How much do you know about the history of the church?

[SecretOfFatima]

The word "catholic" means universal. Jesus created one universal church for all of mankind. The Catholic Church was established by Jesus with his words spoken in Matthew 16 (http://www.usccb.org/nab/bible/matthew/matthew16.htm). Jesus asked his disciples "Who do people say that the Son of Man is?" The disciples then offered various answers - "Some say John the Baptist, others Elijah, still others Jeremiah or one of the prophets." But the question that Jesus then asked was crucial: "But who do you say that I am?"

The answer provided by Simon Peter set in motion the formation of the Catholic Church by Jesus. "You are the Messiah, the Son of the living God." With this answer, Jesus established the Catholic Church with Simon Peter designated the first Pope.

"Blessed are you, Simon son of Jonah. For flesh and blood has not revealed this to you, but my heavenly Father. And so I say to you, you are Peter, and upon this rock I will build my church, and the gates of the netherworld shall not prevail against it. I will give you the keys to the kingdom of heaven. Whatever you bind on earth shall be bound in heaven; and whatever you loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven."

Many try to imply that it was Peter's faith on which Jesus established the Church. But closer examination of the words of Jesus reveal that the selection was of divine nature.

"For flesh and blood has not revealed this to you, but my heavenly Father." His knowledge of Jesus was not the reason for Peter's confession to the true identity but it was the fact that it had been revealed to him by God. In the words of Jesus gives Peter his new name - "The Rock". A foundation on which his Church will be built.

Many separated from the Catholic Church cling to the notion that the Church was built on the faith of Peter and not him as a man as justification for their position. Unfortunately, their understanding is incorrect.

The bible is full of references to the need for respect of authority. It is also full of references for the need for unity. In one parable Jesus is explaining how he could not be of Satanic origin (Mark 3:22), "How can Satan drive out Satan?" In this parable he points out the importance of leadership. "If a kingdom is divided against itself, that kingdom cannot stand." Throughout the scripture we always see - One God, One Son, One Holy Spirit, One Church.

The Church today has become a free enterprise operation. If you can access the Internet you can be ordained in some church. The reformation began a splintering of the Church - in so many words, a kingdom divided.

It is much easier to understand Peter's role of leadership by reading Acts. He is clearly the leader of the Church. One such example, there are others, is Acts 15:6 (http://www.nccbuscc.org/nab/bible/acts/acts15.htm) where Peter addressing the other Apostles clearly states his leadership role: "My brothers, you are well aware that from early days God made his choice among you that through my mouth..."

Around or about 45 AD, Peter went to Rome and from there lead the Catholic Church. As of today, there have been 263 Popes in direct succession to Peter. The position of Pope was established by Christ and the office has been maintained in an apostolic manner since the time of Christ. Although the Church has fragmented since the time of Christ with various leadership centers emerging, the apostolic line of succession in the Church is seated in Rome until this very day. Many throughout time have tried to rationalize away and deny the authority and structure of the Church as established by Jesus. In my heart I know that Catholic Church is the Church established by Jesus and has maintained a clear line of apostolic leadership to this very day. The Church has celebrated the sacraments and worshiped the Lord in essentially the same way since the time of Christ.

Every Church suffers occasionally because of the weaknesses of human nature. But I believe that regardless of temporary problems experienced by the Church, abandoning the Catholic Faith is not an option. Jesus was more forgiving and understanding of human nature. When Jesus was arrested Judas had betrayed Him, Peter denied him three times, and the remaining apostles ran away. If Jesus supported and anointed their apostolic role after some of their human failings, I can't imagine abandoning my faith for human shortcomings. After all, your faith is in the Church established by Jesus, not in any person involved in the Church. Of course problems in the Church must be addressed and corrected, but the faith and Church established by Jesus can never be denied.

...
http://www.ourcatholicfaith.org/thechurch.html



May The LORD bless you
and keep you;
May the LORD make his face shine upon you
and be gracious to you;
May the LORD turn his face toward you
and give you peace.

[Rick Otto]

"Every Church suffers occasionally because of the weaknesses of human nature."
>>>There is only one undivided Church, & that is the one Jesus started.
The Roman Catholic Church was started by the Emperor Constantine.

