A Historical Dare to Protestants

[stbruderklaus]

No my brother, you can trace your roots back to the Roman Catholic Church. From there on, you can trace the Church back to the Apostle. Bill gave a historical list of the Church, and its off-shoots. Not one single member refuted that list. it is because people lie, history dosen`t.

I hope I am not sounding pridful, if I am, I honestly dont want it to be like that. I just dont know how else to put it.

Thank you for the charitable approach-- it is much appreciated.

Before the schisms, there was only one visible reality of the Church which reflected the spiritual unity of the invisible Church-- it was called catholic, not Roman. As sin and division crept in, the visible unity of the Church was farctured, though the deeper spiritual unity of Christians by virtue of their faith and baptism could not be severed.

Thus the Eastern Orthodox do not begin at 1054, but the schism between the other 4 great Patriarchs and the sole Roman patriarch dates from then. The Lutherans do not begin at 1521 with Luther, but reflect a schism of the German church from Rome that reverbated into many other western countries.

We all are tied to the same catholic root. Romans, Lutherans, Orthodox, Anglicans, etc. We might argue our fidelity to that root, but historically speaking, we’re all still branches of that same catholic reality. This is why the CCC can speak of Christian unity in the One Catholic Church via faith and baptism, even if not fully united visibly under the headship of Rome.

Peace.

 

[agbasinger]

No my brother, you can trace your roots back to the Roman Catholic Church. From there on, you can trace the Church back to the Apostle. Bill gave a historical list of the Church, and its off-shoots. Not one single member refuted that list. it is because people lie, history dosen`t.

I hope I am not sounding pridful, if I am, I honestly dont want it to be like that. I just dont know how else to put it.

---

The problem with the concept of history is that we want to believe it is preserved beyond the hands of people. The truth is we don’t (emperically) know where the church came from. We have beacons of light along the way, but all of this is taken on Faith.

I have to agree that the Church is a mystical notion. It is not historical. It is in flux- history won’t allow for flux.

Writing history without adding or subtracting data is not that old- it’s really a staple of modernity.

 

[Benjamin8o8]

Thank you for the charitable approach-- it is much appreciated.

Before the schisms, there was only one visible reality of the Church which reflected the spiritual unity of the invisible Church-- it was called catholic, not Roman. As sin and division crept in, the visible unity of the Church was farctured, though the deeper spiritual unity of Christians by virtue of their faith and baptism could not be severed.

Thus the Eastern Orthodox do not begin at 1054, but the schism between the other 4 great Patriarchs and the sole Roman patriarch dates from then. The Lutherans do not begin at 1521 with Luther, but reflect a schism of the German church from Rome that reverbated into many other western countries.

We all are tied to the same catholic root. Romans, Lutherans, Orthodox, Anglicans, etc. We might argue our fidelity to that root, but historically speaking, we’re all still branches of that same catholic reality. This is why the CCC can speak of Christian unity in the One Catholic Church via faith and baptism, even if not fully united visibly under the headship of Rome.

Peace.

First I want to say I am thankful we can have a mature discussion here without sounding offensive towards each other

But to defend the Church, I must say that claming the Church was invincible is just a matter of opinion, not a fact. You yourself gave a very good definition of what Church means in greek. It is a vathering of people unitied in the Body of Christ am I correct? Well, what do you get when you put these people under a roof, paint some windows, add some sacrements, and pray?..a Church we have today. I dont think the Bible has to spell everything out for us. Remember, the Roman Catholic Church predates the Bible, it also compiled the Books in it. Again, that is not my opinion that is a fact. Christianity began in Jerursalem 33AD, obviously people didnt have direct Churches, but you must remember even the Jews didnt always have their synagougoes. So with some time given, the Catholic Church developed itself like Jews did. I am well aware that the term Roman wasnt mentioned in the letters that the saints wrote about, but before you make a claim that the Roman Catholic Church is a schism from the “invinsible” Catholic Church, you need to do some research how the Catholic Church got its name RCC. It has to do with the protestant adopting the name for them as an insult. But let me trace back to what I and the OP originaly asked. Give me historical evidence the RCC is an offshoot from the “invinsible” Catholic Church. You need to tell me how and when people started to build their own rules, and started their own church. But in the same time you have to have a good explanation how these “sinful” people where somehow led by the Holy Spirit to compile the books in the Bible. This is sounding really confusing, because the RCC is indeed equate to the Church that Saint, Augustine and other saints wrote about. If not…I need historical evidence of schisms.

