Catholic Faith Defender

JOHN. 8:32 “et cognoscetis veritatem et veritas liberabit vos”

Archive for the ‘What is the History of Your Church?’ Category

Catholic Faith Defender’s Radio Program

Posted by catholicfaithdefender on February 6, 2009

Catholic Faith Defender’s Radio Program

“Mar e Cielo”

DYHP (RMN CEBU) -612 KHz

Every Sunday

Time: 1:00 – 2:00PM

Host: Atty. Marcelo Bacalso

Atty. Dr. Marcelo Bacalso, PhD.


Atty. Dr. Bacalso with Bro. Ryan Mejillano


The First Part of the Program “Mar e Cielo”= dealing with History, Politics, Education, Argumentation, Laws and others.


Atty. Dr. Bacalso with Bro. G-one Paisones

The Second Part of the Program “Mar e Cielo”= dealing with Apologetics, Catholic Dogma, Catholic Liturgy, Catholic Teaching and other doctrinal subjects.


Bro. Ryan Mejillano and Atty. Dr. Bacalso Discuss the “Tridentine Mass” or “Traditional Latin Masslive in DYHP Cebu.


Among of the Best Catholic Apologist in the Philippines:

Atty. Dr. Marcelo Bacalso, PhD.

Bro. Ryan Mejillano

Fr. Abe Arganiosa, CRS

Posted in -Catholic Faith Defenders Program, How to Help others become Catholic, What is the History of Your Church?, When Was The Catholic Church founded? | 2 Comments »

“Executive Minister of Iglesia Ni Cristo Back to the True Church”

Posted by catholicfaithdefender on January 30, 2009

“Executive Minister of Iglesia Ni Cristo Back to the True Church”

By Bro. G-one Paisones

May nabasa po akong isang aklat na maganda at magagamit sa mga evangelization at apologetics purposes ng mga Catholic Apologist at lahat ng mga Katoliko. Ang aklat na ito ay ang “Paano Ninyo Sasagutin” ni Fr. Ben Carreon (Unang Aklat). Ang naturang aklat ay naglalaman ng mga sagot at information na dapat mabasa ng lahat ng mga Katoliko sa boung Pilipinas. Ang aklat na ito ay mabibili sa mga St. Paul stores.

Madalas na nating naririnig at nababasa na may mga Katoliko na winaksi ang kanilang pananampalataya bilang Katoliko na hindi man lang nila nalalaman ang stand ng doctina ng Santa Iglesia Catolica; ika nga ignoranting mga Katoliko. Ang ilan sa kanila ay umanib sa Iglesia ni Cristo na itinatag ni Felix Manalo noong 1914. Ang isa sa mga information na nakuha ko sa aklat (“Paano Ninyo Sasagutin”) ay makatutulong upang tatagan ang paniniwalang Katoliko at malaman ang Doctrina ng Santa Iglesia Catolica basi narin sa Biblia, Apostolic Tradition at sa Banal na Santa Iglesia Catolica; at maging sa mga karagdagang standard references ay narito:

Paano Ninyo Sasagutin

St. Paul Publication

7708 St. Paul Road, ASV

Makati, Metro Manila

Tel.:88-97-70* 85-50-82

(1st Printing, 1966)

(Revised Edition, 1986)

Pahina 128-129

Sino ang Humirang kay Manalo?

Ni Fr. Ben Carreon

(Emphasis Added)

Totoo ang iyong (Quirico Porras) sinasabing ang ginawa ng mga Kapatid nating nahihiwalay sa mga sektang Saksi ni Jehova at Iglesia ni Kristo ay pulos panlilinlang sa mga Katolikong alanganin ang paniniwala at kulang ng kaalaman sa relihyon. Una: malaking kasinungalingan ang sinasabi ng mga iglesya (Iglesia ni Cristo) na sila ang pinakauna sa lahat ng relihyon. Sang-ayon sa Encyclopedia of the Philippines, Vol. 10, 1936 edition, pahina 432-433, sinulat ni Zoila Galang, ang Iglesya ay itinatag noong 1914, sa Punta, Sta. Ana, Maynila ni Felix Manalo.

Isa rito sa 18 “hinirang ng Diyos” ay si Mr. Igmidio Zabala, dating Superintendente ng mga Iglesya sa Central Luzon, na ngayon ay nagbalik na sa pagka-Katoliko at ang sabi niya’y hindi totoo na sila’y hinirang ng Diyos. Ang humirang sa kanila ay si G. Manalo. Sa “katunayan,” sudlong pa ni Mr. Zabala, “ano mang oras ay naiaalis ni Manalo ang sino man sa amin. Siya ang nag turo sa aming kung ano ang ituturo namin sa mga kaanib sa sariling pakahulugan niya sa mga talata ng Bibliya. Siya ang nagbibigay ng sweldo sa amin.” Bakit sasabihing Diyos ang humirang sa 18 ito?

Samaktwid, sang-ayon na rin sa tinatawag ni Manalong “hinirang ng Diyos” na si Mr. Zabala, hindi totoong Diyos ang humirag sa mga ministro ng Iglesia, at gayon din hindi totoong Diyos ang humirang kay Felix Manalo. Mayroon bang Diyos na pabagu-bago ng patakaran?

At samakatwid, sang-ayon na rin kay Manalo, ang Iglesya ay natayo sa Punta, Ata. Ana, Maynila noong 1914 at hinirang ng Diyos ang kanyang mga ministro noon ding mga petsang yaon. Paano itong magiging “pinakauna” sa lahat ng relihyon? Mahina yata sa arithmetic ang ating mga kapatid na iyan.

Pahina 135

Ang Tunay na Sugo

We are very haapy to have Mr. Igmidio Zabala as a guest columnist in Paano Ninyo Sasagutin. A well-known figure in Manila, he broadcast in DZST as one of the Tinig ni Mang Huwan and writes a column in Sentinel. Mr. Zabala’s name is in the Philippines Encyclopedia as one of the original 18 Ministers of the Iglesya ni Kristo, in which sect he labored for over twenty years, rising to executive position in Luzon until he came back to the Catholic Church a few years ago. A small autobiography has been published: “Ako ay naging Ministro ng Igleya ni Kristo” in which he traced his many years with Felix Manalo and his later disillusionment. The small book has been sold out and no copy is available. We wrote the publishers to request. If they don’t we are planning to serialize it here in the Mindanao Cross.

Posted in Books (Products), Converts, How to Help others become Catholic, Iglesia ni Cristo-Manalo, What is the History of Your Church? | Leave a Comment »

Reply from Henry Arganda (Member PMCC 4thwatch) #2

Posted by catholicfaithdefender on December 27, 2008

Reply from Henry Arganda (Member PMCC 4thwatch) #2

Author : henry arganda (IP: 64.228.132.176 , bas2-windsor12-1088718000.dsl.bell.ca)
E-mail : henri_4w@yahoo.ca
URL    : http://www.pmcc4thwatch.com
Whois  : http://ws.arin.net/cgi-bin/whois.pl?queryinput=64.228.132.176
Comment:
yang pagkakamali nyo ng turo o doctrina ay nangangahulugan yan na nailigaw nyo ang tao sa tamang unawa para kayong mga fareseo sa mat.23:15 ginagawang mamamayan ng impeyerno ang tao..isa pang pagkakamali nyo na d2 pa lang ay masasabi natin na talagang mali kayo ay si pedro ang itinuturo nyong Batong kinasasaligan ng iglesia..well alam ko ginagamit nyo ang amplified bible..and i tell you peter(grk petros)a large piece of rock and upon this Rock petra i will build my church a large piece of rock like gibraltar..means ng gibraltar na syang petra (Christ) pagkalakilaki basahin mo ang gibraltar..kung anong klasing bato..#kaya si cristo ang pundasyun ng iglesia..si pedro ay isa lang sa mga haligi Gal 2:9.si pedro rin ang tanungin natin ns sya mismo ang nagsabi na sya (cristo)ang bato acts 4:10–11 o di ba marunong pa kayo kay pedro baka naman lumusot pa kayo na sabihin nyo na iba ang head of the corner or corner stone sa foundation para di ka na makalusot mr.paisones isa lang ang ibig
sabihin nyan#..Isa.28:16 “therefore thus saith the Lord God behold i lay in Zion for a foundation a stone,a precious corner stone..a sure foundation.o ano baka mali si Isais nyan tigas kasi ng ulo nyo sinabi na ni pedro eh na si Cristo ang pundasyun ayaw nyo pang tanggapin o sige sagutin mo yan#..o sige gamitin natin yung ginagamit nyo sa efeso..2:20..diba ginagamit nyo ito para patunayan na ang pundasyun ay apostol eh mali pa rin kayo ipalagay na natin na maga apostol ang pundasyun sa hindi paggamit ng ibang verse sa biglang basa ika nga mali pa rin kayo kasi sabi nyo si pedro lang ang pundasyun eh d2 mga apostol at mga propeta eh di marami nakuuu bakit paborito nyo si pedro lang mahina pundasyun nyo sa tao lang.#.ang tamang unawa d2 ay ang mga apostol at ang mga propeta nakatayo sa pundasyun na si jesucristo dahil sila nga haligi Gal 2:9 san ba nakatayo ang haligi ?sagutin mo?tanungin pa natin si pablo kung sino ang pusdasyun ng iglesia?1 cor3:11- for other foundation can no man lay
than that is laid which is laid,which is laid jesus Christ..patunayan mo mr.paisones na si pedro ang pundasyun ayon sa biblia kapag napatunayan mo yan tunay kayong iglesia ang romano kung hindi sorry to say kayong lahat pa impeyerno dahil giba ang inyong pundasyun ..pag nagiba ang pundasyun lahat ng aral nyo mali na yan..hihintayin ko ang sagot mo.

