Who founded your denomination?????

[reggie]

con’t

Lastly, I wish to bring your attention to Acts 8:26. Phillip and the Eunuch. note that when the euncuh asks Phillip for help with the scirptures, Phillip does not tell him that the Holy Spirit will guide him once he is baptized. Instead, he teaches the man and then baptizes him. This passage clearly shows the need for authoritative interpretation.

Finally, Jesus’ own works in Mathew 10:19 condemn you and your claim that the true church apostasized and needed restoration. If Jesus’ church was to be the light to the world, why then would He hide that light under a bushel and allow the world to be in darkness until JS came along? Why would he allow the Catholic Church to evangelize the world with untruths and apostasy? For it is historically true, and undeniably so, that all nations which turned form paganism to Christianity did so throug missionaries sent by the Roman Church. Examples:

Ireland - St. Patrick, sent by Pope St. Celestine - 5th century
Scotland - St. Palladius - same as St. Patrick
Anglo Saxons - St. Augustine- sent by Pope Gregory - 6th Century
France - St. Remigius
Flanders - St. Eligious both bishops in communion with Rome
Germany and Bavaria - St. Boniface sent by Gregory II - 8th cent.
Russia, and other parts of Northern Europe, Cyril and Methodius under NicholasI and his successors Adrian II and John VIII

At all fo these times, only one head of the Christian church was recognized, The Bishop of Rome also known as the Pope.

Now this is history, you can try to go around it and fight it with saying that your church was hidden, persecuted, whatever by the Roman Catholic Church. It doesn’t wash. For all the corrupt leaders, popes, priests etc… cannot deny the good and holy works of the church. Hospitals, schools, churches, art, literature
charities and on and on and on. You cannot dispute any of these things.

I put it to you once again, prove that these are not true. Prove that history as we know it is not true. Produce the proof of your church. Produce anything that supports your claim outside of the words of Joseph Smith and Oliver Cowdery. The Catholic Church has thousands of witnesses to it living, dying and believing for 2000 years. Praise be to God and all thanksgiving for His Son Jesus and His Church from whom all blessings flow.

 

[ralphinal]

Kevan:

How does this work? Does it mean that the Church never does anything, and only her members do things?

Does it mean that the Church only does good things and the bad things are, by definition, done only by the members?

Or what?

I think that the point is that the Church never taught nor encouraged the sale of indulgences. In fact, at various times, rule were made to prevent things such as this as they are simony. This includes the sale of blest items.

I see your point, and in fact, many times it does seem that we answer questions about the faith in that way. The sale of indulgences was very much incorrect Catholic teaching, but it was done by a few people, not the Church in general.

Reggie, that was a great set of posts. I do not know ho ord will respond, but you are a great apologist.

 

[Kevan]

<>

I seem to remember that Julius had floated a fund-raising scam worthy of a Protestant televangelist, and Leo continued it. Tetzel was his sales team’s top performer in the Saxony district, but the racket had operations far and wide. Is it not correct to say that “the Church” was doing it? These were, after all papal indulgences.

Tetzel’s fellow Dominicans opposed it. Luther the Augustinian opposed it. But the pope and Curia were the actual perps.

Maybe I don’t understand yet, but it looks to me like you have a definition of “the Church doing it” which would make it impossible for the Church to do anything.

Set me straight.

 

[thatsamore]

BobCatholic:

Agreed. Denominations are created by men.

There are only two religions on Earth that are founded by God.

Judaism and Catholicism. The latter is a fulfillment of the former.

This statement by BobCatholic is simple and true.
And when Jesus started the Church for us, it was simple, and yet difficult to maintain. I refer to the tremendous political and cultural opposition the first Christians were faced with.
Today, the Church (which I love, and live) is carrying on the simple truth of Jesus,and now includes many new traditions added in over the centuries. I think this is great, especially since the only mandatory behaviours and beliefs required of us are still the simple basics given to us by Jesus.
However I personally am baffled by the fact that God allows so many evil men and women to constantly parade thru the ranks of the Church historically, and to this day.
Why is this do you think?

 

[ralphinal]

<>

I seem to remember that Julius had floated a fund-raising scam worthy of a Protestant televangelist, and Leo continued it. Tetzel was his sales team’s top performer in the Saxony district, but the racket had operations far and wide. Is it not correct to say that “the Church” was doing it? These were, after all papal indulgences.

