A Catholic response to this please?

  • Thread starter Thread starter Truth_Faith13
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Long story short, the Catholic Church either is the Church Christ founded or it isn’t. If it is, then problem solved. If it isnt, then all Protestant denominations aren’t true either since they came from the Catholic Church and wouldn’t have apostolic authority anyway. Same with Eastern Orthodox, it was split from the Catholic Church and I don’t think it actually exists in the UK (I’ve never seen one of their churches anyway!)

Catholic or LDS, apostasy (as in loss of authority) or not (granted there are other restorationist churches)
This is so overly simplistic of an understanding of the ecclesiology of the various Christian denominations that it renders your dilemma a false one (i.e. a logically fallacious False Dilemma). Implicit in your calculus here is a uniquely Mormon understanding of “the Church”: that the Church is explicitly hierarchical and that hierarchy is based on the nebulously Mormon concept of “priesthood authority”. More importantly, this dilemma, as you have set it up, demonstrates to me that you don’t quite understand the ecclesiology of the Orthodox (both Chalcedonian and non-Chalcedonian). You seem to take the Mormon narrative of Christian history for granted: that there’s a valuable epistemological divide between the apostate Catholics (and all their “harlot daughters” found among the various Orthodox, Protestants, and even non-Mormon Restorationists) and the LDS. Why is that? What is it about this narrative that you find convincing?
 
This is so overly simplistic of an understanding of the ecclesiology of the various Christian denominations that it renders your dilemma a false one (i.e. a logically fallacious False Dilemma). Implicit in your calculus here is a uniquely Mormon understanding of “the Church”: that the Church is explicitly hierarchical and that hierarchy is based on the nebulously Mormon concept of “priesthood authority”. More importantly, this dilemma, as you have set it up, demonstrates to me that you don’t quite understand the ecclesiology of the Orthodox (both Chalcedonian and non-Chalcedonian). You seem to take the Mormon narrative of Christian history for granted: that there’s a valuable epistemological divide between the apostate Catholics (and all their “harlot daughters” found among the various Orthodox, Protestants, and even non-Mormon Restorationists) and the LDS. Why is that? What is it about this narrative that you find convincing?
I’m sorry I don’t understand your post fully? However my ideas are certainly not from an LDS perspective. If anything it’s Catholic. Even a Catholic convert book I read said he thought his only options were Catholicism and Mormonism. I don’t know anything about the Eastern Orthodox other than the Roman Catholics Church and EO separated at some point and I don’t think the EO accepts the Pope but as I said I don’t think we have them here! I’ve never seen one. I think my idea is down to Apostolic Succession which although different in the two is in both Catholic and LDS.
 
Hoping this is the right place to post this…

In my research on Catholicism vs Mormonism etc, I came across this article on a website regarding the supposed “origins of the Catholic Church”. To summarise, it is saying that the Catholic Church didn’t exist until the 4th Century and the true Christian Church was paganised. Is there a Catholic answer to this please?

gotquestions.org/origin-Catholic-church.html
a condensed 400 year history going back to the 1st century

All these references are properly referenced #34
open all the internal links
 
Long story short, the Catholic Church either is the Church Christ founded or it isn’t. If it is, then problem solved.** If it isnt, then all Protestant denominations aren’t true either** since they came from the Catholic Church and wouldn’t have apostolic authority anyway. Same with Eastern Orthodox, it was split from the Catholic Church and I don’t think it actually exists in the UK (I’ve never seen one of their churches anyway!)

Catholic or LDS, apostasy (as in loss of authority) or not (granted there are other restorationist churches)
Hi!
…I think you’ve responded to your quest–Christ Founded one Church and Promised: 1) not to leave her orphaned, 2) send to her the other Paraclete that would abide with and in her, bringer her to the Fullness of Truth, 3) remain with her till the end of age/times, 4) that the gates of hades (hell) would not prevail against her.