——————#0#———————#0#————————-#0#———————–

-Replied by: Brod. G-one T. Paisones-

Sasagutin na naman po natin ang mga tira at pang aalipusta ni Brad Henry Arganda sa totoong Iglesiang itinatag ni Cristo- ang Santa Iglesia Catolica. Tira ng tira si Henry Arganda sagot din tayo ng sagot sa mga tanong n’ya na may kahalong pang-aalipusta at fallacy.

Henry: “yang pagkakamali nyo ng turo o doctrina ay nangangahulugan yan na nailigaw nyo ang tao sa tamang unawa para kayong mga fareseo sa mat.23:15 ginagawang mamamayan ng impiyerno ang tao..isa pang pagkakamali nyo na dito pa lang ay masasabi natin na talagang mali kayo ay si pedro ang itinuturo nyong Batong kinasasaligan ng iglesia.”

G-one: “Eh tulad ng dati sasagutin natin si Brad Henry sa kanyang accusation sa ating mga Katoliko. Hindi po kami nag kamali Brad Henry Arganda, lahat ng mga allegation mo tungkol sa Santa Iglesia ay pawang walang ebidensya. Tulad ng nasabi ko na na “kung gusto mo ng isang maka Kristianong discussion hingil sa mga accusation mo laban sa aming mga Catholic Faith Defenders, kahit sa ano mang oras at kahit sa ano mang panahon ay handa po kaming ipagtangol ang Doctrina ng Santa Iglesia Catolica sa mga taong naninira at kumukotya sa Aral nito. I want to repeat again that we Catholic Faith Defenders are always ready in defending the Catholic Truth against its enemies in spiritual means.” Mag pasabi kalang kung saan dito sa Cebu at kalian ang gusto mo Henry Arganda.

Wala ngang logic ang mga reasoning mo Henry Arganda, tapos sasabihin mo na Impiyerno na kaming mga Catoliko. Conclusion mo pa lamang mali na; at ang mga argumento mo Henry ay pang elementary. Hindi ako naniniwala na lahat ng members ng 4th Watch PMCC ay katulad mo Henry Arganda. Wag mo namang dungisan ang religion mo; mag bigay ka naman ng respeto. Kung sa tingin mo mali ang doctrina ng Santa Iglesia Catolica at gusto mo itong wastuhin, bakit hindi ka makipag kita sa mga pari o di kaya’y sa aming mga Catholic Faith Defenders. Makipag dialogue ka sa amin sa maka Kristianong paraan. Hindi ka dapat basta-bastang tira ng tira na wala namang ebidensya. Eh para kang walang pinag-aralan d’yan kapatid. Kapatid na Henry alam kung mabuti kang tao, peru wag mo namang alipostahin ang paniniwala naming mga Katoliko dahil MALI ang paniniwala mo tungkol sa doctrina ng Santa Iglesia Catolica.

———————————-

Henry: “well alam ko ginagamit nyo ang amplified bible..and i tell you peter(grk petros)a large piece of rock and upon this Rock petra i will build my church a large piece of rock like gibraltar..means ng gibraltar na syang petra (Christ)pagkalakilaki basahin mo ang gibraltar..kung anong klasing bato”

G-one: “Nag mamarunong nga naman itong si Henry Arganda, akalain nga naman na ginamit daw naming ang Amplified Bible… Bro Henry hindi mo kasi alam ang contexts ng Matt. 16:18 sa Greek eh…

Narito ang mga punto natin:

1.) Sa Matt. 16 ang linguahe na isinulat dito ay ang Greek; pero ang linguahing sinalita o ginamit ng Panginoon Jesus at nang mga apostol ay ang Aramaic. Ang BarJonah ay salitang Aramaic na ibig sabihin ay “son of Jonah”. Majority po ng mga scholar ay naniniwala na ang madalas na wikain ng Panginoong Jesus ay ang Aramaic (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aramaic_of_Jesus)

Kaya ang Matt. 16:18 na PETROS sa pagkasulat, peru ang ibinigkas talaga ng Panginoong Jesus ay KEPHA. Pariho lang po ang kahulugan ng PETROS (in Greek) sa KEPHA (in Aramaic) – “And he brought him to Jesus. Jesus looked at him and said, “You are Simon son of John. You will be called Cephas” (which, when translated, is Peter f ). John 1:42 (TNIV)” at nasa footnote ng Today’s New International Version (TNIV) na ang CEPHAS ay Aramaic.

Kaya sa Aramaic Bible ay walang pinag-iba ang Pedro sa Bato. Pawang KEPHA po ang Aramaic word ng Pedro at Bato dahil ang ibig sabihin ng Pedro ay Bato:

Therefore sa Matt. 16:18 ang Batong pinagtatayoan ng Iglesia ay si San Pedro.

2.) Sa Matt. 16:18 ang Greek construction na “tautee tee” which means on “this” rock; on “this same” rock; or on “this very” rock. “Tautee tee” is a demonstrative construction in Greek, pointing to Peter, the subject of the sentence as the very rock on which Jesus builds His Church. The demonstrative (“tautee”) generally refers to its closest antecedent (“Petros”).

Kahit na ang mga Protestant Scholar ay nagsasabing si Pedro ang bato sa Matt. 16:18:

16:18 This rock (taute to petra) The nearest referent (for the pronoun “this”) in the context of Jesus’ statement is Peter, forming a wordplay on his name, Petros. While it is possible Jesus is referring to Peter’s confession of him as the Christ (v. 16), it seems more likely that Jesus is describing Peter and the other disciples’ future ministry as the foundation of the future church (cf. Eph. 2:20). As representative spokesman for the disciples, Peter was the first to preach to both Jews (Acts 2) and Gentiles (Acts 10) the truth that salvation is through Jesus (cf. Acts 2:36; 10:36). [petra, houtos]

David K. Lowery, B.A, Th.M., Ph.D. is a Protestant scholar and Professor of New Testament Studies, at the Dallas Theological Seminary. : The Bible Knowledge Key Word Study, copyright 2002, printed Victor Publishing, edited by Darrell L. Bock, Pg. 79


Matthew’s narrative built on Mark’s but intensified the paradox of Peter’s actions by stressing the greatness of his confession before Jesus’ devastating rebuke (Matthew 16:13-23). When Simon Peter confessed, Jesus pronounced an exultant blessing on him, not because he had figured out Jesus’ identity himself, but because God had revealed it to him. Then Jesus spoke of Simon’s identity by using a play on words, “You are Peter (Greek, petros), and on this rock (petra) I will build my church and the powers of death will not prevail against it.” Simon had been called Peter since he was first introduced in Matthew, but now the meaning of that name was revealed. He was the one through whom God revealed Jesus’ identity, and thus, strengthened by that confession, he had become the rock on which Jesus would build his community. Further, Jesus promised to him “the keys of the kingdom of heaven,” and whatever he bound or loosed on earth would be bound or loosed in heaven. The words seem consciously enigmatic. Some Christians have taken them to mean that Peter was given authority over the Church as a whole; other Christians find this too broad an interpretation. In any event, Jesus’ words seem to foreshadow Peter’s role as a principal leader of the early Church.

Mysteries of the Bible, copyright 1988, printed by Reader’s Digest Association, Edited by Alma E. Guinness, pg.313



William Hendriksen
member of the Reformed Christian Church
Professor of New Testament Literature at Calvin Seminary

The meaning is, “You are Peter, that is Rock, and upon this rock, that is, on you, Peter I will build my church.” Our Lord, speaking Aramaic, probably said, “And I say to you, you are Kepha, and on this kepha I will build my church.” Jesus, then, is promising Peter that he is going to build his church on him! I accept this view.

New Testament Commentary: Exposition of the Gospel According to Matthew
(Grand Rapids, MI: Baker, 1973), page 647
JPK page 14


Gerhard Maier
leading conservative evangelical Lutheran theologian

Nowadays a broad consensus has emerged which — in accordance with the words of the text — applies the promise to Peter as a person. On this point liberal (H. J. Holtzmann, E. Schweiger) and conservative (Cullmann, Flew) theologians agree, as well as representatives of Roman Catholic exegesis.

“The Church in the Gospel of Matthew: Hermeneutical Analysis of the Current Debate”
Biblical Interpretation and Church Text and Context
(Flemington Markets, NSW: Paternoster Press, 1984), page 58
JPK pages 16-17


Donald A. Carson III
Baptist and Professor of New Testament at Trinity Evangelical Seminary
(two quotations from different works)

Although it is true that petros and petra can mean “stone” and “rock” respectively in earlier Greek, the distinction is largely confined to poetry. Moreover the underlying Aramaic is in this case unquestionable; and most probably kepha was used in both clauses (“you are kepha” and “on this kepha“), since the word was used both for a name and for a “rock”. The Peshitta (written in Syriac, a language cognate with Aramaic) makes no distinction between the words in the two clauses. The Greek makes the distinction between petros and petra simply because it is trying to preserve the pun, and in Greek the feminine petra could not very well serve as a masculine name.

The Expositor’s Bible Commentary: Volume 8 (Matthew, Mark, Luke)
(Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 1984), page 368
JPK pages 17-18

The word Peter petros, meaning “rock” (Gk 4377), is masculine, and in Jesus’ follow-up statement he uses the feminine word petra (Gk 4376). On the basis of this change, many have attempted to avoid identifying Peter as the rock on which Jesus builds his church. Yet if it were not for Protestant reactions against extremes of Roman Catholic interpretations, it is doubtful whether many would have taken “rock” to be anything or anyone other than Peter.

Zondervan NIV Bible Commentary — New Testament, vol. 2
(Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 1994), page 78
JPK page 18


John Peter Lange
German Protestant scholar

The Saviour, no doubt, used in both clauses the Aramaic word kepha (hence the Greek Kephas applied to Simon, John i.42; comp. 1 Cor. i.12; iii.22; ix.5; Gal. ii.9), which means rock and is used both as a proper and a common noun…. The proper translation then would be: “Thou art Rock, and upon this rock”, etc.

