Who founded your Church?

[Nicea325]

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.

You are also incorrect with the following assertion:

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.

The CC has always taught the underlined words long before Protestanism,thus it is not a Protestant belief,but a Catholic one.

 

[JonNC]

You are also incorrect with the following assertion:

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.

The CC has always taught the underlined words long before Protestanism,thus it is not a Protestant belief,but a Catholic one.

I might also add that Lutherans also see an institutional side of Church, as the confessions say, *“The Church is the congregation of saints, in which the Gospel is rightly taught and the Sacraments are rightly administered.”
*

Jon

 

[Nicea325]

I might also add that Lutherans also see an institutional side of Church, as the confessions say, "The Church is the congregation of saints, in which the Gospel is rightly taught and the Sacraments are rightly administered."

Jon

Blessings my friend. Indeed you are correct and by all means, I was not denying the institutional side of the church as well.

 

[hockeyfan]

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.

The problem with that statement is that for Luther and Calvin to say that they are recovering lost church doctrines, one would have to point to such doctrines. They can’t do this because they don’t exist. The fact is that Luther added the word alone to Romans 3:28, even though it did not exist so that he could argue his teaching on Sola Fide. Then when the church called him on it, he said this…

“You tell me what a great fuss the Papists are making because the word alone in not in the text of Paul…say right out to him: ‘Dr. Martin Luther will have it so,’…I will have it so, and I order it to be so, and my will is reason enough. I know very well that the word ‘alone’ is not in the Latin or the Greek text”

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.

You are comparing apples and oranges because the issue I have is that they are moving to find a church that fits their personal beliefs like they are shopping for pants. “This church doesn’t quite fit, so I will move there.” When a Catholic changes parishes, they still remain in the one holy Catholic and Apostolic Church.

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.

You are making a false correlation between silence on an issue with silent support. Show me evidence of a church with support for abortion, and I will show you a church that is not Catholic. On the ordination of women, pleash show an example of “code language” on active prayer for the ordination of women. That being said (I could be mistaken on what I am about to say) I am not aware of a official doctrine that makes it impossible to ever ordain a woman in the future. Even though that is the case, if a priest got out of line with that teaching they would get into 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 accept that on the street level, your every day Catholic is not a theologian. That means that there will be dissenters and misunderstandings on Catholic teachings. But the church itself, in its actual teachings, doesn’t.

It is unfair to call that authoritarian. When a priest preaches he represents the Catholic Church. It reminds me of something I was told when I got my first job at a Burger King. My manager told me that when a customer sees me that "I am the Burger King,"and that what I do is Burger King, not just on me. Well, when a priest teaches something, he is “the Catholic Church.” That means that the church has to be careful about what their priests and bishops teach. Remember this, when those few priests and bishops caused the sex abuse scandal, it affected the whole church, not just a few individuals. That is why the church should essentially control its brand.

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.

I am not sure what you are talking about here. What Canon Law is this? You cited the example of abortion earlier. According to the Catechism of the Catholic Church abortion is a means to excommunication.

2272 Formal co-operation in an abortion constitutes a grave offence. The Church attaches the canonical penalty of excommunication to this crime against human life. ‘A person who procures a completed abortion incurs excommunication latae sententiae’ (76) ‘by the very commission of the offence’, (77) and subject to the conditions provided by Canon Law . (78) The Church does not thereby intend to restrict the scope of mercy. Rather, she makes clear the gravity of the crime committed, the irreparable harm done to the innocent who is put to death, as well as to the parents and the whole of society.

 

[JonNC]

The problem with that statement is that for Luther and Calvin to say that they are recovering lost church doctrines, one would have to point to such doctrines. They can’t do this because they don’t exist. The fact is that Luther added the word alone to Romans 3:28, even though it did not exist so that he could argue his teaching on Sola Fide.

If this were the case, if the existence of “allein” in Luther’s German translation was there it argue for sola fide, then every non-Catholic English Bible would have “alone” in Roman 3:28. None do. And that is because it is a matter of translation. “Alone” is not needed in the English. In German, it is.

