where is the historical church founded by Jesus Christ?

[guanophore]

Good for you and if someone else finds God waiting for them in another church, good for them. God is not limited to one place. God is all around us. Matt 18:20 For where there are two or three gathered together in my name, there am I in the midst of them.

You are right, Matt, God is not confined by us in any way. However, when He said “in my name”, He meant in the authority that He left with the Apostles. We are to gather in unity with those to whom He entrusted the care and feeding of the flock.

The vast majority of our separated brethren do not know that they are separated from this authority, and some do not know that it even exists.

Or you could simply listen to Christ…

This statement implies that you do not believe that Christ speaks through the Catholic Church.

Much simpler Christ's way.  Clear without an interpreter and without all the man made rules and rituals.

This is quite an anti-Catholic statement, especially coming from someone who claims to be Catholic. A Catholic knows and accepts that scripture is to be undertood from the frame of reference of those who wrote, collected, and canonized it (Apostolic Authority). A Catholic also knows that the rules and rituals in the Catholic Church are not “man made”. This is a phrase used by anti-Catholics. So, what is your story? Are you masquerading here, for some reason? Were you baptized Catholic, and now reject the Church, but don’t know what else to call yourself?

 

[guanophore]

 What does it mean?  that I should be Catholic and submit to his authority.

No, it means that God’s ability to protect His Church from error cannot be thwarted by the shortcomings of man.

I don’t see how anyone could even consider becoming catholic with the kind of prejudice you seem to have!

 

[guanophore]

Check this out:

earlychurch.com/LoveFeast.html

*“The rather amazing thing is that nearly all biblical and patristic scholars—catholic and Protestant, liberal and conservative alike—are agreed on this matter: that New Testament worship consisted of the love feast, followed by preaching and the Eucharist. Here are just a few samples:” *

We actually have a Japanese Church that meets at our Church and they have a meal with their Worship. Basically a good old fashion pitch-in.

"If the love feast was such an integral part of apostolic worship, why is it not still around today? The answer is that the apostolic pattern was eventually altered. Even though Jesus and His apostles handed down the model of having a common meal before the Eucharist, some churches began changing this after the apostles died. During the second and third centuries, the agape was eventually separated from the Eucharist. Churches began celebrating the Eucharist in the morning and hosting the love feast in the evening. "

It did not take that long to separate the Eucharist from the love feast. We can see in Cor. the Apostle instructs those who are hungry to eat before they come. When Irenaeus writes Against Heresies in teh next century, there is already no mention of the meal in the description of the Liturgy.

 

[guanophore]

If I didnt believe I was already in it, I would come running. I did a thorough search before ending up where we are and yes it would take some very convincing evidence that my church is not valid before I would leave it.

What are your criteria for a “valid church”?

Would it matter to you if your criteria, and those of the early Christians were different?

 

[guanophore]

is that from an authoritative Catholic document?

Yes, it is from the Catholic Catechism. A sure norm for the teaching of the Faith.

 

[guanophore]

Where does it say that you must believe in apostolic succession to be saved?

The real issue is the meaning of salvation. The Apostles taught something different than what is generally believed today. Salvation is not something that happens at one point in time, for all time. The Truth of the gospel was entrusted to the Apostles, and from them, to their sucessors. What is necessary for salvation is the Truth. Once the message is separated from the Apostolic succession, it quickly becomes warped. In some venues, it is practically unrecognizeable.

What Christians believe is necessary for salvation:

According to whose standard?

How come some Christians believe differently than you? If they see it differently, are they not really Christian?

2 Timothy 3
15and how from infancy you have known the holy Scriptures, which are able to make you wise for salvation through faith in Christ Jesus.

This is a reference to the Septuagint, rejected by Protestants.

Romans 1
16I am not ashamed of the gospel, because it is the power of God for the salvation of everyone who believes: first for the Jew, then for the Gentile.

This is a reference to the Apostolic kerygma, protected within the Apostolic succession.

Romans 10
9That if you confess with your mouth, “Jesus is Lord,” and believe in your heart that God raised him from the dead, you will be saved. 10For it is with your heart that you believe and are justified, and it is with your mouth that you confess and are saved. 11As the Scripture says, “Anyone who trusts in him will never be put to shame.” 12For there is no difference between Jew and Gentile—the same Lord is Lord of all and richly blesses all who call on him, 13for, “Everyone who calls on the name of the Lord will be saved.”

