Who founded your Church?

[afiala2]

Who founded your Church?
youtube.com/watch?v=ecx6b2FwqA0

Catholics believe Jesus started One Church and that He wanted His followers to be united. He gave the Keys to the Kingdom of Heaven to Peter and Peter’s Successors have been the leaders of the One True Church which Christ established on earth. We recognize the Pope’s (Peter’s Successor) authority because it is God given authority. We believe Jesus is True God and True Man. So God started the Catholic Church. Jesus promised the gates of hell will not prevail against it (Matthew 16:18) and He will be with us until the end of time (Matthew 28:16-20). The Pope, Benedict XVI, is Christ’s servant shepherd to Christ’s sheep (His followers) on earth. Peter is the shepherd to Christ’s sheep on earth (John 21:15-17).

What I can’t figure out is this, why would anyone think they have the authority to start another church?  Aren’t they claiming they are the true servant shepherd of Christ and denying the Pope’s God given authority in doing so?

Peter didn’t image it, Jesus told him in person and there were witnesses. Jesus started His Church with Peter and the Apostles. The Apostles were unified with Peter as they didn’t all start their own Churches. When Christ spoke in Matthew 16:13-20, the Apostles understood they were Jews and were familiar with Isaiah 22:20-23. Peter is Jesus’ servant who was given the Keys which is a symbol of authority, is the father (Pope) of the family in a sure spot, and when he opens no one shall shut and when he shuts no one shall open. Peter is the royal steward of Christ’s Kingdom.

Why are you a member of your church?  Is it because you think God started it and you know Jesus gave them authority to teach and it is ratified in heaven what they teach so you know if you follow what they teach you will go to heaven?  If a man started your church how do you know it was by the inspiration of the Holy Spirit and not his/her will?  How do you know your interpretation of the Bible is guided by the Holy Spirit when it conflicts with someone else’s interpretation of the Bible who also claims they are guided by the Holy Spirit? Holy Spirit or human will that is the question (2 Peter 1:16-21).

Everybody is doing it, what is stopping you from starting a new church right now? Beware of false prophets….Matthew 7:15-20. 2 Peter 2:1-3, False teachers will introduce destructive heresies. If you start a Church you are saying the Church Jesus started fell into error and you are promising yours won’t the way His apparently did (in affect implying Jesus’ promise wasn’t kept). You are also claiming authority equal to Jesus or above Jesus. But since Jesus is the ONLY Son of God your authority doesn’t supersede His and that is what is stopping you from starting your own church because you don’t presume greater authority than Jesus. Jesus delegated authority to Peter. I am not aware of anyone else receiving such authority from Jesus, so I am a Catholic because the authority lies with the Catholic Church, the ONE holy catholic and apostolic Church. The Apostles as a whole in union with Peter have been guided by the Holy Spirit from Pentecost to today, from Peter to Benedict XVI.

How do you know who to listen too? How do you know which church is guided by the Holy Spirit? Which Church did Jesus start? Who did Jesus give the Keys to the Kingdom of Heaven, Jesus’ Kingdom, too (Matthew 16:13-20)? Which Church has the Successor of Peter as its leader? Which Church has been around since the time of Christ? The Church Jesus started.

How do you know who to listen too? It is pretty simple, the Church Jesus started. Listen to teachings from the Church Jesus started or one of 10s of thousands that were started by men. Listen to God or man, listen the Holy Spirit or human will. What is it going to be?

Your word is not above His, JESUS IS THE WORD OF GOD! Jesus wanted unity of believers (John 17:20-23). Please pray to the Holy Spirit for unity. The Holy Spirit doesn’t tell different people conflicting things; God the Holy Spirit brings about unity not division.

What we do matters, don’t let anyone fool you into thinking otherwise.
Ephesians 5:6, 2:8-10
Romans 2:6-7
Psalms 62:12-13
Proverbs 6:16-19, 24:12
Galatians 5:6
James 2:24, 26
Matthew 19:16-17
John 14:21
1 Corinthians 13:2

My sheep hear my voice, says the Lord; I know them, and they follow me (John 10:27). If we are all hearing different voices (teachings), who is listening to Christ?

