The historicity of the Church

[Cube2]

The Church of Jesus Christ never disappeared. It is alive
and well throughout the world.
To say His Church disappeared is to deny that He
is who He said he was. Which no actual Christian
can rightly do.

Sure, the church is alive as there is a revival of understanding the scriptures.
Satan has always wanted to destroy the church, and throughout history he has tried that.

1. John the baptist was beheaded by Herod
2. Jesus was crucified
3. All Apostles were killed
4. Emperor Nero persecuted the church etc

Just as the Israelites moved away from God, has there been a time when the church drifted away from the true God?
In 2Thes:2:3: Let no man deceive you by any means: for that day shall not come, except there come a falling away first, and that man of sin be revealed, the son of perdition;

It seems there was to be a time when believers would fall away from the truth, and change the doctrine to allow a false Christ. This is the heart of the matter.

I understand the question thus: Is there at any time that the church has ever deviated from the teaching of Christ?

 

[TexanKnight]

Sure, the church is alive as there is a revival of understanding the scriptures.
Satan has always wanted to destroy the church, and throughout history he has tried that.

1. John the baptist was beheaded by Herod
2. Jesus was crucified
3. All Apostles were killed
4. Emperor Nero persecuted the church etc

Just as the Israelites moved away from God, has there been a time when the church drifted away from the true God?
In 2Thes:2:3: Let no man deceive you by any means: for that day shall not come, except there come a falling away first, and that man of sin be revealed, the son of perdition;

It seems there was to be a time when believers would fall away from the truth, and change the doctrine to allow a false Christ. This is the heart of the matter.

I understand the question thus: Is there at any time that the church has ever deviated from the teaching of Christ?

So let me get this straight:

Jesus told Peter the gates of hell would never prevail against His Church…

Jesus sent His Spirit to lead and guide the Church.

Now, that is not to say men are not human. There IS sin…but to believe that somehow the Church and needed men who chose for themselves that they were holy enough to start their own churches…means that you must believe that Jesus lied and the gates of hell DID prevail, and that somehow, The Spirit Jesus sent was not strong enough to overcome the sins of men.

Ok…IF you take THAT step, then how do you choose who to follow next. A few men decided THEY were good enough to take over from God…who do you choose and how do you choose them? Do you choose Calvin? Luther? Joseph Smith? Who? And since there were then those who broke away from the those I mentioned, all claiming that somehow MORE reformation was needed, how do choose next? Or do you?

It is a crooked road one must follow after he or she leaves the Church Jesus started…

 

[nmgauss]

Satan has always wanted to destroy the church, and throughout history he has tried that.

1. John the baptist was beheaded by Herod
2. Jesus was crucified
3. All Apostles were killed
4. Emperor Nero persecuted the church etc

St. John was never killed. He lived to become an old man on the island of Patmos. He was supposed to have written the Book of Revelation there.

 

[FathersKnowBest]

Hi FKB. One thing is a new name, but another is a new thing . Like what is the big deal if in the OT we find Israel wanting a king, like their neighbors ? If one side of the chasm shouts you are like Korah the other side shouts back the Israel/king incident.

Funny thing, though – BOTH of these Biblical pre-fighrements militate for the Catholic position.

Yes, the Good , the Bad , and the Ugly. We are told to give honor when due I think because it is not always due. But for sure honor is due for the things you mentioned.

Here’s the thing, though: those doctrines that you find good were protected by the Holy Spirit. Those other things that you don’t find good, because of your own fallible interpretation of scripture, came from the same Church. The same Church, too, which Christ instituted and promised to be with for all generations.

And that only goes for the miniscule portion of the list that has any semblance of correctness to it.

The majority is flat-out wrong.

 

[benhur]

No. It would be like if I died and someone who knew me and my traditions took over and wrote it down

Again, do not confuse codified with new teachings

now you are stretching…That sounds like a sola scriptura reasoning. Disputed things were not written down and some were. Again if you write only “no drugs” or your "friend’ writes that, what is the intent ? Your second scenario is one generation apart from you but we know for example the Assumption took over 1900 years to write. Will someone know 1900 hundred years later your exact intent of “no drugs” ?

 

[benhur]

Do you agree that petros was used, as opposed to petra, due to the feminine connotation? Calling Simon petra would be like calling me Josephine.

 

[benhur]

Funny thing, though – BOTH of these Biblical pre-fighrements militate for the Catholic position.

Here’s the thing, though: those doctrines that you find good were protected by the Holy Spirit. Those other things that you don’t find good, because of your own fallible interpretation of scripture, came from the same Church. The same Church, too, which Christ instituted and promised to be with for all generations.

