Who founded your denomination?????

[rod_of_iron]

montanaman:

Nothing funny about that. You can claim that Jesus in some mystical way inspired whatever late-millenial pretender to say he he had the authority to start a new Church, or, you can look at Scripture, the Church Fathers, and the historical record to see that Christ only founded one Church 2000 years ago.

I can’t wait to see the sophistry fly now!

Well, since you started the sophistry in your last post, I do not know if I can compete. Since no one has proven that the Catholic church is indeed the continuation of the church that Jesus established, this claim of the Catholic church sure appears to be sophistry.

On the other hand, Jesus restored His church again through His servant Joseph Smith. The authority was restored when Peter, James, and John laid their hands upon the heads of Joseph Smith and Oliver Cowdery. You may claim that the authority of the Catholic church comes through Peter, but so can I claim that of my church. You can claim that my claim is fallacious, but you cannot prove it.

 

[mrS4ntA]

rod of iron:

… On the other hand, Jesus restored His church again …

Ah, so “the gates of hell” did prevailed against Jesus’ Church, after all, eh? “The paraclete”, “the spirit of truth” did leave her after all, eh? Pity… Jesus was a liar, eh? Pity…

 

[JoaoMachado]

rod of iron:

On the other hand, Jesus restored His church again through His servant Joseph Smith. The authority was restored when Peter, James, and John laid their hands upon the heads of Joseph Smith and Oliver Cowdery. You may claim that the authority of the Catholic church comes through Peter, but so can I claim that of my church. You can claim that my claim is fallacious, but you cannot prove it.

It falls upon you to prove what you claim, you have nothing but hear say. The Catholic Church, stands set high on a hill, superceding every government starting with the fall of the Roman Empire.

What miracle has Joseph Smith performed? Even John the Baptist, who was proclaiming the coming of our Lord, calling everyone to “repent” and be Baptised, was conceived by a miracle in order to show that he was sent by God!

Luke 1:62-66 DRB
(62) And they made signs to his father, how he would have him called.
(63) And demanding a writing table, he wrote, saying: John is his name. And they all wondered.
(64) And immediately his mouth was opened and his tongue loosed: and he spoke, blessing God.
(65) And fear came upon all their neighbours: and all these things were noised abroad over all the hill country of Judea.
(66) And all they that had heard them laid them up in their heart, saying: What an one, think ye, shall this child be? For the hand of the Lord was with him.*

Show me the Miracle!

Joao

 

[The_Barrister]

Christ.

 

[servio_Christus]

As a Catholic and a member of Christ mystical body there are no other denominations but ecclesial communities separated from full communion with Holy Mother Church.

CCC 845
To reunite all his children, scattered and led astray by sin, the Father willed to call the whole of humanity together into his Son’s Church. The Church is the place where humanity must rediscover its unity and salvation. The Church is “the world reconciled.” She is that bark which “in the full sail of the Lord’s cross, by the breath of the Holy Spirit, navigates safely in this world.” According to another image dear to the Church Fathers, she is prefigured by Noah’s ark, which alone saves from the flood.

“Outside the Church there is no salvation”

CCC 846
How are we to understand this affirmation, often repeated by the Church Fathers? Re-formulated positively, it means that all salvation comes from Christ the Head through the Church which is his Body:

     * Basing itself on Scripture and Tradition, the Council teaches that the Church, a pilgrim now on earth, is necessary for salvation: the one Christ is the mediator and the way of salvation; he is present to us in his body which is the Church. He himself explicitly asserted the necessity of faith and Baptism, and thereby affirmed at the same time the necessity of the Church which men enter through Baptism as through a door. Hence they could not be saved who, knowing that the Catholic Church was founded as necessary by God through Christ, would refuse either to enter it or to remain in it.*

CCC 847
This affirmation is not aimed at those who, through no fault of their own, do not know Christ and his Church:

      *Those who, through no fault of their own, do not know the Gospel of Christ or his Church, but who nevertheless seek God with a sincere heart, and, moved by grace, try in their actions to do his will as they know it through the dictates of their conscience—those too **may** achieve eternal salvation.