Matthew 7:21-23

……because of them the way of truth will be reviled (2 Peter 2:2).

Which is the true Church of Jesus Christ?
youtube.com/watch?v=r7W97ru024c&feature=related

1 Timothy 3:15

St. Ignatius of Antioch, pray for us.

 

[FaithfulAndTrue]

Define church.

 

[Trishie]

Jesus said, “And I also say to you that you are Peter, and upon this rock I will build My church; and the gates of Hades shall not overpower it,” (Matt. 16:18

From the CATECHISM of the CATHOLIC CHURCH
scborromeo.org/ccc/p122a3p3.htm

**“The keys of the kingdom” **
551 From the beginning of his public life Jesus chose certain men, twelve in number, to be with him and to participate in his mission.280 He gives the Twelve a share in his authority and 'sent them out to preach the kingdom of God and to heal."281 They remain associated for ever with Christ’s kingdom, for through them he directs the Church:

As my Father appointed a kingdom for me, so do I appoint for you that you may eat and drink at my table in my kingdom, and sit on thrones judging the twelve tribes of Israel.282
552 Simon Peter holds the first place in the college of the Twelve;283 Jesus entrusted a unique mission to him. Through a revelation from the Father, Peter had confessed: “You are the Christ, the Son of the living God.” Our Lord then declared to him: "You are Peter, and on this rock I will build my Church, and the gates of Hades will not prevail against it."284 Christ, the “living Stone”,285 thus assures his Church, built on Peter, of victory over the powers of death. Because of the faith he confessed Peter will remain the unshakable rock of the Church. His mission will be to keep this faith from every lapse and to strengthen his brothers in it.286
553 Jesus entrusted a specific authority to Peter: "I will give you the keys of the kingdom of heaven, and whatever you bind on earth shall be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven."287 The “power of the keys” designates authority to govern the house of God, which is the Church. Jesus, the Good Shepherd, confirmed this mandate after his Resurrection: "Feed my sheep."288 The power to “bind and loose” connotes the authority to absolve sins, to pronounce doctrinal judgements, and to make disciplinary decisions in the Church. Jesus entrusted this authority to the Church through the ministry of the apostles289 and in particular through the ministry of Peter, the only one to whom he specifically entrusted the keys of the kingdom.

 

[Calgar]

Define church.

I think he’s talking about a building perhaps? I don’t know.

 

[brother_dan_mac]

Define church.

I would think a good definition would be; A group of people who have a common professed brlief, or at least a belief in the [divine] inspiration of the leader or leaders of such entity, who gather to worship or otherwise learn about a specific definition of the creator of all things, or at least an entity having supreme power over all things, in order to assimilate to said power in some fashion.

This leaves room for number of members, and a heirarchy of one or any number, and provides leaway for specific theories about the nature of the universe and whatever definition a church may have of a supreme power. Would all agree that the element of a “supreme power” is key to any definition of church? Seems that without this element, to form a group of any sort would be redundant?

 

[chris62]

A great video accompanying a great post afiala2.

Something like this on the big screen before Mass would be very inspirational I think.

 

[Cavaradossi]

Define church.

A community inspired by the Holy Spirit, which began on Pentecost, which consists of human beings who are reborn into the Church through dying in their descent into the waters and rising anew from their ascent from the waters of baptism, and who profess one faith, and participate in the bloodless sacrifice of thanksgiving of the flesh and blood of our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ which transcends all space and time, and which thus transcendentally unites the faithful across all boundaries of space and time.

 

[sojo]

A community inspired by the Holy Spirit, which began on Pentecost, which consists of human beings who are reborn into the Church through dying in their descent into the waters and rising anew from their ascent from the waters of baptism, and who profess one faith, and participate in the bloodless sacrifice of thanksgiving of the flesh and blood of our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ which transcends all space and time, and which thus transcendentally unites the faithful across all boundaries of space and time.