 

[stbruderklaus]

---

The problem with the concept of history is that we want to believe it is preserved beyond the hands of people. The truth is we don’t (emperically) know where the church came from. We have beacons of light along the way, but all of this is taken on Faith.

I have to agree that the Church is a mystical notion. It is not historical. It is in flux- history won’t allow for flux.

Writing history without adding or subtracting data is not that old- it’s really a staple of modernity.

While I would agree that modernity has posited some different understandings of historical data, presentation, and method, I can’t go quit so far as you have suggested.

There is a historical reality-- it is the present which passes, and it is as real as it was when it occurred. We may not have a full witness to all the past realities which compose our history, but real people in real places did and thought real things… there is a history, and we are obligated to consider the witnesses we have to it.

Thus we can say there really was/is a Jesus, that he really died and rose again, and that he really established the Church on the Apostles and the Gospel of Salvation preached in his name. We know this by the historical witness to those events, many of which are retained in Scripture. We have an interpretive light to those Scriptures and events through the writings and witness of the Church Fathers, and the experiences of the Church over the ages. The recording and witness of those events may be more or less accurate (I trust the witness of the Apostles over the witness of the Fathers, for example) but we do have their witness to the reality of history.

Our life in Christ is more than existential.

Peace.

 

[mmplps7783]

That’s part of the issue, friend. The Scriptures speak of the Church, the “ekklesia”-- that it is One as the Body of Christ, that it will endure to the end of time, and that it will cover the whole world. The Greek term for “catholic” is not found in Scripture-- it is a tool of the Fathers to describe the collective reality of what the Scriptures teach about the Church. No particular Church can take that title on themselves, but any particular Church can reflect what is catholic.

Hence my previous arguements (and those of better theologians than myself) that to append the term “Roman” to the term “catholic” is misleading. The Roman Christians may, if they remain Scriptural and faithful to the Apostolic teachings, be catholic… but being catholic is in no way constrained only to the particular church of the Romans. Any ekklesia, or gathering, of Christians may be catholic… and they may not be… depending on how they keep the Apostolic doctrine of the Scriptures. The term catholic reflects universality and orthodoxy… and Lutherans and Romans (and many others) seek to remain living and vibrant members of the One, Holy, Catholic, and Apostolic Church.

Peace.

The Roman Christians may, if they remain Scriptural and faithful to the Apostolic teachings, be catholic… but being catholic is in no way constrained only to the particular church of the Romans.

If Catholicism is “set up” to embody the principles placed by Jesus then basically you are only discussing the principles discussed in the NT? If so then besides the eucharist (which I am still trying to wrap my head around) what principles do the “Catholic” religions have that the “Protestants” don’t?

 

[Katrina5]

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

THE TWO CULT WILL NOT AGREE

Now THIS is history! I love it! Thank you. I think I will print this out and keep it handy-- maybe one next to my desk and one in my purse!
Katrina

 

[stbruderklaus]

First I want to say I am thankful we can have a mature discussion here without sounding offensive towards each other

But to defend the Church, I must say that claming the Church was invincible is just a matter of opinion, not a fact. You yourself gave a very good definition of what Church means in greek. It is a vathering of people unitied in the Body of Christ am I correct? Well, what do you get when you put these people under a roof, paint some windows, add some sacrements, and pray?..a Church we have today. I dont think the Bible has to spell everything out for us. Remember, the Roman Catholic Church predates the Bible, it also compiled the Books in it. Again, that is not my opinion that is a fact. Christianity began in Jerursalem 33AD, obviously people didnt have direct Churches, but you must remember even the Jews didnt always have their synagougoes. So with some time given, the Catholic Church developed itself like Jews did. I am well aware that the term Roman wasnt mentioned in the letters that the saints wrote about, but before you make a claim that the Roman Catholic Church is a schism from the “invinsible” Catholic Church, you need to do some research how the Catholic Church got its name RCC. It has to do with the protestant adopting the name for them as an insult. But let me trace back to what I and the OP originaly asked. Give me historical evidence the RCC is an offshoot from the “invinsible” Catholic Church. You need to tell me how and when people started to build their own rules, and started their own church. But in the same time you have to have a good explanation how these “sinful” people where somehow led by the Holy Spirit to compile the books in the Bible. This is sounding really confusing, because the RCC is indeed equate to the Church that Saint, Augustine and other saints wrote about. If not…I need historical evidence of schisms.

I agree-- a pleasant dialogue is a blessing among brethren.