This is a reference to the profession of the creed, which was done at baptism. Baptism is the normative means by which people are added to the Body of Christ. A profession of faith is always made at baptism (calling upon His name).

Ephesians 1
13And you also were included in Christ when you heard the word of truth, the gospel of your salvation. Having believed, you were marked in him with a seal, the promised Holy Spirit, 14who is a deposit guaranteeing our inheritance until the redemption of those who are God’s possession—to the praise of his glory.

This is another reference to baptism, during which the individual is sealed by teh HS. The Gospel of salvation was committed to the Church, and people acquired it through the Church.

1 Peter 1
8Though you have not seen him, you love him; and even though you do not see him now, you believe in him and are filled with an inexpressible and glorious joy, 9for you are receiving the goal of your faith, the salvation of your souls.

Those who believed came to do so through the preaching of the Apostles, and those they appointed. This faith is the fruit of the preaching through the Apostolic Succession.

John 3
5Jesus answered, "I tell you the truth, no one can enter the kingdom of God unless he is born of water and the Spirit.

Another reference to baptism, administered by the Apostles and their successors!

John 14
6Jesus answered, "I am the way and the truth and the life. No one comes to the Father except through me.

The Church is the means by which Christ has chosen to manifest Himself in the world, and through which we come to Him, and thus, to heaven.

2 Corinthians 7
10Godly sorrow brings repentance that leads to salvation and leaves no regret, but worldly sorrow brings death.

It is interesting that you included this one. I have had Reformed Christians on this forum tell me that it is not necessary to repent of one’s regrettable deeds in order to be saved.

2 John 1
9Anyone who runs ahead and does not continue in the teaching of Christ does not have God; whoever continues in the teaching has both the Father and the Son.

The teaching in which we are to continue is that which was entrusted to the Apostles, and from them to their successors. The way this teaching was considered valid was if it came through the Apostolic Succession, rather than teaching from any other source. The Teaching is also called “the Way”, in the NT, and it is the lifestyle of a Catholic.

 

[Matariel]

The Second Vatican Council, in n. 8 of the Dogmatic Constitution Lumen Gentium, stated that the Church founded by Christ, “constituted and organized as a society in this present, world, subsists in (subsistit in) the Catholic Church, governed by the Successor of Peter and by the Bishops in communion with him, although (licet) many elements of sanctification and truth can be found outside her structure; such elements, as gifts properly belonging to the Church of Christ, impel towards Catholic unity”.

Pope Pius XII:

“the Mystical Body of Christ and the Roman Catholic Church are one and the same thing.” (Humani Generis)

The words* subsistit in* have caused some problems, as some Catholics have mistakenly thought they represented a reversal in Catholic dogma (which is impossible). In previous encyclicals, it was worded as “is”. However, in another document promulgated on the same day as* Lumen Gentium*, the Council referred to “the Holy Catholic Church, which is the Mystical Body of Christ” (Orientalium Ecclesiarum). Sebastian Tromp, a Dutch Jesuit and close friend of Pope Pius XII, is considered to be the main ghostwriter of Mystici Corporis. As advisor to Cardinal Alfredo Ottaviani he was influential in the document’s phrasing of “subsistit in”, which, to his understanding of Latin, did not mean anything new or unstated by previous documents, but indicates completeness. The document also never stated that the Church of Christ subsisted in any Protestant denominations.

It is also to the Catholic Church, not to a distinct “invisible Church of Christ”, that has been entrusted “the fullness of grace and of truth” that gives value to the other Churches and communities that the Holy Spirit uses as possible instruments of salvation, inasmuch as they contain some Catholic truths— again, the Church of Christ is still not said to subsist in any of them. In fact, the Council combined the two terms “Church of Christ” and “Catholic Church” into a single term, “Christ’s Catholic Church” in its Decree on Ecumenism, promulgated at the same time as its Constitution on the Church

This is a reference to the VISIBLE church, not the Mystical Body.