Lange’s Commentary on the Holy Scriptures: The Gospel According to Matthew, vol. 8
(Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 1976), page 293
JPK page 19


John A. Broadus
Baptist author
(two quotations from the same work)

Many insist on the distinction between the two Greek words, thou art Petros and on this petra, holding that if the rock had meant Peter, either petros or petra would have been used both times, and that petros signifies a separate stone or fragment broken off, while petra is the massive rock. But this distinction is almost entirely confined to poetry, the common prose word instead of petros being lithos; nor is the distinction uniformly observed.

But the main answer here is that our Lord undoubtedly spoke Aramaic, which has no known means of making such a distinction [between feminine petra and masculine petros in Greek]. The Peshitta (Western Aramaic) renders, “Thou are kipho, and on this kipho“. The Eastern Aramaic, spoken in Palestine in the time of Christ, must necessarily have said in like manner, “Thou are kepha, and on this kepha“…. Beza called attention to the fact that it is so likewise in French: “Thou art Pierre, and on this pierre“; and Nicholson suggests that we could say, “Thou art Piers (old English for Peter), and on this pier.”

Commentary on the Gospel of Matthew
(Valley Forge, PA: Judson Press, 1886), pages 355-356
JPK page 20


J. Knox Chamblin
Presbyterian and New Testament Professor
Reformed Theological Seminary

By the words “this rock” Jesus means not himself, nor his teaching, nor God the Father, nor Peter’s confession, but Peter himself. The phrase is immediately preceded by a direct and emphatic reference to Peter. As Jesus identifies himself as the Builder, the rock on which he builds is most naturally understood as someone (or something) other than Jesus himself. The demonstrative this, whether denoting what is physically close to Jesus or what is literally close in Matthew, more naturally refers to Peter (v. 18) than to the more remote confession (v. 16). The link between the clauses of verse 18 is made yet stronger by the play on words, “You are Peter (Gk. Petros), and on this rock (Gk. petra) I will build my church”. As an apostle, Peter utters the confession of verse 16; as a confessor he receives the designation this rock from Jesus.

“Matthew”
Evangelical Commentary on the Bible
(Grand Rapids, MI: Baker, 1989), page 742
JPK page 30


Craig L. Blomberg
Baptist and Professor of New Testament
Denver Seminary

Acknowledging Jesus as The Christ illustrates the appropriateness of Simon’s nickname “Peter” (Petros = rock). This is not the first time Simon has been called Peter (cf. John 1:42), but it is certainly the most famous. Jesus’ declaration, “You are Peter”, parallels Peter’s confession, “You are the Christ”, as if to say, “Since you can tell me who I am, I will tell you who you are.” The expression “this rock” almost certainly refers to Peter, following immediately after his name, just as the words following “the Christ” in v. 16 applied to Jesus. The play on words in the Greek between Peter’s name (Petros) and the word “rock” (petra) makes sense only if Peter is the rock and if Jesus is about to explain the significance of this identification.

The New American Commentary: Matthew, vol. 22
(Nashville: Broadman, 1992), pages 251-252
JPK pages 31-32


David Hill
Presbyterian minister and Senior Lecturer in the Department of Biblical Studies
University of Sheffield, England

On this rock I will build my church: the word-play goes back to Aramaic tradition. It is on Peter himself, the confessor of his Messiahship, that Jesus will build the Church. The disciple becomes, as it were, the foundation stone of the community. Attempts to interpret the “rock” as something other than Peter in person (e.g., his faith, the truth revealed to him) are due to Protestant bias, and introduce to the statement a degree of subtlety which is highly unlikely.

“The Gospel of Matthew”
The New Century Bible Commentary
(London: Marshall, Morgan & Scott, 1972), page 261
JPK page 34


Suzanne de Dietrich
Presbyterian theologian

The play on words in verse 18 indicates the Aramaic origin of the passage. The new name contains a promise. “Simon”, the fluctuating, impulsive disciple, will, by the grace of God, be the “rock” on which God will build the new community.

The Layman’s Bible Commentary: Matthew, vol. 16
(Atlanta: John Knox Press, 1961), page 93
JPK page 34


Donald A. Hagner
Fuller Theological Seminary

The natural reading of the passage, despite the necessary shift from Petros to petra required by the word play in the Greek (but not the Aramaic, where the same word kepha occurs in both places), is that it is Peter who is the rock upon which the church is to be built…. The frequent attempts that have been made, largely in the past, to deny this in favor of the view that the confession itself is the rock… seem to be largely motivated by Protestant prejudice against a passage that is used by the Roman Catholics to justify the papacy.

Matthew 14-28
Word Biblical Commentary, vol. 33b
(Dallas: Word Books, 1995), page 470
JPK pages 36-37

Sa Matt. 16:18 ang phrase na “on this rock” ay reperido kay Pedro. Catholic believes that other apostles are also foundation of the church and Christ Himself is the chief cornerstone (Efe. 2:20) but in Matt. 16:18 the only reference on the phrase “on this rock” is for Saint Peter.

3.) Matt. 16:18-19 This is a three-fold blessing of Peter – you are blessed, you are the rock on which I will build my Church, and you will receive the keys to the kingdom of heaven (not you are blessed for receiving Revelation, but you are still an insignificant little pebble, and yet I am going to give you the keys to the kingdom). (http://www.scripturecatholic.com)

Tungkol naman sa sinabi ni Bro Henry na ginamit natin ang amplified Bible; isa po itong haka-haka o isang panghuhula ni Henry Arganda. But im sorry Mr. Arganda Henry mali po ang panghuhula ninyo. Hindi po kami gumamit ng Amplified Bible para lang mapatunayan ko na si San Pedro ang Bato na pinag-uusapan sa Matt. 16:18 dahil wala pa po sa kamay ko ang ganong uri o version ng Biblia. At salamat sa iyo kapatid na Henry dahil sa information mo na ibinigay mo sa amin hingil sa Amplified Bible.

At salamat na mismo kay brad Henry dahil sa kanyang information na ibinigay sa atin na buko na natin ang pag sisinungalin nya para lang masiraan ang Doctrina ng Santa Iglesia Catolica hinggil kay San Pedro. Ang sabi nya kasi “well alam ko ginagamit nyo ang amplified bible..and i tell you peter(grk petros)a large piece of rock and upon this Rock petra i will build my church a large piece of rock like gibraltar.. means ng gibraltar na syang petra (Christ) pagkalakilaki basahin mo ang gibraltar..kung anong klasing bato” –PERU ang katotohanan po, nang binasa ko po sa online ang footnote nang nasabing Amplified Bible (na inakala ni Henry na ginamit ko sa mga pagpapatotoo ko na si Pedro ay ang Bato) ang nakalagay doon ay Si Pedro or Peter’s inspired confession of faith in Jesus as the Messiah is the rock on which the church is built. Narito ang boong minsahi sa Amplified Bible:

http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?book_id=47&chapter=16&version=45

Matthew 16 (Amplified Bible)

18And I tell you, you are [e]Peter [Greek, Petros--a large piece of rock], and on this rock [Greek, petra--a [f]huge rock like Gibraltar] I will build My church, and the gates of Hades (the powers of the [g]infernal region) shall [h]not overpower it [or be strong to its detriment or hold out against it].

Footnotes:

e. Matthew 16:18 The rock on which the church is built is traditionally interpreted as either Peter’s inspired confession of faith in Jesus as the Messiah, or it may be Peter himself (see Eph. 2:20).

http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?book_id=47&chapter=16&version=45

Sa itaas malinaw na malinaw ang kamalian ni Henry Arganda dahil sabi nya na ang “Rock petra i will build my church a large piece of rock like gibraltar.. means ng gibraltar na syang petra (Christ) Peru ang footnote nang nasabing Amplified Bible ay hindi naman pala. Kaya po nabuko po natin ang kamalian ni Henry Arganda.

———————————-

Henry: “kaya si cristo ang pundasyun ng iglesia..si pedro ay isa lang sa mga haligi Gal 2:9.si pedro rin ang tanungin natin na sya mismo ang nagsabi na sya (cristo)ang bato acts 4:10–11 o di ba marunong pa kayo kay pedro baka naman lumusot pa kayo na sabihin nyo na iba ang head of the corner or corner stone sa foundation para di ka na makalusot mr.paisones isa lang ang ibig sabihin nyan”

G-one: Wala po tayong problema sa nasambit ni Henry sa itaas na si Cristo ang pundasyon at bato sa Act. 4:10-11; si Cristo ang batong espiritwal 1 Cor. 10:4 (TNIV) and drank the same spiritual drink; for they drank from the spiritual rock that accompanied them, and that rock was Christ.” Pero itinatag ng Panginoong Hesus Cristo ang Kanyang Iglesia kay Pedro Matt. 16:18, John 1:42; at sa mga Apostol at mga Propeta Efe. 2:20 (TNIV) “built on the foundation of the apostles and prophets, with Christ Jesus himself as the chief cornerstone.”

Ang pagkakamali lang po ni Henry Arganda ay ang conclusion nya’ng si Cristo ang bato sa Matt. 16:18, na wala pong ebidensya. Naniniwala po ang santa Iglesia Catolica na si Cristo ang Batong Espiritwal the Foundation of the Church (Defense Catholic Truth By Bro. Socrates Fernandez, Page 59-60) peru hindi po si Cristo ang Bato na tinotukoy sa Matt. 16:18.

Sa Bible hindi po dapat natin limitahan ang ating pang-unawa sa mga termino o mga salitang bumabasi sa SUBJECT ng mga ito dahil kalimitan ng mga TERMS na ito ay FIGURATIVE o BIBLICAL EXPRESSION.

