The historicity of the Church

[Isaiah45_9]

So would you say that some Protestants are members of the Church? Or no Protestants are members of the Church?

Let’s look at it in another way:

Say you and I go and work in missions together, we are not preachers and we don’t get into any doctrinal details. We help feed the hungry, we help build homes for the poor, we help clothe the poor, we talk about Christ to the non-believers and what Christ has done for us and them. We read the New Testament together as part of initiating them into Scriptures.

Are we not living a Christian life together?

Things will get muddy when we start reading the Old Testament if you don’t accept the Deuterocanonicals, and when I start introducing the Sacramental life or if you start introducing the Solas .

But the point is that inevitably, doctrine matters. We move from eating milk and cookies into eating meat and meals with more substance.

That’s what the Catholic Church is, a Feast of Faith!

There is nothing wrong at all with simplicity but we grow in the Faith and we mature as believers.

Many times, St. Paul appeals to believers to maintain the traditions and the doctrine that has been delivered. And it is for good reason. Departing from these things place our souls in danger.

From Dominus Iesus:

Above all else, it must be firmly believed that “the Church, a pilgrim now on earth, is necessary for salvation: the one Christ is the mediator and the way of salvation; he is present to us in his body which is the Church. He himself explicitly asserted the necessity of faith and baptism (cf. Mk 16:16; Jn 3:5), and thereby affirmed at the same time the necessity of the Church which men enter through baptism as through a door”.77 This doctrine must not be set against the universal salvific will of God (cf. 1 Tim 2:4); “it is necessary to keep these two truths together, namely, the real possibility of salvation in Christ for all mankind and the necessity of the Church for this salvation”.78

From Blessed John Paul II, UNIVERSAL PRAYER:

Lord God,
your pilgrim Church,
which you ever sanctify in the blood of your Son,
counts among her children in every age
members whose holiness shines brightly forth
and members whose disobedience to you
contradicts the faith we profess and the Holy Gospel.
You, who remain ever faithful,
even when we are unfaithful,
forgive our sins
and grant that we may bear true witness to you
before all men and women.
We ask this through Christ our Lord.
Amen.

 

[FathersKnowBest]

Well, as I stated, if some new religion is stating Jesus is a lesser prophet it is not Christian, has no lampstand. I do not place in the Christian boat of Dominus lesus.

And if some new religion is stating that Jesus’ Body, the Church, is a lesser institution, then what?

 

[House_Harkonnen]

Besides the canon, which you’ve been unable to address, how about polygamy?

The Lens in My Eye
(excerpted from Chapter 6 of By What Authority?)

I have addressed the canon several times.

Also, what does what Luther or Milton says have to do with anything?

 

[House_Harkonnen]

You don’t need scripture for that; according to scripture what you need is steadfastness.
Jas 1:4 And let steadfastness have its full effect, that you may be perfect and complete, lacking in nothing.

How much more perfect can I be than perfect and complete, lacking in nothing?

James is speaking in the context of the many trials they were facing, not regarding the teaching of scripture.

 

[FathersKnowBest]

James is speaking in the context of the many trials they were facing, not regarding the teaching of scripture.

Yes; that’s exactly the point. He’s not discussing scripture, yet IN SCRIPTURE he’s saying that steadfast gives you the same effect that you are claiming proves that scripture alone makes you perfect.

Care to try again?

 

[FathersKnowBest]

I have addressed the canon several times.

You’ve flailed around the subject; you’ve not addressed the actual issue.

Also, what does what Luther or Milton says have to do with anything?

Please address the issue not simply responding with an ad hominem.

 

[House_Harkonnen]

You’ve flailed around the subject; you’ve not addressed the actual issue.

Please address the issue not simply responding with an ad hominem.

Luther and Milton were simply wrong.

Also, Luther disapproved of polygamy and adultery which is clear from his writings. Yet he succumbed to some political pressure on the Phillip of Hesse issue. He was a fallible man, prone to error, like everyone else.

 

[FathersKnowBest]

Luther and Milton were simply wrong.

Great. Why?

Also, Luther disapproved of polygamy and adultery which is clear from his writings.

Yes. And yet, he couldn’t show this from scripture. Hmmm …

 

[Isaiah45_9]

Yes; that’s exactly the point. He’s not discussing scripture, yet IN SCRIPTURE he’s saying that steadfast gives you the same effect that you are claiming proves that scripture alone makes you perfect.