Then when the church called him on it, he said this…

“You tell me what a great fuss the Papists are making because the word alone in not in the text of Paul…say right out to him: ‘Dr. Martin Luther will have it so,’…I will have it so, and I order it to be so, and my will is reason enough. I know very well that the word ‘alone’ is not in the Latin or the Greek text”

Well, let’s continue the quote:

“I know very well that in Romans 3 the word solum is not in the Greek or Latin text — the papists did not have to teach me that. It is fact that the letters s-o-l-a are not there. And these blockheads stare at them like cows at a new gate, while at the same time they do not recognize that it conveys the sense of the text – if the translation is to be clear and vigorous [klar und gewaltiglich], it belongs there. I wanted to speak German, not Latin or Greek, since it was German I had set about to speak in the translation.”

One can legitimately argue whether or not in German the words Luther used to translate were correct of not. But the fact is it is an argument over translation.

Jon

 

[ComeHome2Rome]

Who founded your Church?

My Church, the Catholic Church, was founded by Jesus Christ

Why are you a member of your church?

I became a member of the Catholic Church because I discovered through historical research that it is the Church that Jesus Christ founded.

If a man started your church how do you know it was by the inspiration of the Holy Spirit and not his/her will?

Jesus Christ is true man and true God and His Will is fully united with God’s Will.

Everybody is doing it, what is stopping you from starting a new church right now?

No need to reinvent a perfect wheel.

How do you know who to listen too?

I know that I can listen to and trust the Catholic Church because Jesus promised that the gates of hell would not prevail over the Catholic Church.

How do you know which church is guided by the Holy Spirit?

I know that the Catholic Church is guided by the Holy Spirit because of the promise of Jesus Christ made that the Holy Spirit would guide the Pope, successors of St. Peter, in all Truth.

Which Church did Jesus start?

**Jesus started the Catholic Church. **

Who did Jesus give the Keys to the Kingdom of Heaven, Jesus’ Kingdom, too (Matthew 16:13-20)?

Jesus gave the Keys of the Kingdom of Heaven to St. Peter and St. Peter’s decendents, the Popes.

Which Church has the Successor of Peter as its leader?

**The Catholic Church. **

Which Church has been around since the time of Christ?

Only the Catholic Church has been around since the time of Jesus Christ.

If we are all hearing different voices (teachings), who is listening to Christ?

If you listen to the Catholic Church, you are listening to Jesus Christ.

Which is the true Church of Jesus Christ?

That Catholic Church is the true Church of Jesus Christ.

 

[havana1]

Many non-Catholics (“mega-church” evangelicals, in particular) still believe Constantine founded the Catholic Church, so until the Constantine refutations become more commonplace in apologetics, which I don’t see happening anytime soon, yeah, I agree such conversation is fruitless.

There is very little apologetics to refute the notion that Constantine founded the Catholic church.
*
“Jesus founded our church.”
“No he didn’t. Constantine did.”
(And because there’s not much in the way apologetics vis a vis Constantine, the Catholic walks away from the conversation thinking, “Well, gee, no Catholics want to talk about Constantine, so maybe this evangelical is right and I’m wrong.”)*

I just don’t understand why it’s (Constantine) not higher on the pecking order of Catholic apologetics.

 

[havana1]

My Church, the Catholic Church, was founded by Jesus Christ

And how do you refute the non-Catholics who disagree and insist, *“No, he didn’t. Constantine founded your church. Not Jesus.” *

There are many non-Catholics who believe Constantine founded the Catholic church.

 

[jesuspsr]

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.

This is so cool.

God bless

jesus g

 

[Nicea325]

And how do you refute the non-Catholics who disagree and insist, *“No, he didn’t. Constantine founded your church. Not Jesus.” *

There are many non-Catholics who believe Constantine founded the Catholic church.

Easily rebuked. Ask them the following:

If Constantine founded the Catholic Church,please provide the historical sources showing that great event in Christian History? Provide names of people who mention joining this “new” church founded a Roman emperor?

 

[ComeHome2Rome]

And how do you refute the non-Catholics who disagree and insist, *“No, he didn’t. Constantine founded your church. Not Jesus.” *

There are many non-Catholics who believe Constantine founded the Catholic church.

I’ve never had to refute that because I’ve never spoken with anyone who said that…yet. Perhaps I’d respond, “Oh yeah? Well your momma dresses you funny!”