Halimbawa:

“BATO”

-DIOS ay Bato (2 Sam. 22:2-3)

-Cristo ay Bato (1 Cor. 10:4)

-Pedro ay Bato (John 1:42)

-Believers ay Bato (1 Ped. 2:5 Magandang Balita Biblia)

“PASTOL”

-Cristo ay Pastol (John 10:11) (1 Ped. 2:25)

-Apostles & Church Leaders ay Pastol {implicit} (Act. 20:28)

-Pedro ay Pastol {implicit} (John 21:15-17)

“LION”

-Crito (Rev. 5:5)

-Judah (Gen 49:9 CEV)

-Devil like a roaring lion (1 Pet. 5:8)

Wala po akong dapat lusotan dahil ang Scripture na mismo ang nag papatunay na si Cristo ay ang Batong Espiritwal na pundasyon ng Iglesia (1 Cor. 10:4) (Defense Catholic Truth By Bro. Socrates Fernandez, Page 59), at si Pedro ay Bato (John 1:42) (My Catholic Faith By Most Reverend Louis LaRavoire Morrow, Page 98) na syang pagtatayoan ni Cristo sa Kanyang Iglesia (Matt 16:18-19) (Paano Ninyo Sasagutin By Fr. Ben Carreon, Page 126-127) at ang mga apostol at propeta (Efe. 2:20) (Catechism for Filipino Catholic {Junior Edition}, Number 482, Page 163) (Catholic Catechism By Fr. M. Guzman, Number 157, Page 39).

———————————-

Henry: “Isa.28:16 “therefore thus saith the Lord God behold i lay in Zion for a foundation a stone,a precious corner stone..a sure foundation.o ano baka mali si Isais nyan tigas kasi ng ulo nyo sinabi na ni pedro eh na si Cristo ang pundasyun ayaw nyo pang tanggapin o sige sagutin mo yan”

G-one: Itong si Henry napakasinungaling, Hindi po doctrina ng Santa Iglesia Catolica na si Cristo ay hindi foundation; kaya nga ginamit po namin ang Efe. 2:20 dahil aral ng Iglesia Catolica yang verse na yan. Ang punto po naming dito na SA MATTHEW 16:18 SI SAN PEDRO PO ANG BATO NA SINABI NI CRISTO NA PAGTATAYOAN NG KANYANG IGLESIA. Therefore Saint Peter is the Foundation of the Church in Matt. 16:18.

Para malaman ng lahat ang Doctrina ng Santa Iglesia ay ang mga ito:

Si Cristo ay ang espirituwal na BATO ng Iglesia (1 Cor. 10:4) “Yes, it is true that Christ is the leading cornerstone of the foundation (Eph. 2:20). Christ is himself, “the spiritual rock following them and the rock is Christ” (1 Cor. 10:4). This is a metaphorical Biblical expression which means that Christ is really the spiritual head and leader. However, it is willed by the Lord that there must be a visible leader in his Church and that leader be his vicar. Therefore those texts from 1 Cor. 3:11; Acts 4:11 do not contradict the Catholic teaching that Christ is the cornerstone of the foundation. However, we cannot also go against Christ’s will to appoint a visible head for His Church.”

“And now I say to you: you are Peter (or rock) and on this rock I will build My church; and never will the powers of death overcome it” (Matt. 16:18). Remember that Christ was the one who changed the name Simon into Cephas (Jn. 1:42). Cephas in Aramaic means ROCK- or BEDROCK, not an ordinary small stone rolling on the ground. Even in Greek, the word CEPHAS comes from Kephalaion which means fundamental or foundation (GREEK – SPANISH dictionary, Mendizabal, Page 298) Even though foundation is also defined by other people as faith of Peter but what is faith if there is no person holding on to it?” (Defense Catholic Truth by Bro. Socrates Fernandez, Page 59)

Si San Pedro ang pundasyon ng Iglesia sa Matt. 16:18 “At tungkol sa ‘bato’ na ayaw kilalanin ng kaibigan mo (Numer Villanosa), sabihin mo sa kanyang wala siyang balita. Halos lahat ng mga dalubhasa sa Bibliyang Protestante ay tinitiyak na walang ibang batong binabanggit si Kristo sa Mt. 16:18 kundi si Pedro. Kasama rito si Alford, Bloomfield, Kiel, Marsch, Rosmuller, Seifert, Thompson, at Weiss at iba pa. Ang mga ito’y nagsunog ng kilay bilang bihasa at iskolar sa syensya ng Biblia at lahat sila’y nagpapatotoo na walang ibang batong binanggit si Kristo sa tekstong yaon (Matt. 16:18) kundi si Pedro.” (Paano Ninyo Sasagutin by Fr. Ben Carreon, Page 126) <Emphasis added>

Ang mga Apostol at mga profeta ang pundastion ng Iglesia at si Cristo mismo ang chief cornerstone (Efe. 2:20). “The Catholic Church is apostolic because she was founded by Christ on the Apostles and in accordance with his divine will has always been and will always be governed by their lawful successors.” (Catholic Catechism By Fr. M. Guzman, Number 157, Page 39).

———————————-

Henry: “o sige gamitin natin yung ginagamit nyo sa efeso..2:20..diba ginagamit nyo ito para patunayan na ang pundasyun ay apostol eh mali pa rin kayo ipalagay na natin na maga apostol ang pundasyun sa hindi paggamit ng ibang verse sa biglang basa ika nga mali pa rin kayo kasi sabi nyo si pedro lang ang pundasyun eh d2 mga apostol at mga propeta eh di marami nakuuu bakit paborito nyo si pedro lang mahina pundasyun nyo sa tao lang”

G-one: Para sa kalinawan ng lahat hindi po namin sinabi na si Pedro lamang ang pundasyon na mababasa sa BUONG BIBLIA. Napakasinungaling po nitong si Mr. Arganda. Mr. Arganda saan po nabasa na sinulat ko na si Pedro lang ang pundasyon na mababasa sa Buong Biblia? Ang sabi ko na si Pedro lamang ang Pundation na tinotokoy na pagtatayuan ng Iglesia sa Matt. 16:18 (specific verse in the Bible; not whole Bible); hindi ko sinabing si Pedro LAMANG ang Foundation ng Iglesia na mababasa sa Buong Biblia. Para maintindihan ng lahat… Sa Matt. 16:18 si Pedro lamang ang tinutukoy na syang pagtatayuan ng Iglesia (kung sa Matt. 16:18 lamang ang pag-uusapan) peru kung sa buong biblia na pag-uusapan abay hindi ko sinasabing si San Pedro lamang ang Foundation ng Iglesia; pati narin ang Panginoong Jesu-Cristo, mga Apostol at mga Propeta ay Foundation rin ng tunay na Iglesiang itinatag ni Cristo (Efe. 2:20).

At mali daw ang nakasulat sa Efe. 2:20 na ang mga Apostol ay pundation ng Iglesia. Nako itong si Mr. Arganda kahit mababasa na eh gilubag parin. Hindi po mali ang Efe. 2:20 ang mali po ay si Mr. Arganda.

———————————-

Henry: “ang tamang unawa dito ay ang mga apostol at ang mga propeta nakatayo sa pundasyun na si jesucristo dahil sila nga haligi Gal 2:9 san ba nakatayo ang haligi ?sagutin mo?tanungin pa natin si pablo kung sino ang pusdasyun ng iglesia?1 cor3:11- for other foundation can no man lay than that is laid which is laid,which is laid jesus Christ..patunayan mo mr.paisones na si pedro ang pundasyun ayon sa biblia kapag napatunayan mo yan tunay kayong iglesia ang romano kung hindi sorry to say kayong lahat pa impeyerno dahil giba ang inyong pundasyun ..pag nagiba ang pundasyun lahat ng aral nyo mali na yan..hihintayin ko ang sagot mo.”

G-one: Sa pundation ng Tunay na Iglesia, hindi lamang si Pedro o mga apostol at mga propeta ang nag silbing pundasyon dito, bagkus nariyan si Cristo ang Batong Espiritwal(1 Cor. 10:4) na foundation din ng tunay na Iglesia (1 Cor 3:11) (Defense Catholic Truth by Bro. Socrates Fernandez, Page 59-60) dahil sasamahan nya ang Kanyang Iglesia hanggang sa kataposan ng mundo (Mat. 28:19-20) at hinding-hindi ito madadaig ng kamatayan (Matt. 16:18-19). Kaya hindi po contradict ang Matt. 16:18 at Eph. 2:20 sa 1 Cor. 3:11.

Ang ibig sabihin sa “for other foundation can no man lay” ito po yong mga itinatag na Iglesia na tao lamang ang nag tatag, at hindi si Cristo (Act 17:24 KJV “God that made the world and all things therein, seeing that he is Lord of heaven and earth, dwelleth not in temples made with hands,”) -tulad na lamang ng 4th Watch PMCC na itinatag ni Arsenio Feriol dito sa Pilipinas.

Ang 4th Watch PMCC na itinatag ni Arsenio Ferriol ay hindi tunay na iglesia sapagkat ayon kay Cristo na Siya ay mag tatag ng Kanyang Iglesia (Matt. 16:18) at naitatag nya ito (Mat. 18:17) at sasamahan nya ito araw-araw hanggang sa kataposan ng mundo (Matt. 28:19-20) kaya mula sa panahon ng Panginoon Jesu-Cristo hanggang sa kasalukoyan NARITO PARIN ANG TUNAY NA IGLESIA- AT ITO ANG SANTA, IGLESIA, CATOLICA, APOSTOLICA, ROMANA. Samantalang ang 4th Watch PMCC ay wala pang isang daan taon itong itinatag ni Arsenio Ferriol.

Ang Santa Iglesia Catolica lamang ang makapag-dugtong sa panahon ni Cristo hanggang sa kasalukoyang panahon.

