Who founded your Church?

[afiala2]

…… 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.

The Catholic Church is the Mystical (Spiritual) Body of Christ; it is the ONE TRUE CHURCH. How can members of different churches that recognize different authority and teachings, who believe in contrast to one another about what are true and false teachings, all be TRUE believers? I am trying to bring some reason into the thought process or enlighten people with the truth.

We commonly refer to ourselves as the Catholic Church, not the Catholic institution. But I guess technically we are an institution. Institutions can be formal and well organized, or not very well organized depends on how important the institution’s cause is believed to by its members.

Institution-an organization, establishment, foundation, society, or the like, devoted to the promotion of a particular cause or program, especially one of a public, educational, or charitable character. dictionary.reference.com/browse/institution

Using that definition, the Catholic Church would most definitely be an institution, God’s institution. Christ has a particular cause that is why He established a Church. So you would say (for your definition) Christ’s Institution is the Catholic Church. His followers’ cause is to further Christ’s cause within His Church, not outside of it. Because we know we can do nothing without God.

Define church.

Read Matthew 16:15-19, Jesus started His Church with Peter (First Pope) and gave His Heavenly Authority to him. That is what I mean a founder(s) and a recognized authority. Everyone recognizes a teaching authority above others and that authority started somewhere, or you are your own founder of your own religious beliefs.

Church/denomination/system of beliefs/religion. A Church in this case means a family/community/society of believers sharing the same beliefs and recognizing a teaching authority and/or previous theologians (founder/current leader(s), someone like Luther who started new teachings, etc.). Bottom line everyone is recognizing an authority above all others even if it is themselves, that authority is your “magisterium” or teaching authority.

Why does anyone think anyone can teach against or in opposition to the Chair of Peter as if they are superior to the Authority Christ left? Where did they get this authority? Where in the Bible does it say Jesus changed His mind about Peter or when did Jesus Himself come down to earth AGAIN to strip the Chair of Peter of authority and grant it to another or seemingly everybody (as everyone acts like)?

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

Since this concept of denomination is hard to grasp (apparently people are unaware that Christians aren’t in full unity in teachings, beliefs, practices, and most importantly agree on what is necessary to get to heaven), so I will try to clarify further. Even those who are “non-denominational” are still adhering to some teaching authority to arrive at the way they practice their religion, hence it is a new different religion in it of itself even if they themselves try to deny it. Again don’t confuse Church/denomination/system of beliefs/religion with Church being used to refer to a singular building where believers gather and worship. Or as a segment of a whole like a diocese that is a part of the Catholic Church in union through the Eucharist and continuity of beliefs.

… definition for a Catholic church

A rough definition for the Catholic Church is the people of the whole world who are called out and gathered into the universal society founded by Christ or the FAMILY of believers in Communion with God through the Eucharist (and other Sacraments), or simply the Mystical Body of Christ.

CCC defines Catholic Church as The Church established by Christ on the foundation of the Apostles, possessing the fullness of the means of salvation which he has willed: correct and complete confession of faith, full sacramental life, and ordained ministry in apostolic succession.

…which is a visible institution with a clear authoritarian hierarchy succeeded from Peter…

Blessed Teresa of Calcutta, pray for us.

The Church exists to bring Christ’s message to the world and to administer the Sacraments; much care is taken for this to be properly and faithfully done. The Church is only Institutional so far as it is adhering to** ALL **the commands of God (Matthew 28:16-20), which is how it preserves the TRUE FAITH. Your lack of respect for Christ’s priesthood is noticeable in your comments, which I assume is only because of your lack of knowledge and understanding of it.

Blessed Miguel Pro, pray for us.

 

[JonNC]

=hockeyfan;8497556]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.

He didn’t say it doesn’t exist in the Bible, he said it isn’t in the Greek. On the quote about “Luther says it is so…” one has to understand the context, part of which was a Catholic German using Luther’s translation to make his own. Luther was upset, as anyone would be. It is hyperbole, something Luther often turned to.

There are two problems with citing that Cardinal who cited Luther is that. One is that they are not using St. Jerome’s Bible!

I would suspect that Cardinal Cajetan did use the Vulgate. Why would he not? The quote comes prior to Trent. It is at Trent that the CC sets the canon. Luther was dead by then.
This is why it always seems that Luther is held to a different standard today than people like the Cardinal. Luther did nothing different - questioning the disputed books - than others. And it was not prohibited.

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.

Not, they didn’t, as witnessed by Cajetan’s comments. The debate about the D-C’s continued before Luther, up until Trent in the western Church. I say the western Church because to this day there are different canons in Orthodoxy, another fact that refutes the claim that the local councils did not settle the matter.

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

Yes he did, but that doesn’t eliminate the fact that he questioned the D-C’s. Like Jerome, Luther included them.

I’m not necessarily arguing that Luther was right regarding the D-C’s. I’m simply saying that the had the right to question them, as did Cajetan and all other Catholic even in the 1500’s.

Jon

 

[afiala2]

Perhaps I’m wrong the OP’s question implies a definition as an organized institution which has a “founder”?

Churches are organized on varying degrees this I have no doubt, but it doesn’t change the fact that people are recognizing an authority for instruction in their faith. Just because you don’t know who started your church or system of beliefs and practices doesn’t mean someone didn’t start it. That is like saying God isn’t the creator of the universe. If someone doesn’t want to take credit for something they did like starting a religion that should tell you something. Someone started your religion/system of beliefs and teachings/church/denomination, otherwise you would belong to a different church/denomination/system of beliefs had they not left their previous beliefs/church.

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

I am not trying to make myself feel good; I am trying to help you. You are turned around on this one.