"I can't imagine abandoning my faith for human shortcomings. After all, your faith is in the Church established by Jesus, not in any person involved in the Church."

>>Abandoning faith in Jesus is what is not an option. Let's put our faith in Him, & not in any church. He is the head, humans comprise only the body.



"...faith and Church established by Jesus can never be denied."

Not by Jesus, anyway. As you point out, Peter did so repeatedly, right off the bat, even before Jesus was dead.

Only studying history from one point of view is not going to give you a balanced picture, or even the whole story.

Do you know why Roman emperors threw Christians to the lions in the couseum?

[SecretOfFatima]

"Every Church suffers occasionally because of the weaknesses of human nature."
>>>There is only one undivided Church, & that is the one Jesus started.
The Roman Catholic Church was started by the Emperor Constantine.

"I can't imagine abandoning my faith for human shortcomings. After all, your faith is in the Church established by Jesus, not in any person involved in the Church."

>>Abandoning faith in Jesus is what is not an option. Let's put our faith in Him, & not in any church. He is the head, humans comprise only the body.



"...faith and Church established by Jesus can never be denied."

Not by Jesus, anyway. As you point out, Peter did so repeatedly, right off the bat, even before Jesus was dead.

Only studying history from one point of view is not going to give you a balanced picture, or even the whole story.

Do you know why Roman emperors threw Christians to the lions in the couseum?

What is your views on the Dead sea scrolls which also contained the books not present in the Jews Bible and the protestant OT?

..i.e: do you think they are fakes?




May The LORD bless you
and keep you;
May the LORD make his face shine upon you
and be gracious to you;
May the LORD turn his face toward you
and give you peace.

[catlover]

edit

[Rick Otto]

Do you have reason to believe they are fakes?

I'm not very familiar with content.
I seem to remember hearing that Isaiah correlated word-for-word.

Even if they aren't fakes, we still need to compare truth with truth, no matter what the source. I'm more impressed by content than source when it comes to truth.

So, do you know why Christians were thrown to the lions?

[SecretOfFatima]

Rick Otto;
Do you have reason to believe they are fakes? Glad you agree the scrools are for real as they prove once again what the catholic church already knew since the time of peter, that the extra books found only in the catholic and eastern churches were not just added in time by someone in the church and which caused the protestant split. ...do I need to say more about the teachings of the Catholic Church?

I'm not very familiar with content.
I seem to remember hearing that Isaiah correlated word-for-word.
It contains the same OT books found in the catholic bible but in hebrew. So any claims that the bible has been modified since early times is simply incorrect, the dead sea scrolls date from around the year 200BC to sometime before christ probably around the year 50BC. In the other hand the original Greek translation that the catholic church always had is from around the year 200BC, the famous 70's translation which was translated in egypt.

Even if they aren't fakes, we still need to compare truth with truth, no matter what the source. I'm more impressed by content than source when it comes to truth.

I'm investigating a theory that I heard the other day about the criteria used in the Jewish canon(around the year 100AC), which raise some serious questions, surely the Jewish canon must have been inspired by GOD, the point made was why didn't they choose the extra books found in the catholic and eastern churchs, let me give you an example, if a book had been written outside of the holy land (outside of israel) for example by a Jew, does this mean the book could not have been inspired by GOD?... or if a book was written in another language other then hebrew for example greek or aramiac(which were common languages in the region around that time) which in fact was Jesus language, does that mean it could not have been inspired by GOD?... of course there was also other points used to discern which books were inspired by GOD(for example it could not contradict the Torah (Moses Law)... I hope you can see my 2 earlier points.


What does all this mean?
The Jewish Bible(Tannak) contains contains exactly the same books as the OT protestant bible, unlike the doctrines found in those other extra books given to the catholic church, like for example purgatory and the intercession of the saints is doctrine found in the maccabees.

But the fascinating thing is that the NT contains many references to the teachings found on those removed books...


So, do you know why Christians were thrown to the lions?
:)
I should have guessed where you were coming from...
i put my hands up on this one, so i had to search for it, but here is link as the answer (maybe a different perspective than you have)
http://www.davidmacd.com/catholic/did_constantine_invent_catholicism.htm



I got a question for you where in the bible does it refer to the term "Born Again"?