Tetzel’s fellow Dominicans opposed it. Luther the Augustinian opposed it. But the pope and Curia were the actual perps.

Maybe I don’t understand yet, but it looks to me like you have a definition of “the Church doing it” which would make it impossible for the Church to do anything.

Set me straight.

Let me elaborate. All of the actions done are by people. If I say that FSU beat Miami, what I am saying is that the teams played, not the actual schools. The question is, was it ever taught as doctrine by the Catholic Church that indulgences can or should be sold. It was not. I do not want to get into the whole this person or that thing, but the CHurch has never and will never teach as doctrine that this can be done. When I speak of the Church, yes, I am speaking of the actions of its members. But, as a Catholic, I know that the CHruch cannot teach doctrine that is opposed to the will of God.

 

[Kevan]

I hear you. “The Church” didn’t say that the sale of indulgences was okay, it was only her popes, cardinals, bishops, and bankers who said it.

Here’s a question that obviously arises. Just what is necessary for The Church to have said something, or to have done something? Is there a standard by which a historian may go back and catalog the things that The Church did and said, as distinguished from what her popes, cardinals, and bishops did and said?

Is the distinction made on the fly as we discern whether or not we want to acknowledge any individual event as “Catholic”? Or is there some objective standard?

If so, does that standard protect an overwhelming majority of everything Catholic for 2,000 years by saying that those things weren’t done by The Church? I hope not; but if so, such a standard would have a hard time commending itself to reasonable men.

 

[rod_of_iron]

ralphinal:

Let me elaborate. All of the actions done are by people. If I say that FSU beat Miami, what I am saying is that the teams played, not the actual schools. The question is, was it ever taught as doctrine by the Catholic Church that indulgences can or should be sold. It was not. I do not want to get into the whole this person or that thing, but the CHurch has never and will never teach as doctrine that this can be done. When I speak of the Church, yes, I am speaking of the actions of its members. But, as a Catholic, I know that the Church cannot teach doctrine that is opposed to the will of God.

What you fail to recognize is that without people, the church ceases to exist. When the Bible speaks of the church, it is not referring to buildings and other physical structures, nor is it referring to the hierarchical structure that may be in place. Rather, it is speaking of the people as the church. The church is the people – the members. Therefore, if the members, especially those in leadership roles, are guilty of iniquity, the whole church is guilty. If the pope, who is the head of the Catholic church and thus the leading representative for it, is guilty of iniquity, this affects the whole church, because this iniquitous pope can pass laws and form doctrines while claiming that he is speaking
ex cathedra. If a certain pope is currently in power, what prevents him from changing anything if he claims to speak ex cathedra? How do you know when he is speaking in such a manner and when he is not? Does he begin to glow or float when he is speaking ex cathedra? How do you know the difference?

 

[BobCatholic]

James_2:24:

I guess you can say were are “non-denominational” jk

We are the original non-denominational Christians

 

[rod_of_iron]

ralphinal:

Let me elaborate. All of the actions done are by people. If I say that FSU beat Miami, what I am saying is that the teams played, not the actual schools. The question is, was it ever taught as doctrine by the Catholic Church that indulgences can or should be sold. It was not. I do not want to get into the whole this person or that thing, but the CHurch has never and will never teach as doctrine that this can be done. When I speak of the Church, yes, I am speaking of the actions of its members. But, as a Catholic, I know that the Church cannot teach doctrine that is opposed to the will of God.

What you fail to recognize is that without people, the church ceases to exist. When the Bible speaks of the church, it is not referring to buildings and other physical structures, nor is it referring to the hierarchical structure that may be in place. Rather, it is speaking of the people as the church. The church is the people – the members. Therefore, if the members, especially those in leadership roles, are guilty of iniquity, the whole church is guilty. If the pope, who is the head of the Catholic church and thus the leading representative for it, is guilty of iniquity, this affects the whole church, because this iniquitous pope can pass laws and form doctrines while claiming that he is speaking
ex cathedra. If a certain pope is currently in power, what prevents him from changing anything if he claims to speak ex cathedra? How do you know when he is speaking in such a manner and when he is not? Does he begin to glow or float when he is speaking ex cathedra? How do you know the difference?

