Who founded your denomination?????

[rod_of_iron]

ralphinal:

In Acts 1, Peter was the one who started the election of a new Apostle: no one questioned him.

In Acts 1, Peter spoke. This does not mean that He was in charge, nor does it mean that he was the only to speak at that gathering. In verse 22, we read that they appointed two to be considered as apostles. In verse 23, they prayed to God that He would show them who to choose to succeed Judas. From the use of the word, “they”, we can see it was not a one-man show. Peter alone was not in charge of that gathering. All eleven of the apostles were in charge. It was a committee. The
Apostles as a group were in charge, and made decisions together. Peter is just recorded as one who spoke at that time. If Peter was the only one to speak and the words attributed to him in chapter 1 were the only words he spoke at that gathering, the gathering couldn’t have lasted over a couple of minutes. No gathering or meeting I have ever been to has ever had such a short duration. You claim that “no one questioned Peter”. You do not know that for certain. Just because opposition to Peter’s comments were not recorded into the record, it doesn’t mean that no one questioned him.

ralphinal:

Acts 2:14 Peter lead the teaching, in fact no other Apostel is quoted in the chapter.

No one else’s words are quoted in chapter 2, but this also does not mean that none of the other apostles spoke. In verse 14, we read that Peter stood up with the eleven. This tells us that the twelve stood up as the group that was in charge at Pentecost. Therefore, Peter was not the only one to stand at Pentecost.

In verses 7 and 8, we read that the people there heard the apostles speaking to them in the people’s own languages. It would be ludicrous to expect that Peter alone spoke to everyone of these people in whatever language they spoke, while the other 11 apostles stood in silence. Peter spoke at this gathering, but the 12 apostles as a unit led it, as the Holy Spirit led them.

(continued …)

 

[rod_of_iron]

ralphinal:

Acts 3:6-7 Peter healed the man with John present.

How does Peter healing a man show that he was the leader of the church? All the apostles had the power to heal. This scriptural passages does not represent a meeting, nor does it prove that Peter alone was the leader of the church.

ralphinal:

Acts 3:12-26 again Peter teaches while John stays silent.

For the rest of chapter 3, Peter spoke. This just shows that the writer of Acts seemed to favor Peter and his teachings. But this still does not prove that Peter was the leader of the church.

ralphinal:

Acts 5 Peter passed judgement on Ananias and Saphira, no other Apostle spoke.

In chapter 5, Peter spoke again. But this is not definite proof that Peter ruled the church. He stood with the other apostles yet again. The 12 apostles were leading the gathering together.

ralphinal:

I can go on. Don’t you see, silence is a sign of deference to a superior.

No, I don’t see. A person in charge can yield the floor to another at any time during a meeting. It is quite obvious that Peter spoke frequently. Peter spoke at times to Christ when none of His other apostles spoke. Do you want to assume that while Jesus dwelt upon the Earth, Peter was the leader of the church? Peter did not speak anymore after Jesus ascended than he did before Christ left the Earth. Your conclusion based on how frequently Peter spoke is unfounded. You are just making assumptions.

ralphinal:

All of the Apostles had the Holy Spirit within them by this time. All were capable of healing and teaching, as we see in the Acts, but when Peter was present, he taught and healed while the others deferred to him.

I don’t agree with you. If Peter being deferred to, as you put it, proves that Peter led the church, what can you conclude about the church leadership after Acts 15. After Acts 15, Peter is no longer mentioned in that book. The one who spoke most in the 2nd half of Acts was Paul. If frequency of speech is what we need to use to determine who is leading the church, we would have to conclude that Paul was the successor to Peter. The Bible only mentions the name “Linus” once. In that one place, there is no indication that Linus held any priesthood office, much less the office of bishop. Linus most likely was just a member of the church that Paul was saluting. Therefore, if anyone could be proven to have succeeded Peter, according to your assumptions, I would have to vote for Paul.

Also, where in the Bible does it claim that Peter ever visited Rome, much less was the Bishop of Rome? I have yet to find that reference in the Bible.

(continued …)

 

[rod_of_iron]

ralphinal:

You feel that Jesus did not give Peter any special authority, but the Apostles seem to disagree. Look back at Luke 22:32 “but I have prayed for you that your faith may not fail; and when you turn again, strengthen your brethren.”