Care to try again?

This is an excellent point!!!

 

[joe371]

Well, in a way, that is precisely the problem of SS. It’s like a mutating virus that changes definitions and molds to fit the individual or group of individuals. It’s a really anarchistic principle.

How can it be singularly approached when it has not singularity?

:banghead:I need to stay on topic:banghead:

:yup:

 

[Bernard_Lyons]

In the latest Sola Scriptura thread, my friend Per Crucem posted:

This in reply to the unbroken line of the historical Christian Churches: Oriental Orthodox (OO), Eastern Orthodox (EO), and Catholic (CC).

All of us (Me being Catholic) can trace our undisputed origin to the Apostles, and therefore to Christ. We each blame the other for separating but we all owe our existence to Christ and the evangelization of the Apostles themselves.

It is a very common argument that we are not the Church that Jesus founded.

I am not interested in ideas, opinions, or gut feelings. I want dry, cold and hard facts. We can produce dry, cold and hard facts, so we expect nothing less in return.

Hi Jose , it may be "undisputed "fact among yourselves ,that is ,that your beliefs originate and date from the Apostles.
But for me as a former Catholic, I would suggest that the majority of my former ( as a Catholic) understanding of the scriptures were passed on to me second hand, so to speak; and it was only upon looking into the hard facts of the NT especially ,I believe ,certain discrepancies became apparent.
For instance ,there appears to be no apostolic Succession .
I am not trying to sidetrack the topic ,but your claim to a continuous line is key, I believe,to your argument against the " anarchy " of SS.
This is because by your succession ,you continue that authority originating with the twelve (of which I now believe :defines all authority) past the closure of the NT and that indefinitely the door is left opened allowing for the same authority seen in scripture to appear outside its boundaries .
So I do think that for you to have a secure ground of argument for to decry SS ,should one not show in this thread ,the hard facts of Apostolic succession and that from the scriptures alone?

 

[Isaiah45_9]

Hi Jose , it may be "undisputed "fact among yourselves ,that is ,that your beliefs originate and date from the Apostles.
But for me as a former Catholic, I would suggest that the majority of my former ( as a Catholic) understanding of the scriptures were passed on to me second hand, so to speak; and it was only upon looking into the hard facts of the NT especially ,I believe ,certain discrepancies became apparent.
For instance ,there appears to be no apostolic Succession .
I am not trying to sidetrack the topic ,but your claim to a continuous line is key, I believe,to your argument against the " anarchy " of SS.
This is because by your succession ,you continue that authority originating with the twelve (of which I now believe :defines all authority) past the closure of the NT and that indefinitely the door is left opened allowing for the same authority seen in scripture to appear outside its boundaries .
So I do think that for you to have a secure ground of argument for to decry SS ,should one not show in this thread ,the hard facts of Apostolic succession and that from the scriptures alone?

Bernard, SS would move us from the OP. Joe has started an SS thread because the other one was about to be closed. As such, I am more than happy to address SS at that thread, not here.

On the other hand, if there are some facts that you would like to dispute about the historicity of the Church, you are welcome to post them!

On a separate subject - I was raised Catholic and like a lot of us walked away from the Faith. Then came back. What happened to you, to me and others is that we were badly catechized and/or we didn’t live the faith like we should have. That does not take away from the historicity of the Church. Bringing the bad things and ignoring the good ones only confirms the presence of the Church since the beginning. The Church has been here since Pentecost. It is an irrefutable fact. You can find all the Bishops of Rome throughout history. We have been here - the good and the bad.

That is the purpose of this thread. That is why I extended an invitation to present evidence of the contrary. No conspiracy theories, no unreasonable rhetoric, just the facts.

Here we stand in God’s Grace.

 

[Bernard_Lyons]

Bernard, SS would move us from the OP. Joe has started an SS thread because the other one was about to be closed. As such, I am more than happy to address SS at that thread, not here.

On the other hand, if there are some facts that you would like to dispute about the historicity of the Church, you are welcome to post them!

On a separate subject - I was raised Catholic and like a lot of us walked away from the Faith. Then came back. What happened to you, to me and others is that we were badly catechized and/or we didn’t live the faith like we should have. That does not take away from the historicity of the Church. Bringing the bad things and ignoring the good ones only confirms the presence of the Church since the beginning. The Church has been here since Pentecost. It is an irrefutable fact. You can find all the Bishops of Rome throughout history. We have been here - the good and the bad.

