Ask a Catholic

[Katzpur]

So now you know that there are varying answers to the question of who the Church was built on. I would again refer you to the Bible verse that clearly states it.

I don't think the question should even be "who?" but "what?" Let's review the conversation as recorded in Matthew 16:13-19.

When Jesus came into the coasts of Caesarea Philippi, he asked his disciples, saying, Whom do men say that I the Son of man am? And they said, Some say that thou art John the Baptist: some, Elias; and others, Jeremias, or one of the prophets. He saith unto them, But whom say ye that I am? And Simon Peter answered and said, Thou art the Christ, the Son of the living God. And Jesus answered and said unto him, Blessed art thou, Simon Barjona: for flesh and blood hath not revealed it unto thee, but my Father which is in heaven. And I say also unto thee, That thou art Peter, and upon this rock I will build my church; and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it. And I will give unto thee the keys of the kingdom of heaven: and whatsoever thou shalt bind on earth shall be bound in heaven: and whatsoever thou shalt loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven.

I don't believe Jesus Christ would have built His church on some other human being. In other words, Jesus Christ's Church would not have been built on Peter. Of all the disciples, Peter alone recognized that Jesus Christ was "the Christ, the Son of the living God." And Christ's response to Peter is important, because He commends him for having received His knowledge, not from another human being (i.e. "flesh and blood") but from God himself. In Christ's absence, whoever led His Church would have to receive constant direction from God, as would be revealed through the Holy Ghost. Therefore, I believe the "rock" Jesus was referring to was the rock of revelation -- the only way Christ's doctrines could remain pure and not end up getting contaminated with the philosophies of men. Jesus knew from Peter's answer to His question that he was the one ready to hold the keys of authority. He knew Peter would rely on revelation from on high, and not on the opinions of mere mortals (not even the other apostles).

 

[Spiderman]

Any one here in Islamic religeous ?

Im not but I used to wear kufi and pray at Mosque in Buffalo New York. I like to chant Allahu akbar before the sun comes up

 

[leibowde84]

Because I am not American, I do not celebrate your nationalistic holidays, in fact I won't celebrate secular holidays....period. What are you celebrating really?

I celebrate only one observance that Christians are command by Jesus to hold annually...the memorial of his death. Not Easter with all its pagan trappings, no Christmas greedfest, no commercially promoted events that come in rapid succession and are designed to part people from their money by performing their rituals and asking when the next 'fleecing' will take place. Not for me sorry. That is people blindly following the crowd. We can entertain ourselves quite nicely without all that.
Being "no part of this world" means not celebrating its nationalism or its false religious holidays.....I have better things to do with my money and my time and more important things to teach my children.


I didn't really expect it to.

As I see it, a major part of holidays is to bring loved ones together. You don't see value in that?

 

[leibowde84]

Please see post #209 where I already stated that my beef was not with science at all.

I have problems with theoretical science masquerading as true science when it is nothing of the sort. Try and keep up OK?

What theoretical science are you referring to specifically?

 

[Spiderman]

When your mind is already made up, you either cannot or will not see anything else. No Catholic will ever see this.

My mind isn't made up...im open to many possibilities...

I just don't condemn people.....I have heard many Protestants say Catholics aren't Christian and that our Faith is the whore of Babylon. They claim that we worship Satan and Demons.

I don't say Protestants are damned. Many of them should be rewarded for who they are and what they do on judgemant day with a reward far greater than myself and many Catholics , including Bishops and Popes.

Im open to the possibility that the Church is wrong. It's just the Catholic Spirituality has been what has worked more grace for myself. Going to Mary and the Host of Heaven has gotten me more grace than going to God himself.

I don't know how that works and don't consider them to be more powerful , but they go before God and get the graces for earth and much grace flows through them.

Others are not called to that spirituality and go directly to God. More power to them.

I just know what has worked for myself. I know im not very pure nor are my prayers very powerful, so my friends and Angels in Heaven assist them, purify, and Empower my petitions before they reach the Throne of God.

At least that is how it appears on this path

 

[Desert Snake]

@q konn He answered (not to be rude justing stating) Jesus built the Church

No, he/she also wrote that Peter did. You need to take into consideration what the implication is when someone says 'founded' the church.

 

[Deeje]

As I see it, a major part of holidays is to bring loved ones together. You don't see value in that?

I do see the value in bringing loved ones together....but do you need a national holiday to do that? And especially holidays grafted over pagan celebrations that God would have found offensive in their original form?

When Israel decided to incorporate the worship of false gods into their spiritual routine, God did not wink at it, but made his people choose which god they wanted to serve, because Jehovah tolerates no rivals. (Ex 20:3)http://www.freesmileys.org/smileys.php
In Elijah's famous test between Jehovah and the Baal prophets, he told Israel to choose which god they wanted to serve. They had fused the worship of Baal with the worship of Jehovah....this was NOT to continue.

1 Kings 18:21:
"Then E·liʹjah approached all the people and said: “How long will you be limping between two different opinions? If Jehovah is the true God, follow him; but if Baʹal is, follow him!..."

