assuming it is something along the lines of a belief that the “Roman Catholic Church” evolved from the original “Catholic Church”, gradually accepting extraneous beliefs and practices that were not part of the original, and that this development is not analogous to the founding of, for example, the LDS church by Joseph Smith, or various other churches that have their own specific founders.

OK. I see. I wonder if the original church founded by Jesus, as opposed to the RCC [that supposedly developed over time, with no founder(s)] and all of the PCs (established by people other than Jesus) still exists today?

 

[House_Harkonnen]

OK. I see. I wonder if the original church founded by Jesus, as opposed to the RCC [that supposedly developed over time, with no founder(s)] and all of the PCs (established by people other than Jesus) still exists today?

Yes. It’s not limited to a specific denomination though.

 

[joe371]

Yes. It’s not limited to a specific denomination though.

OK, I think we are getting somewhere. The original church founded by Jesus, as opposed to the RCC and all of the PCs, still exists today, and that one original church is not limited to a specific denomination.

Where can one go to find that one original church, today?

 

[WesSmith]

I am not going to respond to everybody individually because it is simply too much, and I think the same can be accomplished by just saying this-

Catholics are far too concerned about denomination. You continually ask for a name or denomination where we can serve Christ. The key to this question is that there is no scriptural or even logical reason to conclude that Christ created a physical denomination such as the Catholic church. Certainly, the church that He founded was a spiritual body. Members of that spiritual body are on the earth, and thus the early church functioned as a union of various assemblies. When God needed a matter to be settled, He called councils together, such as the council to settle circumcision. I even would admit that God worked through the earlier councils of the Catholic church. Unlike many Protestants, I see denomination as a man made creation. Jesus Christ certainly was not a Catholic. He never instituted the many rites of the church such as the mass, with its many man made ceremonies which were formed long after the apostles. The bottom line is that if you want to serve Christ, that is done in the spirit, not in a man made creation. A man made denomination should never be equal to Christ’s powerful church, because the Church transcends denomination. To serve Christ, go to a Church where you feel He is present. In my opinion, Christ is even present in many traditional Catholic churches, because they sincerely want to worship Him, even if they are wrong on certain issues (But, I am wholly against modern Catholicism, which would have been condemned as heresy by every pope before Vatican I I anyway)

About paganism in Catholicism, that is extremely well known. I have even taken tours in the Metropolitan Museum of Art that point out the many pagan accents in the plethora of Catholic idols. A simple search on Google will provide you with overwhelming examples on how Constantine implanted paganism in the church. I encourage you to do your own research, I’m not going to debate that when people far greater than I have provided the world with abundant examples.

This website is a good start- amazingdiscoveries.org/S-deception_end-time_paganism_Catholic_Mithraism

 

[JonNC]

Thought I’d take another stab at it - Question for non-Catholics (specifically Protestants as opposed to Eastern Orthodox):

Do you believe that Jesus Christ founded the Catholic Church circa AD 33, in Jerusalem, on Pentecost, and that the apostles and their successors, belonged to the Catholic Church? If not then which church in the world today did the apostles belong to, and what is the name of the person that founded the Catholic Church, and when? Please be specific! For example if you asked me who founded the Lutheran church, and when, I would say: Martin Luther, in the 16th century i.e. ML was responsible for the movement that led to the Lutheran churches in the world today.

Hi Joe, my good friend. I hope you are well. One of the great things about dialogue with you, is that I know it will not become contentious.

From the Augsburg Confession:
** Only those things have been recounted whereof we thought that it was necessary to speak, in order that it might be understood that in doctrine and ceremonies nothing has been received on our part against Scripture or the Church Catholic. **

The first section of the Book of Concord contains no writings from the Reformation era, but instead the three ecumenical creeds of the Church. To these we pledge ourselves.

In the creeds, and in Augsburg, you will only see mention of the Church Catholic, the One Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church. So, we recognize that the Church was begun at Pentecost by Christ Himself, and that not only are we members of that Church, but so are those Catholics in communion with the Bishop of Rome, as well as Orthodox Christians and many others.

All of us can make that claim through our Baptisms, which brings us under God’s grace, forgives sin, and joins us to the universal Church, the Communion of Saints.

Jon

 

[dronald]

I A simple search on Google will provide you with overwhelming examples on how Constantine implanted paganism in the church. I encourage you to do your own research, I’m not going to debate that when people far greater than I have provided the world with abundant examples.

