Why do we need the Church? Not A Church, but THE Church.

[Wesley7]

Also you would trace the apostolic sucession of the papacy back to the earliest catholic church.

 

[OneTrueCathApos]

Also you would trace the apostolic sucession of the papacy back to the earliest catholic church.

Just read my signature line…

 

[happyconvert]

This is not officially Catholic, but you can check out all of the successors of Peter at Wikipedia. Just search list of popes

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_popes

 

[chaunceygardner]

St. Peter was indeed Bishop of Rome AND for 25 years:

**

Sorry, none of your examples give a time frame for Peter’s residence in Rome, nor do they say he was THE leader. The church in Rome already existed before Peter’s arrival, and although he would be recognized as the first Apostle, there were likely others who were already acting as leaders of the community. You have no proof that Peter was “in charge” of the Christian church in Rome, much less all the other churches.

Also, the writings you quote were from people writing a century or more after the fact. That would be like me quoting something you wrote years before and claiming it was factual, without any further corroboration.

You also say: “Since all of these books mention the word church, the church had to have been in existence already for years before they were written”, after listing examples from the NT. No argument there, but what was the meaning of “church”? My contention is that it referred to the community of the faithful, instituted by Jesus before his death, not to an organized, bureaucratic entity. Yes, Peter was the Rock on which the Church was built, but that meant he was to be the chief shepherd of the flock, not an administrator, ruler or CEO. We are applying today’s concepts to an earlier time and situation.

Why is it so critical that Peter be a Pope? Does our faith require it? Will the foundations collapse if we didn’t always have a Pope? Will we fail to be THE Catholic Church if the Papacy did not exist until a couple of hundred years after Peter? Would that change what Jesus means to us?

If it does, then you need to re-examine carefully what your faith is built on.**

 

[chaunceygardner]

This is not officially Catholic, but you can check out all of the successors of Peter at Wikipedia. Just search list of popes

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_popes

Certainly there is a list, but that list was created later, working back toward Peter. And they may be listed as Popes now, but they weren’t called that at the beginning, nor did they serve as anything resembling what we consider as the Pope. These people were probably the leaders of the Christian community in Rome, later to be called Bishops of Rome, and later still Pope.

I say probably above because If you read church history, you will find that there are questions regarding who the earliest successors to Peter were and when they served. The lists we have are our best guesses.

 

[OneTrueCathApos]

OneTrueCathApos;5491348:

St. Peter was indeed Bishop of Rome AND for 25 years:

**

Sorry, none of your examples give a time frame for Peter’s residence in Rome, nor do they say he was THE leader. The church in Rome already existed before Peter’s arrival, and although he would be recognized as the first Apostle, there were likely others who were already acting as leaders of the community. You have no proof that Peter was “in charge” of the Christian church in Rome, much less all the other churches.

Also, the writings you quote were from people writing a century or more after the fact. That would be like me quoting something you wrote years before and claiming it was factual, without any further corroboration.

You also say: “Since all of these books mention the word church, the church had to have been in existence already for years before they were written”, after listing examples from the NT. No argument there, but what was the meaning of “church”? My contention is that it referred to the community of the faithful, instituted by Jesus before his death, not to an organized, bureaucratic entity. Yes, Peter was the Rock on which the Church was built, but that meant he was to be the chief shepherd of the flock, not an administrator, ruler or CEO. We are applying today’s concepts to an earlier time and situation.

Why is it so critical that Peter be a Pope? Does our faith require it? Will the foundations collapse if we didn’t always have a Pope? Will we fail to be THE Catholic Church if the Papacy did not exist until a couple of hundred years after Peter? Would that change what Jesus means to us?

If it does, then you need to re-examine carefully what your faith is built on.**

Why? Because Jesus said so. Does our faith require it? Jesus commanded it. For without authority of His church, there would be confusion and chaos as there are with the 30,000+ denominations in existence right now. Protestant churches clash when agreeing with doctrines. They can’t agree. I believe that the Catholic church has stood for 2,000 years because of it’s guidance from the Holy Spirit.
Christ would never abandon us as He said in Scripture. **“I will be with you always, even until the end of time”. **This truly means His church.

 

[Matariel]

Liza,
If you have viewed any of my posts here at CAF, you might know that I can easily overlook the little wedges. It is the huge wedges that are intended to divide, such as the one I mentioned, that bother me.

Um, an apologist does intend to divide, why would a priest be an apologist if he intended to divide? It doesn’t make sense…

 

[jake23]

This must have been before the invention of spell check.

LOL! yeah I do not have spell check on my blackberry and no I usualy dont review my post though I should with these little button I type on! Nice petty remark though! only like a protestant would do! Luther was an arogant Monk and even now protestants have managed to become even more lost than he was! I would have responded sooner, but i have been out doing charity work these last few days, while you where???