May The LORD bless you
and keep you;
May the LORD make his face shine upon you
and be gracious to you;
May the LORD turn his face toward you
and give you peace.

[FLANDIDLYANDERS]

Jesus answered, Verily, verily, I say unto thee, Except a man be born of water and of the Spirit, he cannot enter into the kingdom of God. That which is born of the flesh is flesh; and that which is born of the Spirit is spirit. Marvel not that I said unto thee, Ye must be born again." -John 3:1-7

There's one reference.

[Rick Otto]

Yeah, Jesus explains it to a priest named "Nicodemus", I think.

Yer link didn't answer the "why were they persecuted" question, full of info as it was. In fact it was mostly about why Constantine can't be tagged with starttin' the RCC.

"Constantine did not invent Catholicism, he simply recognized it and let people legally be Christian."

>>"6 of one, half dozen of the other"... in other words, "same thing".
Since catholic=universal, we can credit Constantine for making it truly catholic.

"Christians were having "Catholic" Masses (http://www.davidmacd.com/catholic/mass.htm) long before this "legalization" of Christianity. Three hundred years before Constantine, Christians believed in the real presence of Jesus in the Eucharist (http://www.davidmacd.com/catholic/eucharist.htm), honoured Mary (http://www.davidmacd.com/catholic/mary.htm), had elaborate ceremonies, believed in Purgatory (http://www.davidmacd.com/catholic/purgatory.htm), respected the Church hierarchy, baptized babies (http://www.davidmacd.com/catholic/born_again_catholics.htm), recognized Peter as the Rock (http://www.davidmacd.com/catholic/pope.htm), built the Church upon him with successors and followed a rich tradition of Christianity. That was the Christianity of the early days of Christianity and that is the Catholic Church of today. Catholic means "universal."

>>Before legalization, the practices & beliefs claimed to be identifiers were not universal. Constantine couldn't beat them, and he needed them for his decisive battle at the Milvan Bridge (sp?), so he had this 'dream' of a flaming cross over the battle, with the words (approx) "Victory under this sign" over it. That gave him a pretext to paint crosses on his men's shields, effectively putting "God on their side" in terms of moral. It worked. He won.
He couldn't beat them, so he joined them & became their defacto leader. It naturaly followed suit that Rome would become central in prominence over Jerusalem.

Are you satisfied with the status quo on the persecution question?
You gave me that link, but it doesn't say why. Doesn't that bother you? You are relying on a source that doesn't deliver what you ask for!
Still wanna know, or do you even think it really matters?
:)

[Rick Otto]

Joh 3:3 (http://bible1.crosswalk.com/OnlineStudyBible/bible.cgi?word=joh+3:3&version=kjv&st=1&sd=1&new=1&showtools=1) Jesus answered and said unto him, Verily, verily, I say unto thee, Except a man be born again, he cannot see the kingdom of God.
Joh 3:4 (http://bible1.crosswalk.com/OnlineStudyBible/bible.cgi?word=joh+3:4&version=kjv&st=1&sd=1&new=1&showtools=1) -Nicodemus saith unto him, How can a man be born when he is old? can he enter the second time into his mother's womb, and be born?

[Vedant]

Joh 3:3 (http://bible1.crosswalk.com/OnlineStudyBible/bible.cgi?word=joh+3:3&version=kjv&st=1&sd=1&new=1&showtools=1) Jesus answered and said unto him, Verily, verily, I say unto thee, Except a man be born again, he cannot see the kingdom of God.
Joh 3:4 (http://bible1.crosswalk.com/OnlineStudyBible/bible.cgi?word=joh+3:4&version=kjv&st=1&sd=1&new=1&showtools=1) -Nicodemus saith unto him, How can a man be born when he is old? can he enter the second time into his mother's womb, and be born?