Just wanted to say that this is very beautiful!

 

[PiousTemplar]

A community inspired by the Holy Spirit, which began on Pentecost, which consists of human beings who are reborn into the Church through dying in their descent into the waters and rising anew from their ascent from the waters of baptism, and who profess one faith, and participate in the bloodless sacrifice of thanksgiving of the flesh and blood of our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ which transcends all space and time, and which thus transcendentally unites the faithful across all boundaries of space and time.

Wow.

 

[FaithfulAndTrue]

A community inspired by the Holy Spirit, which began on Pentecost, which consists of human beings who are reborn into the Church through dying in their descent into the waters and rising anew from their ascent from the waters of baptism, and who profess one faith, and participate in the bloodless sacrifice of thanksgiving of the flesh and blood of our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ which transcends all space and time, and which thus transcendentally unites the faithful across all boundaries of space and time.

Very nice but a definition can’t contain the word being defined and also this might be better suited as a definition for a Catholic church, or the Catholic church if you prefer, and not simply a “church”.

Perhaps I’m wrong, but the OP’s question implies a definition as an organized institution which has a “founder”? The thread is intended to play out like this…

Catholic 1: “Who founded your church?”

Catholic 2: “Great question! Here’s a list of churches and their founders and dates they were founded.”

Catholic 3: “Isn’t it great that our church was founded by Jesus Christ in 33AD?!”

Then everyone feels nicely elite and smug because they stuck it to those lost Protestants!

The fallacious implication is that “Protestants” worship the founder of an institution rather than Jesus Christ. And if that’s not the implication, then what exactly is the point of the question?

It ultimately boils down to a disagreement on the definition of the word “church”. Catholics see it as a formal institution whereas “Protestants” see it as the spiritual body of all true believers of Christ Jesus as their God and Savior. In light of this, I would gladly say that Jesus Christ founded the spiritual body of all true believers in Him as their God and Savior.

This is why this discussion is and will be fruitless and moot.

 

[JonNC]

=afiala2;8476917]Who founded your Church?
youtube.com/watch?v=ecx6b2FwqA0

Catholics believe Jesus started One Church and that He wanted His followers to be united.

Agreed!

He gave the Keys to the Kingdom of Heaven to Peter and Peter’s Successors have been the leaders of the One True Church which Christ established on earth.

To Peter and the rest of the apostles, and thereby the whole of the Church Militant.

We recognize the Pope’s (Peter’s Successor) authority because it is God given authority.

Define the level of that authority. Nicea seems to define it as in his western jurisdiction.

We believe Jesus is True God and True Man. So God started the Catholic Church. Jesus promised the gates of hell will not prevail against it (Matthew 16:18) and He will be with us until the end of time (Matthew 28:16-20).

No argument here, except to say that the One Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church is not limited to those in communion with the Bishop of Rome, though it certainly includes them.

The Pope, Benedict XVI, is Christ’s servant shepherd to Christ’s sheep (His followers) on earth. Peter is the shepherd to Christ’s sheep on earth (John 21:15-17).

Certainly St. Peter was, and Pope Benedict is very important leaders within His Church.

What I can’t figure out is this, why would anyone think they have the authority to start another church? Aren’t they claiming they are the true servant shepherd of Christ and denying the Pope’s God given authority in doing so?

While there is only one Church, it is, sadly, and due to human sin in all quarters, divided.

Peter didn’t image it, Jesus told him in person and there were witnesses. Jesus started His Church with Peter and the Apostles. The Apostles were unified with Peter as they didn’t all start their own Churches. When Christ spoke in Matthew 16:13-20, the Apostles understood they were Jews and were familiar with Isaiah 22:20-23. Peter is Jesus’ servant who was given the Keys which is a symbol of authority, is the father (Pope) of the family in a sure spot, and when he opens no one shall shut and when he shuts no one shall open. Peter is the royal steward of Christ’s Kingdom.

