the first Church.

[racing59]

I just wanted to make a comment on the post on this thread. I’m really enjoying the discusion between RCC and Lutheren Church. I do not know alot about thre Reformation. Your post have been very insightfull.Keep up the good work. RCC has presented very good points for the Chair of Peter in my oppinion. I’m getting some of my question answered. Good posts!

 

[wisdomseeker]

**--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Quote:
Originally Posted by LutheranDK
Again: This is what you believe. And fair enough. But that does not mean that to disagree with this belief is to, say, deny historical facts (even though some people try to paint that picture).
You cannot compare denying the claim that Jesus founded the RC church to, say, denying that the battle of Waterloo took place, or that Germany stole Slesvig-Holsten from Denmark in 1864. The latter are factual historical events, thoroughly witnessed and established. Fact.
The former is a question which is inseperable from that of theology, and therefore not merely a matter of whether or not a historical event took place.

Example: I agree that Jesus founded the Church Catholic. (bearing in mind the meaning of the Greek word) But I do not agree that the Church Catholic and the RC church is one and the same. And I have not to date seen any arguments in favor of this which did not in some way or another constitute circular reasoning.
For instance:

1: Jesus founded the RC church, because the RC church says so, and the RC church is right, because it’s the one that Jesus founded.

2: Jesus founded the RC church, because Ignatius uses the word “katholikos” (“Catholic”), and that means = The RC church, because the church says so.

And I could continue…

The bottom line: I have yet to encounter A SINGLE piece of reasoning pointing to the RC church being the church that Jesus founded, which did not presume this to start with.

And no - even though some people might like to read anti-RC-attitudes into this post, there is none to be found. Only frustration at the intellectual level which some posters’ posts display.
It feels like this: **

ok then, do you have any other Catholic Church of which your faith came from? if so, where is she? and if it is not the CC the True Church do you have any other to present to us? and if not, and you still dont believe that the CC is the True Church, how do you explain the promise of our Lord the Gates of hell would not prevail against His Church?

"Never before has there been so much learning, and yet so little knowledge of the truth."

 

[OneTrueCathApos]

Okay let me ask you this. You said you believe that Jesus did indeed start the Catholic Church. But not the RCC. Okay here is my SINGLE piece of reasoning to point to the RC. Jesus built the Church on Peter. Now Peter started the Catholic Church. You must agree with that, Now Peter started the Roman Rite. Because he was the first pope. Now the Pope is still here, and is still in the Roman Catholic Church. Now the Pope has the Church handed down from Peter, it can be PROVEN. Now that Church in Rome that the Pope is still the head of is the Roman Catholic Church. So how could the RCC be in succession from Peter and not be the Church Jesus started. Or are you saying Peter did not do what was asked of him?

Here is another piece of evidence. Luther left the Roman Catholic Church. Not just the Catholic Church. Kind of strange huh. Even luther was Roman Catholic.

So do you agree or disagree that Peter started the RCC. If you don’t then how can the RCC prove every Pope after Peter in history. The RCC claims that they follow the Church Peter started.

THERE IS ONLY ONE CATHOLIC CHURCH. THE ROMAN CATHOLIC CHURCH IS THE SAME AS THE CATHOLIC CHURCH. WHY DOESN’T THIS SINK THROUGH??? Good grief…

 

[jbelokur]

THERE IS ONLY ONE CATHOLIC CHURCH. THE ROMAN CATHOLIC CHURCH IS THE SAME AS THE CATHOLIC CHURCH. WHY DOESN’T THIS SINK THROUGH??? Good grief…

i know this frustrates me to no end. There is no such thing as the “Roman Catholic Church”. That is a secular/popular term typically used by people outside of the Catholic Church though unfortunately Catholics who don’t know better use the term as well. And there is no “Roman rite” of the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass either, it is the Latin Mass.

 

[OneTrueCathApos]

i know this frustrates me to no end. There is no such thing as the “Roman Catholic Church”. That is a secular/popular term typically used by people outside of the Catholic Church though unfortunately Catholics who don’t know better use the term as well. And there is no “Roman rite” of the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass either, it is the Latin Mass.

All who are Catholic must follow the pope or they are not Catholics. The “Roman Catholic” name can be used as such to explain this to others. I always say I am a Roman Catholic. Catholic and Roman are the same…get it?

 

[jbelokur]

All who are Catholic must follow the pope or they are not Catholics. The “Roman Catholic” name can be used as such to explain this to others. I always say I am a Roman Catholic. Catholic and Roman are the same…get it?

I get it, but I think that it is an improper term that as i said above is a general misunderstanding of what you said above. I think that it leads people to think of the Catholic Church as something organizationally more like the Orthodox Church. Or as people keep bring up, “I believe Christ establish the Catholic Church but not the Roman Catholic Church.” This is nonsense. You see this non-term has falsely informed how people think and believe.

