where is the historical church founded by Jesus Christ?

[guanophore]

Yes in respect to the miracle of Jesus.

Do you think He did not say or do anything relevant? What about the 40 days of instructios to the fledgling Church after His resurrection? If you know where I can get the mp3’s I will pay top dollar!

John 21
25Jesus did many other things as well. If every one of them were written down, I suppose that even the whole world would not have room for the books that would be written.

If paying for Indulgences, the Immaculate Conception of Mary, Assumption of Mary, Papal Infallibilty was an Apostolic Tradition why did it take so long for the Catholic Church to adopt them as doctrines?

Because misunderstandings and abuses or departures is what precipitates the pronouncement of dogmas. For example, the Church bound the Alexandrian Septuagint with 27 manuscripts to create the Bible. This was not disputed until 1100 years later in Europe during the Protesatnt Reformation. At that time, the Council of Trent re-iterated what the Church beleived and taught in dogmatic form. It did not mean that this was not always the Bible.

Doctrines come from the Apostles, and cannot be added. The Catholic Church teaches that public revelation ended with the death of the last apostle.

Can the Catholic Church prove that they are the teaching of the Apostles?

Since you have rejected the available proof, I suspect there is nothing that can be offered that will be pursuasive.

Which is exactly what Luther was trying to do.

I don’t think he had bad intentions. In fact, at the end of his life, he despaired when he saw the effects of his actions.

“From the earliest ages of the Catholic Church a Christian people, whether in time of triumph or more especially in time of crisis, has addressed prayers of petition and hymns of praise and veneration to the Queen of Heaven.”

Why would a Pope call Mary, the blessed mother of our Lord and Saviour the Queen of Heaven!?!

Because we believe Jesus is the King of the universe, and she is His mother. We see her so depicted in the book of Revelation.

Jeremiah 7
17 Do you not see what they are doing in the towns of Judah and in the streets of Jerusalem? 18 The children gather wood, the fathers light the fire, and the women knead the dough and make cakes of bread for the Queen of Heaven. They pour out drink offerings to other gods to provoke me to anger.

The presence of a false Queen of Heaven does not preclude a real one, any more than a slew of false Messiah’s invalidates the real one.

Sacred Catholic tradition about Jesus do Christians NOT have that only the Catholic Church has?

Everything that has been subtracted from the Apostolic faith for the last 500 years.

Apparently the Mother of God is one of them!

 

[guanophore]

Guan, you probably shouldn’t take things for granted. And no I do not get my faith from TV. In fact a priest once spoke to me recently in his homily by saying although it has existed for 2000 yrs, there are problems within the Church.

Thank you for correcting me. I did misunderstand something I read earlier.

The problems in the church are related to the fallible human component of it. Men are always in need of reform.

Through prayer, contemplation, and reason I agree but I so far have not been led to choose to completely run away from those problems. I am not “anti” anyone though. You know the Church says I am Catholic but for some reason you and others still like to say I am not.

I did not say you are not Catholic. I said you have made some anti-Catholic statements and that your posts do not reflect Catholic faith. I am willing to accept that you don’t know any better.

And I do not reject all Catholic teaching. Just because I may not agree with everything you do, does not make me ignorant of Catholic teaching,

No. All I can say is that your posts do not reflect Catholic faith.

nor any better or worse than any other. I love Christ. I love all His body. I do believe we are united in Christ and what we agree on far outweighs what we may not. This is the cornerstone of my faith. Christ our Lord and Savior and love. I believe things we can do to show our love include those things Jesus taught us. Helping the poor, the sick, the homeless, the hungry, working not towards war but towards peace. And I try not to judge. A human, I sometimes fail at these things like all of us. But I pray I continue striving to follow Him as I am guided to do so by His Holy Spirit. I hope that helps you a little. Peace and God bless.

May God continue to richly bless your journey, as He also does that of Tweety, and all of our committed and fervent separated brethren.

 

[CMatt25]

I see why some catholics here see Jesus = CC. It’s the CCthis and the CCthat and there’s no real truth or Jesus without accepting the CC.​

So what you are really saying is the CC interprets for you. You put your faith in the CC for the CC is Jesus. The CC tells us it is correct because, it says, Jesus said we are.

:sad_yes: Doki, sometimes I am afraid it appears you are right. It’s actually gotten worse in recent yrs. There is a more extremist vocal element nowadays. I don’t think they ever liked the results from Vatican 2 or something.

