Who founded your Church?

[afiala2]

Terrific, we all agree that all Christians are of the Body of Christ, thereby we, the body of Christ, all have the indwelling Holy Spirit, and we constitute the full Christian Church, regardless of what denomination we belong to.

Well not exactly. It goes far deeper than merely: We are all Christian by faith. And unfortuantely denominationlism is an issue,not a unifying factor.

If we aren’t united, we are divided. Denominationalism is the issue that divides us, period. If we all stop following churches/teachings/belief systems started by men and only follow the ONE AND ONLY Church Jesus started, we Christians would all be united. My logic prevents me from saying I am a member of the same church as a Mormon, a seventh day Adventist, a Methodist, a fundamentalist, and a Pentecostal (etc.). It would be a lie to say we are all part of the same Church. The Universal Church is the Catholic Church, there aren’t TWO Catholic Churches or the CC isn’t incomplete of itself. Pertaining to the Whole, that is the Catholic Church. As St. Augustine says (not an exact quote), though heretics and schismatics call their congregations churches, that doesn’t make them members of the Catholic Church.

I am trying to state in this thread (which Nicea325 understands) that non-catholics have a false sense of unity. We aren’t unified if we were there would be ONE Christian denomination. Every non-catholic when this issue arises either changes the subject, says it doesn’t matter what you believe as long as you believe Jesus is God, denies that divisions exist and says we are all one church, or simply has no explanation on how to unify. I am saying we can unify with the Church Jesus established or we can unify outside of the church Jesus established, what seems to be the logical thing to do?

I am suggesting go with Jesus’ plan, unite around and with the successor of Peter, otherwise how can unity be achieved? God unifies. Think about the Trinity. Jesus wanted UNITY. By my math 38,000 doesn’t equal 1.

Cardinal John Henry Newman
“To be deep in history, is to cease to be Protestant.”

 

[havana1]

The problem with the question, “Who founded your church?,” is that many Protestants (Calvary Chapel and Vineyard Chapel folks, in particular) will insist that Constantine founded the Catholic church, so it’s really not the best apologetics tactic. Constantine’s pretty much a non-starter to begin with (if not a thread killer), and not everyone’s prepared to refute the claim. Not sure why Constantine is such a non-starter in Catholic apologetics…

 

[Cavaradossi]

Afiala2:

You are mistaken on several accounts. The archbishop of Rome did not always have the title of pope. That title was first given to the patriarch of Alexandria, and eventually, it made its way to Rome through Carthage and North Africa.

The council of Ephesus II did not excommunicate pope Leo. It did however excommunicate Theodoret. The pope reacted to Theodoret’s appeal by reinstating him, but the matter was not settled until Chalcedon, which was convened by the emperor partially in order to examine if Ephesus II had been conducted properly.

Likewise, the Tome of Leo was not immediately accepted by the council. The acts make it incredibly clear that the reading of the Tome was interrupted several times by the Illyrian and Palestinian bishops. It was only after their objections had been addressed that the line, “Peter has spoken through Leo,” was uttered.

You are also incorrect in saying that they objected to the Tome because it was opposed to the heresy taught at Ephesus II (it is firstly not clear that Dioscoros at Ephesus II taught heresy; Dioscoros was deposed because he did not show up for his trial after being summoned three times, but he was never excommunicated for teaching heresy, while Eutyches was by this point old and by all accounts completely confused at Chalcedon). The Illyrian and Palestinian bishops objected because they found the language that pope Leo used regarding dual agency in the Tome (e.g., the flesh bears insults while the Word performs miracles) to be Nestorian, the heresy which was condemned at the council of Ephesus (the legitimate one which is an ecumenical council).

Lastly, the reason why I am tired of seeing this one line over and over again is because it is taken out of context. I don’t need your presumptuous and rude psychoanalysis, nor do I particularly desire for you to put words in my mouth. I think that I would know myself and my motivations far better than you do.

 

[CopticChristian]

If we aren’t united, we are divided. Denominationalism is the issue that divides us, period. If we all stop following churches/teachings/belief systems started by men and only follow the ONE AND ONLY Church Jesus started, we Christians would all be united. My logic prevents me from saying I am a member of the same church as a Mormon, a seventh day Adventist, a Methodist, a fundamentalist, and a Pentecostal (etc.). It would be a lie to say we are all part of the same Church. The Universal Church is the Catholic Church, there aren’t TWO Catholic Churches or the CC isn’t incomplete of itself. Pertaining to the Whole, that is the Catholic Church. As St. Augustine says (not an exact quote), though heretics and schismatics call their congregations churches, that doesn’t make them members of the Catholic Church.