Actually, I would simply give them my personally testimony and show them the Bible verses which clearly show Jesus founded our Church and if that wasn’t enough to convince them then I would also show them the early Church fathers too.

My instinct tells me that if the person thinks that Constantine started the Church then they would most likely not be open or willing to listen to the truth about the origin and history of the Church even if it were perfectly presented to them.

Pray that the Holy Spirit allow a simple seed to be planted and with the nurturing of the Holy Spirit, that seed will blossom over time.

 

[jediliz]

My church’s founder is the only one that rose from the dead

 

[hockeyfan]

If this were the case, if the existence of “allein” in Luther’s German translation was there it argue for sola fide, then every non-Catholic English Bible would have “alone” in Roman 3:28. None do. And that is because it is a matter of translation. “Alone” is not needed in the English. In German, it is.

Well, let’s continue the quote:

One can legitimately argue whether or not in German the words Luther used to translate were correct of not. But the fact is it is an argument over translation.

Jon

It’s funny, because as you continue the quote, I still see him saying the same thing. He still says that the word does not exist. And then he argues that it is what Paul meant. Even though that is not what he actually said. If he wanted to say that is what Paul meant, he should have demonstrated it in the words Paul actually used. That quote was defending historical revisionism. It is just the same when he declared 7 books to not be a part of the Bible.

 

[JonNC]

It’s funny, because as you continue the quote, I still see him saying the same thing. He still says that the word does not exist. And then he argues that it is what Paul meant. Even though that is not what he actually said. If he wanted to say that is what Paul meant, he should have demonstrated it in the words Paul actually used. That quote was defending historical revisionism. It is just the same when he declared 7 books to not be a part of the Bible.

It doesn’t exist in Greek because Greek is a different language than German, just like English is a different language than German. To translate means to put into another language the meaning from the first, even though there may not be a word-for-word way of expressing it. There is, therefore, no way to word-for-word express in German what Paul said. One has to use the German language to convey the meaning in German.

Keep in mind regarding the deuterocanon that Luther’s opinion of them is not in a vaccum.
There were many throughout history that questioned the canonicity of them. Luther, like all of them, had the right and permission to question them. Cardinal Cajetan, a Luther contemporary said:

]“Here we close our commentaries on the historical books of the Old Testament. For the rest (that is, Judith, Tobit, and the books of Maccabees) are counted by St Jerome out of the canonical books, and are placed amongst the Apocrypha, along with Wisdom and Ecclesiasticus, as is plain from the Prologus Galeatus. Nor be thou disturbed, like a raw scholar, if thou shouldest find anywhere, either in the sacred councils or the sacred doctors, these books reckoned as canonical. For the words as well of councils as of doctors are to be reduced to the correction of Jerome. Now, according to his judgment, in the epistle to the bishops Chromatius and Heliodorus, these books (and any other like books in the canon of the Bible) are not canonical, that is, not in the nature of a rule for confirming matters of faith. Yet, they may be called canonical, that is, in the nature of a rule for the edification of the faithful, as being received and authorised in the canon of the Bible for that purpose. By the help of this distinction thou mayest see thy way clearly through that which Augustine says, and what is written in the provincial council of Carthage.”

It is also important to note that Luther did include all of the deutero canon in his translation, and also included the Prayer of Manassess.

Jon

 

[afiala2]

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.

But they didn’t have any authority to do so, not to mention a lack of historical evidence they were right, and a NT that contradicts them. Developing doctrines can’t be done by someone who lacks the authority. If you don’t possess the Keys of the Kingdom of heaven, what you bind and loose is not bound and loosed because you have no authority that heaven recognizes.

…Maybe they were wrong. I’m not defending Protestant doctrines here, only saying something about what motivated some of them.

Even if you think you aren’t being misleading, but you actually are, aren’t you than still being misleading? One could say that someone who is ok with varying Gospel messages (almost all Protestants are) need to take a closer look at Galatians 1:8-9 (notice it is preached or spoken not written). If you aren’t the same, you are different. Or in other words all Christians aren’t a part of the same Church in communion with the same professed beliefs. So someone has the Apostles’ message and everyone else doesn’t, it is that simple.