Starting in, say, 1054, who is responsible for the disunity?

Why are you a member of your church? Is it because you think God started it and you know Jesus gave them authority to teach and it is ratified in heaven what they teach so you know if you follow what they teach you will go to heaven?

Yes. As part of the One Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church, I believe Christ determined to build His Church on His apostles.

How do you know who to listen too? How do you know which church is guided by the Holy Spirit? Which Church did Jesus start? Who did Jesus give the Keys to the Kingdom of Heaven, Jesus’ Kingdom, too (Matthew 16:13-20)? Which Church has the Successor of Peter as its leader? Which Church has been around since the time of Christ? The Church Jesus started.

Now this is a great question. Was St. Peter only to be found in Rome?

How do you know who to listen too? It is pretty simple, the Church Jesus started. Listen to teachings from the Church Jesus started or one of 10s of thousands that were started by men. Listen to God or man, listen the Holy Spirit or human will. What is it going to be?

Another good question. Do we listen to one patriarch, or the others? Or, since they can’t agree, do we rely on His word as a final norm?

Jon

 

[JonNC]

A community inspired by the Holy Spirit, which began on Pentecost, which consists of human beings who are reborn into the Church through dying in their descent into the waters and rising anew from their ascent from the waters of baptism, and who profess one faith, and participate in the bloodless sacrifice of thanksgiving of the flesh and blood of our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ which transcends all space and time, and which thus transcendentally unites the faithful across all boundaries of space and time.

Jon

 

[Cavaradossi]

Very nice but a definition can’t contain the word being defined and also this might be better suited as a definition for a Catholic church, or the Catholic church if you prefer, and not simply a “church”.

Perhaps I’m wrong, but the OP’s question implies a definition as an organized institution which has a “founder”? The thread is intended to play out like this…

Catholic 1: “Who founded your church?”

Catholic 2: “Great question! Here’s a list of churches and their founders and dates they were founded.”

Catholic 3: “Isn’t it great that our church was founded by Jesus Christ in 33AD?!”

Then everyone feels nicely elite and smug because they stuck it to those lost Protestants!

The fallacious implication is that “Protestants” worship the founder of an institution rather than Jesus Christ. And if that’s not the implication, then what exactly is the point of the question?

It ultimately boils down to a disagreement on the definition of the word “church”. Catholics see it as a formal institution whereas “Protestants” see it as the spiritual body of all true believers of Christ Jesus as their God and Savior. In light of this, I would gladly say that Jesus Christ founded the spiritual body of all true believers in Him as their God and Savior.

This is why this discussion is and will be fruitless and moot.

Three things:

• I am not Catholic; I am Orthodox. Hence, my definition doesn’t really have anything to do with the Catholic Church. This is how the Orthodox define ‘Church’ (the Catholics just happen to agree )
• That definition of Church is not unique to the Catholic Church (or Eastern Orthodox Church), as all Apostolic Churches define the word ‘Church’ in a similar fashion.
• A definition can indeed contain the word being defined if it is not being used as a sort of self-affirming logic (i.e., a Church is a Church is a useless definition, which if you notice is never what I said in my definition). If you replaced the one time I used the word ‘Church’ in my definition with the word ‘community’ it would have the same meaning.

 

[Adam95]

I would think a good definition would be; A group of people who have a common professed brlief, or at least a belief in the [divine] inspiration of the leader or leaders of such entity, who gather to worship or otherwise learn about a specific definition of the creator of all things, or at least an entity having supreme power over all things, in order to assimilate to said power in some fashion.

I would call that an ecclesiastical community.

 

[FaithfulAndTrue]

Three things:

• I am not Catholic; I am Orthodox. Hence, my definition doesn’t really have anything to do with the Catholic Church. This is how the Orthodox define ‘Church’ (the Catholics just happen to agree )
• That definition of Church is not unique to the Catholic Church (or Eastern Orthodox Church), as all Apostolic Churches define the word ‘Church’ in a similar fashion.
• A definition can indeed contain the word being defined if it is not being used as a sort of self-affirming logic (i.e., a Church is a Church is a useless definition, which if you notice is never what I said in my definition). If you replaced the one time I used the word ‘Church’ in my definition with the word ‘community’ it would have the same meaning.