I am not arguing that the Catholic Church is only an invisible reality-- it is very visible. Both Roman and Lutheran confessions state this. We recognize the Catholic Church by its physical manifestations, among which are the redeemed faithful gathered around the Apostolic Gospel (the Scriptures) and the Sacraments. Lutherans and Romans can go at least this far together.

I am also not attempting to show that the Roman Catholic Church schismed from the Catholic Church. My point is that the Catholic Church has picked up monikers over the years among different bodies of believers. When the Apostles wrote to specific communities of Christians, they would often write “to the Church at Rome,” or the “Church at Ephesus,” or the “Church at Corinth.” None of these monikers distinguished these churches as schismatic from the One Body of Christ, but they did distinguish Corinthian Christians from those in Ephesus or Rome or Jerusalem, and so on.

Despite the use of terms of locality or peculiarity, the early Church was visibly one… there was the Church of Alexandria, Constantinople, Jerusalem, Antioch, etc., but these were still all One Catholic Church. The councils brought them unity, and produced common confessions of the Scriptural truths that united them in faith. Thus the faith of the Apostles was the unifying doctrine, and the Holy Spirit made them One Body… just as He does today. Hence Romans, Orthdox, Lutherans, or whatever other name on a Church body can be more or less catholic, depending on how they relate to Apostolic doctrine, confession, practice and piety.

Peace.

 

[stbruderklaus]

Now THIS is history! I love it! Thank you. I think I will print this out and keep it handy-- maybe one next to my desk and one in my purse!
Katrina

Interesting, though… it doesn’t note when the Roman Catholic Church was established.

Was that when the first persecuted Christians from Jerusalem fled to Rome and set up the Church there? Or was it when St. Paul got there later and spoke them from prison? Or perhaps later when St. Peter arrived…?

Paul seems to assert that the Roman Church was founded by laity and fully functioning as a Church of Christ long before any Apostle got there, and without any express commission from St. Peter.

Hmmm.

 

[Bill_Pick]

I don’t know as much about the Bible as many people on this site (which is one reason I am so fascinated by the Catholic religion…you know how to back yourselves up) but here is my problem. In mybible I have yet to see where it announce Catholicism as the "true church or religion so where do you get that from. Believe me I do look everyting up for myself and if it is in your bible I have axcess to one and would like the book scripture and verse please. If that can be provide I don’t see the point in a debate.

lets see if these will help you matt16;18-19 and 1tim 3-15…maybe this will help if not lets me know and i can get you more,i have to eat its that time here. and its OK to PM

 

[Benjamin8o8]

The Roman Christians may, if they remain Scriptural and faithful to the Apostolic teachings, be catholic… but being catholic is in no way constrained only to the particular church of the Romans.

If Catholicism is “set up” to embody the principles placed by Jesus then basically you are only discussing the principles discussed in the NT? If so then besides the eucharist (which I am still trying to wrap my head around) what principles do the “Catholic” religions have that the “Protestants” don’t?

The Catholic Church is not Roman, the Roman is the Catholic Church. What do Catholics have that Protestants dont? to be humbly honest...authority. Dont you think it will be wrong for me if I seperate from the Catholic Church, and then establish my own Church and claim I can change bread and wine to the Real Blood of Jesus Christ? Of course it would. The Roman Catholic Church traces back to the Apostles, not just their “teachings”. Holy Orders is important as it was back then as it is now.

 

[po18guy]

It is more important to find God.
Does your church teach you to hear Gods voice?
Do not look for a church Look for God.

Is not God in the Church which He alone founded for us? As in marriage, what He has joined together, let not man put asunder. Are you not taking the “John Wayne” approach by grabbing the bible, striking out on your own and formulating your own set of doctrines?

 

[Benjamin8o8]

I agree-- a pleasant dialogue is a blessing among brethren.

I am not arguing that the Catholic Church is only an invisible reality-- it is very visible. Both Roman and Lutheran confessions state this. We recognize the Catholic Church by its physical manifestations, among which are the redeemed faithful gathered around the Apostolic Gospel (the Scriptures) and the Sacraments. Lutherans and Romans can go at least this far together.

I am also not attempting to show that the Roman Catholic Church schismed from the Catholic Church. My point is that the Catholic Church has picked up monikers over the years among different bodies of believers. When the Apostles wrote to specific communities of Christians, they would often write “to the Church at Rome,” or the “Church at Ephesus,” or the “Church at Corinth.” None of these monikers distinguished these churches as schismatic from the One Body of Christ, but they did distinguish Corinthian Christians from those in Ephesus or Rome or Jerusalem, and so on.