In the KJV, that verse says, “and when thou art converted, strengthen thy brethren.” After Jesus had told Peter this, Peter denied Christ three times. This shows that Peter had not been truly converted. He had not totally bought in to the truth. But Jesus knew that when Peter was truly converted, he would be a great strength for the other apostles and the church. This in no way suggests that Peter alone would rule the roost. Peter was just one of the 12 apostles who ruled together.

ralphinal:

If only the Holy Spirit is needed to guide us to the Truth, why is there more than one denomination?

Because not every denomination that claims to be heeding the Holy Spirit is really doing so. Anyone can claim that they are being guided by the Holy Spirit, but you will know who really is being guided by the Holy Spirit by their fruits. By there fruits, you will know the true believers.

ralphinal:

Is one right and the rest a creation of the Devil?

They cannot all be right, or they would all be in perfect agreement. If you compare two denominations and determine that the two differ on at least one doctrine, you can tell that at least one of the denominations are not totally following the truth. It could be true that neither one is following the truth. I would not say that the other denominations are directly a creation of the devil. God allows mankind its agency. Humans can create any church and any deity that they want to worship. But their churches will never compare to the true church of Jesus Christ.

ralphinal:

If so, come out and tell me which is right and which are diabolical so that I can be persuaded to be converted.

Do you expect me to believe that you would ever trust my word on this matter? If I could tell you which church to join, you would most certainly doubt me and question me. If you want to know what church is the true church, ask God, who will give you the information liberally and will not upbraid you.

 

[Stylite]

Rod of Iron,

Please accept my most sincere apologies. I was under the impression that you were a member of the LDS Church.

Do you have a brief sumarry of your primary beliefs (as in do you believe that Jesus is one in being with the Father? I bet this discussion could be more profitable to all if we focused a bit. I will bow out in the interest of clarity. Maybe you and I could discuss the Apostacy and if the the text tells us that Jesus named Peter “the Rock” at some other time. As a parting cheap shot I just wonder why Paul refers to peter as rock (cephas) in the Scriptures.

God Bless,
Stylite

 

[rod_of_iron]

JoaoMachado:

rod of iron,
You have not yet responded to my earlier post, all of your claims stand on one idea, the Church Christ left on earth fell into apostacy. Yet you have nothing to back this up, when did this happen? Who was the cause of this? Because if this truly happened, where is the proof? It boils down to two things, either you are a prophet or there is written proof? Show me one or the other.

Christ is risen…

Joao

Written proof? Do you really believe that someone at any point in time sat down and said, “Oh no, we have fallen into apostasy”? The apostasy was more subtle than that and took many centuries to occur. You cannot see the apostasy by looking at one point in time. The way you see the apostasy is to look at the Catholic church now and compare it with the church that Christ built while He was on earth. If the Catholic church today is not the same as the Biblical church, then we must conclude that the Catholic church changed at least some of their beliefs and departed from some of the doctrines that Jesus and His disciples taught.

Therefore, to recognize the apostasy, we must look at the beliefs and doctrines of the Catholic church and determine whether they were part of the church Christ established.

 

[JoaoMachado]

rod of iron:

Written proof? Do you really believe that someone at any point in time sat down and said, “Oh no, we have fallen into apostasy”? The apostasy was more subtle than that and took many centuries to occur. You cannot see the apostasy by looking at one point in time. The way you see the apostasy is to look at the Catholic church now and compare it with the church that Christ built while He was on earth. If the Catholic church today is not the same as the Biblical church, then we must conclude that the Catholic church changed at least some of their beliefs and departed from some of the doctrines that Jesus and His disciples taught.

Therefore, to recognize the apostasy, we must look at the beliefs and doctrines of the Catholic church and determine whether they were part of the church Christ established.

How can we look at beliefs? To look at beliefs we would have to observe the actual people of the times, that’s kind of out of the question, so we are left with Doctrine! Again I ask you a simple question, how has this apostacy been revealed to you?

May I ask what denomination you are from?

Joao

 

[Delgadoajj]

rod of iron said:

"Money is often referred to by its denominations. It would equally be illogical to suggest that a $100 bill is not a denomination, while $50 bills, $20 bills, $10 bills, $5 bills, $2 bills, and $1 bills are denominations.

Catholics just need to get over the idea that they are the only church that can trace back their history 2000 years. This misconception is what leads them to the incorrect conclusion that they are not a denominaton."

rod of iron:

This is again an oversimplification of the Truth of the Catholic Church. Try to find 1/2 of the denomination of a $100 bill = $50, right? Now, then, please tell me what is 1/2 of the denomination of infinity dollar bills. As you may know, this is also equal to infinity.

