A Simple Timeline Proves the Early Church was Catholic

  • Thread starter Thread starter JustaServant
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Agree with Catholic posters…you are judging the entire church by particular leaders.

The true faith of believers carried on inspite of corruption of various clergy.

I am always troubled by King Henry’s multiple marriages, and Luther’s scrupulosity.
 
KathleenGee said:
Agree with Catholic posters…you are judging the entire church by particular leaders.

The true faith of believers carried on inspite of corruption of various clergy.

I am always troubled by King Henry’s multiple marriages, and Luther’s scrupulosity.
Click to expand...
Of course you agree with Catholic posters. Why wouldn’t you.

Are you as troubled by the Medicis basically taking over the papacy during the same period (as well as their selling of indulgences) or perhaps Pope Urban the VI’s blatant schadenfreude complex while torturing bishops who plotted against them? Because it seems me to pretty hypocritical to me to judge some faiths based on the less that scrupulous aspects of their leadership and not judge your own by the same light.
 
The Medicis did not follow the fruit of Jesus Christ in the Gospel. The true gospel of Jesus Christ was being preached and practiced then.

I am close to a family that can locally be compared to the Medici family, according to my former pastor. They do not come from the USA. But incredible as they are, they do have redeeming qualities and that is what I connect to relating to them.

It is not my place to condemn or judge other people…although the Holy Spirit provides discernment of good fruit and bad fruit.

The bad fruit fulfills the will of God by purifying the just and through suffering helping them draw closer to the Lord in praying for those who persecute and commit all sorts of corruption. So I am pretty sure there were many Catholics who did so in those times, and a woman doctor of the Church prefigured such individuals in her instructions to the church in her ‘Dialogues’ in the 1300’s, St. Catherine of Siena.
 
JustaServant said:
I am a former Baptist pastor who returned to my Catholic roots three years ago. To answer your question, the bottom line issue is authority. Who decides doctrine? How to worship? What is and what is not prayer? We can accept the legacy of our ancestors, or we can try to figure it out ourselves. Ministers, unlike lay people, tend to read more, pray more, and seek more. Truth is just around the corner, the problem is, it’s scary. It’s out of the ‘comfort zone’. Even many Catholics I know have no desire to move beyond the borders of their own comfort zone, and as a result become nominal.
For many anti-Catholics, it’s comfortable for them to believe the standard line, when they meet someone that does not fit that pigeon-holed sterotype, they rationalize it and deny it. That’s the only way they can emotionally deal with it.
Tell you one recent instance.
I was with several other guys in a van on our way to a business seminar in another city. One fellow, a Baptist deacon, asked me (since I am new to the business) what I did before. In retrospect I probably gave TMI, but I said I have been fortunate to have more than one career. Journalism, and for a time, a Protestant minister. His eyes lit up and he held out his hand and said “AMEN BROTHER”! Then he asked me why I am no longer pastoring. I said “I missed my Catholic roots”.
The temperature in the van dropped. He said very little to me in the course of the trip.
For some, as long as you fit into a stereotype that makes them comfortable, they can handle it. When they encounter one that doesn’t, they simply don’t know how to deal with it.
What a sad, small world some people live in.
Click to expand...
I had a similar experience. When I first became a Christian (attending a Baptist Church), I listened to BBN (Bible Broadcasting Network) an Evangelical radio network with stations across the US. I also received their newsletter. After I became Catholic, I would still listen to them from time to time (since there was no Catholic station in the area), but I was troubled by some of the anti-Catholic remarks I would here. Well, in one newsletter, there was a survey you could send in. I did, and enclosed a letter explaining why I became a Catholic and that I was troubled by some of the anti-Catholic comments I had heard, and I also tried to explain some of the Catholic beliefs they had attacked. After that, I stopped receiving their newsletter.
 
Nicea325 said:
*One thing is absolutely clear to anyone with an ounce of intelligence - the Holy Spirit is NOT the author of confusion and divisions. Truth does not divide against itself. The legion of Protestant denominations PROVES that denominalization is NOT a fruit of the Holy Spirit *

I agree with the above statement. The Holy Spirit is not teaching conflicting beliefs which runs wild among Fundamentalism,Protestanism,Evangelicism,etc. Enough is enough! How can God be the author of such chaos and divisions?