• OK
• I am not disagreeing with you much on this point. I’m actually more surprised at how much agreement there is with on from the Catholic crowd because they see the church Jesus spoke of not just as a community of believers but as the Church (capital) which is a visible institution with a clear authoritarian hierarchy succeeded from Peter who presides over smaller communities of believers who submit to this hierarchy. Simply look at the OP to see what I mean.
• There’s no point in quibbling over this minor point. You definition was clear enough for me to understand your point.

What you think about the other 90% of my post? That is the part that is the root of the discussion, isn’t it?

 

[hockeyfan]

Very nice but a definition can’t contain the word being defined and also this might be better suited as a definition for a Catholic church, or the Catholic church if you prefer, and not simply a “church”.

Fair enough, but I do think you get the idea. If not, there are plenty of other strong explanations on here. What I teach with my parish’s Confirmation program is that a church is a community that shares a religion. Naturally that means you have to define a religion. We would also teach that a religion has three things; wisdom, works, and worship.

Perhaps I’m wrong, but the OP’s question implies a definition as an organized institution which has a “founder”? The thread is intended to play out like this…

Catholic 1: “Who founded your church?”

Catholic 2: “Great question! Here’s a list of churches and their founders and dates they were founded.”

Catholic 3: “Isn’t it great that our church was founded by Jesus Christ in 33AD?!”

Then everyone feels nicely elite and smug because they stuck it to those lost Protestants!

If you have a community, you will have a founder. A community does not have to have a organized institution, though our community does.

The fallacious implication is that “Protestants” worship the founder of an institution rather than Jesus Christ. And if that’s not the implication, then what exactly is the point of the question?

I can’t watch the video right now, because my laptop is down and I am not in a place where I have access to sound. I can say that if the implication is that Protestants worship the founder, it would be wrong.

That all being said, I will tell you how I see it myself as a Catholic. (I expect that I am not alone in this) For about 1500 years of history, there was a established Bible, with established traditions and established theology. Then a few men came around and decided that it wasn’t good enough for them. So those men threw out sacred traditions, seven books in the Bible, and invented their own doctrines, all on their own accord. Now we see churches springing up all of the time, and pastors who get their credentials in strange ways. (that last part does not speak for all Protestant churches) I also know people who church hop if they don’t like what one or another pastor teaches. We see this as a affront to what the Bible teaches in 2 Peter 1:20

“Know this first of all, that there is no prophecy of scripture that is a matter of personal interpretation”

So, when a Catholic asks who created your church, they aren’t necessarily saying that your church must be an institution. (though most of us agree with the institution of your church) It has more to do with the personalization of the interpretation of faith that has appeared in the Protestant movement.

It ultimately boils down to a disagreement on the definition of the word “church”. Catholics see it as a formal institution whereas “Protestants” see it as the spiritual body of all true believers of Christ Jesus as their God and Savior. In light of this, I would gladly say that Jesus Christ founded the spiritual body of all true believers in Him as their God and Savior.

This is why this discussion is and will be fruitless and moot.

One more thing, there are two ways a Catholic will say the word church. One way they will say church is in the lower case. That is when they are talking about any church. You remember from earlier, a church is a community that shares a religion. A Catholic may also say Church with a capital C. (they might say “the Church”) In that case, they are talking about our churches organization or institution.

I hope that helps.

 

[dingodile]

For about 1500 years of history, there was a established Bible, with established traditions and established theology. Then a few men came around and decided that it wasn’t good enough for them. So those men threw out sacred traditions, seven books in the Bible, and invented their own doctrines, all on their own accord.

Maybe a fairer description of what they were trying to do was not to invent new doctrines but to recover and restore what they believed were the original doctrines that had been distorted or lost.