 

[rod_of_iron]

reggie:

I will answer again to the best of my abilities but must ask you once again to give us solid proof, in the form of history, documents and more than one or two questionable witnesses to this visitation to JS.

You claim that there are only two witnesses to Peter, James, and John ordaining Joseph Smith and Oliver Cowdery, and that those witnesses are questionable. But it seems to be two more witnesses than you have for Peter ordaining Linus to be his successor. Can you show me any witnesses who saw Linus being ordained by Peter to be the his successor? Did Linus write a document in which he claims that Peter ordained Linus to succeed him?

reggie:

First, Peter was not elected Pope, he was the Bishop of Rome because he was an Apostle.

Is this the only qualification for being the bishop of Rome? If Peter was the bishop of Rome because he was an apostle, then logic would lead us to believe that there must have been 12 bishops of Rome, because there were at least 12 apostles.

reggie:

Would he have called himself a bishop, I can’t say. He may not have been fully aware of his position nor of the importance of the line of his successors. This does not in any way detract from that importance.

Neither does this prove that he was a bishop. If he was indeed the bishop of Rome, why would he not have claimed it? I can’t believe that Peter would not have known what office he had been ordained to or the region he had been given to oversee if he had indeed been the bishop of Rome. If he had been convinced that he was the rock upon which Jesus built His church, why would he have not realized the importance of his position or the position of those who would eventually succeed him? If Peter is the rock, and no one else is, when Peter died, the church would have gone to the grave with him. Why would Jesus has built his church upon a mortal instead of upon something or someone eternal if He expected it to last throughout all generations?

reggie:

You say the papacy is a developed office. I have no problem with that.

Whether it was developed over time or created at a later time, the papacy would have no precedent unless Jesus would have created the papacy when He established His church upon the Earth. He created the office of Apostle and the office of Seventy at the time He established His church. He did not lay the groundwork for those offices and hope that those offices would develop over time. If Jesus did not establish the papacy before He ascended, then that office is not of God. It is man-made.

reggie:

It developed because the churches in other areas appealed to the Bishop of Rome to render decisions regarding faith and practices within the infant church.

Appealed to the bishop of Rome? Where is this written? First there would have to be a bishop of Rome before anyone could appeal to him. Can you give me the date when the bishop of Rome came into power?

(continued …)

 

[rod_of_iron]

reggie:

Why did they do this? Because they recognized that Peter was the “rock” on whom Jesus would build His church and the authority given him was then passed to his successors.

Can you show anything to verify this? The Catholic church seems to point at the fact that Jesus transferred the keys of the kingdom to Peter and only Peter. If this is true, then it would only seem reasonable that Peter would have been the only one who could have passed it on to anyone else.

reggie:

Did Peter name Linus as that first successor? Again, no Pope names his successor.

If Peter did possess the keys to the kingdom, no one else could have passed them on except the one who possessed them. If no pope names his successor and ordains that successor, than the keys are not passed on and the authority goes to the grave with that man. If this is true, we must say goodbye to the authority and the church of Christ disappears from the Earth.

reggie:

Linus was ordained by Peter and is even mentioned by Paul in his second letter to Timothy 4:21.

Where in the Bible does it say that Peter ordained Linus to any priesthood office? Where in 2 Timothy does it tell us that Linus held a priesthood office? The verse you quote from 2 Timothy just shows that a man named Linus existed, not that he held a priesthood office.

reggie:

You question whether Peter was ever in Rome. In Peter’s 1st epistle, he mentions Babylon. All major Christian denominations agree that that is a reference to Rome and that Peter was there when he wrote it.

Why would Peter use Bablyon when referring to Rome? Was Rome ever called Babylon before it was called Rome?

reggie:

Also that Peter and Paul were martyred there. You alone dissent and yet cannot prove otherwise.

How do I prove otherwise? Since proving something did not happen is impossible, I would have to prove that Peter was buried somewhere other than Rome. To prove this, I would have to dig up every grave upon the Earth and have some way of idenitfying Peter when I found him. It sounds like an impossible task. It would be much easier for you to prove that Peter was in Rome and died there than it would be for me to prove he died somewhere else in the world.