All I am doing is explaining to you which Church Jesus started (read 1 Corinthians 1:3, 2 Corinthians 2:17). I mean no offense only enlightenment (or helping you to reason).

I am following Matthew 7:12. If you knew a way that would help more people get to heaven would you do it? Helping people know the truth increases the chance of them going to heaven.

It doesn’t seem like very many Christians know Jesus started the Catholic Church. There is no “invisible church”, the Bible says it cannot be hidden, Matthew 5:14. Yes there is a Spiritual part of the Church that eyes cannot see, but there is also a physical part where there is visible unity, just as we are a body and a soul.

Jesus started the Catholic Church. It isn’t a made up story, it is history.

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 really wasn’t implying anything just sticking to facts and asking the question who founded your church, because I bet a lot of Christians don’t accurately know the answer to that question. I was trying to STATE THE FACT that people of other denominations/churches/belief systems/religions are recognizing an authority other than Jesus and who Jesus gave His authority to in order to teach His message to the world.

I know most non-catholic Christians worship God (or at least I hope they do) and believe He is real, but they are doing so in “their own way” or “their founders way”, as opposed to THE way, the Apostolic way and remember the Chair of Peter is the Apostolic way (He was an Apostle) . This ‘anyone can start a new church/religion whenever the mood strikes them’ attitude isn’t helping people get to heaven.

How is disunity and complete chaos of different ‘Christian’ teachings helping souls get to heaven? How does anyone have the concept of truth as a focal point of their religions when many say it doesn’t matter what you believe?

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

People who don’t want unity say talking about unity is fruitless, by their fruits you will know them. But it is not fruitless for people with an open mind and who are receptive to the truth. Either you are seeking Spiritual Enlightenment or you’re not. If you don’t want to know the whole (catholic) story, then that is your choice.

I am simply saying seek the truth. The Catholic Church was founded by Jesus. All others were founded by a man or woman, or a group of people. If we are going to unify under a set of beliefs what should it be? Catholics believe the Catholic Church (the Church of the Apostles) is guided by the Holy Spirit (1 Timothy 3:15, John 16:13).

A spiritual work of mercy is instructing the ignorant.
1 Corinthians 2:14.

 

[afiala2]

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,…

This Constantine accusation goes back to people arguing Jesus isn’t real, borrowed from atheists or non-Christians who argue Constantine (or other Emperors) invented Christianity. Constantine wasn’t baptized until he was on his death bed. He is most notably known for simply being the first Emperor to not persecute the Church, which had been bloody persecution. He even made Christianity the state religion. He was a man who was very helpful for the spread of Christianity and it is a shame people try to falsely accuse him as a way to argue the Catholic Church is a pagan religion (another easily refuted claim, all you need is a Bible and a Torah).

All you need to say and ask is this: He was born approx. 274 and died in 337. So there were 10 popes in his lifetime. Six popes when he was emperor, which pope did he use to start the church (and remember there were Popes before he was born)? This claim is simply anti-catholic rhetoric more fitting for an atheist, and not very thought out.

St. Constantine, pray for us.

 

[hockeyfan]

He didn’t say it doesn’t exist in the Bible, he said it isn’t in the Greek. On the quote about “Luther says it is so…” one has to understand the context, part of which was a Catholic German using Luther’s translation to make his own. Luther was upset, as anyone would be. It is hyperbole, something Luther often turned to.

Question. What language were St. Paul’s epistles written? Greek! Even as hyperbole, he still admitted it does not appear in the Greek. How much more clear does he need to be. This is like the people who say the 2nd Amendment is not about guns, but about militia. (Though that is another topic)

I would suspect that Cardinal Cajetan did use the Vulgate. Why would he not? The quote comes prior to Trent. It is at Trent that the CC sets the canon. Luther was dead by then.
This is why it always seems that Luther is held to a different standard today than people like the Cardinal. Luther did nothing different - questioning the disputed books - than others. And it was not prohibited.

First, suspecting he used the Vulgate is not the same as knowing he used the Vulgate. That being said, it is irrelevant because the Protestant Bible is not the Vulgate Bible. Even if he did use the Vulgate, that would make him different then any Protestant I have ever met. Anyhow, Luther’s Bible wasn’t the Vulgate.

Not, they didn’t, as witnessed by Cajetan’s comments. The debate about the D-C’s continued before Luther, up until Trent in the western Church. I say the western Church because to this day there are different canons in Orthodoxy, another fact that refutes the claim that the local councils did not settle the matter.

Wrong. These debates were settled a millennium before Trent at the Councils of Rome, Hippo and Carthage. Trent’s reaffirming the Canon is only because of Luther’s chalange.

Yes he did, but that doesn’t eliminate the fact that he questioned the D-C’s. Like Jerome, Luther included them.

I’m not necessarily arguing that Luther was right regarding the D-C’s. I’m simply saying that the had the right to question them, as did Cajetan and all other Catholic even in the 1500’s.

Jon

Right, but to add context to St. Jerome was translating the Vulgate during the time of these councils. It was a part of the debate that he didn’t exactly win. When you compare St. Jerome to Luther, you are comparing apples and oranges.

 

[JonNC]

=hockeyfan;8501151]Question. What language were St. Paul’s epistles written? Greek! Even as hyperbole, he still admitted it does not appear in the Greek. How much more clear does he need to be. This is like the people who say the 2nd Amendment is not about guns, but about militia. (Though that is another topic)

This difference is people who say its about a militia are speaking the same language, using the same words. Greek is not German.