There's a church in Antioch. Acts 11:19-25:
The Church in Antioch

19Now those who had been scattered by the persecution in connection with Stephen traveled as far as Phoenicia, Cyprus and Antioch, telling the message only to Jews. 20Some of them, however, men from Cyprus and Cyrene, went to Antioch and began to speak to Greeks also, telling them the good news about the Lord Jesus. 21The Lord's hand was with them, and a great number of people believed and turned to the Lord. 22News of this reached the ears of the church at Jerusalem, and they sent Barnabas to Antioch. 23When he arrived and saw the evidence of the grace of God, he was glad and encouraged them all to remain true to the Lord with all their hearts. 24He was a good man, full of the Holy Spirit and faith, and a great number of people were brought to the Lord.
25Then Barnabas went to Tarsus to look for Saul, 26and when he found him, he brought him to Antioch. So for a whole year Barnabas and Saul met with the church and taught great numbers of people. The disciples were called Christians first at Antioch.


That church still exists.

[notreligus]

"Catholic" is not a bad word. However, when the word "Roman" is put in front of it, it takes on new meaning. There are saved, born-again believers in the RCC - I don't know why they stay there, but it is probably linked to tradition - but the RCC has a number of flaws in their theology. Mary worship is one of them. Putting a single man in a place of highest authority is another. We have Christ Jesus as our Mediator between ourselves and the Father. We don't need the Pope. Also, the RCC has swept early teachings of the Church under the rug. They deny the millennial reign of Christ as a Jewish myth. That is another flaw. They teach that they have replaced Israel. Having said the above, I know that there are Roman Catholics of varying views. I know one who moderates at a board sponsored by a Messianic Jew and he agrees more with the Messianics than the Catholics. But he stays with the RCC. There are Charismatics in the RCC, too, that stay there, but don't agree with all of the theology. Christendom is much like a bag of trail mix since it is so mixed-up with so many differing views. These all have something in common: Somebody with a new formula came along and started a new church much like a new marketing campaign. It's all designed to control people, when the Lord God Almighty just wants us to follow the lead of the Holy Spirit!

[Vedant]

"Catholic" is not a bad word. However, when the word "Roman" is put in front of it, it takes on new meaning.

That meaning is the Roman Catholic church, one church within the Catholic church that is overseen by the bishop of Rome, also known as the Pope. There are also other words you can put in front of Catholic, such as Maronite Catholic, Ukrainian Catholic, Romanian Catholic, Ethiopian Catholic, Syro-Malabar Catholic, amongst many others.


There are saved, born-again believers in the RCC - I don't know why they stay there, but it is probably linked to tradition - but the RCC has a number of flaws in their theology. Mary worship is one of them. Putting a single man in a place of highest authority is another. We have Christ Jesus as our Mediator between ourselves and the Father. We don't need the Pope. Also, the RCC has swept early teachings of the Church under the rug. They deny the millennial reign of Christ as a Jewish myth. That is another flaw. They teach that they have replaced Israel. Having said the above, I know that there are Roman Catholics of varying views. I know one who moderates at a board sponsored by a Messianic Jew and he agrees more with the Messianics than the Catholics. But he stays with the RCC. There are Charismatics in the RCC, too, that stay there, but don't agree with all of the theology. Christendom is much like a bag of trail mix since it is so mixed-up with so many differing views. These all have something in common: Somebody with a new formula came along and started a new church much like a new marketing campaign. It's all designed to control people, when the Lord God Almighty just wants us to follow the lead of the Holy Spirit!

I don't know if you're just trying to bait for amusement or if you actually believe this stuff that you wrote.

[stivvy]

"Every Church suffers occasionally because of the weaknesses of human nature."
>>>There is only one undivided Church, & that is the one Jesus started.
The Roman Catholic Church was started by the Emperor Constantine....

The church was established at the pont of the apostles dibursing and going to all corners of the earth and converting. Constatine called all the leaders of those travelers, after 300 years, back together to give us organization. They were all the same faith though. The exisiting "catholic" faith was made legal in the eyes of the empire by Constantine. It was "underground" up to that point. Please do not mislead.