And that only goes for the miniscule portion of the list that has any semblance of correctness to it.

The majority is flat-out wrong.

The church is only infallible as she faces Jesus and is in tune with Him. Peter was in tune when he said thou art the Christ but out of tune when He said the Lord would not suffer. The same Peter . The church is not this mystical, invisible thing but for sure is made up of people, like Peter and you and me. The Holy Spirit guide people. The promises are to people, a called out people, ecclesia.

 

[TexanKnight]

now you are stretching…That sounds like a sola scriptura reasoning. Disputed things were not written down and some were. Again if you write only “no drugs” or your "friend’ writes that, what is the intent ? Your second scenario is one generation apart from you but we know for example the Assumption took over 1900 years to write. Will someone know 1900 hundred years later your exact intent of “no drugs” ?

Not stretching at all. The Word was passed down, later codified. You are the one who os stretching. You are trying mightily to use the fact that something was codified in writing at a later date to show it is new. That is rarely the case.

My example was an illustration. Nothing more. But it is on point. The New testament said to hold onto the TRADITIONS. And they did, until some got corrupted so the truth needed to be codified.

Do not minimize Jesus or the Holy Spirit. That would also be a mistake. I know Jesus and the Spirit need to be weak for your theories to hold, but we simply do not believe they were, or are, weak

 

[FathersKnowBest]

The church is only infallible as she faces Jesus and is in tune with Him.

No, the Church is only infallible because of His promise.
It’s not that YOU have to judge whether, according to YOUR own personal, fallible, interpretation of scripture, the Church is acting “in tune with Him.”
YOU could be wrong. Jesus didn’t say that YOU, PERSONALLY would never be overcome by the gates of hell.

Peter was in tune when he said thou art the Christ but out of tune when He said the Lord would not suffer. The same Peter .

That’s right. And in the latter case, he wasn’t speaking for the entire Church, etc.
You’re not trying to pretend that you don’t understand the criteria for infallibility, are you?

The church is not this mystical, invisible thing but for sure is made up of people, like Peter and you and me. The Holy Spirit guide people. The promises are to people, a called out people, ecclesia.

The Holy Spirit works through the Church corporately, and Jesus set up an office for the Vicar, the Prime Minister if you will. We see this in Acts 15, for example, where St. Peter speaks for the entire Church (“we believe” in verse 11).

 

[benhur]

You are trying mightily to use the fact that something was codified in writing at a later date to show it is new. That is rarely the case.

 

[benhur]

Funny thing, though – BOTH of these Biblical pre-fighrements militate for the Catholic position.

I can see CC liking Korah for it is negative towards her reformers but to take on the asking for a earthly king is negative towards papacy and not so funny.

 

[benhur]

it’s never Peter alone…The Petrine office and Ecumenical councils…

It would be silly to give Peter the keys if Jesus did not have successors in mind…

Why ? Do the doors shut once the church has entered in ? Once light has penetrated darkness ? Once the ball is rolling

 

[benhur]

You just said that Peter is immovable, and that Peter is not immovable. “You are Petros and on this petra…Same rock…

I said petras is immovable and I said Jesus is Petras. Peter is petros.

Scripture refers to Simon as Cephas. Therefore the idea that Jesus renamed Simon, as an insignificant stone, loses it validity. Why would Jesus even bother renaming him as a little stone? Makes no sense.

Thank you for trying to understand but it makes sense to many. Petros is a stone and if you say boulder then petras is always bigger, like a cliif ( Gibraltar is a cliff)… It is not insignificant . Reminds of belittling symbolic view of eucharist because it is “only” a "mere’ symbol… An insignificant stone slew Goliath, howbeit in the hands of an inspired skilled youth named David . Peter, in the skilled hands of the Lord, did mighty things and was certainly hurled at the kingdom of darkness with great effect.

 

[Cube2]

it’s never Peter alone…The Petrine office and Ecumenical councils…

It would be silly to give Peter the keys if Jesus did not have successors in mind…

During Peter’s time, YES.
After Peter’s death, Jerusalem may have ceased to be the center for reference. Apostle Paul is giving clear instructions to his successors on doctrinal basis.
Leadership is important in every setting, whether in a family, a church or a country. Jesus may have preferred Peter for the apostles. However, Jesus chooses Paul for the gentiles who seems to have been more qualified than Peter in speech, education, knowledge of law, in languages, in writing, in charisma etc

Ecumenical is recent; it was introduced during the 2nd Vatican council.

 

[Cube2]

St. John was never killed. He lived to become an old man on the island of Patmos. He was supposed to have written the Book of Revelation there.

Sure! Thanks for correction.