First, suspecting he used the Vulgate is not the same as knowing he used the Vulgate. That being said, it is irrelevant because the Protestant Bible is not the Vulgate Bible. Even if he did use the Vulgate, that would make him different then any Protestant I have ever met. Anyhow, Luther’s Bible wasn’t the Vulgate.

Cajetan and Luther both had the Vulgate.

Wrong. These debates were settled a millennium before Trent at the Councils of Rome, Hippo and Carthage. Trent’s reaffirming the Canon is only because of Luther’s chalange.

then the Orthodox missed the message. Rome, Hippo, and Carthage were not general councils.

Right, but to add context to St. Jerome was translating the Vulgate during the time of these councils. It was a part of the debate that he didn’t exactly win. When you compare St. Jerome to Luther, you are comparing apples and oranges.

But the debate was allowed by the Church up until Trent, and even at Trent. For the Catholic Church, those in communion with the Bishop of Rome, that debate ended at Trent, not at Hippo. Else, Cajetan would not have been allowed, as a Cardinal, no less, to express His opinion of the deuterocanon as he did, centuries later.

Jon

 

[ProdigalAnglicn]

Define church

The visible Church of Christ is a congregation of faithful men, in which the pure Word of God is preached, and the Sacraments be duly ministered according to Christ’s ordinance, in all those things that of necessity are requisite to the same–Article XIX.

I don’t get why Roman Catholics use the “who founded your Church?” argument when, even if you accept their logic (I don’t), that Eastern Orthodox can with equal measure make the same claim they do, using the same logic!

 

[afiala2]

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.

Luther said, ”and my will is reason enough”, when he was arguing about why he added the word. Like I said in the OP, Holy Spirit or human will?

His added word clearly made the passage more in agreement with “his doctrine”, he just forgot to change the rest of the Bible.

Although accurate translation is important, it is more about interpretation. But remember a bad translation is a bad translation and I like to hear Divine inspiration was the motivation not someone’s will being the reason. Much can be “lost in translation”, but I like to rely on the Church which is guided by the Holy Spirit for the final say not an individual’s will.

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.

So to clarify how many books are in the Lutheran OT?
If not the same as the Catholic Church: a lot of books and writings can be translated what is your point?

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

Where does it say the Keys of the Kingdom were given to anyone but Peter? If you think the whole Church militant each has their own keys that is like saying everyone is their own Pope, or what it really implies is free passes into heaven for everyone because everyone has their own “truth” (how you get OSAS theology, this isn’t even close to being Biblical). How can God simultaneously bind and loose in heaven for two contrasting things or opinions? It goes against logic. If more than one thing can be True that contradict, then why do you (or anyone) need God? You can be your own truth; you don’t need Jesus with this logic. Remember they are Jesus’ keys, He opened heaven, and Christ gave them to Peter. Peter can’t change what they are, we can only learn the truth on a deeper level not change it; he is simply entrusted with their care, and Christ backed it with a promise.

 

[afiala2]

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

You seem to be arguing the Council of Nicaea was laying out the framework for the church to divide.??? I believe the goal of the Council, which was in union with the Chair of Peter, was unity. It was actually convened to combat the heresy of Arius (Arianism). Unity in danger was why the Council took place.

The Pope, the chair of Peter, is the Bishop of Rome; all Bishops are in charge of their own Dioceses. There is no special distinction that Bishops in the west have less authority within their own Dioceses than Bishops in the East.

Had Christ not established a Papal Authority, you could honestly be confused over who has the authority of heaven. Since 2 contrasting things can’t both be true, so the Church will always be on the side of truth when it comes to defending against the powers of hell, because Jesus promised the Church will never fall into error. So if two people have different opinions on something whichever side the Pope is on is the True Church. If the Apostles (11 after Judas) would have split 5 and 5 other than Peter, whichever side Peter is on is the True Church He has the Authority and the other 5 have free will to leave Peter/Christ’s Church. If all the Apostles leave Peter is He still not the one left with the special Authority above the others? How is unity achieved outside of the Chair of Peter?

Jesus said….”I am the way, THE TRUTH, and the life. No one comes to the Father except through me.” (John 14:6). He states He is the Truth and in John 18:37 Jesus says, “You say I am a king. For this I was born and for this I came into the world, to testify to the truth. Everyone who belongs to the truth listens to my voice.” Then in verse 38 Pilate asks “What is truth?” If you don’t know the difference between true and false like Pilate apparently didn’t, I don’t know what to tell you other than……

If you aren’t seeking the Truth you are missing the whole point of life, Jesus says the reason He came into the world was to testify to the truth and that HE IS THE TRUTH.

Cyprian of Carthage

“The Lord says to Peter: ‘I say to you,’ he says, ‘that you are Peter, and upon this rock I will build my Church, and the gates of hell will not overcome it. . . . ’ [Matt. 16:18]. On him [Peter] he builds the Church, and to him he gives the command to feed the sheep [John 21:17], and although he assigns a like power to all the apostles, yet he founded a single chair [cathedra], and he established by his own authority a source and an intrinsic reason for that unity. . . . If someone [today] does not hold fast to this unity of Peter, can he imagine that he still holds the faith? If he [should] desert the chair of Peter upon whom the Church was built, can he still be confident that he is in the Church?” (The Unity of the Catholic Church 4; first edition [A.D. 251]).

St. Jerome

“[Pope] Stephen . . . was the blessed Peter’s twenty-second successor in the See of Rome” (Against the Luciferians 23 [A.D. 383]).

“Clement, of whom the apostle Paul writing to the Philippians says ‘With Clement and others of my fellow-workers whose names are written in the book of life,’ the fourth bishop of Rome after Peter, if indeed the second was Linus and the third Anacletus, although most of the Latins think that Clement was second after the apostle” (Lives of Illustrious Men 15 [A.D. 396]).

