When do you claim that the Catholic Church began

[estesbob]

What is a false premise? It’s quite obviously true historically that there were such people. Read Dermot Fenlon’s *Heresy and Obedience in Tridentine Italy *if you don’t agree with me.

Edwin

What people are that? Telling me to go read a book is hardly an answer.

 

[GregoryPalamas]

LOL! In a sort of black-humor, laugh-till-you-cry sort of way . . .

I’ve had this argument with a number of people (including you, I believe) before. But I would maintain adamantly that there is a huge difference between poor discipline and a change in doctrine. Obviously the RCC also tolerates views that are not its official teaching, although nowhere near to the extent of Sprague or Spong. The UMC deeply dislikes calling anyone a heretic, as you know. This is unfortunate (well, the extent to which they take it is unfortunate–I would be far more disturbed by any group of people who *liked *accusing people of heresy!), but it doesn’t change the fact that they do have doctrinal standards which completely contradict Sprague’s views.

Edwin

I came to the conclusion that doctrines don’t mean anything to the UM Bishops. Can it really be said with a straight face that it is only a question of discipline when not one bishop sought to repremand the heretic?

CDL

 

[jmcrae]

I came to the conclusion that doctrines don’t mean anything to the UM Bishops. Can it really be said with a straight face that it is only a question of discipline when not one bishop sought to repremand the heretic?

CDL

In my previous denomination, they actually elected an atheist as Moderator of the General Council. That’s not what caused me to leave - after all, even God’s church is full of idiots - but it was one of those things that, once I realized I needed to become Catholic, was not standing in the way of my leaving, if that makes any sense.

 

[Protestant101]

I was about to post something on this very topic, when I saw this one.

I checked “Other” in the poll, because as of yet; I do not see any real evidence, except for alleged evidence in the form of just one or two Bible texts. The Bible does not support an entire doctrine on just one or two texts.

I had a particular question in mind about “the first church;” so I will post that for now.

1) Can you point me to specific and official Catholic sources that would document for me the Catholic rationale for their contention that the Catholic Church is in fact “the first Church?”

**2) **Why would God just all of a sudden just out of the blue in the New Testament times just wave His wand at Peter and drum up a “Church?” What would be God’s rationale for doing Church at this time, for the first time?

3) If the Bible happened to say that the Catholic Church was not in fact the first Church; what would the Catholic Church do about this? How would it affect your message?

 

[estesbob]

I was about to post something on this very topic, when I saw this one.

I checked “Other” in the poll, because as of yet; I do not see any real evidence, except for alleged evidence in the form of just one or two Bible texts. The Bible does not support an entire doctrine on just one or two texts.

I had a particular question in mind about “the first church;” so I will post that for now.

1) Can you point me to specific and official Catholic sources that would document for me the Catholic rationale for their contention that the Catholic Church is in fact “the first Church?”

A good place to start is here biblegateway.com/passage/?book_id=51&chapter=1&version=31

**2) **Why would God just all of a sudden just out of the blue in the New Testament times just wave His wand at Peter and drum up a “Church?” What would be God’s rationale for doing Church at this time, for the first time

God always had a religious hierarchy to lead his people.
Why would God leave it up to each suceeding generation to figure things out for themsleves??? Chirst and his Church are on in the same

.

If the Bible happened to say that the Catholic Church was not in fact the first Church; what would the Catholic Church do about this? How would it affect your message?

Well lets see -the Bible makes it very clear that Sola Scriptura , Sola Fidelis and a host of other beleiofs held by our seperated bretheren are flat out wrong yet to they cling to them and trun their back on the Church Scripture clearly identifes as God;s Church. Go figure.

 

[Protestant101]

A good place to start is here biblegateway.com/passage/?book_id=51&chapter=1&version=31

Sorry, but Acts chapter one does not prove what or who is the first church. Please state your case if you are trying to say otherwise

God always had a religious hierarchy to lead his people.
Why would God leave it up to each suceeding generation to figure things out for themsleves??? Chirst and his Church are on in the same
If this is true; and God has always had a “religious hierarchy” to lead His people, then why wouldn’t the “first church” have started well before New testament times? Why would God wait so long to have a Church?
.

Well lets see -the Bible makes it very clear that Sola Scriptura , Sola Fidelis and a host of other beleiofs held by our seperated bretheren are flat out wrong yet to they cling to them and trun their back on the Church Scripture clearly identifes as God;s Church. Go figure.