You’ve hit on a very precise and determining thought: either Christ Founded the Catholic Church (proven by Apostolic Succession and the fact that she remains challenged but not fallen by the gates of hell) or there’s no Body of Christ.

Maran atha!

Angel
 
Even a Catholic convert book I read said he thought his only options were Catholicism and Mormonism. I don’t know anything about the Eastern Orthodox other than the Roman Catholics Church and EO separated at some point and I don’t think the EO accepts the Pope but as I said I don’t think we have them here! I’ve never seen one. I think my idea is down to Apostolic Succession which although different in the two is in both Catholic and LDS.
Throughout history many many denominations have borrowed aspects of Catholic theology, tradition, rite. This does not make them genuine, and even were they to become a pure carbon copy of the Catholic Church, that would still not make it genuine.
 
Hoping this is the right place to post this…

In my research on Catholicism vs Mormonism etc, I came across this article on a website regarding the supposed “origins of the Catholic Church”. To summarise, it is saying that the Catholic Church didn’t exist until the 4th Century and the true Christian Church was paganised. Is there a Catholic answer to this please?

gotquestions.org/origin-Catholic-church.html
gotquestions.org grossly distorts history and misrepresents Church teaching. It has no forum in which to challenge their false assertions.

Was Leo the Great the First Pope?
an excellent article by Dave Armstrong


Anti-Catholic Myths and Lies - Constantine Founder Myth

Is Catholicism Pagan? Catholic Answers

https://s5.postimg.org/dozlwdmh3/catacomb_of_priscilla.jpg
The oldest known image of the Virgin Mary, located in the Catacomb of Priscilla on the Via Salaria in Rome, circa 150 AD
 
That’s historically inaccurate. The church was already well up and running and all that happened in the 4th century was the Edict of Tolerance (Edict of Milan) in 312 and then the canon of scripture in 382 (council of Rome) . CA has a good article on this at The Old Testament Canon
 
Thanks 4 the artucal . fr. John harden seems to have developed a program similar. Catholic cathisis . 3 principles 1. Real presence. 2. Mary adoration. 3 believe the papsy. His teachings on Pentecostal. And mystism. Show the difference of catholic vs christian
 
Thanks 4 the artucal . fr. John harden seems to have developed a program similar. Catholic cathisis . 3 principles 1. Real presence. 2. Mary adoration. 3 believe the papsy. His teachings on Pentecostal. And mystism. Show the difference of catholic vs christian
Hi!

…only one clarification…

“Catholic vs. non-Catholic Christian.”

…too many times we still find Believers that are working from the premise that Catholics are not Christians… when we (Catholics) attempt to make a distinction we should make certain that Christianity is not removed from Catholicism… as that would give credence to these poorly trained Christians.

Maran atha!

Angel
 
Hoping this is the right place to post this…

In my research on Catholicism vs Mormonism etc, I came across this article on a website regarding the supposed “origins of the Catholic Church”. To summarise, it is saying that the Catholic Church didn’t exist until the 4th Century and the true Christian Church was paganised. Is there a Catholic answer to this please?

gotquestions.org/origin-Catholic-church.html
As an item of interest, it was decided at the Protestant Reformation that there was no such thing as an official, authoritative interpreter of scripture, such as the Catholic Church claimed to be.

However, as time went on, some Protestants realized the need for such an official interpreter, and they created churches that were just that. One of them is the Mormon Church. It makes interpretations and statements on religious matters, under guidance from the Holy Spirit.

The Jehovah’s Witnesses’ Watchtower Society is another such body, created by former Protestants who recognized that there should be an organization officially sanctioned by God to interpret scripture and settle doctrinal controversies.

Both the Mormon Church and the Watchtower Society are very hierarchical, and are miniature Catholic Churches in their structure. (But certainly not in their theology, which is neither Catholic nor Protestant!)

There were other Protestants who “protested” against this aspect of Protestant dogma, and founded churches that were at least God’s semi-official interpreters of scripture, such as Ellen G. White and Herbert W. Armstrong.