MGA TANONG PARA KAY HENRY ARGANDA

  1. Si Pedro ba ay Bato?
  2. Kung ang sagot mo ay Bato, ito ba ay malaking bato o maliit na bato?
  3. Sabi mo na mali ang naka sulat sa Efe. 2:20; ano ba ang authority mo nang sabihin mo na mali ang Efe. 2:20?
  4. Makapag bigay kaba ng Bible scholar na nagsasabing ang mga apostol ay hindi foundation dyan sa citas ng Efe. 2:20?
  5. Sang-ayon kaba sa sinasabi ko na ang tunay na iglesia ay sasamahan ni Cristo araw-araw hanggang sa kataposan ng mundo?
  6. Kung hindi ka sang-ayon sa (#5); nag sisinungaling ba si Cristo ng Sabihin nya na sasamahan Niya ang kangyang Iglesia hanggang sa kataposan ng mundo(Matt. 16:18)?
  7. Kung sang-ayon ka sa (#5); sang-ayon kaba sa sinasabi ko na ang tunay na Iglesia ay narito pa sa ating kasalukoyang panahon?
  8. Kailan na itatag ang 4th Watch PMCC?
  9. Kung ang sagot mo sa (#8) ay 33 A.D.; may maipapakita kabang mga standard na mga referencia na nagpapatunay sa sagot mo?
  10. Saan mababasa sa Biblia na ang 4th Watch PMCC ay itinatag ni Cristo letra-4-letra (at word-4-word)?
  11. Saan mababasa sa standard na mga references na ang 4th Watch PMCC ay itinatag ni Cristo letra-4-letra (at word-4-word)??
  12. Saan mababasa sa Biblia 4th Watch PMCC (Sa Chapter at verses nito)?
  13. Kailan mo ba ipapaharap sa akin yong proxy mo upang matuloy na ang debate nating hinggil kung sino ang tunay na Iglesiang Itinatag ni Cristo?

Posted in Apologetics-Pope, Apologetics-Tagalog, Frequently Asked Questions, Q & A, THE CATHOLIC CHURCH HAS THE ANSWER, What is the History of Your Church? | 10 Comments »

When Was The Catholic Church founded?

Posted by catholicfaithdefender on April 10, 2008

http://www.catholicapologetics.info/

When Was The Catholic Church founded?

BY Charles The Hammer

When researching the history of the Catholic Church using public sources we find that many times thay are reluctant to give the full truth as to when and by whom the Catholic Church was found.  Some are only willing to admit the church existed in the first century but most just avoid the issue altogether.  Below, I have listed a series of citations from non-Catholic sources which are believed to be helpful in apologetics.  When you read them you’ll notice that each one admits certain details but does not discuss other details, of course it would not do well with Protestants if any encyclopedia came forward and stated ” The Catholic Church was founded in the first century by Jesus Christ ” but occasionally they’re forced to admit part of this truth such as the church existing from the first century or its connection to the apostles of Jesus Christ, is for this reason they become useful.

Protestants many times would like us to believe there was no early church structure or for that matter a specific early church and that Constantine “created” the Roman Catholic Church. they would also like us to believe there was no  standardized early church leadership and no universal church leadership, all of these were creations of the third and fourth century.  Although as a stated above not everyone the citations is as explicit as we may want them to be their very useful against the pseudo-history.

ROMAN CATHOLICISM. The largest of the Christian denominations is the Roman Catholic church. As an institution it has existed since the 1st century AD…The name of the church is derived from its base in Rome and from a Greek term meaning “universal.” The word Catholic refers to the wholeness of the church, and for many centuries the Roman church claimed to be the only true Christian denomination.(Compton’s Interactive Encyclopedia © 1996)

ROMAN CATHOLICISM: Christian church characterized by its uniform, highly developed doctoral and organizational structure that traces its history to the apostles of Jesus Christ in the 1st century C.E. (Marriam-Webster’s Encyclopedia of World Religions © 1999, page 938 )

The history of the Roman Church, therefore, in relation to the ancient oriental churches, is in fact, the history of this claim to supremacy.   The claim  of supremacy on the part of the bishop of Rome rests on the belief   that Christ conferred on the apostle Peter a ‘primacy  of jurisdiction;’ that Peter fixed his see and died at Rome and thus, that the bishops of Rome, as successors of the apostle Peter, have succeeded to his preorgatives of supremacy.  In this light, historians read the facts of the early history of the church—and they trace to this acknoledgment of the superiority of that see, the numerous references to Rome on matters of doctrine or discipline; the appeals from other churhces, even those of Alexandria, Antioch, and Constantinople; the depositions or nominations of bishops, examination and condemnation of heresies—of which the first five centuries, especially   the 4th and 5th, present examples. . . In all the controversies on the Incarnation—the Arian, the Nestorian, the Eutychian, the Monothelite—not only was the orthodoxy of Rome never impeached, but she even supplied at every crisis a rallying point for the orthodox of every church. ( Imperial Encyclopedia and Dictionary, Volume 32   © 1903)

The Church of Rome is the earliest of Christian organization; after three centuries of persecution, it was given freedom by the edict of Constantine and Licinius and acquired increased influence. Bishoprics were established in various parts of the empire, but the one at Rome remained supreme, and in time the title of Pope, or father originally borne by all the bishops indiscriminately, began to be restricted to the bishop of Rome.(The World Book Encyclopedia © 1940, Page 6166, Volume 14,)

The office of Pope was founded on the words of Christ: “And I say also unto thee, That thou art Peter [which means a rock], and upon this rock I will build my church; and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it” ( Matthew xvi, 18). The attention of every historian has been attracted by the endurance of the Papacy through centuries that have seen the downfall of every other European institution that existed when the Papacy arose, and of a number of others that have originated and fallen, while it continued t flourish. The Roman Catholic offers these facts as evidence that the Church is not merely a human institution, but that it is built “upon a rock,” (The World Book Encyclopedia © 1940, Page 5730 Volume13)

Historical Notes. The Holy Catholic Apostolic Roman Church recognizes the Bishop of Rome, the Pope, as the Vicar of Christ on this earth, and as the Head of the Church. It traces its origin from the naming of the Apostles Peter by Jesus as the chief of the Apostles . The authority of Peter as head of the Church is exercised by his successors as the Bishops of Rome. The doctrines of the Roman Catholic Church come from the faith given by Christ to his Apostles.( World Religions, By Benson Y. Landis, © 1957 Page 110)

At first the Christians were terribly persecuted, but gradually they spread the Christ’s radian spirit and teachings until they united many races, classes, and religious beliefs into a brotherhood which extended from Persia to the Atlantic Ocean. Later, this brotherhood spread to American, and Christianity became the prevailing religion of the Western Hemisphere. It has now ben taught in all countries.For nearly a thousand years the Christians remained practically one great community. Then the Greek Catholics broke away from the Roman Catholics. “The World Book Encyclopedia ©1940, Page 1413 Volume 3)

(The Catholic) Church… traces an unbroken line of popes from St. Peter in the 1st century AD to the present occupant of the papal throne. During this nearly 2,000-year period there were more than 30 false popes, most notably during the late 14th and early 15th centuries. These men were merely claimants to the position. There have rarely been periods when a genuine pope was not ruling the church. In 1978 John Paul II became the 264th true pope.(Compton’s Interactive Encyclopedia © 1996)

By A. D. 100,…Christianity had become an institution headed by a three-rank hierarchy of bishops, priests, and deacons, who understood themselves to be the guardians of the only “true faith.” The majority of churches, among which the church of Rome took a leading role, rejected all other viewpoints as heresy. Deploring the diversity of the earlier movement, Bishop Irenaeus and his followers insisted that there could be only one church, and outside of that church, he declared, “there is no salvation.” Members of this church alone are orthodox (literally, “straight-thinking”) Christians. And, he claimed, this church must be catholic– that is, universal.(The Gnostic Gospels by Elaine Pagels. Published by Vintage Books. 1994)

The Empire within the Empire.—Long before the fall of Rome there had begun to grow up within the Roman Empire an ecclesiastical state, which in its constitution and its administrative system was shaping itself upon the imperial model. This spiritual empire, like the secular empire, possessed a hierarchy of officers, of which deacons, priests or prebyters, and bishops were the most important. The bishops collectively formed what is know as the episcopate. There were four grades of bishops, namely, country bishops, city bishops, metropolitans or archbishops, and patriarchs. At the end of the third century there were five patriarchates, that is, regions ruled by patriarchs. These centered in the great cities of Rome, Constantinople, Alexandria, Antioch, and Jerusalem. Among the patriarchs, the patriarchs of Rome were accorded almost universally a precedence in honor and dignity. They claimed further a precedence in authority and jurisdiction, and this was already very widely recognized …Besides the influence of great men, such as Leo the Great, Gregory the Great, and Nicholas I, who held the seat of St. Peter, there were various historical circumstances that contributed to the realization by the Roman bishops of their claim to supremacy and aided them vastly in establishing the almost universal authority of the see of Rome. In the following paragraphs we shall enumerate several of these favoring circumstances. These matters constitute the great landmarks in the rise and early growth of the Papacy.