There are not two separate “Churches”, invisible and visible; that’s a Nestorian ecclesiology. There is one Church Church with two aspects. And the Mystical Body is that one Church.

Pope Pius XII:

The doctrine of the Mystical Body of Christ, which is the Church, was first taught us by the Redeemer Himself. (Mystici Corporis Christi)

Pope Paul VI:

Consider, then, this splendid utterance of Our predecessor:
“The doctrine of the Mystical Body of Christ, which is the Church, a doctrine revealed originally from the lips of the Redeemer Himself, and making manifest the inestimable boon of our most intimate union with so august a Head, has a surpassing splendor which commends it to the meditation of all who are moved by the divine Spirit, and with the light which it sheds on their minds, is a powerful stimulus to the salutary conduct which it enjoins.” (Ecclesiam Suam)

 

[CMatt25]

you mean everyone who preachs Christ? everyone who condemns the CC and preaches against the CC? so they keep people away from teh Church? are these all Christ’s Church? the ones who says to the people that the CC is the whore of Babylon? they all preach Christ. they call themselves christians, dont they?

how is your logic that the Church is all Christians?

you should hear father Corapi on this one.

just tell me how is the HS who these so called christians says they have through the same Spirit can call the CC found by Christ whore of babylon? do you think they have the HS of God? can God call His Church whore of Babylon?

oh yes, Jesus said that a Kingdom divided is a Kingdom destroyed. can God fight against His own Kingdom? not according to Jesus.

Wisdom, even the Catholics who condemn Protestants and who even condemn other Catholics.

 

[CMatt25]

You are right, Matt, God is not confined by us in any way. However, when He said “in my name”, He meant in the authority that He left with the Apostles. We are to gather in unity with those to whom He entrusted the care and feeding of the flock.

The vast majority of our separated brethren do not know that they are separated from this authority, and some do not know that it even exists.

This statement implies that you do not believe that Christ speaks through the Catholic Church.

This is quite an anti-Catholic statement, especially coming from someone who claims to be Catholic. A Catholic knows and accepts that scripture is to be undertood from the frame of reference of those who wrote, collected, and canonized it (Apostolic Authority). A Catholic also knows that the rules and rituals in the Catholic Church are not “man made”. This is a phrase used by anti-Catholics. So, what is your story? Are you masquerading here, for some reason? Were you baptized Catholic, and now reject the Church, but don’t know what else to call yourself?

guan, not only baptized, but Communion, catechized, confirmed and I’ve never yet worshiped in any church other than Catholic.

 

[guanophore]

No just the things needed for salvation- it is so simple. No big mysteries- which in fact would be gnostic in nature.

The fact that there are mysteries it the Christian faith does not make it Gnostic. they are really big mysteries.

Such a statement reveals that the writer does not understand the mysteries that were committed by Christ to the Apostles.

   I would think it only obvious that the most important things were in fact written down, preserved

And that fact does not imply that the important facts that were not written down ceased to exist. The NT was never intended to be a complete compendium of the faith.

Sure some tradtions were passed down by the Apostles.  **I just don't believe that the traditions continues to grow and are to be added to.**

You are quite right about this. The Catholic Church believes and teaches that public revelation was closed at the death of the last apostle. Doctrine/Sacred Tradition (the teachings of the Apostles) can be understood and applied to the modern age, but cannot change.

As in 1870’s all of a sudden it is revealed that the Pope is infallible, or at such a late date Mary was assumed. Or that all of a sudden centuries later Mary is to be called the 'Mother of GOD"?

What was proclaimed in later years was that which was passed down to us from the Apostles. You might want to explore the reason the title Mother of God was chosen. This was done by the Magesterium, the same group of apostolic successors that defined your New Testament. If you cannot trust that they held onto the faith accurately, how can you trust your bible?

Paul used “bishop” as equivalent to “elder” (Philippians 1:1, I Timothy 3:1-18, Titus 1:5-14). In Greek, the word translated “bishop” literally means “overseer” or “supervisor” and the word translated “deacon” means “servant”.

Those who served as bishops were taken from among the elders, though in the beginning, there were no elders, and the bishops had to form them. Elder is the translation of “presbyteros”, from which the word “priest” is derived.