Motivation is not justification; many people (Catholics and non-catholics) have done horrible things with ‘the right intentions’. Motivation is a good start, but when not guided by the Truth, it leads to destruction (2 Peter 2:1-2). Matthew 7:13-14, …the road that leads to destruction is broad……How narrow the gate and constricted the road that leads to life. And those who find it are few.

 

[afiala2]

……So no, I can’t agree that all Catholic churches have the same theology.
… 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. …… 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.

We all profess that we believe the same faith at mass and during reception of Sacraments, like Baptism and Confirmation. A Catholic should be humble enough to state they don’t know everything, therefore admitting the Church knows the truth more fully then themselves. Unity of belief is determined by the common recognized Teaching Authority, because that is how you know who to believe about what is true. So you see being a true Catholic only takes true humility that you don’t know everything and you rely on Christ’s Authority that He left in place. As for the cafeteria Catholics you speak of they need prayed for by faithful Catholics, maybe St. Anthony can help them find their common sense.

How do societies/civilizations/nations exist without rules/laws and authority/government? How do you get the citizens to all agree on the law? Do you point to criminals as proof the United States isn’t united?

Remember morality determined by popular opinion is not a Catholic ideal; you are confusing us with everyone else. Trusting in God and relying on His Divine Providence is what Catholics believe, or simply we trust in God. You are either following God’s Laws or you are making up your own. If you aren’t seeking the Truth, you are in the wrong society; the Catholic Church was founded by Jesus who is the Truth.

The Church isn’t a democracy; you can’t make immoral things the law even if it is the majority’s opinion, if it is immoral it can’t be taught as being morally permissible. Christ’s reign is a Monarchy (He is the King) not a democracy.

According to Birth Control and Christian Discipleship, by John F. Kippley, No Christian Church ever accepted contraception as morally permissible before 1930. The anti-contraceptive laws of 19th Century America were passed by Protestants for a largely Protestant America. The leaders of the Protestant Reformation were strongly opposed to unnatural forms of birth control.

The Trinity consists of God the Father, God the Son, and God the Holy Spirit. Abraham was a man; Isaac was a man. Jacob (Israel) and his twelve sons, which were the beginning of the tribes of Israel, were men. The Priests of the Old Covenant were men. If you aren’t aware, Jesus is a man (He is also God the Son). His Twelve Apostles who were with Him at the Last Supper were all men. Priests of the New Covenant are men. Priests act “in persona Christi”, they are His representatives. A priest can’t be a woman; God consistently shows us His priesthood is a male vocation. Besides the Bible also says it is not permitted for women to be the teaching authority over men in 1 Timothy 2:11-12.

But before you strike up the feminist anti-catholic band, the Church does recognize a few women as “Doctors” of the Church. Also there are many religious orders of nuns. If a woman wants to give her life to God she is encouraged to do so. Catholic nuns do many good things for the world and are the happiest people I have ever met. The reason non Catholics are confused on the priest issue is because very few other Christian denominations have monks (men) and nuns the way Catholics do.

The Blessed Virgin Mary is the most honored and revered Saint in the Church. She is our Mother and it is her and Her Motherhood that helps anyone with common sense understand the evil of contraception. Women’s natural purpose is motherhood (Romans 1:25-27, 1 Timothy 2:13-15). Men can’t have children (by which I mean have them develop inside of them), but we don’t complain to God, why is this so? God made men and women, if He wanted the sexes to be the same he wouldn’t have made us different. Without mothers none of us would be here. If your mother/parents would have been contracepting when you were conceived or if your mother would have had an abortion when she was pregnant with you, you wouldn’t be here because you would be dead. The feminist movement (FM) is pushing for women to be unnatural, and people to be unchaste. Nature vs. feminism what side are you on? The FM and contraception (or maybe you could consider them one in the same) are why unchaste actions are so prevalent in our society/civilization. If you think unchaste action is ok you need to read the Bible again, go back to CCD class because you didn’t pass, or pay better attention at mass. All the FM has done is make men think of women as sex objects to be used for their pleasure instead of the wonderful more loving people that they are than us men who are by our nature less nurturing than women. Over population is a myth, who are you going to believe God or man? If you HAD to classify contraception and abortion in one of the following two words what would it be? Life or death. (Hint: no new life is the result.)