I am trying to state in this thread (which Nicea325 understands) that non-catholics have a false sense of unity**. We aren’t unified if we were there would be ONE Christian denomination. ** Every non-catholic when this issue arises either changes the subject, says it doesn’t matter what you believe as long as you believe Jesus is God, denies that divisions exist and says we are all one church, or simply has no explanation on how to unify. I am saying we can unify with the Church Jesus established or we can unify outside of the church Jesus established, what seems to be the logical thing to do?

I am suggesting go with Jesus’ plan, unite around and with the successor of Peter, otherwise how can unity be achieved? God unifies. Think about the Trinity. Jesus wanted UNITY. By my math 38,000 doesn’t equal 1.

Cardinal John Henry Newman
“To be deep in history, is to cease to be Protestant.”

This is error. If we were united there would be no denomination. Denomination is a Protestant phenomenon. If all Protestant thought united into one Denomination and then joined the the OHCAC the denomination would cease to exist.

 

[Publisher]

Actually if all the different Protestant groups ended…the “apostolic” churches would still need to get their own house in order…you too are divided…“beam” vs" splinter" it seems to me.

 

[CopticChristian]

Actually if all the different Protestant groups ended…the “apostolic” churches would still need to get their own house in order…you too are divided…“beam” vs" splinter" it seems to me.

Certainly you would agree that gathering 3 would be easier than gathering thousands + 3. The effort would be less, due to the disappearance of the Protestant groups, that would certainly be seen as miraculous by the 3 and if true would certainly not have been by man made efforts. The Holy Spirit would have been at work and if so…who can deny the Holy Spirit…it would not be a work of man…

 

[GaryTaylor]

Certainly you would agree that gathering 3 would be easier than gathering thousands + 3. The effort would be less, due to the disappearance of the Protestant groups, that would certainly be seen as miraculous by the 3 and if true would certainly not have been by man made efforts. The Holy Spirit would have been at work and if so…who can deny the Holy Spirit…it would not be a work of man…

Seems to be so. It would be accurate to state the Holy Spirit is already working to accomplish this. Maybe not to our comprehension, however nonetheless.

Peace.

 

[SteveVH]

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.

I think you make some good points, but I don’t know of any Catholics who would even imply that we believe Protestants are worshiping their founders. That is not the point. I think the point that is trying to be made is that Christ founded one Church and that the Catholic Church is the only Church that can legitimately show that we are that one Church. We have no other founder than Christ. And if this is true, then it follows that all Protestant churches have, in one way or another, separated themselves from this one, true Church; they are not in full communion with the Church Christ founded. The purpose of the thread then is not to try and prove that Protestants worship their founder, but maybe an invitation to take a closer look at the Church that Christ, himself, founded.

 

[CopticChristian]

Seems to be so. It would be accurate to state the Holy Spirit is already working to accomplish this. Maybe not to our comprehension, however nonetheless.

Peace.

We forget “Mystery”. Even if a mystery is revealed it remains a mystery. If the Church is the Mystery hidden for all ages, present and not seen, revealed and not understood…it remains a mystery. Reason cannot always comprehend mystery to the satisfaction of our created minds. It is as you say.

 

[CalChristian]

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.

I agree…

It’s fruitless, divisive, and I might add - evasive.

No Protestant denomination known to me claims that Jesus founded their denomination (nor do they see any need for such a claim). It is the claim of 3 (as far as I know) - The Catholic Church, The Eastern Orthodox Church and The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints that so claim such for self, thus that issue is relevant only in the case of those 3. The “burden of proof” is on those making the claim, trying to transfer it to those that don’t seems… well, odd at best… and clearly an evasion.

Yeah, I realize, no one CAN document in any objective, purely historical sense who founded The Catholic Church (or The Eastern Orthodox Church or The Oriental Orthodox Churches) but this is no evidence that ergo Jesus did. Can anyone document who founded Hinduism? Does that silence prove that Jesus did? Does anyone know exactly who founded the ancient Egyptian empire? Does that prove that Jesus did? I think you see my point… silence substantiates NOTHING. Of course, nor does it disprove anything. But it often seems like an irrelevant discussion - and often a diversion, an evasion.

.

 

[CopticChristian]

I agree…

It’s fruitless, divisive, and I might add - evasive.

No Protestant denomination known to me claims that Jesus founded their denomination (nor do they see any need for such a claim). It is the claim of 3 (as far as I know) - The Catholic Church, The Eastern Orthodox Church and The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints that so claim such for self, thus that issue is relevant only in the case of those 3. The “burden of proof” is on those making the claim, trying to transfer it to those that don’t seems… well, odd at best… and clearly an evasion.

Yeah, I realize, no one CAN document in any objective, purely historical sense who founded The Catholic Church (or The Eastern Orthodox Church or The Oriental Orthodox Churches) but this is no evidence that ergo Jesus did. Can anyone document who founded Hinduism? Does that silence prove that Jesus did? Does anyone know exactly who founded the ancient Egyptian empire? Does that prove that Jesus did? I think you see my point… silence substantiates NOTHING. Of course, nor does it disprove anything. But it often seems like an irrelevant discussion - and often a diversion, an evasion.