(continued …)

 

[rod_of_iron]

reggie:

Linus, as Peter’s companion and student would have naturally been the successor.

Where do you get the idea that Linus was Peter’s companion? If Linus is only mentioned once in passing in the Bible, where do you get all this added infomation about him?

reggie:

It wasn’t until further down the line that the pope was elected.

Further down the line? For the church to have an unbroken line of popes, Peter’s successor would have had to have been ordained immediately after Peter’s death. If it didn’t happen until further down the line, then the line has been broken.

reggie:

Once again that developement thing, but again, not an obstacle to the unbroken line.

If the papacy developed at a later time, then Peter, nor any of his immediate successors could have been popes, right?

reggie:

Now we know from the Bible, that the Apostles travelled throughout the region and ordained men to lead and guide the churches after they left. Just as Judas’ place was filled, through prayer and the laying on of hands, so too were these men chosen.

So, where are the apostles in the church now? Where are the traveling ministers? The bishops are not sent out to travel. They supervise a certain diocese, as far as I have been told. Where are the apostles?

reggie:

There is even a guideline as to what the qualifications were in Paul’s 1st letter to Timothy. These men would have needed further instruction and somewhere to address disputes.

There is a guideline for the office of apostle in 1 Timothy? Where? There is a guideline for the office of bishop in 1 Timothy, but a bishop is different than an apostle. In 1 Timothy, it is interesting that one of the qualifications for being a bishop is to be the husband of one wife. This either means that a bishop must be married, or at the very least, must be allowed to marry if he so chooses. The Catholic church goes strictly against this guideline when it forces celibacy upon bishops. The Eastern Orthodox church seems to follow this guideline better than the Catholic church.

reggie:

Many of them looked to Rome and accepted as final the rulings of the Bishop of Rome. Now why would they have done that if they did not respect and understand the authority of Peter and by succession those who followed him?

Where is your evidence that this happened?

 

[rod_of_iron]

reggie:

Now Irenaeus, a Christian from the first century, writes of Linus as being the successor to Peter. Was he already in apostasy? Had the church established by Jesus already been lost?

Hey reggie, according to the Catholic Encyclopedia, Irenaeus was not born until at least 115 AD, which would mean that he lived in the second century, not the first. I believe that the church had already begun its plunge into apostasy before the second century began. The church of Jesus Christ was not yet lost, but it was on its way to being replaced by what is now the Catholic church.

Once the true church was driven into the wilderness, the imposter could replace it as it took its seat upon seven mountains – symbolizing the city of Rome. At this point, Rome replaced Jerusalem as the headquarters for the church. Maybe this gives creedence to Rome being called Babylon. In Revelation 17, we read where Babylon (the woman in scarlet) would sit upon seven hills, or mountains. In chapter 12, the true church (the woman clothed in the sun) would be driven into the wilderness for 1,260 days. In case you don’t know, in prophecy, a day equals a year. The true church would be in the wilderness for 1,260 years, according to Revelation. That is a result of the apostasy that began in the first century.

 

[Curious]

Hey there

I have no idea who founded my denomination because I consider myself non-denominational. Translation: some people got sick of other denomations, said “we’re not going to be any denomination” and made the non-denominational denomination. lol.

I’ve become increasingly irritated over the trillion billion protestant denoms lately. I just don’t think it’s consistent with Paul’s desire that there should be no division among us and we all speak the same thing. It’s depressing to think of how divided we all are.

 

[RNRobert]

Eric Hyom:

He felt that the Catholic Church was not right and there was a need for change.

Could he have had a greater reforming voice if ha had stayed within the Catholic Church?

Did the Catholic Church need some sort of reformation at the time; I would have to say yes.

Yes, the church was in crying need of reform. But, as Bishop Fulton Sheen said, the Reformers reformed doctrine when it was morals that needed reforming.

The church was ultimately reformed, but it was accomplished by humble, holy men like St. Charles Borromeo, St Francis de Sales and St Philip Neri who reformed from within the church. Perhaps if Luther and Calvin had had some of their holiness, then perhaps they would have been recognized as saints.

Jesus prayed that we might be one. The church will always have problems, but Christians are expected to solve the problem by prayer and a holy life, not by fracturing the body of Christ.