True; Catholics make such contentions, and to some of your points I can agree on such subjects, (atleast partially), but I am hoping you can give a direct answer to my question here. What would you do if you could clearly see that the Bible talks about the first Church as something other than the Catholic?

I mean, if an Adventist, for eg., were to say “We are the remnant Church of Bible prophecy,” one of the first comments to come out by opposers to this would be: "I don’t see the name “Seventh-day Adventist in the Bible!” Therefore, I am asking if you can verify for us from the textual evidence of Acts 1, or from official Catholic sources, why that is “The Catholic Church;” and why that would be the starting point of “the first Church?”

I notice that different Catholic individuals say slightly different things re “the first church” and so I am looking for some official church documentation from official Catholic sources on this subject.

 

[estesbob]

True; Catholics make such contentions, and to some of your points I can agree on such subjects, (atleast partially), but I am hoping you can give a direct answer to my question here. What would you do if you could clearly see that the Bible talks about the first Church as something other than the Catholic?

I mean, if an Adventist, for eg., were to say “We are the remnant Church of Bible prophecy,” one of the first comments to come out by opposers to this would be: "I don’t see the name “Seventh-day Adventist in the Bible!” Therefore, I am asking if you can verify for us from the textual evidence of Acts 1, or from official Catholic sources, why that is “The Catholic Church;” and why that would be the starting point of “the first Church?”

I notice that different Catholic individuals say slightly different things re “the first church” and so I am looking for some official church documentation from official Catholic sources on this subject.

So are we going to get into a semantics argument? Unless Scipture uses the words “Catholic Church” it cant be One true Church?(sound like we are venturing into Sola Scriptura "territory) You know there is nothing new here-what we, as Catholics, believe, was accepted by ALL of Chrstianity for the the first 1,500 years after the death of Christ. Catholic, btw, means “Universal” which, of course, is an apt description of the Church founded by Jesus Christ.

 

[GregoryPalamas]

Whatever else we’ve discovered we know that about 93% of us haven’t lost our minds. That is good. Ninety three percent state the obvious that the Catholic Church was founded on or before Pentecost. One implication is that any Church founded after that as a separate entity is not the Church Jesus intended. One might argue with some justification that reform movements within the Catholic Church were used by God to help the Church stay on track. I think this conclusion could be quite justified.

How then is the Catholic Church to regard those groups which exist quite apart from her without any intention of helping her become more perfect?

CDL

 

[Contarini]

What people are that? Telling me to go read a book is hardly an answer.

Estesbob,

I already mentioned them. Gasparo Contarini for one and Reginald Pole for another–I think Girolamo Seripando would come under the same category. These were cardinals, but there were many others (especially in Italy) who shared their views. Another example (not mentioned by Fenlon, who focused on Italy) would be Constantino Ponce de la Fuente in Spain. Erasmus of Rotterdam would come under this category to some extent as well, though like Contarini he was lucky enough to die before Trent.

I’m not sure how much information you want, or what is wrong with telling you to read a book. I have already mentioned who I am talking about and what the issues are, so I thought you were challenging my accuracy. In that case the only thing to do is to point you to my sources, and that is one of them (Jedin’s history of the Council of Trent is another–I’ve only read vols. 1-2).

Edwin

 

[estesbob]

Estesbob,

I already mentioned them. Gasparo Contarini for one and Reginald Pole for another–I think Girolamo Seripando would come under the same category. These were cardinals, but there were many others (especially in Italy) who shared their views. Another example (not mentioned by Fenlon, who focused on Italy) would be Constantino Ponce de la Fuente in Spain. Erasmus of Rotterdam would come under this category to some extent as well, though like Contarini he was lucky enough to die before Trent.

I’m not sure how much information you want, or what is wrong with telling you to read a book. I have already mentioned who I am talking about and what the issues are, so I thought you were challenging my accuracy. In that case the only thing to do is to point you to my sources, and that is one of them (Jedin’s history of the Council of Trent is another–I’ve only read vols. 1-2).

Edwin

Examples of what? They changed Catholic Doctrine?

 

[Protestant101]

So are we going to get into a semantics argument? Unless Scipture uses the words “Catholic Church” it cant be One true Church?(sound like we are venturing into Sola Scriptura "territory) You know there is nothing new here-what we, as Catholics, believe, was accepted by ALL of Chrstianity for the the first 1,500 years after the death of Christ. Catholic, btw, means “Universal” which, of course, is an apt description of the Church founded by Jesus Christ.