“Since the East, shattered as it is by the long-standing feuds, subsisting between its peoples, is bit by bit tearing into shreds the seamless vest of the Lord . . . I think it my duty to consult the chair of Peter, and to turn to a church [Rome] whose faith has been praised by Paul [Rom. 1:8]. I appeal for spiritual food to the church whence I have received the garb of Christ. . . . Evil children have squandered their patrimony; you alone keep your heritage intact” (Letters 15:1 [A.D. 396]).

…
“I follow no leader but Christ and join in communion with none but your blessedness [Pope Damasus I], that is, with the chair of Peter. I know that this is the rock on which the Church has been built. Whoever eats the Lamb outside this house is profane. Anyone who is not in the ark of Noah will perish when the flood prevails” (ibid., 15:2).
“The church here is split into three parts, each eager to seize me for its own. . . . Meanwhile I keep crying, ‘He that is joined to the chair of Peter is accepted by me!’ . . . Therefore, I implore your blessedness [Pope Damasus I] . . . tell me by letter with whom it is that I should communicate in Syria” (ibid., 16:2).

Council of Chalcedon

“After the reading of the foregoing epistle [The Tome of Leo], the most reverend bishops cried out: ‘This is the faith of the fathers! This is the faith of the apostles! So we all believe! Thus the orthodox believe! Anathema to him who does not thus believe! Peter has spoken thus through Leo! . . . This is the true faith! Those of us who are orthodox thus believe! This is the faith of the Fathers!’” (Acts of the Council, session 2 [A.D. 451]).
americancatholictruthsociety.com/docs/ecfpapacy.htm

Also note (Pope) St. Leo I, was the 45th Bishop of Rome (44th Successor of Peter), this was well after the 1st Council of Nicaea. Why would “Peter has spoken” matter if the Pope wasn’t the recognized authority of the church?

St. Cyprian of Carthage, pray for us.
St. Jerome, pray for us.
St. Leo I, pray for us.

 

[ProdigalAnglicn]

Had Christ not established a Papal Authority, you could honestly be confused over who has the authority of heaven.

This would be slightly more convincing if it weren’t for, you know, that whole Avignon episode when there were two (and later, THREE!) “Popes” at once! If this were how God had intended for the church to be run that would have never happened.

 

[Cavaradossi]

Council of Chalcedon

“After the reading of the foregoing epistle [The Tome of Leo], the most reverend bishops cried out: ‘This is the faith of the fathers! This is the faith of the apostles! So we all believe! Thus the orthodox believe! Anathema to him who does not thus believe! Peter has spoken thus through Leo! . . . This is the true faith! Those of us who are orthodox thus believe! This is the faith of the Fathers!’” (Acts of the Council, session 2 [A.D. 451]).
americancatholictruthsociety.com/docs/ecfpapacy.htm

Also note (Pope) St. Leo I, was the 45th Bishop of Rome (44th Successor of Peter), this was well after the 1st Council of Nicaea. Why would “Peter has spoken” matter if the Pope wasn’t the recognized authority of the church?

I’m tired of seeing this one excerpt from the acts of Chalcedon being quoted over and over, when it has nothing to do with papal authority. Examining the acts of Chalcedon show plenty of evidence to the contrary, that the fathers did not really recognize papal authority as we might conceive of it today. For example, this is what was said when Theodoret was allowed entrance to the council:

1. The most glorious officials and the exalted senate said: ‘Let the most devout Theodoret enter and take part in the council, since the most holy Archbishop Leo has restored his see to him, and since the most divine and pious emperor has decreed his attendance at the holy council.’’
2. When the most devout Bishop Theodoret entered, the most devout bishops of Egypt, Illyricum and Palestine exclaimed: ‘Have mercy, the faith is being destroyed. The canons exclude him. Drive him out. Drive out the teacher of Nestorius.
3. The most devout bishops of the Orient, Pontus, Asia, and Thrace exclaimed: ‘We signed blank sheets. We suffered blows and we signed. Drive out the Manichees. Drive out the enemies of Flavian. Drive out the enemies of the faith.’
4. Dioscorus the most devout bishop of Alexandria said: ‘Why is Cyril being cast out, who was anathematized by this man?’
5. The most devout bishops of the Orient, Pontus, Asia, and Thrace exclaimed: ‘Drive out Dioscorus the murderer. Who doesn’t know of the actions of Dioscorus?’
6. The most devout bishops of Egypt, Illyricum and Palestine exclaimed: ‘Many years to the Augusta!’
7. The most devout Oriental bishops and those with them exclaimed: ‘Drive out the murderers.’
8. The most devout Egyptian bishops and those with them exclaimed: ‘The Augusta expelled Nestorius: many years to the orthodox one! The council does not admit Theodoret.’
9. Theodoret the most devout bishop came forward to the centre and said: ‘I have delivered a petition to the most divine, pious and Christ-loving masters of the world. I have appealed against the attacks of which I have been the victim, and I demand that they be investigated.’
10. The most glorious officials and the exalted senate said: ‘The most devout Bishop Theodoret, restored to his see by the most holy archbishop of the renowned city of Rome, has now appeared in the role of accuser. Lest the hearing be disrupted, let us conclude what we have initiated. The presence of the most devout Theodoret will be prejudicial to no one, since, obviously enough, full right of speech is assured after this both for you and for him, if you should wish to raise any matters in turn, even though we have a particular and oral witness to his orthodoxy in the most devout bishop of the great city of Antioch.’
11. When the most devout Bishop Theodoret was seated in the centre, the most devout Oriental bishops and those with them exclaimed: ‘He is worthy, he is worthy.’
12. The most devout Egyptian bishops and those with them exclaimed: ‘Do not call him a bishop, he is not a bishop. He is not a bishop. Drive out the enemy of God. Drive out the Jew [Jew as in denying the divinity of Christ].’
13. The most devout Oriental bishops and those with them exclaimed: ‘[Admit] the orthodox one to the council. Drive out the troublemakers. Drive out the murderers.’
14. The most devout Egyptian bishops and those with them exclaimed: ‘Drive out the enemy of God. Drive out the blasphemer against Christ. Many years to the Augusta! Many years to the emperor! Many years to the orthodox emperor! This man anathematized Cyril.’
15. The most devout Oriental bishops and those with them exclaimed: ‘Drive out Dioscorus the murderer.’
16. The Egyptian bishops and those with them exclaimed: ‘Many years to the senate! He does not have a voice. He was condemned in the presence of the whole council.’
17. Basil the most devout bishop of Trajanopolis in Rhodope rose and said: ‘We also condemned Theodoret.’
18. The most devout Egyptian bishops and those with them exclaimed: ‘Theodoret accused Cyril. We exclude Cyril if we admit Theodoret. The canons have expelled him. He is rejected by God.’
19. The most glorious officials and the exalted senate said: ‘These vulgar outbursts are not becoming to bishops, nor useful to either party. Allow everything [the complete acts of the first session of Ephesus II] to be read.’
20. The Egyptian bishops and those with them exclaimed: ‘Expel that one man, and we shall all listen. Our interjections are for the sake of piety. We speak on behalf of the orthodox faith.’
21. The most glorious officials and the exalted senate said: ‘Allow, rather, the hearing to be conducted according to God, and permit everything to be read in order.’