 

[joe371]

Why ? Do the doors shut once the church has entered in ? Once light has penetrated darkness ? Once the ball is rolling

I have no idea what you are talking about, as it relates to this post:

it’s never Peter alone…The Petrine office and Ecumenical councils…

It would be silly to give Peter the keys if Jesus did not have successors in mind…

Keys signify authority and he gave them to peter who would pass on those keys to successors. If he did not then there would be no Petrine office, and you would be right. But we know that is not true

 

[joe371]

During Peter’s time, YES.

After Peter’s death, Jerusalem may have ceased to be the center for reference. Apostle Paul is giving clear instructions to his successors on doctrinal basis.
Leadership is important in every setting, whether in a family, a church or a country. Jesus may have preferred Peter for the apostles. However, Jesus chooses Paul for the gentiles who seems to have been more qualified than Peter in speech, education, knowledge of law, in languages, in writing, in charisma etc

 

[Cube2]

So let me get this straight:

Jesus told Peter the gates of hell would never prevail against His Church…

Jesus sent His Spirit to lead and guide the Church.

Now, that is not to say men are not human. There IS sin…but to believe that somehow the Church and needed men who chose for themselves that they were holy enough to start their own churches…means that you must believe that Jesus lied and the gates of hell DID prevail, and that somehow, The Spirit Jesus sent was not strong enough to overcome the sins of men.

Ok…IF you take THAT step, then how do you choose who to follow next. A few men decided THEY were good enough to take over from God…who do you choose and how do you choose them? Do you choose Calvin? Luther? Joseph Smith? Who? And since there were then those who broke away from the those I mentioned, all claiming that somehow MORE reformation was needed, how do choose next? Or do you?

It is a crooked road one must follow after he or she leaves the Church Jesus started…

Its not about following Calvin or Luther or any of those protestants.
I checked on Luther’s 95 Theses; his main focus was repentance, sacrament of penance and indulgences. By then Vatican was literally selling indulgences for remission of sin.
He argues that forgiveness of sins emanates from the individual’s will and not an external source eg a sacrament or a priest saying ‘I forgive you your sins’.
Consider a thief who takes a sacrament of penance, but inside his heart he has not made a deliberate will to stop stealing. Will such a person be forgiven?

The following link is about the Inquisitions. Is it justified to torture or even kill somebody because he does not follow your religion? The same thing is being done by Muslim extremists.
newadvent.org/cathen/08026a.htm#IIB

The apostles started churches all over.
In the book of Revelation, 7 different churches are mentioned. Jesus gives them direction and makes a promise for everyone who overcomes. The thief on the cross together with Jesus was not a catholic, but he acknowledged Jesus as Lord. He is in heaven with Jesus.
This is the basis of the bride of Christ, the church.

 

[joe371]

I said petras is immovable and I said Jesus is Petras. Peter is petros.

Thank you for trying to understand but it makes sense to many. Petros is a stone and if you say boulder then petras is always bigger, like a cliif ( Gibraltar is a cliff)… It is not insignificant . Reminds of belittling symbolic view of eucharist because it is “only” a "mere’ symbol… An insignificant stone slew Goliath, howbeit in the hands of an inspired skilled youth named David . Peter, in the skilled hands of the Lord, did mighty things and was certainly hurled at the kingdom of darkness with great effect.

We keep agreeing with you that Jesus is the divine Rock. The language is clear even to my little 5 year old nephew. Jesus renamed Simon, as rock on which he would build his church. He says to him: you are petros and on this petra…The only way it can make sense is if it went like this: you are petros but on this other petra I will build my church. However, it would have to identify that other petra. As a former protestant I tried to force your meaning but it gave me a headache. LOL…

 

[joe371]

joe371;11991021:

So is Jesus feminine ? He is petra ? Who really births us spiritually , Peter or Jesus ?

Jesus, you know that is the teaching of the CC.

Would Jesus, speaking Aramaic, have said this: you are Kepha and on this Kepha - or would he have been speaking Greek, and therefore: you are petro and on this petra?

If I said: This is my boat and on this boat I will travel all over the world. Would I be talking about my one boat? Of course. Same logic applies with Matthew 16: you are rock and on this rock…the second rock points back to the first rock, just as the second boat is referring to the first boat. Ask any English teacher and they will tell you that it’s impossible to mean this: You are petros (Simon) and on this petra (Jesus)…I will build my church. of course, by the way, Jesus is the divine rock; that goes without saying. This simple grammatical logic cannot be refuted. it’s like forcing 2 +2 to = 5. I can tell by reading your posts that you are a smart person, which is why I cannot understand why you are not seeing that.