The Catholic Church has ALL of the Truth, it keeps ALL of the Truth, no matter how many of its parts break away from it. These parts, by definition do not possess all of the Truth, they possess part of it. Therefore, when calling something a denomination, like you correctly said of the dollar bills, you are implying that what you are talking about is discrete, and can be counted one at a time.

The Catholic Church then, is not a denomination, because it contains ALL of the Truth, which cannot be counted: The Church is the Mystical Body of Jesus Christ here on earth. This is a great and beautiful mystery. It is one of the gifts Jesus gave to us. Please accept it.

In Christ,

Jorge.

 

[cnelms]

JesusIsTheWay:

Also the Protestants, Luther and Wesley (and others), broke away from the Papacy and it’s authority, so I don’t think the “church” would ordain them. However, the Protestant movement have, over time, reaccepted some Catholic Doctrine, so… oh well…

Martin Luther was a Catholic priest at the time he took issue with the Church.

 

[cnelms]

jeffersonb73:

Thank you. You said it much better than I could. The mis-information actually lies with the Protestants, not the Catholics. I found that out after I embarked on a 3 year study of Church history. Imagine my surprise when I discovered that the early Church was indeed very Catholic. Most Protestants are ignorant of Church history. If they weren’t, they’d be Catholics.
My RCIA teacher (who is a convert from Protestantism) told me a few months ago that anyone who researches Church history (as she and I did) will become Catholic, because the evidence is so strong.
I pray that Christ will have mercy on Protestants for speaking against His Church. I pray that they will see the truth and enter the Church that Christ established.

There is an often cited quote attributed to John Cardinal Newman, himself a convert to Catholicism from Anglicanism (I think): ‘To be deep in history is to cease to be protestant’.

Peace be with you…

 

[cnelms]

JoaoMachado:

Wow, strong! I may have to save that little statement!
This thread is definitely going in a different direction than I planned, BUT I LIKE IT!!!

Joao

As a Catholic myself, I wonder what Baptists and our other separated brethren must think when they have to pass one or two churches with the same name just to get to their own. E.g. I live ~5 miles away from my parish church. I have to pass two baptist and one presbyterian church to get there. If I were a Baptist in my area, I’d have to wonder what the differences are in alleged truth if the Holy Spirit is supposedly leading both pastors and can’t error.

 

[rod_of_iron]

Delgadoajj:

The Catholic Church then, is not a denomination, because it contains ALL of the Truth, which cannot be counted: The Church is the Mystical Body of Jesus Christ here on earth. This is a great and beautiful mystery. It is one of the gifts Jesus gave to us. Please accept it.

In Christ,

Jorge.

All of the truth? If this is true, why did the Catholic church keep changing through the centuries? If a church has all the truth, then changes its doctrine, the changed doctrine can no longer be true. You cannot change truth and still declare it true.

If the Catholic church has all the truth, why did it start teaching celebacy of priests and nuns, and baptism other than by immersion, and infant baptism, and veneration of Mary, etc.? The Immaculate Conception is a recent doctrinal change. So is the Assumption of Mary. The Doctrine of the Trinity was not originally taught by Jesus and His Apostles. The Catholic church has this habit of meeting in councils throughout the centuries and changing the doctrine of the church. How does a church change its doctrine, yet remain the keeper of all truth?

What gets me is that the church before Constantine was persecuted, then Constantine legitimated Christianity and made it popular, then later after Constantine, the church became the persecutor. How does a church go from being persecuted to becoming the persecutor, yet still remain the keeper of all truth? Do you honestly believe that God led the church during the “dark ages”? Do you honestly believe that God inspired the church to persecute those who would not adhere to the doctrines of the Catholic church, even to the point of severe torture and murder?

 

[ralphinal]

Rod of Iron Wrote:

If I could tell you which church to join, you would most certainly doubt me and question me. If you want to know what church is the true church, ask God, who will give you the information liberally and will not upbraid you.