 

[rod_of_iron]

mrS4ntA:

Ah, so “the gates of hell” did prevailed against Jesus’ Church, after all, eh? “The paraclete”, “the spirit of truth” **did ** leave her after all, eh? Pity… Jesus was a liar, eh? Pity…

No. Death did not prevail against Jesus’ church. Jesus conquered death so that it could have no power to prevail over the church. When we die and if we have been part of Christ’s church while we were alive, we will not separated from that church when we die. Otherwise, the gates of hell would prevail over us.

But the evil plans of the devil and the will of corrupt humans drove the true church into the wilderness, just as Revelation said would happen. Also as Revelation told us, another church would form to take the place of the true church and pretend that it was the true church that Christ built. That substitute is the Catholic church. I do not want a substitute. This is why I refuse to join the Catholic church. I am a member of the true church that Jesus built, which was driven into the wilderness and after 1260 years was brought back out of the wilderness. The true church still exists and the gates of hell, nor the Catholic church, has prevailed against it.

 

[montanaman]

K, that sounds good and solid. How do you come to the conclusion that the Church with the unbroken line of bishops, that had been teaching since the time of the Apostles, has a clear and open history, and teaches now exactly what was believed in the earliest centuries, is somehow the “pretender” Church? And, what’s your case for your church being the true Church?

 

[rod_of_iron]

JoaoMachado:

It falls upon you to prove what you claim, you have nothing but hear say. The Catholic Church, stands set high on a hill, superceding every government starting with the fall of the Roman Empire.

I do not have to prove what I claim. How can what I claim be hearsay when the men who experienced these events and had the authority given unto them testified of these things? I do not see how the testimonies of Joseph Smith and Oliver Cowdery are any more hearsay than are the writings of all your Church Fathers. You do not know for certain whether your Church Fathers are telling the complete truth, so you use your faith to believe them. I am doing the same thing with Joseph Smith and Oliver Cowdery. If what I claim is based on hearsay, then what you claim is likewise based on hearsay.

At the point where the Roman Empire fell is where the true church was completely driven into the wilderness. The little horn spoken about in prophecy was to subdue all nations and rule over them. This is just what you are saying about the Catholic church. How interesting!

JoaoMachado:

What miracle has Joseph Smith performed?

Show me the Miracle!

Why would Joseph Smith need to perform a miracle?

 

[montanaman]

I do not have to prove what I claim. How can what I claim be hearsay when the men who experienced these events and had the authority given unto them testified of these things? I do not see how the testimonies of Joseph Smith and Oliver Cowdery are any more hearsay than are the writings of all your Church Fathers. You do not know for certain whether your Church Fathers are telling the complete truth, so you use your faith to believe them. I am doing the same thing with Joseph Smith and Oliver Cowdery. If what I claim is based on hearsay, then what you claim is likewise based on hearsay.

Then if all we’ve got is what we “believe,” why are you here? If we can’t prove anything, and instead can only take it on blind faith, what’s the point of arguing at length about these things. Sure, you might win over some weak person with hours and hours of debate, and thousands upon thousands of words, but what’s the point?

You seem to buy into all the ism’s so popular today–relativism, reductionism, etc… If it’s all about some smarmy, gooey “feel good faith,” again, I ask, what’s the point?

Even if you believe you have a solid foundation upon which to make an argument, you waste everyone’s time with statements like “I don’t have to prove anything.” Hey–that’s fine, you’re right. You don’t have to prove a thing. But by remaining here and arguing, you’re just saying “I’m right, you’re wrong, convert and live with it.”

 

[rod_of_iron]

montanaman:

K, that sounds good and solid. How do you come to the conclusion that the Church with the unbroken line of bishops, that had been teaching since the time of the Apostles, has a clear and open history, and teaches now exactly what was believed in the earliest centuries, is somehow the “pretender” Church? And, what’s your case for your church being the true Church?

How can you claim that the Catholic church has an unbroken line of bishops when it cannot be proven who succeeded Peter or the other apostles? Jesus ordained apostles. He did not ordain bishops. Where then did the bishops come from if Jesus did not ordain them or create the office? Where did the line of apostles go? If you believe that bishops are apostles, show me where the two offices are equated to each other.

 

[montanaman]

Clement, for one, referred to Peter as the “Bishop of Rome.” Seriously, if you’re going to argue here, put in a little effort. If for no other reason, read the Church Fathers to see what the early Christians believed.

It doesn’t take too much thought to realize the Apostles were Bishops. “Bishop” and “Apostle” aren’t mutually exclusive. This is what’s so frustrating about you–you erect these straw men. You demand we show you proof, we do, and you move the goalposts. In short, you demand we do all the work so you can rebut with “Nuh uh.”