The belief in the Primacy of St. Peter and in the Founding by him of the Church at Rome.—The Catholic Church teaches that the apostle Peter was given by the Master primacy among his fellow apostles and, furthermore, that Christ intrusted that disciple with the keys of the kingdom of heaven and invested him with superlative authority as teacher and interpreter of the Word by the commission “Feed my sheep”; . . .”feed my lambs,” thus giving into his charge the entire flock of the Church. It also teaches that the apostle Peter himself founded the church at Rome. Without doubt he preached at Rome and suffered martyrdom there under the Emperor Nero…The Pastor as Protector of Rome.—With the advent of the barbarians there came another occasion for the Roman bishops to widen their influence and enhance their authority. Rome’s extremity was their opportunity. Thus it will be recalled how mainly through the intercession of the pious Pope Leo the Great the fierce Attila was persuaded to turn back and spare the imperial city; and how the same bishop, in the year A.D. 455, also appeased in a measure the wrath of the Vandal Geiseric and shielded the inhabitants from the worst passions of a barbarian soldiery…Thus when the emperors, the natural defenders of the capital, were unable to protect it, the unarmed Pastor was able, through the awe and reverence inspired by his holy office, to render services that could not but result in bringing increased honor and dignity to the Roman see. (Mediaeval and Modern History, By Myers, Pg 26-27 Ginn and Company New York, 1905 )

Peter: d AD 64? Apostle, pope, and saint. According to the Bible Peter, a fisherman of Galilee was originally known as Simon. He was chosen by Jesus to be the first leader (pope) of his disciples. During Jesus’ crucifixion, Peter denied knowing him, an act that Jesus had predicted and that Peter bitterly repented of. After word of Jesus’ ascension to heaven, Peter actively sought converts, and is believed to have been crucified, head downward, in Rome by Nero. In the Roman Catholic Church, he is considered to be the first Pope. (Excerpted from the Macmillan Concise Dictionary of World History, compiled by Bruce Watterau. © 1986 Macmillan Publishing Company, a division of Macmillan, Inc. All Rights Reserved.)

“If you are a Roman Catholic, Jesus Christ began your religion in the year 33. “(Ann Landers (Jewish), syndicated columnist in the Daily Record of Morris County, N.J. (from which we take this piece) for Monday, November 11,1996 reads)

“The Roman Catholic church … the only legitimate inheritor, by an unbroken episcopal succession descending from Saint Peter to the present time, of the commission and powers conferred by Jesus Christ…Until the break with the Eastern church in 1054 and the break with the Protestant churches in the 1500s, it is impossible to separate the history of the Roman Catholic church from the history of Christianity” (The Encarta Encyclopedia © 1997 says)

“33-40 A.D.The Roman Catholic Church is founded by Jesus Christ”(The Timetables of History © 1975)

“The Catholic Church…Saint Peter and the Popes who have descended in unbroken succession from him have never ceased to feed, with the life-giving Sacraments and doctrines of the Catholic Church, the sheep whom Jesus Christ, the Good Shepherd” (History Of The Popes © 1965)

“Jesus Christ has founded one only Church, the Catholic hierarchical Church, whose chief pastors are the Pope and the Bishops in union with the Pope,” (The Early Church © 1945)

“St. Peter, of Bethsaida in Galilee, From Christ he received the name of Cepha, an Aramaic name which means rock .Prince of the Apostles, was the first pope of the Roman Catholic Church. He lived first in Antioch and then in Rome for 25 years. In C.E. 64 or 67, he was martyred. St. Linus became the second pope.” (National Almanac © 1996)

“ROMAN CATHOLICISM The largest of the Christian denominations is the Roman Catholic church. As an institution it has existed since the 1st century AD, …the Roman church owes its existence to the life of Jesus Christ in the 1st century AD” (Comptons Encyclopedia  ©1995)

“Roman Catholic authority rests upon a mandate that is traced to the action of Jesus Christ himself, when he invested Peter and, through Peter, his successors with the power of the keys in the church. Christ is the invisible head of his church, and by his authority the pope is the visible head.” (Encyclopedia Britannica ©1999)

“Roman Catholicism Christian church characterized by its uniform, highly developed doctrinal and organizational structure that traces its history to the Apostles of Jesus Christ in the 1st century AD.” (Encyclopedia Britannica ©1999)

ROMAN CATHOLIC CHURCH, the largest single Christian body, composed of those Christians who acknowledge the supreme authority of the bishop of Rome, the pope, in matters of faith. The word catholic (Gr. katholikos) means “universal” and has been used to designate the church since its earliest period, when it was the only Christian church. The Roman Catholic church regards itself as the only legitimate inheritor, by an unbroken episcopal succession descending from St. Peter to the present time, of the commission and powers conferred by Jesus Christ on the 12 apostles (see APOSTLE). The church has had a profound influence on the development of European culture and on the introduction of European values into other civilizations. Its total membership as the 1990s began was about 995.8 million (about 18.8 percent of the world population). (Funk & Wagnalls Encyclopedia ©1998-2000)

The doctrine of apostolic succession, that is, the continuous transmission of ministry from the time of Jesus until today. The doctrine is found as early as the Epistle to the Corinthians (c. 96), traditionally attributed to Pope Clement I…It is expressly affirmed in Roman Catholicism. It is identified with the succession of bishops in office and interpreted as the source of the bishops’ authority and leadership role. The most specific instance of these claims is that the pope is the successor of St. Peter, who was chosen by Jesus as head of his church (see Matt. 16:16–18). (Funk & Wagnalls Encyclopedia ©1998-2000)


IN THE WRITINGS OF THE EARLY CHRISTIANS

Saint Cyprian (died A.D. 258): “He who has turned his back on the Church of Christ shall not come to the rewards of Christ; he is an alien, a worldling, an enemy. You cannot have God for your Father if you have not the Church for your mother. Our Lord warns us when He says: `he that is not with Me is against Me, and he that gathereth not with Me scattereth.’ Whosoever breaks the peace and harmony of Christ acts against Christ; whoever gathers elsewhere than in the Church scatters the Church of Christ.” (Unity of the Catholic Church)

“He who does not hold this unity, does not hold the law of God, does not hold the faith of the Father and the Son, does not hold life and salvation.” (Patrologiae Cursus Completus: Latina)

“Nay, though they should suffer death for the confession of the Name, the guilt of such men is not removed even by their blood…No martyr can he be who is not in the Church.” (Ancient Christian Writers)

“Christ has declared the unity of the Church. Whoever parts and divides the Church cannot possess Christ … The House of God is but one, and no one can have salvation except in the Church(The Unity of the Church)

There is no salvation outside the Catholic Church … and it is they who in His Church have labored in doing good works whom the Lord says shall be received into the Kingdom of Heaven on the Day of Judgment.” (Epistle 73:21)

Bishop Firmilean (died A.D. 269): “What is the greatness of his error, and what the depth of his blindness, who says that remission of sins can be granted in the synagogues of heretics, and does not abide on the foundation of the one Church.” (Anti-Nicene Fathers)

Saints Cosmas and Damian (died A.D. 303): There is absolutely no salvation outside the Catholic Church (Saints to Remember)

St. Catherine of Alexandria (died A.D. 307) “It is necessary for you to believe the Catholic Faith and to be baptized, as must every man in order to save his soul.” (Saints to Know and Love)

Lactantius (died A.D. 310): “It is the Catholic Church alone which retains true worship. This is the fountain of truth, this is the abode of the Faith, this is the temple of God; into which if anyone shall not enter, or from which if anyone shall go out, he is a stranger to the hope of life and eternal salvation.” (The Divine Institutes)

Saint Cyril of Jerusalem (died A.D. 386): “Abhor all heretics…heed not their fair speaking or their mock humility; for they are serpents, a `brood of vipers.’ Remember that, when Judas said `Hail Rabbi,’ the salutation was an act of betrayal. Do not be deceived by the kiss but beware of the venom. Abhor such men, therefore, and shun the blasphemers of the Holy Spirit, for whom there is no pardon. For what fellowship have you with men without hope. Let us confidently say to God regarding all heretics, `Did I not hate, O Lord, those who hated Thee, and did I not pine away because of Your enemies?’ For there is an enmity that is laudable, as it is written, `I will put enmity between you and the woman, between your seed and her seed.’ Friendship with the serpent produces enmity with God, and death. Let us shun those from whom God turns away.” (The Fathers of the Church)

Saint Ambrose (died A.D. 397): “Where Peter is therefore, there is the Church. Where the Church is there is not death but life eternal. …Although many call themselves Christians, they usurp the name and do not have the reward.” (The Fathers of the Church)

St. John Chrysostom (died A.D. 407): “We know that salvation belongs to the Church alone, and that no one can partake of Christ nor be saved outside the Catholic Church and Catholic Faith.” (De Capto Eutropio)

“We should mourn for those who are dying without the Faith … And well should the pagan weep and lament who, not knowing God, goes straight to punishment when he dies!” (On the Consolation of Death)

St. Gaudentius of Brescia (died A.D. 410): “It is certain that all men of Noah’s time perished, except those who merited to be in the Ark, which was a figure of the Church. Likewise, they cannot in any way now be saved who are aliens from the Apostolic Faith and the Catholic Church” (De Lect. Evangel)

Bishop Niceta of Remesiana (died A.D. 415): “He is the Way along which we journey to our salvation; the Truth, because He rejects what is false; the Life, because He destroys death. …All who from the beginning of the world were, or are, or will be justified – whether Patriarchs, like Abraham, Isaac and Jacob, or Prophets, whether Apostles or martyrs, or any others – make up one Church, because they are made holy by one faith and way of life, stamped with one Spirit, made into one Body whose Head, as we are told, is Christ. I go further. The angels and virtues and powers in heaven are co-members in this one Church, for, as the Apostle teaches us, in Christ `all things whether on the earth or in the heavens have been reconciled.’ You must believe, therefore, that in this one Church you are gathered into the Communion of Saints. You must know that this is the one Catholic Church established throughout the world, and with it you must remain in unshaken communion. There are, indeed, other so called `churches’ with which you can have no communion. …These `churches’ cease to be holy, because they were deceived by the doctrines of the devil to believe and behave differently from what Christ commanded and from the tradition of the Apostles.” (The Fathers of the Church)