 

[larkin31]

No, Matt, this is not true. The Catholic faith is not based upon the exegesis of any scripture. The Catholic faith preceeded the writing of the NT.

This is an astounding remark, both misleading and very narrow.

Every time I read documents from the Vatican website, I see scriptural exegesis specifically referred to and engaged in. Even the writings of Paul clearly reflect that exegesis was occurring prior to his own. To simply state that Catholic faith is not based on any exegesis of ANY scripture is to simply mean, in honest terms, that the “church” began with the life of Jesus and the appointment of Peter as the rock, and this precedes our earliest estimates of when the scriptures were written. The Pope himself engages in scriptural exegesis.

I trust some Catholic thinking here. But I don’t trust yours now.

 

[CMatt25]

Guan, you sure wanted me to abandon my Catholic ID for someone now saying you didn’t say I wasn’t Catholic. But oh well.

 

[lil_flower_luv]

Matt I truely believe in all you say and God Bless you in you life as you follow Jesus. Some people believe if you are not hardcore, you are nothing.

That is not necessarily true. God uses both our strengths and weaknesses for His greater glory. However, in regards to being Catholic, it is all or nothing.

“Rise up…this matter is in your hands.”
Ezra 10:4

“Be on your guard; stand firm in the faith; be strong.”
1 Corinthians 16:13

Peace

 

[Dokimas]

I am interested to see how you can substantiate that the Catholic Church started with Constantine. I am also very interested to know where the foundations of this are found in the early church. I am especially interested in how you dispense iwith the writings of those who were discipled by the Apostles (the Apostolic Fathers in the next generation). The disciples of Paul (Corinthians) were mixed up about the trugh and they were 1st century Christians. That can be said for most if not all the churches. They had the apostles and were mixed up. What makes you think the late 1st and second century church fathers would get it any more perfect than the Galatians, etc.?

Since the Apostles had no Bible, (the letters writen by the Apostles were circulated and read by each other and other churches) how does this qualify as a standard of measurement? (cuz they were written in the 1st century) They made the deposit of faith to the Church some 350 years before the Bible was made (you mean gathered together as one, don’t you?). I need you to dispense with all the doctrines that were formed during that period. What are you telling me to do?

So you could become Catholic if Catholicism would conform to your views? I’ve answered this before. Why ask again? I either am not making myself clear or your just not trying to understand what I’ve said (or you just reject my answer).

I agree that it is not God’s will that you should be Pope, but everyone who adheres to Sola Scriptura does, in practice, become their own Pope (wrong; glad to clear that misunderstanding up for you; BTW, you must have missed my point), so your wish appears to be granted, in spite of God’s will to the contrary. So then you’re telling me your church is your god.

The Catholic Church is not at liberty to change the Teachings of Jesus

And since these truths were committed to the Church by Jesus and the Apostles 350 years prior to the Bible being formed, how would you know that? Guess the Holy Spirit still proclaims what Jesus intended Him to proclaim.

The Church is duty bound to preserve that which was committed by the Apsotles, and her proclamations must conform to the doctrine of Christ. Agreed

Actually, I think every generation re-examines them.

However the Bible is not the Source of Catholic doctrine. Jesus is the Source. I guess you don’t really need the Bible. You have the church to tell you what God wants of you. Jesus = the CC, correct? The Catholic Church produced the NT (Why not give credit to where credit is due: the Holy Spirit gave the Bible).?, so it reflects the faith of the Apostles, but it is not the Source of that faith. Jesus is the Source.

If you think I am not free to question, you are mistaken. (What have you questioned and found the the CC is in err?) I did not get to where I am today without a lot of questioning, I assure you. (and where is that exactly - where are you?) There is a kind of questioning that is not really faith seeking understanding at all, but defiance. Defiance is not conducive to spiritual growth. Look at the first disciples: they were defiant and Jesus used them inspite of their defiance. I can lead to spiritual growth, IMO.

It seemed clear above that you want the Church to conform to your terms. This is getting very tiring.

This is true. I will not abandon the TEachings of Christ preserved by the infallible power of His HS in the Catholic Church. that being said, I am open to dialogue with you about how the faith handed down to us from the Apsotles differs from what you have received from the Reformers, who left the Apostolic Succession about 500 years ago. That won’t win me to your point of view.