Jesus said, You will know the truth… What do you think, did Jesus found an organization to preach His truth, interpret scripture, and to officially settle religious controversies? Or did He leave us orphans, mercy to any man-made wind of doctrine, unable to tell which is truth and which isn’t?

.
 
As an item of interest, it was decided at the Protestant Reformation that there was no such thing as an official, authoritative interpreter of scripture, such as the Catholic Church claimed to be.

However, as time went on, some Protestants realized the need for such an official interpreter, and they created churches that were just that. One of them is the Mormon Church. It makes interpretations and statements on religious matters, under guidance from the Holy Spirit.

The Jehovah’s Witnesses’ Watchtower Society is another such body, created by former Protestants who recognized that there should be an organization officially sanctioned by God to interpret scripture and settle doctrinal controversies.

Both the Mormon Church and the Watchtower Society are very hierarchical, and are miniature Catholic Churches in their structure. (But certainly not in their theology, which is neither Catholic nor Protestant!)

There were other Protestants who “protested” against this aspect of Protestant dogma, and founded churches that were at least God’s semi-official interpreters of scripture, such as Ellen G. White and Herbert W. Armstrong.

Jesus said, You will know the truth… What do you think, did Jesus found an organization to preach His truth, interpret scripture, and to officially settle religious controversies? Or did He leave us orphans, mercy to any man-made wind of doctrine, unable to tell which is truth and which isn’t?

.
Yes, and it seems that even more mainstream Protestant churches, as well as individuals who hold to Sola Scriptura, must in some way consider their interpretations to be infallible even if never admitting to such a thing. Otherwise it should be quite impossible to declare one theology as wrong-and one’s own as right.
 
I agree with the earlier post that suggested your best bet is to read the letters of Ignatius of Antioch (e.g. to the Smyrnaeans and Philadelphians) Clement of Rome, and Irenaeus of Lyon.

You’ll clearly see the Roman Catholic Church in the first century and its link to the apostles.

You can also make links to events in scripture. For example, Irenaeus refers to Linus mentioned in 1 Timothy- the second bishop of Rome.

Acts 11 indicates the disciples were first called Christians at Antioch. Ignatius was the third bishop there.

Using dates of everyone involved, and of the scriptures, you can piece together the timeline.
 
Yes, and it seems that even more mainstream Protestant churches, as well as individuals who hold to Sola Scriptura, must in some way consider their interpretations to be infallible even if never admitting to such a thing. Otherwise it should be quite impossible to declare one theology as wrong-and one’s own as right.
Hi, F!

…I fully concur!

…what I find truly amazing is their prowess of compartmentalizing… they take whatever they want from the Catholic Church, claim it as sound doctrine while simultaneously rejecting her Authority and anything that would point to her being Christ’s only Founded Church… they reject Papal Authority while making themselves authority; they reject the Church’s hierarchy while adhering to theirs–they actually believe their farce by adopting the fallacy that since they do not fall under the Church’s Authority and since they have abrogated Church Doctrine and hierarchical formula they are not really usurping Christ’s Authority but bringing it to fruition.

Talk about a hyper spin-cycle!

Maran atha!

Angel
 
Hoping this is the right place to post this…

In my research on Catholicism vs Mormonism etc, I came across this article on a website regarding the supposed “origins of the Catholic Church”. To summarise, it is saying that the Catholic Church didn’t exist until the 4th Century and the true Christian Church was paganised. Is there a Catholic answer to this please?

gotquestions.org/origin-Catholic-church.html
Christian History
catholic.com/library/Fundamentalist_or_Catholic.asp

Christ established one Church with one set of beliefs (Eph. 4:4–5). He did not establish numerous churches with contradictory beliefs. To see which is the true Church, we must look for the one that has an unbroken historical link to the Church of the New Testament. Catholics are able to show such a link. They trace their leaders, the bishops, back through time, bishop by bishop, all the way to the apostles, and they show that the pope is the lineal successor to Peter, who was the first bishop of Rome. The same thing is true of Catholic beliefs and practices. Take any one you wish, and you can trace it back. This is just what John Henry Newman did in his book An Essay on the Development of Christian Doctrine.