“Elect for yourselves” is in stark contrast to the doctrine that bishops must only be consecrated by bishops, and the doctrine of “apostolic succession”.

Not a bit. Are you referring to the Didache? If so, then you may not realize that it is a liturgical and catechetical manual for priests. This is one of the main reasons it was not inlcuded in the NT. This instruction is being given to those who have already been ordained in the Apostolic succession. In fact, this is the same pattern that is used today to elect the Pope; Those who are within the Apostolic succession choose from among themselves the one who will serve as overseer.

The fact that it includes this democratic doctrine, later replaced by the hierarchy, was probably another reason why Athanasius excluded the Didache when he finalized the list of 27 New Testament books in AD 367.

The Church was never “democratic”. It has always been a theocracy. One of the main causes of modern day splintering of the Christian Church in America is the prevalent falsehood that the Church is a democracy.

**It is actually the Holy Bible that is in fact the true successor of the Apostles, or rather those that hold it as TRUTH.**

No, not a bit. Of course the Bible holds the Truth, but the bible cannot wield authority. This requires people. The duty to care and shepherd the Church was not entrusted to a book, but to persons. However, I do thank you for saying this, as it summarizes the foundational error of the Reformation, and points out the reason for the division in Christendom today. The Holy Scripture is being forced into a role it was never meant to take, creating a perversion in the Church.

 

[guanophore]

Wisdom, was this directed at me?

I don’t really care what you think either. I know the Church teaches I am. But no everyone on CAF apparently doesn’t because everyone apparently doesn’t know.

Your beliefs have apparently departed from those that are held and taught by the Catholic Church. To that extent, you are not Catholic. Perhaps you never believed and practiced what the Church taught, and thought that your ideas were Catholic, but they are not.

The curious thing is, why would you want to claim to be affiliated with a set of beliefs that you clearly reject?

Calling yourself a Catholic on CAF, while rejecting the teachings of the Church, causes a public scandal.

 

[CMatt25]

Your beliefs have apparently departed from those that are held and taught by the Catholic Church. To that extent, you are not Catholic. Perhaps you never believed and practiced what the Church taught, and thought that your ideas were Catholic, but they are not.

The curious thing is, why would you want to claim to be affiliated with a set of beliefs that you clearly reject?

Calling yourself a Catholic on CAF, while rejecting the teachings of the Church, causes a public scandal.

guan, I think if you understand Church teaching you mean I may not be perfection, not that I am not Catholic. And no, I know what Catholic ideas are. When the Church calls me Catholic, I don’t consider it a public scandal.

 

[guanophore]

guan, not only baptized, but Communion, catechized, confirmed and I’ve never yet worshiped in any church other than Catholic.

Well, with all due respect, attending a Catholic church doesn not make you Catholic, anymore than being in the garage makes you a car. If you embraced the Catholic faith sufficiently to complete your sacraments of initiation, perhaps you have since drifted from it. It is also possible that you were never properly formed in your faith, and therefore, did not realize that the things you believe are contrary to Catholic teaching.

guan, I think if you understand Church teaching you mean I may not be perfection, not that I am not Catholic. And no, I know what Catholic ideas are. When the Church calls me Catholic, I don’t consider it a public scandal.

All I can note is that the content of your posts does not reflect the Catholic faith. For all I know, you are just role playing here. You may be a Catholic pretending to be a Protestant, or visa versa.

It is a public scandal for a person on CAF to claim to be Catholic, and contradict the teachings of the Church. It gives the impression to visitors to CAF that it is ok to reject the teachings of the Church, and still call oneself “catholic”. This is not the case, though it is a false belief held by the majority of American Catholics, including some very public figures.

 

[CMatt25]

Well, with all due respect, attending a Catholic church doesn not make you Catholic, anymore than being in the garage makes you a car. If you embraced the Catholic faith sufficiently to complete your sacraments of initiation, perhaps you have since drifted from it. It is also possible that you were never properly formed in your faith, and therefore, did not realize that the things you believe are contrary to Catholic teaching.

No attending without having become a member would not. No I realize what Catholic teaching is.

 

[CMatt25]

All I can note is that the content of your posts does not reflect the Catholic faith. For all I know, you are just role playing here. You may be a Catholic pretending to be a Protestant, or visa versa.