The two cannot be separated, Doki. The HS is not going to lead one individual in a different direction than what He has already revealed to the Church. (never said He would. I have said maybe, because the church is made up of sinners, the church makes a mistake onece in a while.) That is why it is important for us to know the Sacred Traditions, so that we don’t inadvertatnly stray from them. They (ST) are more important than the Bible to you. Fair enough. I sure have no argument with your right to do so.

[SIGN] Guan: If you think I am not free to question, you are mistaken. [/SIGN] (What have you questioned and found the the CC is in err?)

 

[guanophore]

I see why some catholics here see Jesus = CC.

It has to do with Jesus identifying Himself inseparably with His Church, He being One Body with His Bride, and the instruction “He who hears you hears Me”.

• It’s the CCthis and the CCthat and there’s no real truth or Jesus without accepting the CC.

Jesus is not separated from His Body. It is not a Headless Body.​

-So what you are really saying is the CC interprets for you.

It would be more accurate to say that, when we read and interpret, we do so in the light of what the HS has already revealed to the Church. We believe that the HS will not guide one believer in a direction contrary to what He has revealed to the Church.

• You put your faith in the CC for the CC is Jesus.

At least, they are inseparable.

• The CC tells us it is correct because, it says, Jesus said we are.

The Teachings we received came from Him, and the HS has preserved them infallibly. What makes it correct are the divine elements, not the human.

 

[lil_flower_luv]

Matt~

One of the Spiritual Works of Mercy is to instruct the ignorant. So if it looks like a Catholic brother or sister is calling you on something that you have said…it is just because we care for you and want to correct you. We do not wish any Catholic Teachings to be stated in error or falsely misinterpreted, especially to our non-Catholic brothers and sisters.

Sincerely, Therese

 

[Dokimas]

I’m guessing you know He didn’t because the CC says he didn’t?

Watch out CM. With comments like the above you’ll be accused of either being me or being my disciple.

 

[CMatt25]

in regards to being Catholic, it is all or nothing.

According to whom? You and Guan and a few others? Or the Church? Perhaps in regard to being perfection and the perfectly devout, 100% practicing Catholic at alll times. but then the Church might as well do away with confession.

 

[guanophore]

I’m guessing you know He didn’t because the CC says he didn’t?

No, I know He did not because these are the doctrines and practices that have been kept since they were committed to the Church. If the Apostles made a mistake, and you believe that God was able to correct their mistake, why did He not? Why did He allow the same mistakes to be made for two millenia?

 

[Dokimas]

It has to do with Jesus identifying Himself inseparably with His Church, He being One Body with His Bride, and the instruction “He who hears you hears Me”.

Jesus is not separated from His Body. It is not a Headless Body.​

It would be more accurate to say that, when we read and interpret, we do so in the light of what the HS has already revealed to the Church. We believe that the HS will not guide one believer in a direction contrary to what He has revealed to the Church.

At least, they are inseparable.

The Teachings we received came from Him, and the HS has preserved them infallibly. What makes it correct are the divine elements, not the human.

No wonder why when some here have shown good Bible reasons not to accept some specific teachings of your church you reject the reasons immediately. Fair enough.

 

[guanophore]

According to whom? You and Guan and a few others? Or the Church? Perhaps in regard to being perfection and the perfectly devout, 100% practicing Catholic at alll times. but then the Church might as well do away with confession.

No, no. It is about the doctrine of the faith. Either you accept it all, and are Catholic in faith, or you pick and choose like Tweety does, and you are Protestant in faith. Most American Catholics are actually protestant in faith. They just don’t realize it. It is not a smorgasbord, or a democracy. The Faith is One - unified, whole, indivisible. Once you start carving out parts, you have lost Catholicity.

 

[elvisman]

The way you do this make for responding to you quite a chore. Well here goes.​

I was wondering which protestant theologians think your church went back to the 1st century.​

Your doctrine of Mary being a perpetual virgin, immaculately conceived, etc. The doctrine of infant baptism is another; the exclucivity of the CC for a third; transubsanciation.​

The rest I can’t figure out here.

Okay - I’ll tackle these one-by-one using Scripture:
Mary’s Immaculate conception
Mary’s Perpetual Virginity
Infant Baptism
Transubstantiation

Mary was Immaculately Conceived**
***The Greek word is kecharitomene that Luke used in his Gospel (v.1:28),***which is the perfect passive participle, indicates a completed action with permanent result. Thus it translates, "completely, perfectly, enduringly endowed with grace."