We see here that the bishops of Egypt, Illyricum, and Palestine who anathematized Theodoret at Ephesus II did not view that Pope St. Leo (or really Archbishop, since the bishop of Rome had not yet assumed the title of pope) or the emperor had the authority to demand his presence at the council.

 

[Cavaradossi]

And here are the acts of the second session of the Council of Chalcedon:

1. When all had taken their seats in front of the rails of the holy sanctuary, the most magnificent and glorious officials and the exalted senate said: ‘At the previous session an investigation was made into the deposition of Flavian of devout memory and of the most devout Bishop Eusebius. It was evident to all that the inquiry proceeded in accordance with justice and due process, and it was then proved that they had been deposed in a manner both cruel and improper. The steps we thought necessary to be taken on this matter were then made known to you by the resolution.14 The question that is now to be investigated, judged and studied is how to confirm the true faith; it is particularly because of the faith that the council has assembled. You know that each one of you will give an account to God on behalf both of his own soul and of all of us, who long both to be taught the truths of religion correctly and to see every dispute resolved through the concord and agreement, harmonious exposition and teaching, of all the sacred fathers. Therefore apply yourselves without fear, favour or enmity to produce a pure exposition of the faith, so that even those who appear not to share the views of all may
   be restored to harmony by acknowledging the truth. We wish you to know that the most divine and pious master of the world and we ourselves preserve the orthodox faith handed down by the 318, by the 150,15 and by the other holy and glorious fathers, and believe in accordance with it.’ (I have read, we have read, he has read.)
2. The most devout bishops exclaimed: ‘No one makes a new exposition, nor do we attempt or presume to do so. For it was the fathers who taught, what they expounded is preserved in writing, and we cannot go beyond it.’
3. Cecropius the most devout bishop of Sebastopolis said: ‘There arose the affair of Eutyches. A decree was issued on the subject by the most holy archbishop of Rome; we assent to it and we have all signed his letter.’
4. The most devout bishops exclaimed: ‘This is what we all say. What has already been expounded is sufficient. It is not permissible to produce another exposition.’
5. The most glorious officials and the exalted senate said: ‘If it seems good to your devoutness, let the most sacred patriarchs of each diocese select, each one, one or two [bishops] from their own diocese, come together, deliberate in common about the faith, and then make their decisions known to all, so that, if all are in accord, every dispute may be resolved, which is what we wish, and if some prove to be of a contrary opinion, which we do not expect, this may reveal their opinions as well.’
6. The most devout bishops exclaimed: ‘We will not produce a written exposition. There is a canon which declares that what has already been expounded is sufficient. The canon forbids the making of another exposition. Let the [will] of the fathers prevail.’
7. Florentius the most devout bishop of Sardis said: ‘Since improvising about the faith is impossible for those taught to follow the holy council of Nicaea and the one that was rightly and piously convened at Ephesus, in accordance with the faith of the holy fathers Cyril and Celestine and the letter of the most holy Leo, we beg your greatness to grant us a postponement so that we may attain the truth of the matter with an appropriate
   plan – although indeed as regards ourselves, who have signed the letter of the most sacred Leo, we stand in no need of correction.’
8. Cecropius the most devout bishop of Sebastopolis said: ‘The faith was well defined by the 318 holy fathers and confirmed by the holy fathers Athanasius, Cyril, Celestine, Hilary, Basil, Gregory, and now again by the most holy Leo. We request that the creed of the 318 holy fathers and the letter of the most sacred Leo be read.’
9. The most glorious officials and the exalted senate said: ‘Let the exposition of the 318 holy fathers who assembled at Nicaea be read.’ Eunomius the most devout bishop of Nicomedia read from a document:
10. In the consulship of the most illustrious Paulinus and Julian, in the 636th year after Alexander, on 19th Daisius and the 13th day before the Kalends of July at Nicaea, the metropolis of Bithynia. We believe in one God, Father, Almighty, maker of all things visible and invisible; and in one Lord Jesus Christ the Son of God, begotten from the
    Father as only-begotten, that is, from the substance of the Father, God from God, light from light, true God from true God, begotten not made, consubstantial with the Father, through whom all things came into being, both those on heaven and those on earth, who for us men and for our salvation came down, was enfleshed and became man, suffered, and rose on the third day, ascended into heaven, and is coming to judge the living and
    the dead; and in the Holy Spirit. Those who say, ‘There was when he was not’, and ‘Before being begotten he was not’, and that he came into being from things that are not, or assert that the Son of God is from another hypostasis or substance or is changeable or alterable, these the catholic and apostolic church anathematizes.
11. The most devout bishops exclaimed: ‘This is the faith of the orthodox. This we all believe. In this we were baptized, in this we baptize. The blessed Cyril taught accordingly. This is the true faith. This is the holy faith. This is the eternal faith. Into this we were baptized, into this we baptize. We all believe accordingly. Pope Leo believes accordingly. Cyril believed accordingly. Pope Leo expounded accordingly.’