**What Protestant Church claims to be apostolic???

NONE.**

None since all are new to historical Christinaity.
Click to expand...
If one is sincerely seeking the TRUTH about Christianity then I suggest reading the 3 volume set of books, 'The Faith of the Early Fathers", by William A.Jurgens. And then re-studying the Gospels and Acts of the Apostles (with an open mind) in light of their writings. Then comes the Catechism of the Catholic Church. The TRUTH will set you free. God Bless, Memaw
 
Nicea325 said:
*One thing is absolutely clear to anyone with an ounce of intelligence - the Holy Spirit is NOT the author of confusion and divisions. Truth does not divide against itself. The legion of Protestant denominations PROVES that denominalization is NOT a fruit of the Holy Spirit *

I agree with the above statement. The Holy Spirit is not teaching conflicting beliefs which runs wild among Fundamentalism,Protestanism,Evangelicism,etc. Enough is enough! How can God be the author of such chaos and divisions?

**What Protestant Church claims to be apostolic???

NONE.**

None since all are new to historical Christinaity.
Click to expand...
Anglican.
 
E.E.N.S said:
Anglican.
Click to expand...
Not so, sorry. They are a breakaway from the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church, (because of King Henry VIII) and did not keep many of the Sacraments, especially Holy Orders and the Apostolic Succession, which lost for them the Sacrament of the Holy Eucharist, true Body, Blood, Soul and Divinity of Our Lord. The Anglicans that are coming into the Catholic Faith have to become fully Catholic to be admitted. No such thing as 1/2 Catholic and 1/2 Anglican. God Bless, Memaw
 
Memaw said:
Not so, sorry. They are a breakaway from the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church, (because of King Henry VIII) and did not keep many of the Sacraments, especially Holy Orders and the Apostolic Succession, which lost for them the Sacrament of the Holy Eucharist, true Body, Blood, Soul and Divinity of Our Lord. The Anglicans that are coming into the Catholic Faith have to become fully Catholic to be admitted. No such thing as 1/2 Catholic and 1/2 Anglican. God Bless, Memaw
Click to expand...
I do believe they CLAIM to be apostolic (whether they actually ARE apostolic is another matter, as you pointed out). When I was reading about Cardinal Newman, at the time he was Anglican, many Anglicans considered themselves to be a “branch” of the Apostolic faith (with the Catholic and Orthodox Churches as the other branches).

I have come across some sects with “Apostolic” in their name and claiming to be Apostolic, but of course, they are not.
 
I am taking the 24 week Adventure Bible Timeline course by Jeff Cavins and we are in the process of studying the darkest period in Israel’s history…the divided kingdom where the 10 Northern tribes separated and became “Israel” and the 2 Southern tribes (called Judah) spilt. God allowed this split due to Solomon’s sin but retained the tribe of Judah in the south with the Temple in Jerusleum because of his covenant with David. The king of the “Israel” was concerned that the members of his kingdom would go back to Jersuleum to worship and they might turn back and follow the king of Judah. As a result, he sets up a parallel religion for his kingdom…set up false priests(not from the tribe of Levi as God had directed), set up 2 shrines with statue of calves and told them that the God of Israel will come down to reach them there. They would go back to Moses and forget all the stuff that dealt with David…get back to the basics…too much extra stuff. This was an attempt to legitimize his monarchy.

The result…kings had many years of short reign…usually killing each other …they had the same amount of kings in 200 years that the southern kingdom had in 400 years. By worldlly standards, they were good and they became more and more materialistic and the difference between the rich and the poor became very evident. Their children were not taught in the ways of the faith and they were taken over by Assyria and dispersed throughout the empire. Other nations’ inhabitants were brought in and mixed with those remaining and the prophets spoke loud and clear the problems they were bringing on themselves by being unfaithful to God.

Then we talked about the Protestant Reformation and the parallel between the Divided Kingdom and what happened in the Catholic Church. Sin within the Catholic Church led to the breaking away of different sects…trying to get back to the “early church” much as Israel did. Breaking away from the apostolic tradition of the priesthood led to invalid “priests” (though I do think that is one of the reasons why some of the different dominations don’t believe in the Real Presence (the evidence for belief is just too strong especially in the Bible…perhaps the founders of their faith realized that they were not valid priests to preside over the Mass) Of course today’s Protestants have been taught that the Eucharist is just a symbol so unless they choose to reexamine their beliefs…they will only have parts of the Truth. The denominations within Protestantism keep growing and their beliefs keep changing from group to group…much like what was happening in the days of the divided Kingdom. Hopefully, one day we will all be united and we shall all share the fullness of Truth. Just thought I would share this…
 