---

Protestants often use Romans 3 to prove that Mary to disprove the idea of Mary’s sinlessness. They point to the fact that Mary MUST have been in need of a Savior because of the words she spoke in the presences of her relative, Elizabeth:
****Luke 1:46-47:
“My soul proclaims the greatness of the Lord; my spirit rejoices in God my savior.”
This is one place where the Catholic Church agrees with the Protestant. We believe that Mary – as do all of us – needed a Savior. However, because of the special role she was about to play in salvation history, the Church teaches that Mary was saved from the time of her conception to be the fitting and proper vessel to carry God. One ancient analogy speaks of a puddle of mud that all believers fall into. God rescues us out of the mud, whereas, Mary was rescued before she fell in.

---

In Romans 3:10, 23, the idea that Paul was speaking literally about everybody is sometimes pointed to by those who twist the scriptures to their own destruction (2 Pet. 3:16).

---

**Paul says: “There is no one righteous, not even one; For there is no distinction; all have sinned and are deprived of the glory of God.” **
Is that so? How about babies or toddlers below the age of reason? What about those who are mentally challenged and may not have full use of their intellect and will? What about Jesus? In this passage, St. Paul is actually quoting Psalm 14, where it says, "The fool (the evil) says in his heart, ‘There is no God. They are corrupt…there is none that does good.’” Later in the same Psalm, we hear that “God is present in the company of the “righteous.”
St. Paul was using inclusive language, as was the Psalmist. This would be similar to somebody saying that “everybody in town” came to the parade. The mass of mankind is what is being referred to in these passages.

---

The anti-Catholic will also point to Luke 2:22-24 as proof of Mary’s sinfulness:
“When the days were completed for their purification according to the law of Moses, they took him up to Jerusalem to present him to the Lord, just as it is written in the law of the Lord, “Every male that opens the womb shall be consecrated to the Lord,” and to offer the sacrifice of “a pair of turtledoves or two young pigeons,” in accordance with the dictate in the law of the Lord.”

---

Mary was a faithful, obedient Jewish girl that would have done everything that was required by the Law. This would include all of the dietary laws with their restrictions and observance of the Passover – just as Jesus did. It’s silly to think that she would have done otherwise.

 

[elvisman]

continued…

---

Mary Was a Perpetual Virgin
In the Septuagint, the normal Greek words for “brother(s) “adelphos” and “adelphoi” were used much more liberally than the normal meaning. It was applied to cousins, uncles, nephews and kinsmen alike. The Aramaic word, “ach”, encompasses the meanings for brother of same parents, half-brother (same father), relative, kinship, same tribe, and even a fellow countryman. The attempt by some Protestants to apply one word for all of these meanings in 21st century English is ludicrous. Just as languages differ – so do the meanings of different words.**

---

Furthermore, there was no term for the word “cousin” in the Aramaic language that our Lord spoke. When the Old Testament was translated into Greek in the centuries before the birth of Christ (the Septuagint), the words “adelphos” and “adelphoi” were used in places where “ach” was. This is why we have many examples in the Septuagint of the following: Gen. 14:14, Gen. 11:26–28, Gen. 29:15, 1 Chr. 23:21–22.
There is another problem for Protestants who try to prove that Mary had other children and list the names given in the bible. They give the names of these adelphoi, James, Joseph (Joses), Jude (Judas), and list the passages that mention these adelphoi, (Matt. 12:46; Matt. 13:55; Mark 3:31–34; Mark 6:3; Luke 8:19–20; John 2:12, 7:3, 5, 10; Acts 1:14; 1 Cor. 9:5).

---

The “other Mary” at the foot of the cross is described as being the mother of James and Joses and Salome. She is also described as being Mary’s (mother of Jesus) “sister” (adelphe) (John 19:25).

---

James is elsewhere described as the son of Alphaeus (Matt. 10:3), which would mean this Mary, whoever she was, was the wife of both Clopas and Alphaeus. But Alphaeus and Clopas are the same person, since the Aramaic name for Alphaeus could be rendered in Greek either as Alphaeus or as Clopas. What do the Scriptures have to say about the women standing at the cross and their children?

---

Matt. 27:56** says,* “…among whom were Mary Magdalene, and Mary the mother of James and Joseph, and the mother of the sons of Zebedee”*.**

---

Mark 15:40** states, “There were also women looking on from afar, among whom were Mary Magdalene, and Mary the mother of James the younger and of Joses, and Salome”).**

---

Finally,John 19:25 tells us, "But standing by the cross of Jesus were his mother, and his mother’s sister, Mary the wife of Clopas, and Mary Magdalene".