 

[JonNC]

LOL! yeah I do not have spell check on my blackberry and no I usualy dont review my post though I should with these little button I type on! Nice petty remark though! only like a protestant would do! Luther was an arogant Monk and even now protestants have managed to become even more lost than he was! I would have responded sooner, but i have been out doing charity work these last few days, while you where???

I didn’t particularly like JonHus’s comment either, but I certainly don’t think Protestants have a corner on sarcasm. Or arrogance. Threads like this can lend themselves quite well to arrogance of all types - triumphalism from all corners.

As for me, I couldn’t care less about your spelling, so long as it can be read. What you say is far more important.

Jon

EDIT: Could accusing a man dead 500 years, that you nor any of else ever knew, of arrogance be in itself arrogant, or judgemental? Frankly, I don’t feel qualified to make that call.

 

[jake23]

How could you possibly read Scripture and come to the honest conclusion that the Roman Catholic church is the one holy catholic and apostolic Church? If you were truly honest with yourself, you could not come to this conclusion.

Its seems like you are not being honest with yourself! unless you are slow of learning then you will find that the catholic church is the true church. Remember that the original chrisitans did not have a bible. but only the catholic church. The church at the time did have the didache but no Bible yet. It is not through the Bible alone but through the church to find god ( by the way the church gave us the Bible, even Luther said that himslef) Also your protestant Bible is not even of original text! It has been rivised over and over and Luther took some of the books out of the original Bible. You are reading a Bible that was formed to fit the deceitful and vain opinions of Protestant leaders. So weither you are slow in the head or just in denial, yes with education and sincere prayer God revealed that the holy catholic church is thhe true church of God and everything else is counterfeit. I will pray that you will find the way!

 

[jake23]

I didn’t particularly like JonHus’s comment either, but I certainly don’t think Protestants have a corner on sarcasm. Or arrogance. Threads like this can lend themselves quite well to arrogance of all types - triumphalism from all corners.

As for me, I couldn’t care less about your spelling, so long as it can be read. What you say is far more important.

Jon

EDIT: Could accusing a man dead 500 years, that you nor any of else ever knew, of arrogance be in itself arrogant, or judgemental? Frankly, I don’t feel qualified to make that call.

Let go of the mind playing games and open your heart to Gods church. You fear to leave what your family taught you, what you grew up with, but I assure you that a stronger relationship with God is more important than any of those fears! Let go of the foolish wrong doings of Luther and embrace the gift God gave you in the Catholic church! I will pray that you will find your way!

 

[JonNC]

Let go of the mind playing games and open your heart to Gods church. You fear to leave what your family taught you, what you grew up with, but I assure you that a stronger relationship with God is more important than any of those fears! Let go of the foolish wrong doings of Luther and embrace the gift God gave you in the Catholic church! I will pray that you will find your way!

I’m in God’s Church, and I appreciate your prayers.

Jon

 

[Spiritoftruth]

…I don’t see Jesus Christ as one that would waste time and effort on something that we do not need… that’s why he created “The Church”, and why inspired scripture proclaims “Church” as the bullwark of Christian faith…in my interpretation of course…

 

[jake23]

I’m in God’s Church, and I appreciate your prayers.

Jon

God loves you but you are in a church made of straw built on sand by a false prophet! I think God will accept you anyways though!

 

[JonNC]

God loves you but you are in a church made of straw built on sand by a false prophet! I think God will accept you anyways though!

thanks, jake. BTW, the CCC says I’m part of the Catholic Church by virtue of my trinitarian baptism. You’re not saying the CC is “a church made of straw built on sand by a false prophet”, are you?
Just kidding. I know what you mean, I just disagree with you.

But more importantly, I disagree with the approach you use. Nothing personal, but you spent part of the last few threads telling me how horrible my faith tradition is, to give up what my family taught me, et al, and then expect me to open my heart to what you really believe is truth. And think further, how much your Church and mine agree. You see, I can’t condemn your Church, because then I’m condemning 90% of mine. How can I condemn something that has so much good? I’d much rather we dialogue to find ways to converge on that remaining 10% or so.

Jon

 

[lizaanne]

But more importantly, I disagree with the approach you use. Nothing personal, but you spent part of the last few threads telling me how horrible my faith tradition is, to give up what my family taught me, et al,…

And - if your family started drinking the kool-aid, you would do that too? What does family tradition have to do with the Truth? My mother is an atheist - I’m not about to follow that tradition, no matter how much I love her.

I’d much rather we dialogue to find ways to converge on that remaining 10% or so.

Ah yes - those “non-essentials”. Well, sorry. Nothing of the Truth is negotiable. The Church is not going to compromise on the Truth - there are no deals to be made, no “middle ground”, no agreeing to disagree and just brush it under the rug.