.

Try the Coptic Church founded by the Apostle Mark. Here is one example for your study. The exception to your rule.

 

[SteveVH]

Yeah, I realize, no one CAN document in any objective, purely historical sense who founded The Catholic Church (or The Eastern Orthodox Church or The Oriental Orthodox Churches) but this is no evidence that ergo Jesus did.

How about a documented, unbroken line of succession back to Peter, who received the keys of the kingdom from Jesus? Would that do it for you?

 

[Kouyate42]

My faith is based on the teachings of HaShem and His Torah, the ORIGINAL Scripture.

 

[CopticChristian]

My faith is based on the teachings of HaShem and His Torah, the ORIGINAL Scripture.

Then that would exclude you from being anything like a Christian because Paul says the Torah is dead…Book of Romans chaper 7.

1Do you not know, brothers—for I am speaking to men who know the law—that the law has authority over a man only as long as he lives? 2For example, by law a married woman is bound to her husband as long as he is alive, but if her husband dies, she is released from the law of marriage. 3So then, if she marries another man while her husband is still alive, she is called an adulteress. But if her husband dies, she is released from that law and is not an adulteress, even though she marries another man.

In other words Christians are not bound by Torah…Torah is dead. The husband is Torah…

4So, my brothers, you also died to the law through the body of Christ, that you might belong to another, to him who was raised from the dead, in order that we might bear fruit to God. 5For when we were controlled by the sinful nature,a the sinful passions aroused by the law were at work in our bodies, so that we bore fruit for death. 6But now, by dying to what once bound us, we have been released from the law so that we serve in the new way of the Spirit, and not in the old way of the written code.

This was a guy from the tribe of Benjamin.

 

[Kouyate42]

Then that would exclude you from being anything like a Christian because Paul says the Torah is dead…Book of Romans chaper 7.

In other words Christians are not bound by Torah…Torah is dead. The husband is Torah…

This was a guy from the tribe of Benjamin.

Which given I reject the New Testament, this is all completely and utterly irrelevant.

The only people who say Torah is dead are Christians.

And I want you to prove to me that the story of Paul is actually real. I want you to demonstrate to me why I should believe the narrative about Paul which comes from a source I cannot see to be valid?

 

[CopticChristian]

Which given I reject the New Testament, this is all completely and utterly irrelevant.

The only people who say Torah is dead are Christians.

And I want you to prove to me that the story of Paul is actually real. I want you to demonstrate to me why I should believe the narrative about Paul which comes from a source I cannot see to be valid?

Alan F. Segal is a Jew.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alan_F._Segal

He believes enough in Paul to write a book…Paul the Convert: The Apostolate and Apostasy of Saul the Pharisee [Paperback]
Mr. Alan F. Segal

Find it at amazon…

amazon.com/Paul-Convert-Apostolate-Apostasy-Pharisee/dp/0300052278/ref=sr_1_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1320883097&sr=1-1#_

I suppose that would be proof.

 

[Kouyate42]

I will take a look, but the fact remains that whilst Christians see no reason to keep the Law, most Jewish people still adhere to the Law.

The meaning of following Torah has changed, but the command to follow has not.

 

[CopticChristian]

I will take a look, but the fact remains that whilst Christians see no reason to keep the Law, most Jewish people still adhere to the Law.

The meaning of following Torah has changed, but the command to follow has not.

We keep the Moral Law not the ceremonial Law. This has to be understood as Paul was not throwing out the Moral Law,he was throwing out the “works of law”, ceremonial law.

Do you follow all of Deuterotonomy?

 

[Kouyate42]

We keep the Moral Law not the ceremonial Law. This has to be understood as Paul was not throwing out the Moral Law,he was throwing out the “works of law”, ceremonial law.

Do you follow all of Deuterotonomy?

That would be impossible as I’m female (excluding me from some mitzvot), not a Levi, Cohen or priest (again, limiting which mitzvot I can follow, or should follow) and the Temple no longer exists, meaning I cannot offer guilt or sin offerings, or any sort of sacrifice. I also live nowhere near Jerusalem or even Israel, which poses a problem.

And BTW, it doesn’t matter what anyone professes to be throwing out, because the premise on which Christians do so is false.

 

[CopticChristian]

That would be impossible as I’m female (excluding me from some mitzvot), not a Levi, Cohen or priest (again, limiting which mitzvot I can follow, or should follow) and the Temple no longer exists, meaning I cannot offer guilt or sin offerings, or any sort of sacrifice. I also live nowhere near Jerusalem or even Israel, which poses a problem.

**And BTW, it doesn’t matter what anyone professes to be throwing out, because the premise on which Christians do so is false./**QUOTE]

So I may understand. What is the premise you believe to be false that Christians profess as you state.