A Simple Timeline Proves the Early Church was Catholic

[jimpres]

Benedictus2,

Great post, worth keeping for later questions.

 

[benedictus2]

Benedictus2,

Great post, worth keeping for later questions.

Thank you

 

[tqualey]

Hi, Benedictus2,



it does not look like Tammyjean is much on responding … I am still waiting (she was deliberating on leaving the Catholic Church at the time) to hear from her…

From the sounds of things, she has held on tight to some anti-Catholic material. Maybe if she would just let go long enough to respond to the actual subject of the thread we are on, she could see just where it is she is going.

God bless

In a way yes, because doctrine develops. The acorn is no longer. We now have a full blown tree.
No. Heresies did arise but these were squashed. And yes, with regards some doctrines, the Fathers debated them until the doctrine was promulgated - for Example the Trinity and the Homostatic union of the two natures of Christ.

What you mean here is the different diocese of the Catholic Church. There was only one Christian Church then - the Catholic Church.

You failed to mention that way back then a Bible cost an entire years earning. Only the very rich can afford Bible if there were any held privately at all.
Wrong again. I don’t know what sort of history book you are reading. But the first German translation of the Bible was not done by Luther but by the Church.

The first bible that came of the first press was the Guttenberg Bible which was a Catholic Bible.
Complete lie unless you are talking about the burning of the heretical translation of the Bible.
Wrong. Martin Luther railed against the abuse. The doctrine was taught in the Bible. But the practice was abused.
Luther was right in complaining about the corruption. But he was completely wrong to come up with his own doctrine. He was a very prideful person, so he thought he knew better than a lot of other learned, holy and intelligent people who have gone before him.

That is right. He spoke Aramaic.
And who said it was wrong to have it translated to different languages. But the translation must be correct. Some translations are actually wrong.
Nope, there are more than one. A whole set of it as a matter of fact.
And Luther wanted to get rid of them because he came up with his own theology.

 

[benedictus2]

Hi, Benedictus2,



it does not look like Tammyjean is much on responding … I am still waiting (she was deliberating on leaving the Catholic Church at the time) to hear from her…

From the sounds of things, she has held on tight to some anti-Catholic material. Maybe if she would just let go long enough to respond to the actual subject of the thread we are on, she could see just where it is she is going.

God bless

This is a rather old thread. She exited last year (didn’t realize that till I’ve posted) . She made two posts and that was that for her. Unless she signed again in a different name

 

[tqualey]

Hi, TheChristian,

Maybe it is just early in the morning over here … but, I totally missed what it is you are syaing as a response below:

the book of ACTS is the best way to know the church as it suppose to be…yesterday…today…and tommorrow.

God loves you…God bless

As I appreciate the situation, Justa gave an excellent chronological presentation on the first roughly 100 years of the Christian History - which is the same as the history of the Catholic Church.

My uderstanding of Acts does NOT inclued these four traditionally protestant beliefs:

1.) Solo Scriptura

2.) Faith Alone

3.) Baptism is optional - not a requirement for salvation

4.) Christ is not physically present in the Eucharist

Really, the idea is that since in most Christian Faiths there is general uniformity in the books of the New Testament… we can all agree on Acts as inspired. But, that was not the point made the the OP. In addition to the NT, we have all of this history that simply can not be ignore or pretend is totally inconsequential and only look at what happened from the 16th Century forward. Obviously, to deny one’s history is to deny quite a lot.

God bless

 

[tqualey]

Hi, Tammyjean34,

First of all, welcome to the list - it is very good that you have joined CAF. I think you will find it a genuine source of inspiration and enlightenment.

Let me try and respond to at least some of your questions…

As a lifelong catholic, I am questioning the decisions made by many of the catholic leaders of the long past. There is a difference between the catholicism of the past and today.

What specifically are you now questioning, Tammyjean34?

The Catholic church was originally comprised of many different types of beliefs and interpretations of the different books which later became the bible.

You have really combined two totally different thoughts into one sentence, Tammyjean34… Let me make a distinction here: The Catholic has always believe in: Apostolic Tradition and the Bible (the books identified by the Catholic Church as inspired by God). Some of the beliefs of he Catholic Church (as identified in the Apostles’s Creed) are One God in Three Divine and Unique Persons, Christ is true God and true man Who really, “… was conceived by the Holy Spirit, born of the Virgin Mary, suffered under Pontius Pilate, was crucified, died and was burried.”

It would be good to point out that the early Chruch had a number of folks who developed their own doctrine - quite apart for guidance of the Holy Spirit protecting the Catholic Church from error. During the first four hundred years, ther were quite of few folks who thought they knew better than God! Here is a link you may find interesting: catholicevangelism.org/heresies.shtml

During the middle ages, many poor did not know Latin and many lived very far from church making it almost impossible to attend.

Actually, Tammyjean34, virtually ALL of the poor not only did not know Latin - they did not how to read and write in their own language! Even if they were literate, the cost of a Bible (back then, each Bible had to be hand written - one letter at a time! The invention of hte printing press by Gutenberg around 1440 greatly helped - but, the cost was still much higher then a poor person could afford.