 

[rod_of_iron]

montanaman:

Even if you believe you have a solid foundation upon which to make an argument, you waste everyone’s time with statements like “I don’t have to prove anything.” Hey–that’s fine, you’re right. You don’t have to prove a thing. But by remaining here and arguing, you’re just saying “I’m right, you’re wrong, convert and live with it.”

No, no. That was not my intention in this thread. The title of the thread asked a simple question, so it seemed. “Who founded your denomination?” I gave my answer, plain and simple. But you and other Catholics could not leave it at that. Oh no. You could not accept my answer because it would put into question the Catholic church that you belong to. I was willing to let you believe that your church is the true church. But when I claim that my church was established by Jesus, you must not feel secure enough in your beliefs to allow me to believe what I feel is true, even if you feel that I am wrong.

I see now that the question asked was just a way for Catholics to jab at non-Catholics and point out what the Catholics believe are errors in the other denominations. The agenda is now obvious. But you did not expect someone to say that Christ founded their church without the Catholic church being involved. The Protestant denominations are all breakoffs of the Catholic church. But my church is not. The Church of Christ that was restored again in 1830 is not affiliated with the Catholic church and it never has been. It has just as much claim to being the true church as the Catholic church does.

I do not feel that I have wasted my time. I have learned better the fallacious doctrines that I see in the Catholic church.

 

[rod_of_iron]

montanaman:

Clement, for one, referred to Peter as the “Bishop of Rome.” Seriously, if you’re going to argue here, put in a little effort. If for no other reason, read the Church Fathers to see what the early Christians believed.

As I have stated in other threads, I do not see any evidence that Peter was ever in Rome. The Bible sure does not place him there. As for Clement, the name is only mentioned once in the Bible, just as Linus is only mentioned once. But you need to prove more than Peter being in Rome or being the bishop of Rome. You need to show me where Peter was succeeded by Linus, or whomever the Catholic church claims his successor was.

montanaman:

It doesn’t take too much thought to realize the Apostles were Bishops. “Bishop” and “Apostle” aren’t mutually exclusive. This is what’s so frustrating about you–you erect these straw men. You demand we show you proof, we do, and you move the goalposts. In short, you demand we do all the work so you can rebut with “Nuh uh.”

Since the Greek words for “bishop” and “apostle” do not even mean the same thing, I cannot see where the two are the same office. I am still waiting for you to show me where Jesus instituted the office of bishop.

 

[JoaoMachado]

rod of iron:

I do not have to prove what I claim. How can what I claim be hearsay when the men who experienced these events and had the authority given unto them testified of these things? I do not see how the testimonies of Joseph Smith and Oliver Cowdery are any more hearsay than are the writings of all your Church Fathers. You do not know for certain whether your Church Fathers are telling the complete truth, so you use your faith to believe them. I am doing the same thing with Joseph Smith and Oliver Cowdery. If what I claim is based on hearsay, then what you claim is likewise based on hearsay.

Joseph Smith and Oliver Cowdery, nice names, but how do you know, that they were given the authority over anything? And yes I do now that the Church Fathers (most of them) are telling the Truth, because it has been passed down from generation to generation, not by private revelation to private reverlation.

At the point where the Roman Empire fell is where the true church was completely driven into the wilderness. The little horn spoken about in prophecy was to subdue all nations and rule over them. This is just what you are saying about the Catholic church. How interesting!

ROI, time to get your head out of that anti-Catholic propaganda and read some history! At the point where the Roman empire fell was about 400 years after Christ was born. It was the ultimate victory of Christ, the Jews wanted to be dilevered from the under the thumb of the Romans, and Christ fullfilled that perfectly. In fact, it is in direct parallel with the Hebrews being enslaved by the Egyptians for 400 years, before God delivered them from Egypt into the promised land.

Why would Joseph Smith need to perform a miracle?

With out a miracle to establish that he is not a fraud, you follow a man, not God! And you still have not answered my question about the Eastern Orthodox Church?

I get the feeling that you have hatred built up inside, that is not what Christ wants, if you feel you need to take a break from this, do it. I have no ill toward you, I will defend the Church in what ever way.

Joao

 

[davidv]

rod of iron:

As I have stated in other threads, I do not see any evidence that Peter was ever in Rome.