 

[Cavaradossi]

Acts of the second session of Chalcedon part 2:

1. The most glorious officials and the exalted senate said: ‘Read out as well the exposition of the 150 holy fathers.’ Aetius the most devout archdeacon of Constantinople read from a document:
2. We believe in one God, Father, Almighty, maker of heaven and earth and of all things visible and invisible; and in one Lord Jesus Christ, the onlybegotten Son of God, who was begotten from the Father before all ages, light from light, true God from true God, begotten not made, consubstantial with the Father, through whom all things came into being, who for us men and for our salvation came down from heaven, was enfleshed from the Holy Spirit and Mary the Virgin and became man, was crucified for us under Pontius Pilate, suffered and was buried, rose on the third day in accordance with the scriptures and ascended into heaven, is seated at the right hand of the Father, and is coming again with glory to judge the living and the dead, of whose kingdom there will not be an end; and in the Holy Spirit, the lord and life-giver, who proceeds from the Father, who with the Father and the Son is worshipped and glorified together, who spoke through the prophets; and in one holy catholic and apostolic church. We confess one baptism for the remission of sins. We await the resurrection of the dead, and the life of the age to come. Amen.
3. All the most devout bishops exclaimed: ‘This is the faith of all. This is the faith of the orthodox. We all believe accordingly.’
4. Aetius the most devout archdeacon said: ‘There is also the letter written by the most holy Cyril, [now] among the saints, then bishop of the great city of Alexandria, to Nestorius, which was approved by all the holy bishops who assembled previously at Ephesus to condemn the same Nestorius, and was confirmed by the signatures of all. There is also the letter of the same Cyril, [now] among the saints, written to John of sacred memory, then bishop of the great city of Antioch, which was likewise confirmed. If it please you, I shall read them.’
5. The most glorious officials and the exalted senate said: ‘Let the letters of Cyril of sacred memory be read.’ Aetius archdeacon of imperial Constantinople read:
6. Cyril to his fellow priest the most devout and religious Nestorius Certain persons, as I am informed, are gossiping to the detriment of my character in the presence of your religiousness, and this constantly, looking out in particular for gatherings of officials; and, thinking perhaps to tickle your ears, they make ill-considered statements, for they have in no way been wronged, but were convicted, and quite rightly too, one for having wronged
   the blind and the poor – and the rest of the letter, which had previously been read at the synod that took place at Constantinople concerning Eutyches. *
   The same archdeacon Aetius likewise read:
   19. To my lord, beloved brother and fellow priest John, Cyril sends greetings in the Lord. Let the heavens rejoice and the earth be glad, for the middle wall of division has been broken down, an end has been put to grieving and the mode of all dissension removed, as Christ the Saviour of us all bestows peace on his churches – and the rest, as the whole letter had previously been read at the same synod concerning Eutyches.*
7. After the reading the most devout bishops exclaimed: ‘We all believe accordingly. Pope Leo believes accordingly. Anathema to him who divides and him who confuses! This is the faith of Archbishop Leo. Leo believes accordingly. Leo and Anatolius believe accordingly. We all believe accordingly. As Cyril so we believe. Eternal is the memory of Cyril. As is contained in the letters of Cyril, so we hold. We have believed accordingly,
   and we believe accordingly. Archbishop Leo thinks, believes and wrote accordingly.’
8. The most glorious officials and the exalted senate said: ‘Let the letter of the most religious Leo, archbishop of the imperial and senior Rome, be read.’ Veronicianus, the hallowed secretary of the divine consistory, read from a document given him by Aetius archdeacon of the holy church of Constantinople:
   [In the interest of saving space, I’m going omitting the text of the tome of Leo]
9. After the reading of the aforesaid letter the most devout bishops exclaimed: ‘This is the faith of the fathers. This is the faith of the apostles. We all believe accordingly. We orthodox believe accordingly. Anathema to him who does not believe accordingly! Peter has uttered this through Leo. The apostles taught accordingly. Leo taught piously and truly. Cyril taught accordingly. Eternal is the memory of Cyril. Leo and Cyril taught the same. Leo and Cyril taught accordingly. Anathema to him who does not believe accordingly! This is the true faith. We orthodox think accordingly. This is the faith of the fathers. Why was this not read out at Ephesus? Dioscorus concealed it.’
10. When there was being read the part of the aforesaid letter that contains the words, ‘For the payment of the debt owed by our nature divine nature was united to the passible nature, so that – this fitting our cure – one and the same, being the mediator between God and men, the man Christ Jesus, would be able to die in respect of the one and would not be able to expire in respect of the other’, and the most devout Illyrian and Palestinian
    bishops raised an objection, Aetius the most devout archdeacon of imperial Constantinople read out the chapter of Cyril of sacred memory, the late bishop of the city of Alexandria, containing the words, ‘Since again his own body by the grace of God tasted death on behalf of everyone, as the apostle says, he himself is said to have suffered death on our behalf, not as though he entered into the experience of death in regard to his own nature (for to say or think that would be lunacy) but because, as I have just said, his own flesh tasted death.’