Actually, this has nothing to do with “semantics” or other similar little games; which I am sure we would both want to avoid.

If you re-read my comments, I made a similar remark about “Adventist” also not being in the Bible. My intended point was to emphasize how that we need to be able to “give a reason of the hope” and the faith that we profess. As I know you know, many denominations make the claim to fame, such as being THE Church, the true church, the remnant church, the first Church. Can you explain in detail, from official Catholic doctrines, just how the Catholic line of reasoning for “the first church” would read?

I am simply asking you to provide some detailed documentation of official Catholic doctrine on this point.

 

[Protestant101]

Whatever else we’ve discovered we know that about 93% of us haven’t lost our minds. That is good. Ninety three percent state the obvious that the Catholic Church was founded on or before Pentecost. One implication is that any Church founded after that as a separate entity is not the Church Jesus intended. One might argue with some justification that reform movements within the Catholic Church were used by God to help the Church stay on track. I think this conclusion could be quite justified.

How then is the Catholic Church to regard those groups which exist quite apart from her without any intention of helping her become more perfect?

CDL

What about Churches founded BEFORE that?

 

[GregoryPalamas]

What about Churches founded BEFORE that?

“That”? Before Christ?

CDL

 

[Protestant101]

“That”? Before Christ?

CDL

Yes. I am intending to say “before Christ,” when I say “before that.”

 

[Protestant101]

Here is something we can maybe start with in establishing what the official Catholic line of reasoning is re “the first Church:”

The Church after the Ascension

The doctrine of the Church as set forth by the Apostles after the Ascension is in all respects identical with the teaching of Christ just described. St. Peter, in his first sermon, delivered on the day of Pentecost, declares that Jesus of Nazareth is the Messianic king (Acts 2:36). The means of salvation which he indicates is baptism; and by baptism his converts are aggregated to the society of disciples (ii, 41). Though in these days the Christians still availed themselves of the Temple services, yet from the first the brotherhood of Christ formed a society essentially distinct from the synagogue. The reason why St. Peter bids his hearers accept baptism is none other than that they may “save themselves from this unbelieving generation”. Within the society of believers not only were the members united by common rites, but the tie of unity was so close as to bring about in the Church of Jerusalem that condition of things in which the disciples had all things common (ii, 44).

This is from the Catholic Encyclopedia online. Is the above quote a reliable rendition of official Catholic doctrines on “the first church?” Where can I find the most official written explanation of this? Can anyone offer more details on this doctrine?

 

[GregoryPalamas]

Yes. I am intending to say “before Christ,” when I say “before that.”

In the absolute sense there is nothing before Christ. If you mean before the Incarnation and you refer to the righteous before His coming then in that broader sense all who are righteous in God’s site and especially those righteous within the covenant are part of the Church.

CDL

 

[GregoryPalamas]

Here is something we can maybe start with in establishing what the official Catholic line of reasoning is re “the first Church:”

This is from the Catholic Encyclopedia online. Is the above quote a reliable rendition of official Catholic doctrines on “the first church?” Where can I find the most official written explanation of this? Can anyone offer more details on this doctrine?

Certainly this is it. This refers to the visible manifestation of the Church and is the culmination of the New Covenant. The Catechism gives us the more or less official word on the subject…I doubt that there is a more official word…in paragraphs 748 and following.

CDL

 

[Sixtus]

‘Catholic’ was first used around AD 90 by a disciple of the Apostle St John

 

[rmcmullan]

I suppose you could make the arguement that the Church of God/Catholic Church was set up before the foundation of the world. It practised the Law of Moses until it was fulfilled. Before the Exodus, all the way up to Noah and even until Adam, there were always prophets (maybe not Apostles) and I would expect them to preach the same gospel.

 

[VoiceofOne]

I am not Catholic but I do know that they formed the first Church. I always thought it was when Jesus asked his who they thought him to be. It is found in Matthew 16:18.

Peter spoke up and answered Jesus, he said **“You are he, the Messiah, Son of the living God!”. **

Jesus responded: “And I say also unto thee, That thou art Peter, and upon this rock I will build my church; and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it.” (King James Version) IMO that is when the Church started.

Jesus meant you are Peter (or petros, a small stone), and upon this (Jesus himself) Rock (Petra, a large rock) I will build my church.
He is the Chief Cornerstone, and we are the living stones.

You can’t build a church on a flawed man, it will fail. Jesus builds the church (those that are saved, whatever the denom) on Himself, and the confession of Peter.