Revelation in the Catholic Church

This question is for Muslims, coming from myself as a lapsed Muslim:

What does the claim that Jesus Christ Himself founded the Catholic Church, and gave Her divine authority to teach, mean to you?

More information here:
http://www.vatican.va/archive/hist_councils/ii_vatican_council/documents/vat-ii_const_19651118_dei-verbum_en.html

Edited by 786SalamKhan - 06 October 2016 at 12:13pm

asep48garut60 wrote: Yes, I will follow Jesus if I've been born at the time of his prophethood of Yesus. Regards. Asep

Anything contrary to the truth, is by that very fact, false. Once again, Christianity and Islam cannot both be true.

Edited by 786SalamKhan - 07 October 2016 at 2:54am

DavidC wrote: 786SalamKhan wrote: This question is for Muslims, coming from myself as a lapsed Muslim: What does the claim that Jesus Christ Himself founded the Catholic Church, and gave Her divine authority to teach, mean to you? More information here: http://www.vatican.va/archive/hist_councils/ii_vatican_council/documents/vat-ii_const_19651118_dei-verbum_en.html Jesus did indeed found a church, which is detailed in Matthew, but it was a Jewish sect derived from Jesus' Pharisee roots. It is difficult to think about Christianity as a seperate religion until after Jesus' death, Paul comes into the picture and incorporates the gentiles. Before Paul, Christians had to be Jewish. In Martin Ling's biography of Muhummad drawn from hadith, only the Ebionite and Nestorian Christians are mentioned. Waraq, Kadija's uncle was an Ebionite bishop and Muhummad's gift of prophecy was proclaimed by a Nestorian monk. No mention is made of the much larger churches in Rome, Istanbul or Egypt.

If you are going to cite the Gospel according to St. Matthew, please keep in mind that it states Jesus founded the Church on St. Peter (Matthew 16:18).

This same St. Peter said the following about St. Paul:

"As also in all his epistles, speaking in them of these things; in which are certain things hard to be understood, which the unlearned and unstable wrest, as they do also the other scriptures, to their own destruction." -2 Peter 3:16

There are those who deny the Petrine authorship of these letters, which is absurd. People who do so reject it because of the difference in style between 1 Pet and 2 Pet. Apparently they were paying so much attention to the style, they forgot to look at the actual content. Look at 1 Pet 5:12-

"By Sylvanus, a faithful brother unto you, as I think, I have written briefly: beseeching and testifying that this is the true grace of God, wherein you stand."

Peter dictated 1 Peter to Silvanus who obviously cleaned up Peter's grammer.

Peter wrote 2 Peter without any help. Since he was not exactly a Greek scholar and they didn't have Rosetta Stone at the time, his grammer was less than perfect.

You may want to read the Acts of the Apostles in the New Testament; the answer to whether the Church is for Jews or for all can be found there.

DavidC wrote: St. Peter had no unique relationship to the Roman Catholic church. In the early church, the bishops of Alexandria, Greece and Rome were equals and all have equal claim to apostolic authority. I may or may not choose to continue in this discussion. My objective in this topic is to provide Muslims accurate answers their questions about Christianity in general and to increase my own knowledge of Islam. There are other, better venues in which to converse about details of church history which are unrelated to Islam.

This probably isn't the time and place, but:

The Apostolic Sees which universally governed the early Church were Rome, Antioch, and Alexandria; as can be seen in Canon 6 of the Council of Nicea.

However, prior to this, we can see in the writings of St. Irenaeus, him stressing the importance of maintaining communion with the See of Rome.

What is the criteria for an Ecumenical Council? How do we know that Ephesus II was a Robber Council despite it having near enough the same amount of attendees as Constantinople I? ("Contradicitur!") The See of Rome.

During the Acacian schism, which Apostolic See was said to have always preserved the faith unsullied in the Hormisdas Formula? The See of Rome.

During the 6th, 7th, and 8th centuries, when the Apostolic Sees of Antioch and Alexandria had already fallen to the Monophysite heresy, and the Sees of Constantinople and Jerusalem had temporarily fallen to the Monothelite heresy and Iconoclasm, which Apostolic See was considered to be orthodox? The See of Rome.

This only affirms the Catholic doctrine of Indefectability, where the Apostolic See of Rome is the only specific Church guaranteed to not fall into heresy or apostasy.

As Msgr. Knox said:

�Strange as it may seem I had always assumed at the back of my mind that when my handbooks talked about �Arian� and �Catholic� bishops they knew what they were talking about; it never occurred to me that the Arians also regarded themselves as Catholics and wanted to know why they should be thought otherwise. �Ah! but,� says my Church historian �the Church came to think otherwise, and thus they found themselves de-Catholicized in the long run.� But what Church? Why did those who anathematized Nestorius come to be regarded as �Catholics� rather than those who still accept his doctrines? I had used this argument against the attitude of the Greek Orthodox Church when it broke away from unity, but it had never occurred to me before that what we mean when we talk of the Catholic party is the party in which the Bishop of Rome was, and nothing else: that the handbooks had simply taken over the word without thinking or arguing about it, as if it explained itself; but it didn�t.�

Edited by 786SalamKhan - 07 October 2016 at 2:25pm