He looked at Christian beliefs through the ages. Starting with the nineteenth century (he was writing in 1844), he worked backward century by century, seeing if Catholic beliefs existing at any particular time could be traced to beliefs existing a century before. Back and back he went, until he got to New Testament times. What he demonstrated is that there is a real continuity of beliefs, that the Catholic Church has existed from day one of Church history, that it is in fact the Church established by Christ.

Newman was not a Catholic when he started the book, but his research convinced him of the truth of the Catholic faith, and as the book was finished he converted. Fundamentalist leaders make no effort to trace their version of Christianity century by century. They claim the Christianity existing in New Testament times was like today’s Protestant Fundamentalism in all essentials.

According to modern Fundamentalists, the original Christian Church was doctrinally the same as today’s Fundamentalist churches. When Emperor Constantine legalized Christianity in A.D. 313, pagans flocked to the Church in hopes of secular preferment, but the Church could not assimilate so many. It soon compromised its principles and became paganized by adopting pagan beliefs and practices. It developed the doctrines with which the Catholic Church is identified today. Simply put, it apostatized and became the Catholic Church. Meanwhile, true Christians (Fundamentalists) did not change their beliefs but were forced to remain in hiding until the Reformation.

The trouble with this history is that there are no historical facts whatsoever to back it up. Distinctively Catholic beliefs—the papacy, priesthood, invocation of saints, sacraments, veneration of Mary, salvation by something besides “faith alone,” purgatory—were evident long before the fourth century, before Constantine. They were believed by Christians before this supposed “paganization” took place. Another difficulty is that there are no historical records—none at all—which imply an underground Fundamentalist church existed from the early fourth century to the Reformation. In those years there were many schisms and heresies, most now vanished, but present-day Fundamentalists cannot find among them their missing Fundamentalist church. There were no groups that believed in all or even most, of the doctrines espoused by the Protestant Reformers (e.g. sola scriptura, salvation by “faith alone,” and an invisible church). No wonder Fundamentalist writers dislike discussing Church history!

Since the Christian Church was to exist historically and be like a city set on a mountain for all to see (Matt. 5:14), it had to be visible and easily identifiable. A church that exists only in the hearts of believers is not visible and is more like the candle hidden under the bushel basket (Matt. 5:15). But any visible church would necessarily be an institutional church that would need an earthly head. It would need an authority to which Christians could turn for the final resolution of doctrinal and disciplinary disputes. Christ appointed Peter and his successors to that position.

Christ designated Peter head of the Church when he said, “And I tell you, you are Peter, and on this rock I will build my Church” (Matt. 16:18). Fundamentalists, desiring to avoid the natural sense of the passage, say “rock” refers not to Peter, but to his profession of faith or to Christ himself. But Peter’s profession of faith is two sentences away and can’t be what is meant. Similarly, the reference can’t be to Christ. The fact that he is elsewhere, by a quite different metaphor, called the cornerstone (Eph. 2:20, 1 Pet. 2:4–8) does not mean Peter was not appointed the earthly foundation. The apostles were also described as foundation stones in a sense (Eph. 2:20, Rev. 21:14), meaning that Christ is not the only person the Bible speaks of as being the Church’s foundation. In one sense the foundation was Christ, in another it was the apostles, and in another it was Peter. In Matthew 16:18 Christ has Peter in mind. He himself would be the Church’s invisible foundation since he was returning to heaven, from where he would invisibly rule the Church. He needed to leave behind a visible authority, one people could locate when searching for religious truth. That visible authority is the papacy.
 