It is a public scandal for a person on CAF to claim to be Catholic, and contradict the teachings of the Church. It gives the impression to visitors to CAF that it is ok to reject the teachings of the Church, and still call oneself “catholic”. This is not the case, though it is a false belief held by the majority of American Catholics, including some very public figures.

No I’m not pretending anything. A false belief? For rejecting some beliefs? How so? Even excommunicated Catholics are Catholic.

 

[Matariel]

Guanophore said:

The Second Vatican Council, in n. 8 of the Dogmatic Constitution Lumen Gentium, stated that the Church founded by Christ, “constituted and organized as a society in this present, world, subsists in (subsistit in) the Catholic Church, governed by the Successor of Peter and by the Bishops in communion with him, although (licet) many elements of sanctification and truth can be found outside her structure; such elements, as gifts properly belonging to the Church of Christ, impel towards Catholic unity”.

Pope Pius XII:

“the Mystical Body of Christ and the Roman Catholic Church are one and the same thing.” (Humani Generis)

The words* subsistit in* have caused some problems, as some Catholics have mistakenly thought they represented a reversal in Catholic dogma (which is impossible). In previous encyclicals, it was worded as est. However, in another document promulgated on the same day as Lumen Gentium, the Council referred to “the Holy Catholic Church, which is the Mystical Body of Christ” (Orientalium Ecclesiarum). Sebastian Tromp, a Dutch Jesuit and close friend of Pope Pius XII, is considered to be the main ghostwriter of Mystici Corporis. As advisor to Cardinal Alfredo Ottaviani he was influential in the document’s phrasing of subsistit in, which, to his understanding of Latin, did not mean anything new or unstated by previous documents, but indicates completeness. The document also never stated that the Church of Christ subsisted in any Protestant denominations.

It is to the Catholic Church, not to a distinct “invisible Church of Christ”, that has been entrusted “the fullness of grace and of truth” that gives value to the other ecclesial communities that the Holy Spirit uses as possible instruments of salvation, inasmuch as they contain some Catholic truths— again, the Church of Christ is still not said to subsist in any of them. In fact, the Council combined the two terms “Church of Christ” and “Catholic Church” into a single term, “Christ’s Catholic Church” in its Decree on Ecumenism, promulgated at the same time as its Constitution on the Church.

This is a reference to the VISIBLE church, not the Mystical Body.

There are not two separate “Churches”, invisible and visible; that’s a Nestorian ecclesiology. There is one Church Church with two aspects. And the Mystical Body is that one Church.

Pope Pius XII:

“the Mystical Body of Christ and the Roman Catholic Church are one and the same thing.” (Humani Generis)

Pope Pius XII:

The doctrine of the Mystical Body of Christ, which is the Church, was first taught us by the Redeemer Himself. (Mystici Corporis Christi)

Pope Paul VI:

Consider, then, this splendid utterance of Our predecessor:
“The doctrine of the Mystical Body of Christ, which is the Church, a doctrine revealed originally from the lips of the Redeemer Himself, and making manifest the inestimable boon of our most intimate union with so august a Head, has a surpassing splendor which commends it to the meditation of all who are moved by the divine Spirit, and with the light which it sheds on their minds, is a powerful stimulus to the salutary conduct which it enjoins.” (Ecclesiam Suam)

And the Baltimore Catechism:

1. Why is the Catholic Church called the Mystical Body of Christ?

The Catholic Church is called the Mystical Body of Christ because its members are united by supernatural bonds with one another and with Christ, their Head, thus resembling the members and head of the living human body.

Again, he is the head of his body, the Church. (Colossians 1:18)
169a. What conditions are necessary in order that a person be a member of the Mystical Body in the full sense?

In order that a person be a member of the Mystical Body in the full sense, it is necessary that he be baptized, that he profess the Catholic faith, and that he neither separate himself from the Mystical Body nor be excluded by lawful authority.

And if he refuses to hear them, appeal to the Church, but if he refuses to hear even the Church, let him be to thee as the heathen and the publican. (Matthew 18:17)
169b. How does a baptized person separate himself from full incorporation in the Mystical Body?