Despite the use of terms of locality or peculiarity, the early Church was visibly one… there was the Church of Alexandria, Constantinople, Jerusalem, Antioch, etc., but these were still all One Catholic Church. The councils brought them unity, and produced common confessions of the Scriptural truths that united them in faith. Thus the faith of the Apostles was the unifying doctrine, and the Holy Spirit made them One Body… just as He does today. Hence Romans, Orthdox, Lutherans, or whatever other name on a Church body can be more or less catholic, depending on how they relate to Apostolic doctrine, confession, practice and piety.

Peace.

After reading your post, I honestly think you are going to convert to the Catholic Church sooner or later. Not only are you teaching me something new, but I also agree 98% with what you just wrote. You must realize something:

“Despite the use of terms of locality or peculiarity, the early Church was visibly one… there was the Church of Alexandria, Constantinople, Jerusalem, Antioch, etc., but these were still all One Catholic Church. The councils brought them unity”

You are right, the councils brought them to unity, thus establishing a direct Church. This Church is now called the RCC. It wasn`t always called that, but it always has been that. Hence the schims of Orthodoxy, Luthern, and Angelicans. These aren´t just different terms for the Catholic Church, but these are literal off-shoots from the RCC. Therfore, these off-shoots break the succession of the Apostles and makes their man-made holy orders invalid. save the Orthodoxy…

 

[Benjamin8o8]

Interesting, though… it doesn’t note when the Roman Catholic Church was established.

exactly! That right there is evidence “Roman” is just an adopted term. Meaning: The RCC is the Catholic Church that was established in AD33.

Was that when the first persecuted Christians from Jerusalem fled to Rome and set up the Church there? Or was it when St. Paul got there later and spoke them from prison? Or perhaps later when St. Peter arrived…?

Well the mission the Catholic Church started to carry out was on the day of pentacost. When the Holy Spirit filled the souls of the Apostles. After that, it took time to develop and make known its traditions buildings, ect…

 

[Katrina5]

When things start to get awkward during discussions with my Protestant friends and relatives, they say, “There will be no denominations in Heaven.”
How does one answer to that? Something like, “Then why are there so many here on earth?”
My sister that I described in another thread on Assemblies of God, doesn’t believe Catholics are “saved”. But she believes our brother who was an atheist and is now a Quaker, will go to heaven because he is “part of our family, and families are together in heaven.”
What?
My friend who was raised Lutheran but is now non-denominational charismatic told me that she explained to a Muslim that “Catholics are just a denomination, like Lutheran or Methodist.”
That made me so angry we didn’t speak for a year. (Sometimes when I don’t speak to someone it is because I am afraid I will yell at them, and sometimes, I just don’t know what to say.)
My sister (see above) doesn’t like Oprah’s belief that “all roads lead to God.” But I think all those denominations lead away from God, since each one splintered off because of a disagreement of some sort. Even the Great Schizm was a disagreement over the Holy Spirit proceeding from the Father and the Son. Or not.
To me, this is just confusion! Maybe when they are “babbling” in tongues, that’s what they’re trying to say.

 

[stbruderklaus]

After reading your post, I honestly think you are going to convert to the Catholic Church sooner or later. Not only are you teaching me something new, but I also agree 98% with what you just wrote. You must realize something:

“Despite the use of terms of locality or peculiarity, the early Church was visibly one… there was the Church of Alexandria, Constantinople, Jerusalem, Antioch, etc., but these were still all One Catholic Church. The councils brought them unity”

You are right, the councils brought them to unity, thus establishing a direct Church. This Church is now called the RCC. It wasn`t always called that, but it always has been that. Hence the schims of Orthodoxy, Luthern, and Angelicans. These aren´t just different terms for the Catholic Church, but these are literal off-shoots from the RCC. Therfore, these off-shoots break the succession of the Apostles and makes their man-made holy orders invalid. save the Orthodoxy…

You may be right, bro. I belong to a small Lutheran Church in valid Apostolic Succession, and I work with Anglicans who have a valid Apostolic Succession, too… I also feel that Holy Orders are important, largely from my study of the ancient Church. I think too many Lutherans abandoned this teaching…

The breaches of the Reformation did not necessarily breach our collective Apostolicity. As with the Orthodox, ties can be retained outside the Petrine office. This is why Rome recognizes the validity of some Churches not in communion with her, though she also recognizes them as illicit under her own canon law.