 

[CopticChristian]

It doesn’t exist in Greek because Greek is a different language than German, just like English is a different language than German. To translate means to put into another language the meaning from the first, even though there may not be a word-for-word way of expressing it. There is, therefore, no way to word-for-word express in German what Paul said. One has to use the German language to convey the meaning in German.

Keep in mind regarding the deuterocanon that Luther’s opinion of them is not in a vaccum.
There were many throughout history that questioned the canonicity of them. Luther, like all of them, had the right and permission to question them. Cardinal Cajetan, a Luther contemporary said:

It is also important to note that Luther did include all of the deutero canon in his translation, and also included the Prayer of Manassess.

Jon

Words can divide…just look at the Greek-Latin-English Filioque…proceeding from the Father and the Son or not, thus a big division but not on 7 Sacraments.

 

[Izdaari]

The church I belong to is the universal church, the Body of Christ, which is invisible to mortal eyes, though visible and powerful in the spiritual realm. It consists of all followers of Christ, whether Protestant, Catholic or Orthodox. And it was of course founded by Christ. I joined it by believing in Him and by being baptized.

I also belong to a 501c3 corporation called a church, but that’s just for legal purposes, so the group of Christian believers I fellowship with can have a building and other conveniences. I don’t know who founded it and don’t particularly care, as it is essentially just a Christian social club. Wherever we are gathered in His name, He is there; the building is just a convenience. Our local church is affiliated with a denomination (AG), which I largely agree with, but I owe it no particular loyalty nor do I consider myself a member of it, but only of my local church and the universal church.

 

[hockeyfan]

It doesn’t exist in Greek because Greek is a different language than German, just like English is a different language than German. To translate means to put into another language the meaning from the first, even though there may not be a word-for-word way of expressing it. There is, therefore, no way to word-for-word express in German what Paul said. One has to use the German language to convey the meaning in German.

Right, I do understand the concept of the problems in a translation. The problem I have is that, in the quote, he didn’t make the argument you just said. If he had said that “Greek word” meant this and tied into being alone I would consider your argument valid. When he says that the word doesn’t exist in the Bible, and because “Luther says it is so, so it is so,” he demonstrates what his real intentions were.

Keep in mind regarding the deuterocanon that Luther’s opinion of them is not in a vaccum.
There were many throughout history that questioned the canonicity of them. Luther, like all of them, had the right and permission to question them. Cardinal Cajetan, a Luther contemporary said:

It is also important to note that Luther did include all of the deutero canon in his translation, and also included the Prayer of Manassess.

Jon

There are two problems with citing that Cardinal who cited Luther is that. One is that they are not using St. Jerome’s Bible! One example of theis is that he included the writings at the end of Daniel, among others. The issue is that the early council’s ended the conversation till Luther. An example of this acceptance of the council’s is shown in the quote I will show. The other problem is that St. Jerome lived in the time when the Church was putting together the Bible. He was a part of the conversation, and did not completely get his way. That being said, he accepted it. Here is a quote of St. Jerome submitting the the decree of the councils later in his life.

“What sin have I committed if I follow the judgment of the churches? But he who brings charges against me for relating [in my preface to the book of Daniel] the objections that the Hebrews are wont to raise against the story of Susannah [Dan. 13], the Song of the Three Children [Dan. 3:24-90], and the story of Bel and the Dragon [Dan. 14], which are not found in the Hebrew volume, proves that he is just a foolish sycophant. I was not relating my own personal views, but rather the remarks that they are wont to make against us. If I did not reply to their views in my preface, in the interest of brevity, lest it seem that I was composing not a preface, but a book, I believe I added promptly the remark, for I said, ‘This is not the time to discuss such matters’” (Against Rufinius 11:33 [A.D. 401]).

 

[hockeyfan]

We all profess that we believe the same faith at mass and during reception of Sacraments, like Baptism and Confirmation. A Catholic should be humble enough to state they don’t know everything, therefore admitting the Church knows the truth more fully then themselves. Unity of belief is determined by the common recognized Teaching Authority, because that is how you know who to believe about what is true. So you see being a true Catholic only takes true humility that you don’t know everything and you rely on Christ’s Authority that He left in place. As for the cafeteria Catholics you speak of they need prayed for by faithful Catholics, maybe St. Anthony can help them find their common sense.

That is a very powerful way of putting it!