 

[reggie]

ROI, There you go again. Not answering any questions directly and saying, “where is the proof of that?”. The proof is there in two thousand years of history. Writings from the very beginning that are still the property of the church and attest to the men and wormen of the early church. I don’t have access to all the originals nor can I quote from them. I know that countless Catholic Christians writers and theologians have referred to them. You can dispute their existance, it changes nothing. Tradition is also a great source of information. Not all of the church’s life is recorded in the Bible. That’s because the revelations of the Bible ended with the last Apostle. You seem to be bogged down on whether or not Jesus instituted a certain office, did Peter hand on the keys etc… You can’t seem to grasp the developement of the church throughout the years. After awhile, it had to evolve since the Apostles and those with direct contact with them would have died leaving the pilgram church to those who followed. There have been constant assaults on the theology and doctrines of the church; someone must lead, guide, teach and ultimately take responsibility for it. Remember, Jesus didn’t tell the Jews to displace the leaders of the faith, to ignore their guidance, or to ignore their teaching; He told them to not do as they were doing, namely, using their position to further themselves and make their own lives richer. They were hypocryts holding the Jews to difficult laws and practices while not following those same things themselves. Jesus did not tell them leaders were unnecessary. The leaders of the church have not always been perfect, in fact some could be compared to those about whom Jesus spoke. It doesn’t take away, in any way, the need for them or the authority they had. Also, not all practices of the papacy are compulsory,i.e. not everyone is bound by them, but Jesus said “Whatever you bound on earth, is bound in heaven and whatever you loose on earth is loosed in heaven.” That is clearly intended for the leaders of His church, chief among them Peter. It appears that you have no problem with authority, just the authority of the Catholic Church. Afterall, you believe the claims of JS even though you were not present at any of these visitations and apparitions to him. That must be because you are comfortable with the doctrines he espoused and that’s fine for you. I considered Protestant and even the Mormon and Jehovah Witness religions but found that there was no real authority or substance in any of them. None of them has the foundations of the Catholic Church, the history nor the beauty.I could go on continually debating you and saying here is proof; while you continually say that’s not proof and we will get no where. The bottom line is that I know the truth, I haven’t done anything to deserve or merit it, God has graced me with it. I am not about convincing or converting you. You have obviously been exposed to the truth and choose to harden you heart against it. I can’t argue that. I don’t know why the Lord has not softened your heart, except that maybe, because of free will, you haven’t opened yourself up to it and God never forces Himself on us, only reveals Himself to us and welcomes us with love when we turn to Him. Now I am shaking the dust of this thread from my feet. I am sure I will encounter you somewhere else in these forums and I hope your continued presence will dispose you to better hear what others have to say. I would like to thank you though, your debate strengthened my own faith even more. It still amazes me how God works so wonderfully. I seek and, always, He leads me to stronger faith and deepens my appreciation of the graces available to me through His Church. I will pray for you ROI, to leave something, not a denomination, but the darkness. Come into the light of His Church, The Shining City on a Hill, a beacon to all who would seek God’s Kingdom on Earth.

 

[reggie]

One last thing, ROI, regarding the Jewish influences in the Catholic Mass, I highly recommend the book “The Lamb’s Supper” by Scott Hahn. It is a scriptural description of the mass unlike any I have read. In fact, I recommend it to all Catholics as well, as it will open your eyes to the love and grace Jesus has given us in this sacrament. A sacrament prepared for us even before time. Were the Church as corrupt as some would claim, I would still be there as often as I could to receive this most sacred of blessings.

 

[ralphinal]

Kevan:

I hear you. “The Church” didn’t say that the sale of indulgences was okay, it was only her popes, cardinals, bishops, and bankers who said it.

Here’s a question that obviously arises. Just what is necessary for The Church to have said something, or to have done something? Is there a standard by which a historian may go back and catalog the things that The Church did and said, as distinguished from what her popes, cardinals, and bishops did and said?

Is the distinction made on the fly as we discern whether or not we want to acknowledge any individual event as “Catholic”? Or is there some objective standard?

If so, does that standard protect an overwhelming majority of everything Catholic for 2,000 years by saying that those things weren’t done by The Church? I hope not; but if so, such a standard would have a hard time commending itself to reasonable men.