 

[Cavaradossi]

Acts of the second session of the Council of Chalcedon part 3:

1. Likewise when there was being read the part that contains the words, ‘For each form performs what is proper to it in association with the other, the Word achieving what is the Word’s, while the body accomplishes what is the body’s; the one shines with miracles while the other has succumbed to outrages’, and the most devout Illyrian and Palestinian bishops raised an objection, Aetius archdeacon of the holy church of Constantinople read out the chapter of Cyril of sacred memory containing the words, ‘Some of the sayings are particularly fitting to God, some again are particularly fitting to man, while others occupy a middle position, revealing the Son of God as God and man simultaneously and at the same time.’
2. Likewise when there was being read from the same letter the part that contains the words, ‘Although indeed in the Lord Jesus Christ there is one person of God and man, nevertheless that because of which the outrage is common in both is one thing and that because of which the glory is common is another, for he has from us the humanity that is less than the Father, and he has from the Father the Godhead that is equal with the
   Father’, and the most devout Illyrian and Palestinian bishops raised an objection, Theodoret the most devout bishop of Cyrrhus said, ‘There is a similar instance in the blessed Cyril which contains the words, “He became man without shedding what was his own, for he remained what he was; he is certainly conceived as one dwelling in another, that is, the divine nature in what is human.”’
3. The most magnificent and glorious officials and the exalted senate said: ‘After all this does anyone have any further objections?’
4. The most devout bishops exclaimed: ‘No one has any objections.’
5. Atticus the most devout bishop of Nicopolis said: ‘Since your magnificence is showing readiness to listen with patience, order it to be granted to us that within a few days what is pleasing to God and to the holy fathers may be formulated with calm reflection and unruffled thought, since the letter of our master and holy father and archbishop Leo who administers the apostolic see has now been read. We should also be provided with the letter of the blessed Cyril written to Nestorius in which he urged him to assent to the Twelve Chapters,so that at the time of the examination we may be found well prepared.’
6. The most devout bishops exclaimed: ‘If you order this to be granted, we request that the fathers take part in the examination.’
7. The most magnificent and glorious officials and the exalted senate said: ‘The hearing will be adjourned for five days, so that in the meantime your holinesses may meet in the residence of the most holy Archbishop Anatolius and deliberate together about the faith, so that the objectors may be instructed.’
8. All the most devout bishops exclaimed: ‘We believe accordingly. We all believe accordingly. {As Leo, so we believe.} None of us raises any objections. We have already signed.’
9. The most magnificent and glorious officials and the exalted senate said: ‘It is not necessary for you all to meet, but since it is appropriate to convince all the objectors, let the most devout Archbishop Anatolius select from among the bishops who have signed those he considers competent to instruct the objectors.’
10. The most devout bishops exclaimed: ‘We have a request concerning the fathers. Restore the fathers to the council. {Those who agree with Leo to the council! The fathers to the council!} [Report] our acclamations to the emperor. [Report] these petitions to the orthodox one. [Report] these petitions to the Augusta. We have all erred; forgive us all.’
11. The clerics of Constantinople exclaimed: ‘Only a few are clamouring. The council is not speaking.’
12. The most devout Oriental bishops and those with them exclaimed: ‘The Egyptian into exile!’
13. The most devout Illyrian bishops and those with them exclaimed: ‘We beg you, have mercy on us all.’
14. The most devout Oriental bishops and those with them exclaimed: ‘The Egyptian into exile!’
15. The most devout Illyrian bishops and those with them exclaimed: ‘We have all sinned, have mercy on us all. [Report] these acclamations to the orthodox emperor. The churches are divided.’
16. The clerics of Constantinople exclaimed: ‘Dioscorus into exile! {The heretic into exile!} God has deposed Dioscorus.’
17. The most devout Illyrian bishops and those with them exclaimed: ‘We have all sinned, forgive us all. [Restore] Dioscorus to the council. [Restore] Dioscorus to the churches. May no misfortune occur in your time. {May no misfortune occur in your reign. May there be no division in your reign.}’
18. The clerics of Constantinople exclaimed: ‘He who is in communion with Dioscorus is a Jew.’
19. The most devout Oriental bishops and those with them exclaimed: ‘The Egyptian into exile! The heretic into exile!’
20. The most devout Illyrian bishops and those with them exclaimed: ‘[Restore] the fathers to the council.’
21. The most magnificent and glorious officials and the exalted senate said: ‘The proposals will be put into effect.’

 

[Cavaradossi]

In analysing and understanding the proceedings of this second session of Chalcedon, it is important to understand several things. Canon 7 of Ephesus forbids creating any new creeds, which is what the bishops are objecting to in the beginning of the session. What the bishops expected to do was to anathematize certain writings as heresy and to approve others (including the Tome of Leo), so they were shocked at the proposal that a new creedal statement be made. This is also why the creed of Constantinople was read: they hoped to provide a precedent for creating other creedal statements in order to circumvent Canon 7 of Ephesus. When the tome of Leo is read out, we can see in the acts that the actual reading of the tome was interrupted by the bishops of Illyria and Palestine who objected to some statements made by the tome on several points. The tome was not being rubber stamped because of some sort of authority of the pope; in fact it was being read by the council to determine its Orthodoxy (the council mostly believed that it conformed to the faith of St. Cyril and of Ephesus, which explains the exclamation made at 23).

