Jim Staples said---

The encyclopedia says the Catholic Church was founded by Jesus so secularists agree with us but here it says “The Church teaches it was founded by Jesus” that has a different meaning.

I know if I post this on another web site they will come back with that answer and say that doesn’t prove anything. Some think the Church wasn’t even around for years after Christ died. I think that type of thinking is getting more prevalent all the time.

Here is the site for the encyclopedia. Do you think this site is accurately portraying the Church as it is? I know Wikipedia asks people to correct them when they see errors on their pages. Do you think they did a good job describing the Church?

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Catholic_Church

In Wikipedia what we get is what was posted by who posted it, as carved about by other posters.

At best its value can be that it gives a flavour of the topic with plenty of links to sources.

On some subjects contributors are giving up contributing because trolls are deleting or twisting decent additions.

Each Wikipedia page should have a Talk page attached. In the Talk page for this I see some fullish and part reviews of the page. The latest addition to the talk page was 28th of August this year.

With all due respect I think you should give us Wikipedians a little bit more credit. I always cite my sources sometimes painstakingly so

The Church was founded by Christ Himself the very moment HE told Simon Son of Jonas
"Simon bar Jonas You are Peter and on this rock I will found MY CHURCH"

Let them stew on their own twisted ideas about the Church, Jesus could not have been more clear.
And whoever says that the ancient Church committed apostasy please let them know they are calling Jesus a liar. Jesus promised that the “Gates of Hell will NOT prevail against HIS CHURCH” and that “HE will be with HER until the end of AGE”.
Their man made traditions and ideas have no chance against Jesus. IF they truly want TO BE Christians…Heads up they need to be in HIS Church.

This is well said, and it was prefigured in the Old Testament when the keys of the Davidic Kingdom were bestowed on his successor while he was still King.

The expression “power of the keys” is derived from Christ’s words to St. Peter (in Matthew 16:19). The promise there made finds its explanation in Isaiah 22, in which “the key of the house of David” is conferred upon Eliacim, the son of Helcias, as the symbol of plenary authority in the Kingdom of Juda.
Christ by employing this expression clearly designed to signify his intention to confer on St. Peter the supreme authority over His Church.

More

I am not intending to be intentionally thick headed. I just do not see the difference. Jesus established His Church scripture is clear about that. The Church has the responsibility to teach that truth as well as many others. The Church does in fact teach that it was founded by Jesus and has a nice title deed to go along with an unbroken line (we know every successor of Peter on down to Pope Francis).

I am sure I am missing something in the above statement I just don’t see the issue.

Good for you. However not everyone on Wikipedia is working toward telling the whole truth and may in fact be working to warp history to their liking. Wikipedia is only as good as the person doing the contributing. Always take Wikipedia with a grain or more of salt. Using Wikipedia as fact is a lazy mans way of “keeping up on things”. When looking for factual information about history a wise person will dig a lot deeper than one source.

This may not address you main question, but TIM (:p) often uses this argument, and I’m familiar with it enough to know that he’s talking about the Encyclopedia Britannica, and not Wikipedia. I’m not sure if that point is relevant to your concern.

As for the argument: all it is meant to prove is that a secularist can interpret history in a way which is consistent with the Church’s understanding of its own founding. On its own, this fact can be used to alleviate anxiety with regard to bias, but it certainly isn’t a smoking gun. As such, it should only be used in tandem with better arguments, which Tim certainly has and uses.

I am glad to do so.

I do find, on some subjects (in all fields) it gives a very good start on the subject.

I think that if one can see pretty soon what quality of article one is reading one can tell which articles are good and we would be much the worse without those.

Then there are a certain amount that aren’t so solid but even they give some sources for further research which is mostly what I am after. All the cross references are also very valuable.

Without being an expert on the Church this one struck me as goodish but with a few probable weaker points. Seems to have quite a lot of sources but I don’t know whether those are more plentiful or reliable on some angles than others.

My approach would be to pick some and see whether I got the feel of a sense of balance about the approach. I often use Wikipedia to approach part of a field rather than the whole. I supplement it with search engines, also any reference books I come across.

I always feed into my assessment related knowledge on similar or connected subjects as a check whether it makes sense.

As for the phrase quoted by OP I think that is pretty fair wording in itself, in the context.

britannica.com/topic/Roman-Catholicism

Ok, I went to the encyclopedia Britannica, which I wanted to go to in the first place but my computer threw me into Wikipedia, and Britannia is clearer about Christ founding the Church, not absolutely clear but better than Wikipedia. Of course, those who will argue against it will probably still not accept what it has to say.

DISCLAIMER: The views and opinions expressed in these forums do not necessarily reflect those of Catholic Answers. For official apologetics resources please visit www.catholic.com.