Good questions. If one took the time to read all of the Catholic Church’s documents from the earliest time until now, you would have what the “Church” teaches. This would be a rather long, tedious process, but it can be and has been done. Individual people may be members of the Church and may say and do things that are not a part of the accepted doctrine of the Church, but they are in the wrong. As Catholics, we believe that the Church is protected by the Holy Spirit from slipping into heresy. We also understand that when the pope speaks on matters of faith and morals, and only on faith and morals, he is also protected from teaching heresy. If you took the time to read all of the teachings including papal documents, you will see that there has never been one case of a contridiction to the established teachings of the Curch. In fact, when doing that, it is easy to tell when it is the Church verses individuals.

Not all popes we in favor of the sale of indulgences. That is like saying all Republicans were in favor of the Watergate break in. It is also incorrect to say that the sale of indulgences was a wide-spread problem in the Church. From the reading I’ve done on it, it was a very localized problem.

Let me look at a different issue. Look at slavery. The Church never taught that slavery was an acceptable act. But, as the institution was so widely entrenched in society, the CHurch put forth rules for slaveowners that would allow for a slave to be able to purchase their way out of slavery and protect their needs. When it became appearant that this was not enough, the Church got harder and harder on slave owners. Between the founding of this country and the Civil War, the Church issued 9 different condemnations of slavery in the United States, the last one calling for possible excommunication of Slave owners. Guess what. Not one of these letters was ever read in the United States Churches. The Bishops did not act upon them for fear of political and social reprisals. Now, would it have helped end slavery? Probably not, but this may help show the difference in the Church and the people of the Chruch in reguards to doing what the Church teaches.

I’ve rambled. I hope this helps a little

 

[ralphinal]

rod of iron:

Hey reggie, according to the Catholic Encyclopedia, Irenaeus was not born until at least 115 AD, which would mean that he lived in the second century, not the first. I believe that the church had already begun its plunge into apostasy before the second century began. The church of Jesus Christ was not yet lost, but it was on its way to being replaced by what is now the Catholic church.

Polycarp was taught by John the Beloved and he taught the same as all other early fathers. Can we say that John had aposticized?
rod of iron:

Once the true church was driven into the wilderness, the imposter could replace it as it took its seat upon seven mountains – symbolizing the city of Rome. At this point, Rome replaced Jerusalem as the headquarters for the church. Maybe this gives creedence to Rome being called Babylon. In Revelation 17, we read where Babylon (the woman in scarlet) would sit upon seven hills, or mountains. In chapter 12, the true church (the woman clothed in the sun) would be driven into the wilderness for 1,260 days. In case you don’t know, in prophecy, a day equals a year. The true church would be in the wilderness for 1,260 years, according to Revelation. That is a result of the apostasy that began in the first century.

But the Vatican sits on an eighth hill, not one of the seven of Rome, but on the other side of the river

 

[ralphinal]

rod of iron:

What you fail to recognize is that without people, the church ceases to exist. When the Bible speaks of the church, it is not referring to buildings and other physical structures, nor is it referring to the hierarchical structure that may be in place. Rather, it is speaking of the people as the church. The church is the people – the members. Therefore, if the members, especially those in leadership roles, are guilty of iniquity, the whole church is guilty. If the pope, who is the head of the Catholic church and thus the leading representative for it, is guilty of iniquity, this affects the whole church, because this iniquitous pope can pass laws and form doctrines while claiming that he is speaking
ex cathedra. If a certain pope is currently in power, what prevents him from changing anything if he claims to speak ex cathedra? How do you know when he is speaking in such a manner and when he is not? Does he begin to glow or float when he is speaking ex cathedra? How do you know the difference?

Simple, faith and morals are protected teachings, nothing else. What keeps him from changeing anything? The Holy Spirit does. Why in the world would Jesus have founded a church that would abandon his teachings? Did the paraclete fall asleep or get sick and go home?

Never in 2,000 years of the Church has a pope contridicted an earlier teaching in any way. You say that it is impossible to proove the none-existance, then you proove to me the existance of the contridiction.

There was a pope who was put into office specifically to change a specific doctrine of the CHurch. Once he was in, he betrayed his coconspiriters, telling them in no uncertain terms why what they wanted was wrong. Now you can say that they did not choose the right man or that his conscious got the better of him. WE know the truth. The HOLY SPIRIT was there.