Saint Jerome (died A.D. 420): “As I follow no leader save Christ, so I communicate with none but your blessedness, that is, with the Chair of Peter. For this, I know, is the rock on which the Church is built. …This is the Ark of Noah, and he who is not found in it shall perish when the flood prevails. …And as for heretics, I have never spared them; on the contrary, I have seen to it in every possible way that the Church’s enemies are also my enemies.” (Manual of Patrology and History of Theology)

“Therefore, I believe it is good for me to praise the Chair and Faith of peter: with you alone remains uncorrupted the inhereitance of the Fathers. As I follow no one but Christ, so do I therefore unite myself with Your Holiness, that is, with the Chair of Peter. Whoever eats the Lamb outside this House is profane; whoever is not in this Ark of Noah will perish in the Flood; whoever does not gather with thee scatters; that is: he who is not Christ’s is Antichrist’s.” (To Pope Damasus, Epistle 15)

Saint Augustine (died A.D. 430):No man can find salvation except in the Catholic Church. Outside the Catholic Church one can have everything except salvation. One can have honor, one can have the sacraments, one can sing alleluia, one can answer amen, one can have faith in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Ghost, and preach it too, but never can one find salvation except in the Catholic Church.” (Sermo ad Caesariensis Ecclesia plebem)

“So certain and so clear is the Catholic Faith as expressed in the words of the Apostolic See, so ancient and so well-extablished, that it would be a sacrilege for any Christian to doubt!” (Faith of the Early Fathers)

“There is nothing a Christian should dread more than to be separated from the Body of Christ, for if he is separated from the Body, he is not one of His Members. If he is not a member of Christ, then he does not live by His Spirit. “If any man have not the Spirit of Christ,” says the Apostle, “he is none of His” (Romans 8:9) … Do you also wish to live by the Spirit of Christ? Then belong to the Body of Christ. No one ascends into Heaven except him who remains glued to Christ, for “no man hath ascended into Heaven except Him Who alone descended from Heaven: the Son of man Who is in Heaven” (John 3:13). Do you want to ascend, too? Then become a member of Him Who alone ascends! For He, the Head, is one man with the other members … If, then, the Body of Christ and its members belong to “one man,” do not make two of them … He is the Bridegroom Who is the Head, the Bride is he who is in the Body. For “they two,” He said, “shall be in one flesh” (Mt. 19:5-6) … And since no one can ascend into Heaven but him who has become His member in His Body, the saying is fulfilled that “no man ascends to Heaven except Him Who descended” … What do these words mean if not that no man ascends into heaven who has not been made one with Him and, as a member, become hidden within the Body of Him who has descended from Heaven? And what is that Body if not the Church?” (Treatise on John)

“Everyone God teaches, He teaches out of pity; but whomever He does not teach, He does not teach them out of justice … The saving grace of this religion, the only true one, through which alone true salvation is truly promised, has never been refused anyone who was worthy of it; and whoever did lack it was unworthy of it. Consequently, those who have not heard the Gospel, and those who, having heard it, have refused to come to Christ, that is, to believe in Him … all of these have perished in death; they all go in one lump into condemnation.” (Predestination of the Saints; Admonition and Grace)

St. Patrick (died A.D. 493): “Not without just cause does the Apostle say: ‘Where the righteous shall scarcely be saved, where shall the sinner and the ungodly transgressor of the law find himself?’ (1Peter 4:18). The Words are not mine, but God’s and the Apostle’s and Prophet’s who have never lied: “He who believes and is baptized shall be saved, but he who does not believe shall be damned‘ (Mk 16:16). God hath spoken!” (The Writings of St. Patrick)

Saint Fulgentius (died A.D. 533): “Hold most firmly and never doubt at all that not only pagans, but also all Jews, all heretics, and all schismatics who finish this life outside of the Catholic Church, will go into the eternal fire prepared for the devil and his angels.” (Enchiridion Patristicum)

No one can be saved by any means outside the Church; all pagans and heretics are infallibly damned … Anyone who is outside the Church is walking a path not to Heaven but to Hell. He is not approaching the home of eternal life; rather, he is hastening to the torment of eternal death.” (“On the Faith of Peter” and “The Forgiveness of Sins”)

Anyone who is out of this Church is walking a path not to heaven, but to hell. He is not getting closer to the home of eternal life; on the contrary, he is hurrying to the torments of eternal death. And this is the case not only if he remains a pagan without Baptism, but even if, after having been Baptized, he continue as a heretic (To Euthymius, on the Remission of Sins)

Saint Bede the Venerable (died A.D. 735): “Just as all within the ark were saved and all outside of it were carried away when the flood came, so when all who are pre-ordained to eternal life have entered the Church, the end of the world will come and all will perish who are found outside.” (Hexaemeron)

“He who will not willingly and humbly enter the gate of the Church will certainly be damned and enter the gate of hell whether he wants to or not!” (cf. Sermon 16; PL94:129)

Posted in Marks of the True Church, What is the History of Your Church?, When Was The Catholic Church founded? | 5 Comments »

Catholics, Protestants, and History

Posted by catholicfaithdefender on April 4, 2008

Catholics, Protestants, and History

MARTY ROTHWELL

Catholicism, not Protestantism, represents the faith of the early church.

In Chapter 5 of Evangelicals, Catholics and Unity, Dr. Michael Scott Horton, Vice Chairman of the Alliance of Confessing Evangelicals, admits that Protestants are not too much into history. He has proven the validity of this statement — in regard to his own knowledge.Dr. Horton claims that Protestantism has been the true faith since the Church’s inception. In chapter 2, Dr. Horton incredibly classifies himself and other Protestants as members of the “early Catholic Church”. He defines the “early Catholic Church” by saying:

“Catholic means universal, and it refers to those truths that are, as St. Paul identified them, to be held “without controversy” (1 Tim 3:16 KJV). It also refers to that body of Christians who, distinct from the heretical and schismatic sects that have plagued Christian unity throughout the ages, submit to the doctrine and discipline of Christ as he mediates his prophetic, priestly, kingly ministry in the visible church throughout the Scriptures.”

He also says, “It was the early Roman Catholic Church that successfully opposed the Gnostics, Arians, Pelagians, and numerous other false movement, and we who count ourselves evangelical Protestants belong to this Catholic Church today.”

Dr. Horton believes that if the Catholic Church had not taken a disastrous wrong turn in her doctrines, then all Christendom would be what Protestantism is today. He says the time of the disaster occurred around the Middle Ages:

“Unfortunately, during the Middle Ages especially, the western branch of this Catholic Church (which had already divided into an East-West schism) became increasingly corrupt.”

He mentions the 11th century as a time which by then the church was rampant with “superstition, ignorance, the Crusades, the Inquisition, and an ambitious and self-indulgent papacy.”

But let us focus on two of Dr. Horton’s points concerning the early Catholic Church:

  • There was a time when the whole Church believed “without controversy” certain fundamental truths about the doctrines of the faith.
  • The early Catholic Church had successfully identified and opposed the numerous false movements of the faith.

Since Dr. Horton acknowledges these two points about the “early Roman Catholic Church”, then let us examine:

  1. The procedure the early Catholic Church used to successfully confront and oppose the numerous heresies of their day.
  2. The set of fundamental truths believed on by the entire church at the time prior to the Catholic-Orthodox schism.

As Dr. Horton notes, there were many heresies throughout the first 11 centuries of the Church’s existence. Whenever there was a major issue concerning matters of faith and morals in the church, it seems the Church followed the pattern given in Acts 15.

Even in the time of the apostles, the Church had to decide on matters of faith and morals. There was a great schism developing between the Christian Pharisees and other Christians. The Church had to come to agreement on the issue regarding whether Gentile Christians were obligated to keep the law of Moses as Jewish Christians had been doing. Here is how they decided the issue:

  • The apostles and presbyters of various churches came together to discuss the issue.
  • All sides were allowed to explain and defend their position.
  • St. Peter, the apostles, and presbyters came to a consensus.
  • The Church, trusting that the Holy Spirit was guiding them, issued their declaration, which was to be believed and obeyed by the faithful.

In this particular instance, St. Peter first gave the parameters of what was allowed in the discussion, and it was further fleshed out and discussed from there. But the pattern remains basically the same.

What is done today? The bishops convene to discuss an issue, they reach a consensus and if the Pope (as sitting in the chair of St. Peter) ratifies the consensus of the bishops, the issue is believed to have been properly guided by the Holy Spirit and decided. If the bishops hold a council and reach a decision, but St. Peter does not ratify it, then nothing comes of the council.

Also, as we have already seen in Acts 15, if needs be, St. Peter can also issue guidelines of allowable parameters of discussion by himself without a council. But normally, a council is held and the consensus is given to St. Peter for his review.

This model has been used successfully for 2,000 years as the mechanism the Church uses to squelch heresy.

I think anyone can see this is a reasonable and proper manner for deciding matters in the Church. It provides a reasonable venue to let all sides discuss the matter and a system of checks and balances. When this procedure is used and the outcome decided, it is to be believed that the Holy Spirit himself infallibly guided the outcome; therefore it cannot be revoked at a later time.

This also serves to aid the Church, because now they can treat this decision as infallibly given by God and can be used as a defense in further discussions on other matters. This decision becomes part of clarifying the deposit of faith once delivered to the Church by the apostles.

Anyone who would try to deny that this method works could only do so by eviscerating God’s power to speak to His own Church. Secondly, this method has a proven track record of working for 2,000 years. Anyone who contends for another method will be hard pressed to come up with a better method or one that has a better track record.

Now, given that the Church adhered to this procedure to ascertain correct doctrine from heresies, what doctrines were derived and held without controversy prior to the schism in 1054?

The list below gives the doctrines “held without controversy” throughout the Church prior to the 11th century.

Historical Christian doctrines “held without controversy” prior to the schism of the 11th century.