---

A comparison of these accounts of the crucifixion shows the mother of James and Joseph to be the wife of Clopas (also called, Alphaeus) – not Mary, the Mother of Jesus. Any attempt to connect these people as uterine brothers of Jesus are squashed by the Bible.
Luke 1:34**:* Then Mary said to the angel, “How can this be, since I do not know a man?”
*Mary was a betrothed girl who knew about marital relations. She didn’t say “How can this be, since I have not known a man?” She said “How can this be, since I do not know a man?” **

---

***She was stating her intention to remain a virgin and was puzzled by Gabriel’s announcement that she was to have a child. She knew that God was aware of her intentions. Her bewilderment and the words “I do not know”, as opposed to I have not known”, is clear evidence that she had no intention of having marital relations.
This actually supports the 2nd century document, The Protoevangelium of James, which said Mary was consecrated a Temple virgin by her parents – much like the prophetess, Anna (Luke 2:36-38). She was to marry the older Joseph, a widower, who was to be her protector.

---

Finally – it is interesting to note that the idea of Mary’s perpetual virginity is one that was held by the early Protestant Reformers. Men like Martin Luther, John Calvin and Ulrich Zwingli ALL held Mary in high regard venerated her as a sinless perpetual virgin. Rejection of this belief came later as Protestant sects further splintered and divorced themselves from one another.

 

[CMatt25]

No, I know He did not because these are the doctrines and practices that have been kept since they were committed to the Church. If the Apostles made a mistake, and you believe that God was able to correct their mistake, why did He not? Why did He allow the same mistakes to be made for two millenia?

You don’t know if need be He didn’t correct them or still won’t so the gates do not prevail in the end. You believe He didn’t need to nor ever will.

 

[guanophore]

No wonder why when some here have shown good Bible reasons not to accept some specific teachings of your church you reject the reasons immediately. Fair enough.

Exactly. We are not free to take the liberties that our separated brethren do to excise the Scriptures from the Sacred Traditions that produced them. The two together form one strand of Divine Revelation, known as the Deposit of Faith. We are duty bound to preserve this deposit that was once for all made to the Church.

Since the "good bible reasons’ are given in separation from what Jesus taught the apostles, we must reject them as modern innovations. They come from what constitutes “a different gospel” that we are not allowed to accept.

 

[elvisman]

Transubstantiation
According to the Second Vatican Council, the Holy Eucharist is “the source and summit of our faith.”
In the Bread of Life Discourse (John 6:25-71), our Lord emphatically states that unless we eat his flesh and drink his Blood, we have no life within us. He goes on to say “For my flesh is true food, and my blood is true drink.”

---

It is interesting to note that the usual Greek word used for human eating is “phagon”, however, this is not the word used in these passages. St. John uses the word, “trogon”, which means, to munch or to gnaw - like an animal. Jesus was again using hyperbole* (exaggeration)* as he often did to drive his point across so that the crowd would understand that he was not speaking metaphorically. He meant what he said.**

---

**Later, John 6:66, goes on to say, “As a result of this, many of his disciples returned to their former way of life and no longer accompanied him.” This marks the only time in Scripture where Jesus’ disciples left him for doctrinal reasons. They simply couldn’t handle what Jesus was telling them.

---

The Early Church Fathers were unanimous in their belief in the Holy Eucharist – so much so that they were willing to shed their blood by martyrdom for this belief. The Jewish and Roman leaders of the time accused them of cannibalism for their belief in the Eucharist and many of them suffered horrible deaths because of it.

---

**Protestants who reject the words of Jesus must ask themselves, **
“Do I believe in the words of Jesus or do fallible human beings know better?”

 

[lil_flower_luv]

According to whom? You and Guan and a few others? Or the Church? Perhaps in regard to being perfection and the perfectly devout, 100% practicing Catholic at alll times. but then the Church might as well do away with confession.

You think I’m saying all Catholics are perfect? Far from it. And you as a Catholic, can not only find the bible saying much on “holding fast to what is true” but the Pope and the Vatican have told us to be strong in our Faith on many occasions as well. Question your faith and you will be like Luther…deciding maybe you don’t want to be “bossed around” by Mother Church. (Which is, btw, false!)