Silly Catholics; just Google why the Pope is the Anti Christ, how you worship Mary and Constantine invented Catholicism and you’re bound to understand why your Religion is so false? Gosh, don’t you know anything about how the internet works?

You’ll be leaving Catholicism in no time. They don’t just allow anything on the internet.

 

[guanophore]

Catholics are far too concerned about denomination.

By whose standard? Jesus commanded us to be One, as He and the Father are One, and the denominations separate us. From our point of view, we have a divine commandment to resolve these issues.

You continually ask for a name or denomination where we can serve Christ.

For those of us who have studied the denominatinal differences, this question can help us understand that nature of the differences that separate us. Perhaps we should be more affirming that our siblings in Christ are serving in an ecclesial community.

 The key to this question is that there is no scriptural or even logical reason to conclude that Christ created a physical denomination such as the Catholic church. Certainly, the church that He founded was a spiritual body. Members of that spiritual body are on the earth, and thus the early church functioned as a union of various assemblies.

Well, we see it differently. Catholics, as well as Orthodox, Anglicans, Lutherans and others who still espouse these elements of the Apostolic faith do definitely see a logical, physical, and authoratative Body created on earth by Christ. In fact, this myth of the spiritual only “body” was one of the first heresies I encountered in my sojourn among my separated brethren.

You make a good point, though, that the early church did function as a union of various assemblies. All of those assemblies were united with the successors of the Apostles, from which they took their idenitty and authority. Those who were not in unity were either not considered Christian, or heretical.

When God needed a matter to be settled, He called councils together, such as the council to settle circumcision. I even would admit that God worked through the earlier councils of the Catholic church.

God worked through people to call these conferences. He worked through the people He appointed and authorized. Those participating in the councils were the Apostles, and those appointed by them. This is the structure of the visible Church on earth created by Christ.

Unlike many Protestants, I see denomination as a man made creation.

??

I guess I have never met anyone who considered them otherwise. Are there really people who believe that God wants divisions and schism’s in His One Body, ,the Church?

Jesus Christ certainly was not a Catholic. He never instituted the many rites of the church such as the mass, with its many man made ceremonies which were formed long after the apostles.

While I can agree that Jesus was not “Catholic”, I think a person can only made a statement like this who does not understand the Passover. Have you ever been to a synagogue service? The parallels are amazing.

Certainly it is true that many Rites were developed after Christ, such as the Rites of the Catechumenate. This goes back to whether Jesus authorized the Apostles and their successors to bind and loose (legislate) the Church He founded. If he did empower them with the authority in which He was sent, then the creation of Rites after Christ should not be an issue. Do you believe the Holy Spirit incapable of redirecting the fledgling Church?

The bottom line is that if you want to serve Christ, that is done in the spirit, not in a man made creation.

I can’t argue this point, however, we consider the Church to have been founded by Christ, and therefore, it is a Divine Creation created for humankind. I also think that the service Christ requires of us is largely material and temporal, not just spiritual. When I read the sermon on the mount, I see tangible, material, human interpersonal commandments there.

A man made denomination should never be equal to Christ’s powerful church, because the Church transcends denomination.

Yes. All Catholics should easily and readily agree to this, as this is the position taught in our Catechism.

 

[guanophore]

To serve Christ, go to a Church where you feel He is present. In my opinion, Christ is even present in many traditional Catholic churches, because they sincerely want to worship Him,

I tried this for a couple decades, until I finally realized that this attitude is an act of hubris. The criteria should not be my “feeling”, but His commandment.

even if they are wrong on certain issues (But, I am wholly against modern Catholicism,

Can you state more specifically what is wrong, and what you are against? You mentioned Rites, are there others?

which would have been condemned as heresy by every pope before Vatican I I anyway)

It is certainly true that our understanding of the Teachings of Christ does develop over time, and that Vatican II laid some useful groundwork and guidance in our quest to reconcile the divisions that occurred at the Reformation. Prior to the Reformation, all those who departed from the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic faith were considered heretics. Now, we have people who were born into long lasting traditions based in heresies, and were never taught or had the opportunity to embrace orthodoxy.

About paganism in Catholicism, that is extremely well known. I have even taken tours in the Metropolitan Museum of Art that point out the many pagan accents in the plethora of Catholic idols. A simple search on Google will provide you with overwhelming examples on how Constantine implanted paganism in the church. I encourage you to do your own research, I’m not going to debate that when people far greater than I have provided the world with abundant examples.