Christian History
catholic.com/library/Fundamentalist_or_Catholic.asp

Christ established one Church with one set of beliefs (Eph. 4:4–5). He did not establish numerous churches with contradictory beliefs. To see which is the true Church, we must look for the one that has an unbroken historical link to the Church of the New Testament. Catholics are able to show such a link. They trace their leaders, the bishops, back through time, bishop by bishop, all the way to the apostles, and they show that the pope is the lineal successor to Peter, who was the first bishop of Rome. The same thing is true of Catholic beliefs and practices. Take any one you wish, and you can trace it back. This is just what John Henry Newman did in his book An Essay on the Development of Christian Doctrine.

He looked at Christian beliefs through the ages. Starting with the nineteenth century (he was writing in 1844), he worked backward century by century, seeing if Catholic beliefs existing at any particular time could be traced to beliefs existing a century before. Back and back he went, until he got to New Testament times. What he demonstrated is that there is a real continuity of beliefs, that the Catholic Church has existed from day one of Church history, that it is in fact the Church established by Christ.

Newman was not a Catholic when he started the book, but his research convinced him of the truth of the Catholic faith, and as the book was finished he converted. Fundamentalist leaders make no effort to trace their version of Christianity century by century. They claim the Christianity existing in New Testament times was like today’s Protestant Fundamentalism in all essentials.

According to modern Fundamentalists, the original Christian Church was doctrinally the same as today’s Fundamentalist churches. When Emperor Constantine legalized Christianity in A.D. 313, pagans flocked to the Church in hopes of secular preferment, but the Church could not assimilate so many. It soon compromised its principles and became paganized by adopting pagan beliefs and practices. It developed the doctrines with which the Catholic Church is identified today. Simply put, it apostatized and became the Catholic Church. Meanwhile, true Christians (Fundamentalists) did not change their beliefs but were forced to remain in hiding until the Reformation.

The trouble with this history is that there are no historical facts whatsoever to back it up. Distinctively Catholic beliefs—the papacy, priesthood, invocation of saints, sacraments, veneration of Mary, salvation by something besides “faith alone,” purgatory—were evident long before the fourth century, before Constantine. They were believed by Christians before this supposed “paganization” took place. Another difficulty is that there are no historical records—none at all—which imply an underground Fundamentalist church existed from the early fourth century to the Reformation. In those years there were many schisms and heresies, most now vanished, but present-day Fundamentalists cannot find among them their missing Fundamentalist church. There were no groups that believed in all or even most, of the doctrines espoused by the Protestant Reformers (e.g. sola scriptura, salvation by “faith alone,” and an invisible church). No wonder Fundamentalist writers dislike discussing Church history!

Since the Christian Church was to exist historically and be like a city set on a mountain for all to see (Matt. 5:14), it had to be visible and easily identifiable. A church that exists only in the hearts of believers is not visible and is more like the candle hidden under the bushel basket (Matt. 5:15). But any visible church would necessarily be an institutional church that would need an earthly head. It would need an authority to which Christians could turn for the final resolution of doctrinal and disciplinary disputes. Christ appointed Peter and his successors to that position.

Christ designated Peter head of the Church when he said, “And I tell you, you are Peter, and on this rock I will build my Church” (Matt. 16:18). Fundamentalists, desiring to avoid the natural sense of the passage, say “rock” refers not to Peter, but to his profession of faith or to Christ himself. But Peter’s profession of faith is two sentences away and can’t be what is meant. Similarly, the reference can’t be to Christ. The fact that he is elsewhere, by a quite different metaphor, called the cornerstone (Eph. 2:20, 1 Pet. 2:4–8) does not mean Peter was not appointed the earthly foundation. The apostles were also described as foundation stones in a sense (Eph. 2:20, Rev. 21:14), meaning that Christ is not the only person the Bible speaks of as being the Church’s foundation. In one sense the foundation was Christ, in another it was the apostles, and in another it was Peter. In Matthew 16:18 Christ has Peter in mind. He himself would be the Church’s invisible foundation since he was returning to heaven, from where he would invisibly rule the Church. He needed to leave behind a visible authority, one people could locate when searching for religious truth. That visible authority is the papacy.
Hi, Randy!

Excellent post!

Maran atha!

Angel
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top