  1. God the Son is of the same substance and nature as God the Father.
  2. God is a Triune Being (Trinity).
  3. Jesus has a fully human and a fully divine nature in one being
  4. The Real Presence of the Body and Blood of Christ exists in the Eucharist.
  5. Apostolic Succession of Bishops is essential to the preservation of the Faith.
  6. Scripture and Tradition together are rules of faith.
  7. The Holy Spirit infallibly guides the Church into all truths.
  8. Baptismal Regeneration.
  9. Believers are saved by the grace of God and their obedient faith.
  10. Believers can lose their salvation through sin.
  11. Infant Baptism.
  12. The Bible is comprised of 27 books of the NT and 46 books of OT. (Deuterocanonical Books are part of Scripture).
  13. Male only Priesthood.
  14. Primacy of the Bishop of Rome among Bishops.
  15. Canonization and Veneration of Saints.
  16. The prayers of departed saints are effectual for us.
  17. Confessions of sins to a priest.
  18. Penance should be done for sins committed.
  19. State of most of the departed faithful are in a temporary holding place awaiting their final judgment, although those who have lived a truly holy life on earth can go straight to heaven.
  20. Prayers for the other departed faithful are effectual in helping them grow in grace.
  21. The Seven Sacraments: Baptism, Confirmation, Confession, Communion, Marriage, Holy Orders, and Extreme Unction
  22. High honor and veneration given to the Blessed Ever-Virgin Mary as the Theotokos (the Mother of God—the New Eve).
  23. Liturgical Worship as the “Melody of Theology”.
  24. Images in worship were admitted as a helpful means in worship.

These are not simply Catholic doctrines, but historical Christian doctrines. How do we know this? Because in the 11th century when the Eastern Orthodox Churches split from the Catholics, both sides kept these doctrines!

These doctrines were “held without controversy”, to quote Dr. Horton (and St. Paul) earlier. Regardless of their other differences, both sides believed, and continue to believe to this day, that all of the above doctrines are part of the deposit of faith given by the apostles to the Church.

Therefore, anyone who claims to be connected with historical Christianity would certainly hold to these doctrines also. Protestants must answers the following questions before Protestantism can be taken seriously:

  • Arguments over the nature of Christ went on for centuries. Heresies such as Docetism, Gnosticism, Adoptionism, Monarchianism, Arianism, Sabellianism, Apollinarianism, Nestorianism, Monphysitism and Monotheletism were all connected to the nature of Jesus. If Protestants believe the Holy Spirit kept the early Catholic Church from falling into error during those times of heresy, then why can’t they accept the other doctrines that were decided using the same procedures to combat the heresies? Why do they pick and choose now what doctrines to believe? And who are they to pick and choose now what all Christendom had previously agreed upon?
  • The whole concept of Protestantism rests on Sola Scriptura. But in the councils convened to discuss the heresies listed above, all sides argued from Scripture to prove their point! Is it not obvious that there needs to be some governing authority in Christianity that can decide which interpretation is to be held? Would God leave us in a state where we could not know with certainty what truths we are to hold?
  • In fact, Protestantism itself can exist now only because the Catholic Church has successfully defined so much of Christian doctrine for Protestants to borrow from. There is much less doctrine for the Protestants to argue about. If the Church had to use the Protestant model from her inception, she would have disintegrated into a meaningless morass of confused doctrines with no means to pull herself out of the muck and mire. It only took 500 years for Protestantism to disintegrate into 28,000 denominations. Imagine if the Protestant model had existed for 2,000 years?
  • It is ironic that most Protestants now deny almost all of the articles of faith that historic Christians held! How would any religious organization that claims to be historic deny the previously held historic beliefs and then invent new doctrines that the historic Church had either never held or previously rejected! The historic Church had rejected doctrines like Sola Scriptura, Salvation by Faith Alone, and Eternal Security. In what sense, then, can Protestants claim to be “historic”?

Let us also examine these points about Catholicism:

  • Luther protested against the practices of the Church and introduced a new doctrine of justification. The Catholic Church accepted his criticism about the practices and changed them. But they denied his new doctrines were sound, because they were against the “tradition of deposit of faith”.
  • The Church arrived at her decision against Luther’s doctrines in the exact same way it had fought Arianism and other heresies. (i.e., through councils, discussion, study of Scripture, earlier council decisions, early church father’s writings, prayer, vote and St. Peter’s ratification). So when Luther did not “submit to the doctrine and discipline of Christ as he mediates his prophetic, priestly, kingly ministry in the visible church…” (to quote from Dr. Horton), then he became another of “the heretical and schismatic sects that have plagued Christian unity throughout the ages”.

Where does that leave us?

Dr. Horton can choose to join or reject the Catholic Church, but he cannot claim Protestantism has any connection to historical Christianity. In fact, for Dr. Horton to feel the need to write to his fellow Protestants and assure them that they are connected to historic Christianity begs the point that Protestants today do not feel they are part of historic Christianity. It is absolutely clear that Luther broke with the historic doctrines of the faith and created his own doctrines.

Luther did have many debates with clerics and theologians. He certainly did not “overwhelm their opponents with citations from the Church Fathers as well as from scriptures.” In fact, Luther tried to remove the Epistle of St. James, Revelation, and the Epistle to the Hebrews from the New Testament canon because he felt they were at odds with his interpretation of Scripture.

Cardinal John Henry Newman was a prominent 18th century Anglican bishop who also grappled with the problems between Protestantism and historical Christianity. Unlike Dr. Horton, he did not try to rewrite Church history. Instead he saw the fallacies Protestantism is built on, and converted to Catholicism. He wrote:

“And this one thing is certain…the Christianity of history is not Protestantism. If there ever were a safe truth, it is this. And Protestantism has ever felt it so… This is shown in the determination…of dispensing with historical Christianity altogether, and of forming a Christianity from the Bible alone: men never would have put [historical Christianity] aside, unless they had despaired of it… To be deep in history is to cease to be Protestant.”

Today, Protestants are continuing to come to the Catholic Church as they read the early Church fathers for themselves. We respectfully request Dr. Horton to do the same.

ACKNOWLEDGEMENT

Marty Rothwell. “Catholics, Protestants, and History.” Petersnet September 4, 2002.

This article reprinted with permission from the author.

THE AUTHOR

Marty Rothwell became a Christian in 1973. As he began reading the early church fathers for a course he was teaching, it didn’t take him long to realize the discrepancies between what the early church believed and what his Protestant denomination taught. He then began studying the differences between the Orthodox and Catholic positions and, in spite of his strong anti-Catholic bias was surprised to find that Catholicism had very well reasoned arguments for the positions it held. In addition it was the first time he had encountered a church that was intellectually vigorous and very pious spiritually. It also, as Marty says, could make a refreshing claim no Protestant church could, that it was there from the beginning. Marty and his family were received into the Catholic Church in Dec 1999. Marty Rothwell is now a member of St. Andrew the Apostle Catholic Church in Clifton, Virginia. He can be reached at martyr@starpower.net

Copyright © 2002 Marty Rothwell

Posted in What is the History of Your Church? | Leave a Comment »

What is the History of Your Church?

Posted by catholicfaithdefender on March 25, 2008

Church Year Established Founder Where Established
Catholic 33 Jesus Christ Jerusalem
Orthodox 1054 Schismatic Catholic
Bishops
Constantinople
Lutheran 1517 Martin Luther Germany
Anabaptist 1521 Nicholas Storch &
Thomas Munzer
Germany
Anglican 1534 Henry VIII England
Mennonites 1536 Menno Simons Switzerland
Calvinist 1555 John Calvin Switzerland
Presbyterian 1560 John Knox Scotland
Congregational 1582 Robert Brown Holland
Baptist 1609 John Smyth Amsterdam
Dutch Reformed 1628 Michaelis Jones New York
Congregationalist 1648 Pilgrims and Puritans Massachusetts
Quakers 1649 George Fox England
Amish 1693 Jacob Amman France
Freemasons 1717 Masons from four lodges London
Methodist 1739 John & Charles
Wesley
England
Unitarian 1774 Theophilus Lindey London
Methodist Episcopal 1784 60 Preachers Baltimore, MD
Episcopalian 1789 Samuel Seabury American Colonies
United Brethren 1800 Philip Otterbein &
Martin Boehn
Maryland
Disciples of Christ 1827 Thomas & Alexander
Campbell
Kentucky
Mormon 1830 Joseph Smith New York
Methodist Protestant 1830 Methodist United States
Church of Christ 1836 Warren Stone &
Alexander Campbell
Kentucky
Seventh Day Adventist 1844 Ellen White Washington, NH
Christadelphian (Brethren
of Christ
1844 John Thomas Richmond, VA
Salvation Army 1865 William Booth London
Holiness 1867 Methodist United States
Jehovah’s Witnesses 1874 Charles Taze Russell Pennsylvania
Christian Science 1879 Mary Baker Eddy Boston
Church of God in Christ 1895 Various churches of God Arkansas
Church of Nazarene c. 1850-1900 Various religious bodies Pilot Point, TX
Pentecstal 1901 Charles F. Parkham Topeka, KS
Aglipayan 1902 Gregorio Aglipay Philippines
Assemblies of God 1914 Pentecostalism Hot Springs, AZ
Iglesia ni Christo 1914 Felix Manalo Philippines
Four-square Gospel 1917 Aimee Semple
McPherson
Los Angeles, CA
United Church of Christ 1961 Reformed and
Congregationalist
Philadelphia, PA
Calvary Chapel 1965 Chuck Smith Costa Mesa, CA
United Methodist 1968 Methodist and United
Brethren
Dallas, TX
Born-again c. 1970s Various religious bodies United States
Harvest Christian 1972 Greg Laurie Riverside, CA
Saddleback 1982 Rick Warren California
Non-denominational c. 1990s various United States

Posted in What is the History of Your Church? | 1 Comment »

 
Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 52 other followers