This answers part of the question I answered above. Do you accept simple Google searches as a major source of accurate historical information?

This website is a good start- amazingdiscoveries.org/S-deception_end-time_paganism_Catholic_Mithraism

I am sure that others here will respond to your recommendation as well, so I will limit my comment to “consider the source”. This is a good rule of thumb whenever one is researching on the internet as anyone can post their opinions without any scholarly references (basis in fact). The particular site you reference also says this:

“We believe in the principles of the reformation as described in its motto: Sola Scriptura, Sola Gracia, Sola Christos. We base our beliefs on the teachings of the Seventh-day Adventist Church as they adhere to the Bible and are set forth in the book Principles of Life.”

This is a Seventh Day Adventist Site that is anticatholic for a variety of reasons, one major one is that the CC celebrates The Lord’s Day on Sunday instead of the Sabbath on Saturday. Do you embrace all the other theological perspectives of the Adventist denomination? If not, why are you willing to accept the rhetoric on this site about Catholics and Paganism?

 

[JonNC]

=WesSmith;12201118]
Catholics are far too concerned about denomination. You continually ask for a name or denomination where we can serve Christ.

Non-Catholics are as much preoccupied by this concept, it seems. Even the profile term “non-denominational” indicates a preoccupation with denominations.

The key to this question is that there is no scriptural or even logical reason to conclude that Christ created a physical denomination such as the Catholic church. Certainly, the church that He founded was a spiritual body. Members of that spiritual body are on the earth, and thus the early church functioned as a union of various assemblies. When God needed a matter to be settled, He called councils together, such as the council to settle circumcision. I even would admit that God worked through the earlier councils of the Catholic church.

Generally I agree.

Unlike many Protestants, I see denomination as a man made creation.

Which protestants don’t see denominations as man made?

Jesus Christ certainly was not a Catholic. He never instituted the many rites of the church such as the mass, with its many man made ceremonies which were formed long after the apostles.

I think a good Catholic and Lutheran, even though we may differ on certain aspects of it, would agree that Christ instituted the mass on Maundy Thursday - “Take and eat…”

The bottom line is that if you want to serve Christ, that is done in the spirit, not in a man made creation. A man made denomination should never be equal to Christ’s powerful church, because the Church transcends denomination. To serve Christ, go to a Church where you feel He is present. In my opinion, Christ is even present in many traditional Catholic churches, because they sincerely want to worship Him, even if they are wrong on certain issues (But, I am wholly against modern Catholicism, which would have been condemned as heresy by every pope before Vatican I I anyway)

Do you believe God can use a man-made institution for His purposes?

About paganism in Catholicism, that is extremely well known. I have even taken tours in the Metropolitan Museum of Art that point out the many pagan accents in the plethora of Catholic idols. A simple search on Google will provide you with overwhelming examples on how Constantine implanted paganism in the church. I encourage you to do your own research, I’m not going to debate that when people far greater than I have provided the world with abundant examples.

I reject this out of hand.

Jon

 

[Isaiah45_9]

I am not going to respond to everybody individually because it is simply too much, and I think the same can be accomplished by just saying this-

So you’d rather just be lazy and really say whatever you want without reading and giving any thought to what others post… Got it.

Catholics are far too concerned about denomination.

Why shouldn’t we? It divides the Body of Christ.

You continually ask for a name or denomination where we can serve Christ.

No, we want everyone to be part of the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church.

The key to this question is that there is no scriptural or even logical reason to conclude that Christ created a physical denomination such as the Catholic church.

Correct. That’s why He made One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church. Not rebellious denominations with a myriad of different beliefs.

Certainly, the church that He founded was a spiritual body.

It’s both physical and spiritual.

Members of that spiritual body are on the earth,

And in heaven.

and thus the early church functioned as a union of various assemblies.

Still do. One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church.

When God needed a matter to be settled,

God doesn’t need anything. We do. That’s why He gave us a Physical Church to nurture our Spirit and to guide us into the Spiritual One.

He called councils together, such as the council to settle circumcision.

His Church calls the Councils operating under the authority given to Her by Her High Priest: Christ Jesus.

I even would admit that God worked through the earlier councils of the Catholic church.

Wheew…

Unlike many Protestants, I see denomination as a man made creation.

That’s very Catholic of you to say.

Jesus Christ certainly was not a Catholic.