Guess What? History, reality, logic, reason, and most importantly God Himself all point to the Catholic Church. Why? Because it is the Church founded by Christ, preserved through the years. Let’s pause for a moment on the changing doctrine thing. We know that God is a Trinity. That is Biblical. We also know that the word Trinity is not in the Bible. Could someone who denies the Trinity say the Church altered her teaching on it when the word became known? Yes, but that would be false logic. Take the Hypostatic union. Again, Biblical, though the word is not. Change in Doctrine? No. Take the Assumption of Mary. We have the remains of many of the saints, including the Apostles (ST Peters is built over his tomb), yet we do not have Mary’s. Why would a church that honors its dead ignore hers? They would not. The remains are not there. SO the doctrine was not spelled out early on, that does not mean it was created after the fact. If you also accept that the New Testement was finished before 70 AD, you can not that she may not have died yet (if she was 13-14 at the time of the Annunciation and 84 year olds are not unheard of in the Bible).

 

[rod_of_iron]

ralphinal:

Guess What? History, reality, logic, reason, and most importantly God Himself all point to the Catholic Church.

I welcome you to use any of those to prove your point.

ralphinal:

Because it is the Church founded by Christ, preserved through the years.

Where is the evidence of that? Just pointing at the ambiguous statement in Matthew 16:18 is not enough for you to claim this. That verse does not mention the Catholic church at all, or that the church Christ would build would be the Catholic church. Dig deeper!

ralphinal:

Let’s pause for a moment on the changing doctrine thing. We know that God is a Trinity. That is Biblical.

No, it is not. This idea of a trinity is not supported by the Bible. What is supported by the Bible is that there is but one God, not a three-in-one God. A three-in-one God makes Him sound like a Swiss army knife.

ralphinal:

Take the Hypostatic union. Again, Biblical, though the word is not. Change in Doctrine? No.

Jesus is divine because He is God. He is man because God took on a fleshly body. Jesus is the Father because He was conceived by the power of God, and the Son, because of the flesh. Therefore, He is both the Father and the Son. This plainly shown in the Bible.

ralphinal:

Take the Assumption of Mary. We have the remains of many of the saints, including the Apostles (ST Peters is built over his tomb), yet we do not have Mary’s. Why would a church that honors its dead ignore hers?

So that they could deify her. To say that Mary was taken into heaven in the way that the Catholic church believes she was, is quite an assumption. Is that why that alleged event is called the Assumption of Mary? If the church had a tomb for her, it could not make this claim that Mary was assumed. This is good planning on the part of the Catholic church. But I doubt that the skeleton that may lie beneath St. Peter’s was actually the Apostle Peter. Where is the proof that Peter ever visited Rome? All assumptions.

ralphinal:

If you also accept that the New Testement was finished before 70 AD, you can not that she may not have died yet (if she was 13-14 at the time of the Annunciation and 84 year olds are not unheard of in the Bible).

Pure speculation on your part.

 

[rod_of_iron]

JoaoMachado:

How can we look at beliefs? To look at beliefs we would have to observe the actual people of the times, that’s kind of out of the question, so we are left with Doctrine! Again I ask you a simple question, how has this apostacy been revealed to you?

By comparing the church mentioned in the Bible with the Catholic church of today. It doesn’t take a rocket scientist to see the big differences between the two.

JoaoMachado:

May I ask what denomination you are from?

I belong to the Church of Jesus Christ, which has been restored for the last time upon the Earth.

 

[JoaoMachado]

rod of iron:

By comparing the church mentioned in the Bible with the Catholic church of today. It doesn’t take a rocket scientist to see the big differences between the two.

So this revelation comes from you?

I belong to the Church of Jesus Christ, which has been restored for the last time upon the Earth.

I see, so how does the Orthodox Church of the East fit in to the scheme of things?

Joao

 

[reggie]

I think it should be painfully obvious by now that some people will not accept truth even when it is so clear. Those who reject the Catholic Church cannot give one solid historical record to indicate that it is not the church begun on Pentecost Sunday and yet they strive to do so by twisting Scripture interpretation to suit their own purposes. Once again, it proves that more than the Bible is needed to understand the events of 2000 years ago. The Magisterium, Tradition and the Word(symbolic of the Trinity?) work together to guide us and we should be ever grateful that it is our gift to believe. Throughout the OT, God changed the name of those He would use to lead His people, He did it with Abraham and Isaac and so it should be no surprise that He did it once again with Peter, and I might add, only with Peter. To think that the Church would be so clever and diabolical as to withhold the remains of Mary so that it could later claim her assumption is beyond insane and paranoid. Many times Jesus used parables to teach His message. Not everyone understood and when they were alone, He would then speak in plainer terms to the Apostle’s so they would understand. That is why we trust the Magisterium, why leaders are needed in the Church. Doctrine was not always clearly understood, once again, the implicit and explicit concepts in the Bible. The Church precedes the Bible, it is the defender and protector of the Bible and it is most definitely the Church of the Bible. If you would dispute that you must dispute the Bible and then your religion has no founder at all because outside of the Church and the Bible there would be no lasting memory of Jesus. Where oh where are those golden tablets when you need them?