 

[hockeyfan]

This difference is people who say its about a militia are speaking the same language, using the same words. Greek is not German.

I agree witht he first sentance. On the second point, we are not talking about the German, we are talking about how he admits that it does not appear in the Greek. If he had argued that a word used in the Greek also means alone, you would have a case. The problem is that he admits that it did not exist in the Greek, at all!

Cajetan and Luther both had the Vulgate.

Yeah, the vulgate was avalable to theologians who could read. Big deal. Luther didn’t translate the Vulgate. In essence declaring it to not be Canon.

then the Orthodox missed the message. Rome, Hippo, and Carthage were not general councils.

I have Orthodox friends, and though they are close to my faith, and I would consider them catholic, there are differences. They also do not accept Papal authority. They have what they need, but they are different.

But the debate was allowed by the Church up until Trent, and even at Trent. For the Catholic Church, those in communion with the Bishop of Rome, that debate ended at Trent, not at Hippo. Else, Cajetan would not have been allowed, as a Cardinal, no less, to express His opinion of the deuterocanon as he did, centuries later.

Jon

I may be mistaken, so could you please cite an example of this debate between the years of, lets say 800 AD till 1500 AD?

Also, one more thing. It is crossing my mind that we are starting to veer off the topic of the founder of the church and into Protestant/Catholic/Vulgate Bibles. So, could we continue this discussion on a more appropriate thread? This is a really good conversation, and I would like to continue it. Thanks.

 

[JonNC]

=hockeyfan;8503614]I agree witht he first sentance. On the second point, we are not talking about the German, we are talking about how he admits that it does not appear in the Greek. If he had argued that a word used in the Greek also means alone, you would have a case. The problem is that he admits that it did not exist in the Greek, at all!

Yes, we are talking about German. That’s what Luther translated into. And that’s exactly what Luther argued. I posted the quote already where he says that using “allein” is the full meaning of the Greek in German.

Yeah, the vulgate was avalable to theologians who could read. Big deal. Luther didn’t translate the Vulgate. In essence declaring it to not be Canon.

Because he used the Greek?

I have Orthodox friends, and though they are close to my faith, and I would consider them catholic, there are differences. They also do not accept Papal authority. They have what they need, but they are different.

But their canon is not the same as yours.

I may be mistaken, so could you please cite an example of this debate between the years of, lets say 800 AD till 1500 AD?

I quoted Cardinal Cajetan’s words.

Also, one more thing. It is crossing my mind that we are starting to veer off the topic of the founder of the church and into Protestant/Catholic/Vulgate Bibles. So, could we continue this discussion on a more appropriate thread? This is a really good conversation, and I would like to continue it. Thanks.

I agree, and I’ve enjoyed our conversationas well.

Jon

 

[Telestia]

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.

Greetings FaithfulAndTrue,

You explained it very well. I am in full agreement with you. The Christian Church is not a particular denomination, it is the full body of Jesus Christ, with Jesus Christ as the head of the Christian body. All Christians are one in Jesus.

Telestia

 

[JonNC]

=afiala2;8501761]Luther said, ”and my will is reason enough”, when he was arguing about why he added the word. Like I said in the OP, Holy Spirit or human will?

You’ve missed the sarcasm.

His added word clearly made the passage more in agreement with “his doctrine”, he just forgot to change the rest of the Bible.

I don’t think there is any argument that when anyone translates, this can happen.

Although accurate translation is important, it is more about interpretation. But remember a bad translation is a bad translation and I like to hear Divine inspiration was the motivation not someone’s will being the reason. Much can be “lost in translation”, but I like to rely on the Church which is guided by the Holy Spirit for the final say not an individual’s will.

And that’s fine.

So to clarify how many books are in the Lutheran OT?

The Lutheran confessions do not explicitly set a canon, though in practice the D-C’s are not used for doctrine, but are considered useful and worth reading. In various Lutheran lectionaries, one will, from time to time, find readings from them.

If not the same as the Catholic Church: a lot of books and writings can be translated what is your point?

My point was that before Trent, there was permitted dispute about the canonicity of the D-C’s.

Where does it say the Keys of the Kingdom were given to anyone but Peter? If you think the whole Church militant each has their own keys that is like saying everyone is their own Pope, or what it really implies is free passes into heaven for everyone because everyone has their own “truth” (how you get OSAS theology, this isn’t even close to being Biblical). How can God simultaneously bind and loose in heaven for two contrasting things or opinions? It goes against logic. If more than one thing can be True that contradict, then why do you (or anyone) need God? You can be your own truth; you don’t need Jesus with this logic. Remember they are Jesus’ keys, He opened heaven, and Christ gave them to Peter. Peter can’t change what they are, we can only learn the truth on a deeper level not change it; he is simply entrusted with their care, and Christ backed it with a promise.

We have a different understanding about this. So be it. Except for OSAS, which we agree is unbiblical.

Jon

 

[JonNC]

=afiala2;8501775]You seem to be arguing the Council of Nicaea was laying out the framework for the church to divide.??? I believe the goal of the Council, which was in union with the Chair of Peter, was unity. It was actually convened to combat the heresy of Arius (Arianism). Unity in danger was why the Council took place.

The Pope, the chair of Peter, is the Bishop of Rome; all Bishops are in charge of their own Dioceses. There is no special distinction that Bishops in the west have less authority within their own Dioceses than Bishops in the East.

Actually, I’m not. The council defined the jurisdictions of the Bishops, in unity. And I would never say that the Bishop of Romes authority is less than others.

Jon