Indeed He was and is. He is the Universal Redeemer of the World. That’s what Catholic means: Universal. Not a denomination. Your assumption is that Catholic is a denomination when it is not. It is the name used for the Church as a Whole around the World. The one built by Christ on Cephas.

He never instituted the many rites of the church such as the mass, with its many man made ceremonies which were formed long after the apostles.

Our Mass is more Scriptural than any other service I know and have attended (I’ve been around…)

As for the man made claim… (Never heard that before )

Have a read at Justin Martyr’s 1st Apology ~140AD:

The bottom line is that if you want to serve Christ, that is done in the spirit, not in a man made creation.

This is very Catholic of you to say.

About paganism in Catholicism, that is extremely well known.

It is extremely well known for those lacking the right education and those who intentionally twist the truth.

Unless you are familiar with historical methodology and critical methods, you should not be making assertions you are unable to properly refer to and defend.

 

[exnihilo]

Jesus never taught the countless Catholic traditions or rites that currently exist. He never founded that.

That is an interesting assertion. What traditions and rites do you refer to? How do you know Jesus never taught them? The Gospel of John says ‘But there are also many other things which Jesus did; were every one of them to be written, I suppose that the world itself could not contain the books that would be written.’ If I were to assume you are limiting what Jesus taught to the canon of Scripture, and that John is in that canon, then Scripture itself makes that position untenable. It is much easier to prove that Jesus did teach something than that He did not teach something. It is a very reasonable assumption to believe that not everything Jesus taught was recorded.

 

[Sy_Noe]

Thought I’d take another stab at it - Question for non-Catholics (specifically Protestants as opposed to Eastern Orthodox):

Do you believe that Jesus Christ founded the Catholic Church circa AD 33, in Jerusalem, on Pentecost, and that the apostles and their successors, belonged to the Catholic Church? If not then which church in the world today did the apostles belong to, and what is the name of the person that founded the Catholic Church, and when? Please be specific! For example if you asked me who founded the Lutheran church, and when, I would say: Martin Luther, in the 16th century i.e. ML was responsible for the movement that led to the Lutheran churches in the world today.

I have zero interest in getting into a drawn out debate about this so don’t think anything of it if I don’t respond to anything further. IOW don’t think “gotcha” if I don’t reply. But just to answer and offer what I have come to believe thus far at this point in my faith walk as I’ve searched for truth.

I believe the following. Jesus Christ established His Church not upon Peter but upon Peter’s profession of faith. His Church is not only today’s Catholic Church but His entire Body of believers. So the apostles belonged to the same Church that all Christians do today. Every human is fallible and I believe can be possibly on faith and moral teachings as well. I believe even the earliest Christians including ECFs were fallible and could have strayed. Even Peter denied and Thomas doubted. This fallibility aspect of being human results in some differences to be sure but that’s simply the reality of being human. Even Paul, not of the original 12, corrected Peter. If what Catholics believe was ever the one Church, the papacy I believe over time became too powerful. I believe more so than Jesus intended. Jesus gave keys to all the apostles when he said for them to bind and loosen. So in a nutshell who founded all the churches today? Jesus did! We have our different interpretations on some specifics no doubt. But as we await for the one truth to all be explained for us by Him and truly learn and know at that time who is completely right on everything if anyone is, trusting in His mercy, we are indeed united as one in Jesus as Lord and Savior and Christ the King. I don’t sweat all of the smaller stuff as much. Because as we are told in Ephesians 2:14, He brings us peace and is the One Who breaks down walls. Peace to everyone.

 

[joe371]

JonNC;12201189]Hi Joe, my good friend. I hope you are well. One of the great things about dialogue with you, is that I know it will not become contentious.

Tell Wessmith that…LOL…

From the Augsburg Confession:
** Only those things have been recounted whereof we thought that it was necessary to speak, in order that it might be understood that in doctrine and ceremonies nothing has been received on our part against Scripture or the Church Catholic.**

The first section of the Book of Concord contains no writings from the Reformation era, but instead the three ecumenical creeds of the Church. To these we pledge ourselves.

In the creeds, and in Augsburg, you will only see mention of the Church Catholic, the One Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church. So, we recognize that the Church was begun at Pentecost by Christ Himself, and that not only are we members of that Church, but so are those Catholics in communion with the Bishop of Rome, as well as Orthodox Christians and many others.

All of us can make that claim through our Baptisms, which brings us under God’s grace, forgives sin, and joins us to the universal Church, the Communion of Saints.

Jon