 

[jc_escobar]

rod of iron:

I

Where is the evidence of that? Just pointing at the ambiguous statement in Matthew 16:18 is not enough for you to claim this. That verse does not mention the Catholic church at all, or that the church Christ would build would be the Catholic church. Dig deeper!.

Where is that statement ambiguous? I read a very clear affirmation by Christ talking directly to Peter telling him what he has planned for him, the problem is that you see things the way they are convinient to you and not as what they actually are:

And I tell you, you are Peter, and on this rock I will build my church, and the powers of death shall not prevail against it.

rod of iron:

I
No, it is not. This idea of a trinity is not supported by the Bible. What is supported by the Bible is that there is but one God, not a three-in-one God. A three-in-one God makes Him sound like a Swiss army knife.

Jesus is divine because He is God. He is man because God took on a fleshly body. Jesus is the Father because He was conceived by the power of God, and the Son, because of the flesh. Therefore, He is both the Father and the Son. This plainly shown in the Bible…

What are you trying to say here? Who then is the Holy Spirit? If God is not a Trinity then he would not be God. The Trinity is intrinsic to the ONE GOD Doctrine. To be Omnicient, Omniprecent and Omnipotent and to be Love, he must be a Trinity, just as the Catholic Church teaches it. To really be God and have perfect Knowlwdge of Himself (God the Son) and for a perfect Love to exist between them (God the Holy Spirit), He has to be what He Is: The Most Holy Trinity.

I hope you’r eyes and heart are opened so you may see.

With Love,
J.C.

 

[reggie]

In response to the “changing doctrines” of the Catholic church, the examples given are the typical ones by protestants and yet are not changed doctrine at all. The Immaculate Conception, the Assumption of Mary etc… did not become infallible or defined doctrine until the current Pope made them such. This was not something that was just pulled out of the air. These were undefined until such a time as the Holy Spirit made them clear but honor of Mary has been around since the beginning. In the Catacombs of Rome there are drawings of her on the wall and it is believed that ST. Luke painted a portrait of her. This devotion to her is nothing new. I believe the reason for these doctrines is to once again bring Mary into the focus of our minds and hearts. She is the first and only perfect disciple, she is our Mother, she is our Advocate and she always leads us to Jesus. She is the epitome of what God calls us to be and the first reciprient of Grace and Mercy through the merits of Jesus. Mary is the Patroness of the Americas and, as she and God can see, we are in desperate need of prayer and guidance back to Jesus and through Him, to God. We have lost our moral compass and our sense of gratitude that God has made this country so great. I for one pray that more will heed the call of the Blessed Mother to pray, pray, pray for our country. Now a changed doctrine would be doctrine defined and then redefined to something else. That has never happened in the church. Using that criteria, please give a genuine example of when this occured keeping in mind also that doctrine is something we must believe as Catholics. This does not include practices and beliefs that are not compulsive( i.e.
visionaries, rosary prayer, appearances by Our Lady, novenas etc…) or small “t” traditions that can be changed (i.e. Mass in Latin, celibate priests etc…).

 

[Delgadoajj]

rod of iron:

Here are some very interesting links:

Immaculate Conception

Holy Trinity

First Apology of St. Justin Martyr

You’ll find it very interesting how the apology of St. Justin describes the Mass. It was written in the year 155 A.D.

Take care,

Jorge

 

[ralphinal]

If God is not a Trinity, then Jesus prayed to himself in the Garden and in the desert. IF God is not a Trinity, then who spoke at Christ’s Baptism and the Transfiguration (“This is my Son” not “This is me”).

In the end, CAtholics beleive that we are the Church founded by Christ. We are the Church of the Upper Room. The Orthodox groups that left knew what they were leaveing, but had reasons to. The Reformers left for a variety of reasons, many misguided. Politics factored greatly in the growth of Protestantism, not faith. Many people will not accept the Truth, and I will pray for them.