Catholics are allowed to do this as well, and they do it. Some priests are terrible homilists, and people move to another congregation because of it. In short, church shopping isn’t always about theology or doctrine.

It has more to do with the personalization of the interpretation of faith that has appeared in the Protestant movement.

A case can be made that individual interpretation of faith has been with the Church since the beginning. What changed in the Reformation was that it became safe to express and follow those individual interpretations publicly.

I have this sense that the so-called “unity” of Catholic belief is somewhat overstated. To be sure, there is tight control in the Church over what is “officially” taught, but at the level of individual self-identified Catholics, including clergy, I think there is probably as much diversity as there is among Protestants. The situation may be somewhat analogous to the President’s Cabinet. Publicly they all defend the President’s positions on things; it’s their job to do so, and when they can’t do so in good conscience they are expected to resign. But nobody mistakes this for actual unanimity of belief.

Similarly, in the Catholic Church there are official interpretations of faith, and the actual beliefs of the faithful, and I think there’s plenty of daylight between the two, and always has been.

[/QUOTE]

 

[Bezant]

A community inspired by the Holy Spirit, which began on Pentecost, which consists of human beings who are reborn into the Church through dying in their descent into the waters and rising anew from their ascent from the waters of baptism, and who profess one faith, and participate in the bloodless sacrifice of thanksgiving of the flesh and blood of our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ which transcends all space and time, and which thus transcendentally unites the faithful across all boundaries of space and time.

Bravissimo.

 

[hockeyfan]

Maybe a fairer description of what they were trying to do was not to invent new doctrines but to recover and restore what they believed were the original doctrines that had been distorted or lost.

I am well aware that you point is the justification a lot of Protestants use. That being said, that argument would not be historically accurate. For example, when Martin Luther taught Sola Scriptura, Sola Fide, Sola Gratia, and Solo Cristo, you can’t find that in early Christian texts. This is also true when it comes to John Calvin’s doctrine on Holy Predestination. I am not aware of any early Christians saying that. Another example of this is that I am not aware of any references to the rapture before the 18th century.

Catholics are allowed to do this as well, and they do it. Some priests are terrible homilists, and people move to another congregation because of it. In short, church shopping isn’t always about theology or doctrine.

A case can be made that individual interpretation of faith has been with the Church since the beginning. What changed in the Reformation was that it became safe to express and follow those individual interpretations publicly.

Your point there is misleading. First off, if a priest is terrible at homilies, that does not mean that their teachings are opposed to what the Church teaches. Also, if a Catholic chooses to move from lets say St. Johns Catholic Church to St. Francis Catholic Church, that is not the same as church hopping. In this case, they remain in the same church, with the same theology and same history. Your comparing apples and oranges there.

On individual interpretation, that is also misleading. The Church does have its priests interpret scripture, but they all answer to the Holy See. Note, I say priests, not laity. These priests have been trained in a seminary for at least 6-8 years on Catholic doctrine. Also, if these priests get out of line, they can get in a lot of trouble.

Now, that doesn’t mean that some priests don’t have differing opinions. Not all matters are settled in Catholic dogma. In fact a lot of dogma is not settled. Sometimes different theologians will disagree, but this is only for the furtherance of settling dogma. Even with this, when doctrine is settles, a priest is required to get in line. An example of this is when St. Jerome got in line with the list of which books were and weren’t in the Bible.

I have this sense that the so-called “unity” of Catholic belief is somewhat overstated. To be sure, there is tight control in the Church over what is “officially” taught, but at the level of individual self-identified Catholics, including clergy, I think there is probably as much diversity as there is among Protestants. The situation may be somewhat analogous to the President’s Cabinet. Publicly they all defend the President’s positions on things; it’s their job to do so, and when they can’t do so in good conscience they are expected to resign. But nobody mistakes this for actual unanimity of belief.