Oh and BTW…the southern kingdom wasn’t perfect either…but they had a number of good kings who followed in the way of the Lord mixed in with some bad ones. Their kingdom lasted for 400 years compared to the Northern Kingdom which only lasted 200 years and then they were exiled 😦 You would think we would learn from history…
 
mskejj said:
Oh and BTW…the southern kingdom wasn’t perfect either…but they had a number of good kings who followed in the way of the Lord mixed in with some bad ones. Their kingdom lasted for 400 years compared to the Northern Kingdom which only lasted 200 years and then they were exiled 😦 You would think we would learn from history…
Click to expand...
That’s why History tends to repeat itself, The same ole call of Lucifier, “I will not serve”. Man seems to have plenty of time to serve self but not God. Fr. John Hardon S.J., told us many years ago, (at least 15) that we must teach our children their faith strong enough to be martyrs if necessary, as it may well come to that. And to be prepared ourselves. How prepared are we?? And what are we doing to help others!!! God Bless, Memaw
 
As an Anglican, I can tell you we have valid Holy Orders. That being said I’m not going to fight you on it because that would lend credence to the idea that what you believe about our orders actually matters to me. After my short period of time I’ve been on this website I’ve finally come to the decision that arguing about holy orders and valid orders isn’t really going to get someone anywhere towards understandings and ecumenical dialogue on these forums. There are minor differences which certain parties tend to over accentuate which separate Anglicans from Roman Catholics. Your argument against what differs in Anglicanism isn’t based on any sort of sound theology, it is largely based on a different interpretation of the bible. The modern idea of the heresy of relativism is quite frankly, a major barrier towards any reconciliation between any of the denominations.
 
nhylan said:
As an Anglican, I can tell you we have valid Holy Orders. That being said I’m not going to fight you on it because that would lend credence to the idea that what you believe about our orders actually matters to me. After my short period of time I’ve been on this website I’ve finally come to the decision that arguing about holy orders and valid orders isn’t really going to get someone anywhere towards understandings and ecumenical dialogue on these forums. There are minor differences which certain parties tend to over accentuate which separate Anglicans from Roman Catholics. Your argument against what differs in Anglicanism isn’t based on any sort of sound theology, it is largely based on a different interpretation of the bible. The modern idea of the heresy of relativism is quite frankly, a major barrier towards any reconciliation between any of the denominations.
Click to expand...
*I do not profess to know a lot about valid Holy Orders but I have heard Anglican priests who were interviewed say that there was some doubt, there was no certainly, etc… I recently heard that Henry VIII wrote a marvellous book about the Church and that is why is was called “defender of the Faith” - pity he went haywire. I also believe that Anglicans preserved beautiful liturgy and music. I hope that we can be united again one day.

Cinette:)*
 
Cinette said:
*I do not profess to know a lot about valid Holy Orders but I have heard Anglican priests who were interviewed say that there was some doubt, there was no certainly, etc… I recently heard that Henry VIII wrote a marvellous book about the Church and that is why is was called “defender of the Faith” - pity he went haywire. I also believe that Anglicans preserved beautiful liturgy and music. I hope that we can be united again one day.

Cinette:)*
Click to expand...
Hi Cinette,
Thank you for your kind response. In referring to Holy Orders I think most Anglicans consider that they have valid Anglican Holy Orders and aren’t concerned with RCC holy orders. Anglican Preists who said there was doubt are probably those leaning towards returning to the Roman Church under the Pope.
 
E.E.N.S said:
Memaw, please read before blurting out incorrect answers.
Click to expand...
Who’s blurting out incorrect answers??? The truth is the TRUTH even if nobody believes it and a lie is still a lie, even if everybody believes it. Just because you think you have valid Holy Orders doesn’t make it soo. Why do you think the Anglican priests that come into the Catholic Faith and want to be Catholic Priests, have to be Ordained by a Catholic Bishop. God Bless, Memaw
 
Memaw said:
Who’s blurting out incorrect answers??? The truth is the TRUTH even if nobody believes it and a lie is still a lie, even if everybody believes it. Just because you think you have valid Holy Orders doesn’t make it soo. Why do you think the Anglican priests that come into the Catholic Faith and want to be Catholic Priests, have to be Ordained by a Catholic Bishop. God Bless, Memaw
Click to expand...
The question was “Which Protestant church CLAIMS to be Apostolic?”

Whether that claim is true or false is a different matter entirely. (You do know what a claim is, right?)

This is why I said to read first before spouting out an answer.
 
E.E.N.S said:
The question was “Which Protestant church CLAIMS to be Apostolic?”

Whether that claim is true or false is a different matter entirely. (You do know what a claim is, right?)

This is why I said to read first before spouting out an answer.
Click to expand...
Who put a burr under your saddle? Some one asked the question, someone else answered it and I disagreed, anything wrong with that??? Manners go a loooong way. God Bless, Memaw
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top