Peace.

 

[NDfan]

My friend who was raised Lutheran but is now non-denominational charismatic told me that she explained to a Muslim that “Catholics are just a denomination, like Lutheran or Methodist.”
That made me so angry we didn’t speak for a year.

Katrina do you think this is really Christ-like behavior? Do you really think Christ is in Heaven saying “you go girl”

Roman Catholicism IS a denomination of Christianity period!! There’s nothing wrong with saying that. The fact you use the label Roman Catholic denotes a denomination. The followers of Christ in scripture are called Christians, not catholics. The church is described as catholic in nature given catholic is an adjective.

 

[Benjamin8o8]

Katrina do you think this is really Christ-like behavior? Do you really think Christ is in Heaven saying “you go girl”

Roman Catholicism IS a denomination of Christianity period!! There’s nothing wrong with saying that. The fact you use the label Roman Catholic denotes a denomination. The followers of Christ in scripture are called Christians, not catholics. The church is described as catholic in nature given catholic is an adjective.

you are forgeting the historical fact that the Catholic Church predates scripture. Roman Catholicism is NOT a denomination. Chrisitianity is Catholism - Catholism is Christianity. Remember the letter from 107 AD when the saint used the adjective? well…notice how there is no evidence that anybody ever looked at word as something new. So how come the letter has no effect on naming the Christian Church? Because the adjective Catholic is propably even older then 107AD. Making it even older then Holy Scripture.

 

[Benjamin8o8]

You may be right, bro. I belong to a small Lutheran Church in valid Apostolic Succession, and I work with Anglicans who have a valid Apostolic Succession, too… I also feel that Holy Orders are important, largely from my study of the ancient Church. I think too many Lutherans abandoned this teaching…

The breaches of the Reformation did not necessarily breach our collective Apostolicity. As with the Orthodox, ties can be retained outside the Petrine office. This is why Rome recognizes the validity of some Churches not in communion with her, though she also recognizes them as illicit under her own canon law.

Peace.

I see brother, I have a question: do you pray or believe in the Rosary?

 

[Katrina5]

The Ethiopiac Canon of Eighty One proves beyond any shadow of doubt that that claim is utterly and absolutely false.

He started a new church after both of the following happened:
a) The the pope declared that simony was acceptable and justified;
b) The pope excommunicated him.

A divorce that under then current canon law would have been, and should have been granted.

TULIP demonstrates otherwise.

(Exodus 34:17 NAB D) "You shall not make for yourselves molten gods.
(Exodus 20:4 NAB D) You shall not carve idols for yourselves in the shape of anything in the sky above or on the earth below or in the waters beneath the earth;
(Deuteronomy 5:8 NAB D) You shall not carve idols for yourselves in the shape of anything in the sky above or on the earth below or in the waters beneath the earth;

Are the basis for their practice. (And if you don’t recognise them, those are from the three sets of the Ten Commandments that are found in the Torah. It is fairly straightforward to find them repeated in the Gospels, the Pauline Epistles, and the Writings.

jonathon

Thank you for setting me straight!
I will leave my Catholic faith and start a new church, with me as the head. It worked for all the other Protestants, it should work for me.
Boy, that was easy.
Just call me Reverend K. No seminary training needed, just my Bible (minus a few books) and my opinions. I’ll make sure there is no artwork of any kind in my church, not even one of those bare crosses, and no candles.
In fact, it won’t look like a church. Probably because IT ISN’T.
Here’s a poser: Why do Protestants have an “Altar call” if they don’t think there was a sacrifice on an altar being celebrated at Mass? Is this some sort of mockery of the Catholic Church?

 

[Katrina5]

you are forgeting the historical fact that the Catholic Church predates scripture. Roman Catholicism is NOT a denomination. Chrisitianity is Catholism - Catholism is Christianity. Remember the letter from 107 AD when the saint used the adjective? well…notice how there is no evidence that anybody ever looked at word as something new. So how come the letter has no effect on naming the Christian Church? Because the adjective Catholic is propably even older then 107AD. Making it even older then Holy Scripture.

Thank you for defending me. I just lost control again at someone named jonathan.
NDfan said I think I’m being Christ-like and God is saying “you go, girl” but I don’t believe that.
I usually pray that the Holy Spirit will help me “speak the truth, in a loving way.”
I fell short of that and for that I AM SORRY.
Please forgive me. Same to jonathon, my ‘outburst’ was unkind and uncalled for.