Similarly, in the Catholic Church there are official interpretations of faith, and the actual beliefs of the faithful, and I think there’s plenty of daylight between the two, and always has been.

I am not going to deny that there are cafeteria Catholics. This is problematic in as much as it isn’t really making a choice on a religion, as much as it is a feel good policy. But if they turn on the principals of the Church, are they really Catholic? I would say no. A part of being Catholic is accepting that Jesus gave Peters the keys to bind and loose in heaven and earth. That means that if such a person is not accepting that power, their calim to being Catholic is questionable.

 

[dingodile]

I am well aware that you point is the justification a lot of Protestants use. That being said, that argument would not be historically accurate. For example, when Martin Luther taught Sola Scriptura, Sola Fide, Sola Gratia, and Solo Cristo, you can’t find that in early Christian texts. This is also true when it comes to John Calvin’s doctrine on Holy Predestination. I am not aware of any early Christians saying that. Another example of this is that I am not aware of any references to the rapture before the 18th century.

My point was that these men were **trying ** to **recover **doctrines that they believed had been lost or distorted. For this reason, it was uncharitable for you to characterize their activity simply as “inventing new doctrines”. As for early Christian texts, there are hundreds of volumes of those, and I certainly haven’t studied them all and can’t say what was or wasn’t believed. We both know that Luther, Calvin, et al. strongly believed that their positions had scriptural basis. Maybe they were wrong. I’m not defending Protestant doctrines here, only saying something about what motivated some of them.

Your point there is misleading. First off, if a priest is terrible at homilies, that does not mean that their teachings are opposed to what the Church teaches. Also, if a Catholic chooses to move from lets say St. Johns Catholic Church to St. Francis Catholic Church, that is not the same as church hopping. In this case, they remain in the same church, with the same theology and same history. Your comparing apples and oranges there.

I haven’t claimed that Catholic church-hopping is identical in all respects to other forms of church-hopping, but there’s more to it than you are saying here.

There are Catholic parishes where the Church’s position on ordination of women is either never mentioned, or where the ordination of women is actively prayed for, in “code” language. There are parishes where the Church’s pro-life agenda is never mentioned, and so forth. I’m sure you know these things go on. So no, I can’t agree that all Catholic churches have the same theology.

On individual interpretation, that is also misleading. The Church does have its priests interpret scripture, but they all answer to the Holy See. Note, I say priests, not laity. These priests have been trained in a seminary for at least 6-8 years on Catholic doctrine. Also, if these priests get out of line, they can get in a lot of trouble.

They can get in trouble, and they do get in trouble from time to time. But that’s a demonstration of power, not unity of theology. The fact that the Church has the means to silence dissent does not show unity of belief. As I see it, the alleged unity of belief is largely an authoritarian fiction. Unity of belief is not determined by Church authority. It is determined by what goes on in the minds and hearts of actual Catholics, lay and religious. That’s where the beliefs actually are. And at that level, the “street level”, if you will, it’s my impression that there’s as much diversity of belief among Catholics as there is among Protestants. I know plenty of priests, but I can’t name one who thinks the Church’s position on contraception is sound. Sure, they keep their mouths shut when it’s prudent to do so, but that’s not a demonstration of unity of belief.

I am not going to deny that there are cafeteria Catholics. This is problematic in as much as it isn’t really making a choice on a religion, as much as it is a feel good policy. But if they turn on the principals of the Church, are they really Catholic? I would say no. A part of being Catholic is accepting that Jesus gave Peters the keys to bind and loose in heaven and earth. That means that if such a person is not accepting that power, their calim to being Catholic is questionable.

By the very rules of Canon Law that you apparently accept, they’re all Catholics. Those rules don’t distinguish between those who are “really” Catholic and those who aren’t. Their beliefs are not aligned with official doctrine, no, but that’s my point. A strong case can be made that official doctrine is more an artifact of power than it is a sign of unity of belief, as it’s sometimes claimed to be.

Protestants believe a hundred different things? So do Catholics, despite what the hierarchy would like them to believe.