A baptized person separates himself from full incorporation in the Mystical Body by open and deliberate heresy, apostasy or schism.

 

[guanophore]

No attending without having become a member would not. No I realize what Catholic teaching is.

It is difficult to tell from your posts if you understand Catholic teaching, or not. Frankly, I am hoping that you don’t. If you do, and you are still represnting your beliefs against it, then it is a matter of rebellion, which is much more serious spiritually than ignorance.

Being a member of a parish does not make one Catholic in faith either. If you have any doubts about that, I encourage you to dialogue with Tweetybird about it. She is a member of a Catholic parish, and participates in parish life, but her beliefs are solidly Protestant.

No I’m not pretending anything. A false belief? For rejecting some beliefs? How so? Even excommunicated Catholics are Catholic.

Yes, it is a false belief that one can be Catholic (in good standing) while rejecting the Teachings of the Church. What benefit is there to claim to be Catholic when you reject what the Catholic Church believes and teaches? It would be like me going around claiming to be a Freemason, when I reject what they believe and practice.

 

[tweetymom]

No I’m not pretending anything. A false belief? For rejecting some beliefs? How so? Even excommunicated Catholics are Catholic.

Matt if you get tired of dealing with Guan jst ignoree im and do as I do don’t answer his insuts which he freely gives.

 

[CMatt25]

It is difficult to tell from your posts if you understand Catholic teaching, or not. Frankly, I am hoping that you don’t. If you do, and you are still represnting your beliefs against it, then it is a matter of rebellion, which is much more serious spiritually than ignorance.

Being a member of a parish does not make one Catholic in faith either. If you have any doubts about that, I encourage you to dialogue with Tweetybird about it. She is a member of a Catholic parish, and participates in parish life, but her beliefs are solidly Protestant.

Yes, it is a false belief that one can be Catholic (in good standing) while rejecting the Teachings of the Church. What benefit is there to claim to be Catholic when you reject what the Catholic Church believes and teaches? It would be like me going around claiming to be a Freemason, when I reject what they believe and practice.

ah well thank you at least for now agreeing one can be Catholic even if they might not be considered in good standing

 

[guanophore]

In previous encyclicals, it was worded as est. However, in another document promulgated on the same day as Lumen Gentium, the Council referred to “the Holy Catholic Church, which is the Mystical Body of Christ” (Orientalium Ecclesiarum). Sebastian Tromp, a Dutch Jesuit and close friend of Pope Pius XII, is considered to be the main ghostwriter of Mystici Corporis. As advisor to Cardinal Alfredo Ottaviani he was influential in the document’s phrasing of subsistit in, which, to his understanding of Latin, did not mean anything new or unstated by previous documents, but indicates completeness. The document also never stated that the Church of Christ subsisted in any Protestant denominations.

The Catholic Church is not “Roman”. Although the Latin Rite is the largest, and the most common here in the States, the other 22 non - Roman rites are no less Catholic, nor is it accurate to say that the Church “subsists” any more in the Roman Rite than it does in those non-Roman rites also in communion with the successor of Peter.

The mystical body is much larger than any visibile entity on this earth. It includes all those who belong to Christ from the begining of time, including some that are definitely not identified with the visible Catholic Church on earth. It includes Jews, Arabs, Muslims, Hindus, Pagans etc, etc. His sheep hear his voice, and follow him. Some don’t even realize it is He that they follow.

It is to the Catholic Church, not to a distinct "invisible Church of Christ", that has been entrusted "the fullness of grace and of truth" that gives value to the other ecclesial communities that the Holy Spirit uses as possible instruments of salvation, inasmuch as they contain some Catholic truths— again, the Church of Christ is still not said to subsist in any of them. In fact, the Council combined the two terms "Church of Christ" and "Catholic Church" into a single term, "Christ's Catholic Church" in its Decree on Ecumenism, promulgated at the same time as its Constitution on the Church.

The visible church, to which Christ entrusted authority and the fullness of grace and truth, is Catholic. The mystical body contains many who are not members of the visible Catholic Church.

There are not two separate “Churches”, invisible and visible; that’s a Nestorian ecclesiology. There is one Church Church with two aspects. And the Mystical Body is that one Church.

I am glad we can agree on something.