 

[wisdomseeker]

THERE IS ONLY ONE CATHOLIC CHURCH. THE ROMAN CATHOLIC CHURCH IS THE SAME AS THE CATHOLIC CHURCH. WHY DOESN’T THIS SINK THROUGH??? Good grief…

dont worry my brother. this is the new invention of the anti Catholics, since they cannot make her dissapear, they are working on make her look like just another religion, just another church among so many. the sad thing is that many that does not know this Church is buying into it. but that is ok, we will take it. watch what our Lord can do.

**
Never before has there been so much learning, and yet so little knowledge of the truth**.

 

[Prodigal_Son1]

dont worry my brother. this is the new invention of the anti Catholics, since they cannot make her dissapear, they are working on make her look like just another religion, just another church among so many. the sad thing is that many that does not know this Church is buying into it. but that is ok, we will take it. watch what our Lord can do.

**
Never before has there been so much learning, and yet so little knowledge of the truth**.

The simple solution is to look at the writings of the early Church fathers, prior to the time that Protestants say Roman Catholicism was created. Surely those writings would show if the Church then was like the Protestant Churches or the Catholic Church.

 

[rinnie]

THERE IS ONLY ONE CATHOLIC CHURCH. THE ROMAN CATHOLIC CHURCH IS THE SAME AS THE CATHOLIC CHURCH. WHY DOESN’T THIS SINK THROUGH??? Good grief…

Hi OTCA:wave: I can’t figure it out either. But thats the new thing now on this site. That the RC Rite came long after the Catholic Church. Go figure.

But my main point to prove the first church started by Peter is the RCC is like COMMON SENSE. Here is why. We can prove Apostolic Succession. Now Peter started the Church. Because he was the rock. Now how can they agree that the Church was FOUNDED on Peter, and handed down to the Pope and not be RC. Maybe someone should tell the Pope then that his CHurch isn’t Roman.

Don’t know go figure. Well gotta roll. Hope you all have a wonderful Holiday weekend. I am done with work till Tues, Its beautiful here. Me and husband are going on Bike and gonna enjoy the weekend. :extrahappy:

Everyone God Bless.

SHould see the bikers when they see me. On my vest its says: LOUD PIPES SAVES LIVES. JESUS CHRIST SAVES SOULS!

 

[Hesychios]

The simple solution is to look at the writings of the early Church fathers, prior to the time that Protestants say Roman Catholicism was created. Surely those writings would show if the Church then was like the Protestant Churches or the Catholic Church.

…or the Orthodox church

 

[Prodigal_Son1]

…or the Orthodox church

I didn’t distinquish because I see Roman or Orthodox as the Catholic Church. Someone compared the East and West as the right and left lung of the living Church. I like that analogy.

 

[guanophore]

THERE IS ONLY ONE CATHOLIC CHURCH. THE ROMAN CATHOLIC CHURCH IS THE SAME AS THE CATHOLIC CHURCH. WHY DOESN’T THIS SINK THROUGH??? Good grief…

Because we are living evidence that it is a false statement. The Catholic Church is much larger than the Latin Rite. The other 22 Rites of the Catholic Church are just as valid as yours. The Catholic Church is not Roman.

All who are Catholic must follow the pope or they are not Catholics. The “Roman Catholic” name can be used as such to explain this to others. I always say I am a Roman Catholic. Catholic and Roman are the same…get it?

Actually, it would be more true to say that we are in unity with the Bishop of Rome. If he acts badly, we should not “follow” him. Fortunately, we have been blessed with holy popes in this century. This has not always been the case. Unity in doctrine, and the Teaching of the Church does not mean we necessarily “follow the pope”.

Yes, the term “Roman Catholic” can be used to explain to others that one is un union with the Bishop of Rome. And yes, it is true that Latin Rite members in good standing are certainly “Catholic” but it is misealding to equate being Catholic with being Roman. And frankly it is demeaning to those who treasure their alternative Rites.

 

[racing59]

Because we are living evidence that it is a false statement. The Catholic Church is much larger than the Latin Rite. The other 22 Rites of the Catholic Church are just as valid as yours. The Catholic Church is not Roman.

This is getting intresting. I hope you all further explain these positions on the Catholic Church!

 

[guanophore]

I can't figure it out either.  But thats the new thing now on this site.  That the RC Rite came long after the Catholic Church.  Go figure. e

Here is how to figure it, rinnie. The Church began in Palestine,and all of the first members were Jews. They had an Aramaic Liturgy (which is still used today in Palestine). The spread of the Church began to the East, and flourished first in Antioch of Syria. This is the second oldest Rite. Paul, as we read in Acts, spread the gospel around the known world, but most of the liturgies were in Gk, because that was the common linguistic currency. Some 20 years later, both Peter and Paul were in Rome, still doing liturgies in Gk. and Aramaic.