"Catholic" is not a bad word. However, when the word "Roman" is put in front of it, it takes on new meaning. There are saved, born-again believers in the RCC - I don't know why they stay there, but it is probably linked to tradition - but the RCC has a number of flaws in their theology. Mary worship is one of them. Putting a single man in a place of highest authority is another. We have Christ Jesus as our Mediator between ourselves and the Father. We don't need the Pope. Also, the RCC has swept early teachings of the Church under the rug. They deny the millennial reign of Christ as a Jewish myth. That is another flaw. They teach that they have replaced Israel. Having said the above, I know that there are Roman Catholics of varying views. I know one who moderates at a board sponsored by a Messianic Jew and he agrees more with the Messianics than the Catholics. But he stays with the RCC. There are Charismatics in the RCC, too, that stay there, but don't agree with all of the theology. Christendom is much like a bag of trail mix since it is so mixed-up with so many differing views. These all have something in common: Somebody with a new formula came along and started a new church much like a new marketing campaign. It's all designed to control people, when the Lord God Almighty just wants us to follow the lead of the Holy Spirit!


:doh: Ok, with all the sources on here, you have the nerve to spew such lies. I won't even go into them individually, because even Non-Catholics know what exactly I am speaking of here. :P You just exposed your ignorance and lost credibility with most here on this forum. Great job! You need to go study a bit harder.

[Timyone]

:D
how important is this succession of preisthood?
and what do we do if the church that may have been started by peter (not defenite) has gone off track?

i would like to state that wherever the gospel is truely and properly preached and listened to, and the sacriments (2 of them at least) are given, that we have the church :D

id like to argue that the catholic church (Roman catholic that is, as i beleive im part of the catholic church, but not roman catholic) has gone off the way a bit. I dont beleive that the pope is any more important than i, or any other christian, as we can both pray to God.

I dont agree with penitence, or in the form of sainthood that takes place, in the Roman catholic church, as the relationship with God is between me and God.

I have a whole sermon worth of ideas on why i dont think that it matters that im not part of the Roman catholic church, but am still a member of the universal church Catholic.

At the time of the reformation of the church, the Roman catholic church was selling indulgences, peices of paper that state that you or the person you buy it for will get less time in pergatory (which the protestant church doesnt beleive in any way, but thats a bigger issue of what books of the old testament should be in the Bible).

But yeah, dunno why i really wrote any thing in here, nut just thought that the first post was a verry good representation of the Roman catholic position, but that i personally dont agree with it.

[FLANDIDLYANDERS]

My view of the Catholic Church is that it is based very heavily on the OT Temple model (allbeit a highly Romanised version). Such a model, to me, represents all that Christ came to remove, such as;

the need for a mediator between us and God,
complicated legalism and rules,
"sacred" places and seperation of "divine" and "secular",
the need for us to make our own salvation,
sexism,
enforced celibacy,
empirialism - state and church combined.

There's a few things i see Christ removing that seem to be actively encouraged by the RCC.

That is not to say that God has left the RCC, because God leaves none of us, but those are some of the reasons why I cant in all good conscience take upon RCC methodology.

[duskiness]

Hi all!
i just came to this board because i'm quite unsure about my place in catholic (universal) church...but some post here brought rather bad memories..
when i was 1 time in G.Britain, my host used to refer to me as "papist". It sounded as if he was wanted to slam me on a face.


the need for a mediator between us and God,
complicated legalism and rules,
"sacred" places and seperation of "divine" and "secular",
the need for us to make our own salvation,
sexism,
enforced celibacy,. as you probably know catholics look at this a bit differently, but i just wanted to refer to your one point:
empirialism - state and church combined. RCC is huge. and has a long history. You are right to say that much too often RCC was too close to state. But please remember that it aslo often stood aginst state! as an example: in Poland Church was supporting our nation during 123 year occupation, durnig 2WW and finally it was the only "space of freedom" during communism rules.


but those are some of the reasons why I cant in all good conscience take upon RCC methodology.
Personally i don't care that much for "methodologies" :) i simply know that you are my brother in Chirst and that when i say I "believe in one holy catholic and apostolic Church", i think about us all...
n.

ps: Stivvy - "Na zdravie" Czech? Slovac???

[Morgaine1205]

This thread is going to remain closed, as it has turned into a debate. There is not to be denominational debate in this forum. If you have any questions, please feel free to PM me. God bless!