The result? Verses 39, 40:

When all the people saw it, they immediately fell facedown and said: “Jehovah is the true God! Jehovah is the true God!” 40 Then E·liʹjah said to them: “Seize the prophets of Baʹal! Do not let a single one of them escape!” At once they seized them, and E·liʹjah brought them down to the stream of Kiʹshon and slaughtered them there."

If God found those things that offensive back then, resulting in the slaughter of 850 false prophets of Baal, then why would he change his mind about them now because humans like the idea of keeping them under a change of name? I don't see that as having any merit whatsoever.

 

[Deeje]

What theoretical science are you referring to specifically?

The "science" that masquerades under the same banner as true science, but has no real proof beyond speculation, supposition and educated guessing as to what "might have" or "could have" taken place millions of years ago. The truth is no one was there to observe any of it but the Creator and he tells a different story.

Science has proof for adaptation within species (microevolution), but there is not one shred of real evidence that macroevolution ever took place at all.

 

[Spiderman]

They are both right. The Church is built on St. Peter's confession of faith (or built on St. Peter because of his confession of faith, whichever side you want to take on that, it doesn't matter) by Jesus, and Jesus is the cornerstone, the foundation block without which the entire thing falls apart.

If you say it is EITHER Jesus OR Peter, then you have to deny various verses of Scripture.

EDIT: Jesus is most certainly the heart of the Church, this is absolutely true. Without Jesus, you have no Church. He is the heart and the life of the Church. But if you have no one to confess Him as being the Christ, if you have no one to follow Him, then Jesus is left without a Church, because the Church is the Body of Christ. This is why it is said that Jesus built the Church on Peter, who was the first person to confess faith in Jesus. The Church is built on Peter, because Peter is the first person to confess that foundational faith in Jesus that is the entire lifeblood of the Church.

So well said . Thanks

 

[Unveiled Artist]

No, he/she also wrote that Peter did. You need to take into consideration what the implication is when someone says 'founded' the church.

I agree with the opposing side. I debate for clarification and learning.

What @Shiranui117 in 380 said it nicely.

Jesus is most certainly the heart of the Church, this is absolutely true. Without Jesus, you have no Church. He is the heart and the life of the Church. But if you have no one to confess Him as being the Christ, if you have no one to follow Him, then Jesus is left without a Church, because the Church is the Body of Christ. This is why it is said that Jesus built the Church on Peter, who was the first person to confess faith in Jesus. The Church is built on Peter, because Peter is the first person to confess that foundational faith in Jesus that is the entire lifeblood of the Church.​

Basically saying, if no one was Jesus' representative to build the Church, it wouldnt be founded. Hence why Jesus is he cornerstone and Peter the first to profess his teachings to the Body, the Church.

 

[Desert Snake]

What do you mean ''opposing side''. Jesu either founded the ''church'' , or He didn't. I never stated that Jesu founded the Catholic church.

 

[Unveiled Artist]

What do you mean ''opposing side''. Jesu either founded the ''church'' , or He didn't. I never stated that Jesu founded the Catholic church.

I never said you stated that. Im direct. Please take my words as you read them. No indirect statements unless I say so in my reply.

Easiest way to put it: Christ built His Church through the Apostles by their profession of faith (Peter being the first and most important according to the Church).

Without the Apostles (as so @Shiranui117 says), Christ Church wouldnt exist today. Basically (in my words now) without the Apostles, the Church would have ended after the last Aspostle died.

The foundation of the Church is Christ.
It would not exist without Peter's profession of faith
And so forth of future Apostles and Bishops.

That is how I understood it from this thread.

When I say the opposite, I mean that I personally believe the Church should only be built on Christ and the Apostles are not singled out of the body with whom make up the structure of the Church.

But Im not debating my position. Im rephrasing for clarification. (Where is my "post intentions link" )

 

[paarsurrey]

I never said you stated that. Im direct. Please take my words as you read them. No indirect statements unless I say so in my reply.
Easiest way to put it: Christ built His Church through the Apostles by their profession of faith (Peter being the first and most important according to the Church).
Without the Apostles (as so @Shiranui117 says), Christ Church wouldnt exist today. Basically (in my words now) without the Apostles, the Church would have ended after the last Aspostle died.
The foundation of the Church is Christ.
It would not exist without Peter's profession of faith
And so forth of future Apostles and Bishops.
That is how I understood it from this thread.
When I say the opposite, I mean that I personally believe the Church should only be built on Christ and the Apostles are not singled out of the body with whom make up the structure of the Church.
But Im not debating my position. Im rephrasing for clarification. (Where is my "post intentions link" )

I somewhat agree with you, but I would rephrase "The foundation of the Church is Christ." to "The foundation of the Church is Jesus if he ever wanted to establish a new religion 'Christianity'."
The crux of the matter is that he never wanted to establish a new Religion. Jesus utmost desire was just to reform the then corrupted Judaism. That is all he intended to do. The Judaism people did not want to get reformed under the banner of Jesus, hence the opposed him tooth and nail. They intended to kill Jesus by way of crucifixion, yet the failed because G-d (Allah Yahweh) helps his messengers:

[40:52] Most surely We help Our Messengers and those who believe, both in the present life and on the day when the witnesses will stand forth,
http://www.alislam.org/quran/search2/showChapter.php?submitCh=Read+from+verse:&ch=40&verse=51​

So, G-d helped Jesus to save his life.
Regards

 

[Unveiled Artist]

I somewhat agree with you, but I would rephrase "The foundation of the Church is Christ." to "The foundation of the Church is Jesus if he ever wanted to establish a new religion 'Christianity'."
The crux of the matter is that he never wanted to establish a new Religion. Jesus utmost desire was just to reform the then corrupted Judaism. That is all he intended to do. The Judaism people did not want to get reformed under the banner of Jesus, hence the opposed him tooth and nail. They intended to kill Jesus by way of crucifixion, yet the failed because G-d (Allah Yahweh) helps his messengers:

[40:52] Most surely We help Our Messengers and those who believe, both in the present life and on the day when the witnesses will stand forth,
http://www.alislam.org/quran/search2/showChapter.php?submitCh=Read+from+verse:&ch=40&verse=51​

So, G-d helped Jesus to save his life.
Regards

The foundation of the Church (the Body of Christ) is Christ. The rest of the pink isnt in my post.

The Church is "built" on St. Peter's confession of faith in Christ by anwering as their father willed (which would have been easier said than all these 395 posts)

 

[leibowde84]

The "science" that masquerades under the same banner as true science, but has no real proof beyond speculation, supposition and educated guessing as to what "might have" or "could have" taken place millions of years ago. The truth is no one was there to observe any of it but the Creator and he tells a different story.

Science has proof for adaptation within species (microevolution), but there is not one shred of real evidence that macroevolution ever took place at all.

I have yet to see ANY verifiable evidence for the creator, though. So, why do you buy into that?

 

[Mackerni]

I am well versed in Catholic Apologetics for I spent a year in a monastery studying it all.

I put this in the debate section that you may challenge and fire your arrows at the Pope!

My mom was baptized a Catholic but they wouldn't confirm her because she was taking birth control. Well, she had me while she was on birth control, and the Catholic church would not baptize me because she wasn't confirmed. Doesn't it seem a little odd, that, despite how big Catholicism is that they would refuse service to my mom? I most likely would have been a Catholic if they were to accept my baptism before I reached the Age of Reason. Now, because of their intolerant views towards birth control, ironically I will never been a Catholic or by that matter, a Christian. How do you answer for that? Do you think what they did was right? My mom had me and never had an abortion before in her life.

Depending on your answer to this question, I could gain a favorable side with that Church. I'm looking forward to your response.

 

[Spiderman]

My mom was baptized a Catholic but they wouldn't confirm her because she was taking birth control. Well, she had me while she was on birth control, and the Catholic church would not baptize me because she wasn't confirmed. Doesn't it seem a little odd, that, despite how big Catholicism is that they would refuse service to my mom? I most likely would have been a Catholic if they were to accept my baptism before I reached the Age of Reason. Now, because of their intolerant views towards birth control, ironically I will never been a Catholic or by that matter, a Christian. How do you answer for that? Do you think what they did was right? My mom had me and never had an abortion before in her life.

Depending on your answer to this question, I could gain a favorable side with that Church. I'm looking forward to your response.

The Pope says no Priest should refuse to Baptize anyone:
http://ncronline.org/blogs/ncr-today/francis-priests-should-never-refuse-baptism-one-who-asks

I agree. Since baptismal vows are taken , some priests refuse the baptism if they feel like afterwards the child will not be raised in a Catholic home.

But I I think even that is stupid.

 

[leibowde84]

The "science" that masquerades under the same banner as true science, but has no real proof beyond speculation, supposition and educated guessing as to what "might have" or "could have" taken place millions of years ago. The truth is no one was there to observe any of it but the Creator and he tells a different story.

Science has proof for adaptation within species (microevolution), but there is not one shred of real evidence that macroevolution ever took place at all.

Wait, is are you using the creationist logic that nothing should be bought into unless we see it for ourselves?! Seems counter intuitive, as even the Bible was written by anonymous authors for the most part, and anyone else is just taking those authors word for it. Seems like you are going against your own logic.

 

[Deeje]

I have yet to see ANY verifiable evidence for the creator, though. So, why do you buy into that?

The verifiable evidence for a Creator is all around us. None so blind apparently, as those who don't want to see.

The Creator has been around a lot longer than either humans or their theories. He told us how it all happened because he was there....and I believe him.

I see design in nature that could not possibly have come about by random mutations.

If science has a branch called bio-mimetics that investigates the designs in nature in order to copy them for commercial use by humans, it astounds me that humans have to copy designs that are ingenious and yet the originals didn't need designing in the first place. That is just plain stupid reasoning IMO.

 

[Deeje]

Wait, is are you using the creationist logic that nothing should be bought into unless we see it for ourselves?! Seems counter intuitive, as even the Bible was written by anonymous authors for the most part, and anyone else is just taking those authors word for it. Seems like you are going against your own logic.

No I am using common logic.... if there is design...there must be a designer.

These just happened accidentally...did they?