When the Western Empire collapsed centuries later, the primary language in the West became Latin. At that time, the Latin Rite was distinct from the Eastern and Oriental Rites which retained the older language and practices. They are all valid, they are all in unity with the bishop of Rome. The are all Catholic.

No one is asking you to give up your affiliation for your Rite, or being proud of it.

But my main point to prove the first church started by Peter is the RCC is like COMMON SENSE. Here is why. We can prove Apostolic Succession. Now Peter started the Church. Because he was the rock. Now how can they agree that the Church was FOUNDED on Peter, and handed down to the Pope and not be RC. Maybe someone should tell the Pope then that his CHurch isn’t Roman.

There is no need to tell him. Our Pope know what you apparently do not, that the Catholic Church is universal. He presides as Pope over 23 Rites in the Church, only one of them Roman.

Peter did not start the Church, rinnie, Jesus did. He said “Upon this Rock I WILL BUILD my Church”. Jesus is the builder. He is not Roman either.

There is also a valid Apostolic Succession in all the places where the Apostles appointed bishops, beginning in Jerusalem,a nd then in Antioch. Antioch has the oldest line of Petrine bishops. They are not less Catholic than those in the Latin Rite.

 

[OneTrueCathApos]

I get it, but I think that it is an improper term that as i said above is a general misunderstanding of what you said above. I think that it leads people to think of the Catholic Church as something organizationally more like the Orthodox Church. Or as people keep bring up, “I believe Christ establish the Catholic Church but not the Roman Catholic Church.” This is nonsense. You see this non-term has falsely informed how people think and believe.

No my friend, you think of the Catholic church as that way, noone else does. Think about it. If Christ gave Peter, the first pope authority to run His church until His return, Peter, who reigned as Bishop of ROME for 25 years, that is in fact a ROMAN CATHOLIC isn’t it? That is what started the ROMAN CATHOLIC CHURCH is it not? Don’t forget if it weren’t for the ROMAN CATHOLIC CHURCH, you wouldn’t have a bible.

 

[MDK]

…or the Orthodox church

Hey, no valid reason for you guys to split over the authority structure established by Christ, and other misunderstandings an personal hurt feelings in the way. I hope the separation is healed soon.

 

[dzheremi]

I didn’t distinquish because I see Roman or Orthodox as the Catholic Church. Someone compared the East and West as the right and left lung of the living Church. I like that analogy.

I’ve never heard of any Orthodox individual or Church that does, though. In fact, I’ve even seen bumper stickers bearing the slogan “Orthodoxy - Breathing with Both Lungs since 52 AD” (or some similarly small number). It is something of an immediate conversation-ender among the EO I know.

While I too feel an intense affinity for the early, doctrinally-united Church, as I’m sure we all do, I tend to see the lungs analogy as something of an oversimplification of the relationship of Eastern Christianity to Western Christianity, though I suppose that the limited context in which it has been used (to refer to the Eastern Catholic Churches in union with Rome, not the EO or OO), it is a good analogy.

 

[MDK]

I’ve never heard of any Orthodox individual or Church that does, though. In fact, I’ve even seen bumper stickers bearing the slogan “Orthodoxy - Breathing with Both Lungs since 52 AD” (or some similarly small number). It is something of an immediate conversation-ender among the EO I know.

While I too feel an intense affinity for the early, doctrinally-united Church, as I’m sure we all do, I tend to see the lungs analogy as something of an oversimplification of the relationship of Eastern Christianity to Western Christianity or vice-versa.

I would say if Peter isn’t the visible head of your Church, are you really a completely orthodox Christian?

 

[Prodigal_Son1]

I’ve never heard of any Orthodox individual or Church that does, though. In fact, I’ve even seen bumper stickers bearing the slogan “Orthodoxy - Breathing with Both Lungs since 52 AD” (or some similarly small number). It is something of an immediate conversation-ender among the EO I know.

While I too feel an intense affinity for the early, doctrinally-united Church, as I’m sure we all do, I tend to see the lungs analogy as something of an oversimplification of the relationship of Eastern Christianity to Western Christianity or vice-versa.

I looked it up, it was Pope John Paul II.

**Pope John Paul II wrote back in the 1990s, Lumen Orientalis (Light from the East), that the Catholic Church “breathes with two lungs, East and West.” **

Like I said, I really like that analogy.

 

[dzheremi]

Oh boy. I really didn’t mean to turn this into another discussion on Peterine primacy or what have you (hence the edit to my post to specify that if we’re talking about the Eastern and Western Churches in communion with Rome, there is less to object to in the lungs analogy).

Prodigal Son: I looked it up, too, hence the edit.