That is the purpose of this thread. That is why I extended an invitation to present evidence of the contrary. No conspiracy theories, no unreasonable rhetoric, just the facts.

Here we stand in God’s Grace.

Hi Jose ,aware that this was not strictly a SS thread my comments were in reply to your own diagnosis on that condition known as “SS” which was posted by you in post# 200 and then this same post was acknowledged and repeated ( by another poster) in #210; after which my comment on this subject was posted.

Incidentally my comments,I believe ,have equal validity and meaning to the subject of this thread .
As you say in the above"The church has been here since Pentecost.It is an irrefutable fact"
“You can find all the Bishops of Rome”

In reference to " The church …since Pentecost ," perhaps in " love" and in pity ,your sentiment stretches out as far the remnant of “the lost sheep of the house of”( Matt 10:6) Protestantism .
But where in scripture alone ,is the seat of the bishop of Rome (as you claim) seen to be passed on to another?

Matthew 10 :1 " And when he had called unto him his twelve disciples"

 

[Isaiah45_9]

Hi Jose ,aware that this was not strictly a SS thread my comments were in reply to your own diagnosis on that condition known as “SS” which was posted by you in post# 200 and then this same post was acknowledged and repeated ( by another poster) in #210; after which my comment on this subject was posted.

Incidentally my comments,I believe ,have equal validity and meaning to the subject of this thread .
As you say in the above"The church has been here since Pentecost.It is an irrefutable fact"
“You can find all the Bishops of Rome”

In reference to " The church …since Pentecost ," perhaps in " love" and in pity ,your sentiment stretches out as far the remnant of “the lost sheep of the house of”( Matt 10:6) Protestantism .
But where in scripture alone ,is the seat of the bishop of Rome (as you claim) seen to be passed on to another?

Matthew 10 :1 " And when he had called unto him his twelve disciples"

Perhaps you missed this part of my post:

:banghead:I need to stay on topic:banghead:

Since you are unwilling to move this subject to the proper thread, I have:

My reply to your question can be found here:

Post #37 for the Follow up on SS thread.

Bernard, I have been answering your questions, but I will have to stop answering them unless you extend me the same courtesy.

I ask you again the question of the OP:

When, Where, and How did the Church that Jesus founded disappear?

 

[benhur]

Jesus said “I will build my church…” That’s just one church established by God. Benhur, if I establish a church tomorrow and call my new church JD ministries, should I be able to add that as one of the churches established by Jesus?

Depends what you are doing today and yesterday. Have you been called, gifted (and shown signs of it) anointed, laid hands on, even ordained by any presbyter/bishop/elder?

 

[benhur]

No. We believe that those invincibly ignorant of the Divine Truth of the Church are united to the Church, but in an imperfect way. That’s a far cry from “All Protestants are members of the Church.”

Yes, that makes dominu lesus somewhat tongue in cheek or in part does not tell the whole story of those apart from full union.

 

[benhur]

The Church knows that she is joined in many ways to the baptized who are honored by the name of Christian, but do not profess the Catholic faith in its entirety or have not preserved unity or communion under the successor of Peter. Those who believe in Christ and have been properly baptized are put in a certain, although imperfect, communion with the Catholic Church. With the Orthodox churches, this communion is so profound that it lacks little to attain the fullness that would permit a common celebration of the Lord’s Eucharist. (CCC 838)

While it wouldn’t mean all Protestants, it would include all Protestants validly baptized.

Is there not a statement that say if you are not in full union with Rome and it’s historicity ,and you are not "ignorant’ of your separation you soul is in eternal peril.

 

[benhur]

Membership is what saves.

Ikes- historicity and alignment is salvation ? Some may take that as works, this membership. Hence, I say true membership is as true membership does. Emphasis, ,dichotomizing salvation, as to how just Jesus saves is dealing at the heart of just what is one’s “gospel”.

 

[benhur]

And if some new religion is stating that Jesus’ Body, the Church, is a lesser institution, then what?

Won’t you agree Christology is more fundamental than differences on “administration” with in the Body ,with in the Bride ?

 

[JamesTheJust]

Yes, that makes dominu lesus somewhat tongue in cheek or in part does not tell the whole story of those apart from full union.

How exactly do the contents of my post contradict Dominus Iesus?