Please look at the list of historical references in the Catholic Encyclopedia newadvent.org/cathen/11744a.htm#III

 

[rod_of_iron]

JoaoMachado:

Joseph Smith and Oliver Cowdery, nice names, but how do you know, that they were given the authority over anything?

Because they testified about it. Can you provide any evidence to impeach their testimonies?

JoaoMachado:

And yes I do now that the Church Fathers (most of them) are telling the Truth, because it has been passed down from generation to generation, not by private revelation to private revelation.

How is this proof that they are telling the truth? Lies can be passed down form generation to generation, and after a while, the lies appears to be true, because no one is the wiser. You sound as if you are not big on revelation from God, whether private or general revelation. No one has claimed that the pope prophesies or receives revelation from God, so how can you be so sure then that the Church Fathers are telling the truth? Also, what do you mean by “most of them”?

JoaoMachado:

ROI, time to get your head out of that anti-Catholic propaganda and read some history!

It is funny that you accuse me of reading and trusting anti-Catholic propaganda. What propaganda do you refer to?

JoaoMachado:

At the point where the Roman empire fell was about 400 years after Christ was born. It was the ultimate victory of Christ, the Jews wanted to be dilevered from the under the thumb of the Romans, and Christ fullfilled that perfectly. In fact, it is in direct parallel with the Hebrews being enslaved by the Egyptians for 400 years, before God delivered them from Egypt into the promised land.

No, no. The Roman Empire divided in 10 kingdoms, just like the Bible said it would. But the last of the kingdoms, the Lombards, did not materialize as a kingdom until 570 AD. After the 10 kingdoms came into power, another ruler, represented by the “little horn” came into power. This is when the woman (the true church) was driven into the wilderness for 1260 years.

JoaoMachado:

With out a miracle to establish that he is not a fraud, you follow a man, not God!

Is that what the pope is to you? God? What constitutes a miracle in your eyes?

JoaoMachado:

And you still have not answered my question about the Eastern Orthodox Church?

I thought that you answered that question yourself that last time you brought up the subject.

JoaoMachado:

I get the feeling that you have hatred built up inside, that is not what Christ wants, if you feel you need to take a break from this, do it. I have no ill toward you, I will defend the Church in what ever way.

Hatred? Is this the way you try to turn a discussion? By saying that the other person has hatred built up inside them? Who would I hate? I feel that you and the other Catholics are misguided, and I am trying to get you to show me any support you have for your beliefs and doctrines. I am still waiting for evidence that Peter passed on authority to Linus. Can you provide me with proof of it?

 

[rod_of_iron]

davidv:

Please look at the list of historical references in the Catholic Encyclopedia newadvent.org/cathen/11744a.htm#III

I looked at your link, but I do not see the indisputable evidence that Peter was in Rome. The article you linked me to said that it is an “indisputably established historical fact that St. Peter laboured in Rome during the last portion of his life, and there ended his earthly course by martyrdom.” I fail to see what makes this a fact.

 

[darcee]

Well, you work under one set of rules and expect others to rise to another.

Joseph Smith and Oliver Cowdery testify of something and that is good enough for you. The early Church Fathers testify of something and you want indisputable evidence.

-D

 

[rod_of_iron]

darcee:

Well, you work under one set of rules and expect others to rise to another.

Joseph Smith and Oliver Cowdery testify of something and that is good enough for you. The early Church Fathers testify of something and you want indisputable evidence.

I never said that Peter being in Rome was an indisputable fact. The Catholic Encyclopedia claimed that. I figure that if this is an indisputable fact, there must be indisputable evidence to support this claim. Is it wrong for me to ask how this indisputable fact was proven?

On the other hand, I have never said that what Joseph and Oliver testified of is an indisputable fact. I believe whole-heartedly that their testimonies are true, but I am not going to say that what they claimed is an indisputable fact, because I was not with them when they experienced the events they testified of.

If the Catholic Encyclopedia would have said that it is believed that Peter was in Rome, then I would not ask for indisputable evidence to prove it. I would ask why they believed this to be true though.

When someone claims that something is an indisputable fact, they leave themselves wide open to proving it with indisputable evidence. I will go on faith until such time that I have knowledge of any given thing.

 

[mrS4ntA]

How about his tomb in the Vatican Hill, directly below St Peter’s Basilica, for a starter?