Dialog. What does that mean? It means filling the air with endless excuses for turning your back on the fullness of Truth, and being fully willing to live the rest of your life almost sorta there, but still too stubborn to give up your fight for those excuses.

It’s almost as if the fight has become the faith - hanging on to that final 10% with all your might, no matter if you are right or wrong. Let it go Jon - just let it go and stop being so stubborn.

~Liza

 

[LutheranDK]

Let go of the mind playing games and open your heart to Gods church. You fear to leave what your family taught you, what you grew up with, but I assure you that a stronger relationship with God is more important than any of those fears! Let go of the foolish wrong doings of Luther and embrace the gift God gave you in the Catholic church! I will pray that you will find your way!

In other words, Jon, what he’s saying is:
“Stop pointing out when I am rude and obnoxious, or I will spew insults, my own prejudices, and basic unsubstantiated hit-and-run “apologetics” at you, until you beg for mercy.”

Just in case anyone else needed a translation

gets ready for the tirade which is about to be unleashed upon him

 

[LutheranDK]

thanks, jake. BTW, the CCC says I’m part of the Catholic Church by virtue of my trinitarian baptism. You’re not saying the CC is “a church made of straw built on sand by a false prophet”, are you?

**That **PWNED!!!

Would have been better without the next line though…

 

[JonNC]

=lizaanne;5494637]And - if your family started drinking the kool-aid, you would do that too? What does family tradition have to do with the Truth? My mother is an atheist - I’m not about to follow that tradition, no matter how much I love her.

Goodness. Now being Lutheran is akin to atheism or Jim Jones.
Come on, Liza, at least be reasonable. And you also have to understand that, as a Lutheran, I view the Book of Concord as a statement of truth in terms of faith.

Ah yes - those “non-essentials”. Well, sorry. Nothing of the Truth is negotiable. The Church is not going to compromise on the Truth - there are no deals to be made, no “middle ground”, no agreeing to disagree and just brush it under the rug.

Agreed. I think I told you about my Lutheran friend who says that unity will come when the Catholic Curch stops teaching false doctrine. He’s as wrong as you are. Unlike you and him, I believe through the Holy Spirit dialogue can produce expressions of truth that our two communions can agree on.

Dialog. What does that mean? It means filling the air with endless excuses for turning your back on the fullness of Truth, and being fully willing to live the rest of your life almost sorta there, but still too stubborn to give up your fight for those excuses.

Here’s some of that dialogue you seem to be hardened against. Note that both sites are Catholic, and the first one has numerous documents filled with “air-filling endless excuses” put out by Catholic and Lutheran leaders.
usccb.org/seia/lutheran.shtml
vatican.va/roman_curia/pontifical_councils/chrstuni/documents/rc_pc_chrstuni_doc_31101999_cath-luth-joint-declaration_en.html
Liza, are you against what your Church is doing here?

It’s almost as if the fight has become the faith - hanging on to that final 10% with all your might, no matter if you are right or wrong. Let it go Jon - just let it go and stop being so stubborn.

So, for me the fight is faith, but for you the fight is truth? Goodness, give me a little more credit than that. Check my posts here at CAF.

Jon

 

[authenticity]

The original question was “Why do we need THE church?” My response is still that we do need, and want, the “church” of Jesus, because that is the Way to God. That to me is different that THE Church of today in terms of its structure and heirarchy. That’s the church you appear to be thinking of, the one created by people. I am more concerned with and interested in the Church that is the Living Word of God and present to us in the Holy Spirit.

Just a different angle here: the Protestant idea that the Church is not an actual group of people, an institution, is why Christianity has eroded from Western culture.

As soon as you take out the need for an institution proclaiming the objective Truth, faith and everything that goes with it become subjective. After Martin Luther, this meant a variety of churches that all say they proclaim the Truth, but are all based on the personal interpretation of a man that was never given that authority.

Today, it goes even further, it’s based on your interpretation-- every believer has to come to their own conclusions because it’s a “relationship, not a religion”. This same line of thought has led to the idea that all beliefs, not just the ones within Christianity, are all up to personal interpretation. They are all equal and are all talking about the same truth: just like all Christian denominations are talking about the same truth.

The same goes for culture: Christendom isn’t a better culture, it’s just a different one. Maybe a Buddhist or socialist or materialist culture is better; it’s all relative because the Truth is relative. What you get in the end is exactly what we see today: a secular society that more and more sees no need for religion at all or any justification to follow its morals and precepts. It’s up to me what’s right and wrong. It’s up to me to what Truth is, who God is, how I relate to Him if at all.

One other thing: I think that some of the criticisms put forth by Protestants are valid. But they need to be addressed within the Church, not outside of it. It’s just like if a married couple have disagreements, they don’t automatically get divorced. They come to an internal resolution (hopefully) so as not to cause many other problems as a consequence.