It is intersting to note that the first book printed by Guterberg was the Bible - and, that would be the Catholic Bible. Having sufficient priests to administer the Sacraments has always been a problem. We have that problem today. Our job is to pray to the Lord of the Harvest to send in more worksers (Matt 9:38)

When they did they did not understand what was going on, so the Germans began to have the Bible translated in German so that they could practice the faith in their own homes. What they found was an angry Pope who began a seek and destroy mission of the bibles and those harboring them.

You know, presenting one’s own individual thoughts or interpretations as the inspired Word of God has a long and established history. As we have seen heresy was not confined to the first 400 years of Catholic Church history. This is significantly different from the romanticized view you are presenting here.

It was then that Martin Luther began to feel that many things that were being taught by the Catholic Leaders was not in the Bible. It was there that Protestanism began. Jesus did not speak Latin, The Books of the bible were not in Latin so what was wrong with having the bible translated into all the languages of the world to spread Jesus’ message? Of course the bible is now written in more languages than anyone person could name. The only difference between the two bibles is a book of the old testament in missing in one of them. Judge not lest ye be judged.

I think here you have simply combined a series of things that appear to be a distorted chroniceling of events. You are guessing that Christ did not speak latin - He lived in Roman Occupied Judea and did speak with Pilate on Good Friday. (Now, we really do not know what language Pilate spoke either - we assume he spoke Latin… but, he probably spoke other languages. What is critical is not the actual language that Christ spoke - but, that we can read the Words of Christ in our own language. And, these words are courtesy of the Catholic Church you seem to be poking. Actually, there are several books in the OT that protestants removed from the Bible - you can still get the original version (the one from about 400AD to 1650AD that everyone used!) by picking up a Catholic Bible!

Individuals attempted to sell indulgences and Martin Luther was justified in challenging this most unholy practice - but, the sale of indulgences had been specifically forbidden by the Caholic Church and that means that the selling of indulgences was never an official teaching.

It really looks like you have gotten a hold on a protestant tract and is trying to explain away the Cahtolic Church as the Church founded by Christ on Peter (Matt 16:18). Do not be shocked by this - various churchmen have tried to explain away, Christ, Hes death and resurrection and everything we hold as Faith.

Hope this helps.

God bless

 

[tqualey]

Hi,CentralFLJames,

Sorry to be so late in sending this note - but, your is a truly excellent post~

It was a pleasure to read.

God bless

Tom

Why are you so suspicious and untrusting of The Church Radical?

You are making assumptions that the Church made error and was corrupted. This is not a natural thought that one would have when first encountering a 2,000 year old religion that has outlived all its enemies. Who put the “novel” idea into your head that the church ever erred and is teaching as you like to say “novelties”?

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 but rather a work of the father of all deceit and lies - Satan. Ask yourself where did denominalization first start? You will see that there were factions from the very beginning apostolic era but these were NOT apostolic in nature. The only disputes among the apostles where on the decision to offer up Christianity to both Jew and Gentile and PETER was the ONE who made the first authoritative decision when HE COMMANDED that that Cornelius be baptised. Paul when he met with stiff rejection of the Judising Jews in his travels had to return to Rome to ask Peter what was he to tell them - “is one saved by faith in Jesus” or by “adherence to the Jewish laws and practices” as the Christian-Jews insisted. It is those groups who “taught a different gospel than had been handed down to them” from NON APOSTOLIC SOURCES whom were found worthy of a curse by St. Paul (Gal 1.9). There is very little surviving apostolic teaching to be found in the Protestant Churches. The pattern of error is well establised in the manufactured modern-day Protestant suspicion that you carry forward here into these forums.

You are chasing a canard - there is no legal standard to be found that will give you 100% iron clad certain forensic evidence that what the Catholic Church teaches is the identical faith that was taught in apostolic times. We are teaching the same faith but it is a much more intellectually and spiritually enlightened faith than the average Christian of the day knew. This is in fact EXACTLY what Jesus promised in sending the Holy Spirit. PAUL WAS A FRUIT OF THE HOLY SPIRIT - HE REVEALED AFTER JESUS’ RESURRECTION the ideas of Jesus as new Adam - and subsequent to Paul our Saints have made the logical connection to Mary as new Eve. Paul spoke often of the Church - there is no way a Protestant can seperate The Church from Jesus or create false “invisible churches”. The notion of a vibrantly interacting Christian Community was integral with Christianity from the very beginning. The Jews were “the chosen people” and NOT a chosen individuals. There is no concept of Jesus as one’s personal Lord and saviour - there is only a notion of God’s Kingdom and THE LORD of that Kingdom. There is no salvation outside of the people of God - no one separates Church from Jesus.

You can’t reason your way into salvation nor gain any grace by speculation and mistrust. Its’ more than a roulette bet on 1 of 35,000 Protestant denominations. Consider the Church first to be true rather than false - and then go see if you can find a reason for it not to be the one True Apostolic Faith.

What Protestant Church claims to be apostolic???

NONE.

QED: Protestantism is only on the very extreme periphery of Christianity and is so alien to what the early Church taught that they are living in a very precarious and deficient faith. Ignorance may mitigate culpability - but ignorance imparts NO GRACE. Think about that since only by GRACE is anyone able to ascend to heaven. No one gained heaven by a grace of ignorance.

James

 

[tqualey]

Hi, Radical,

This, of course, explains the Protestant mindset. We would like to look to the records produced by the people who lived at the time of the events and not at the records of people who lived 300 or even 100 years after the events.
How can the people from 100 AD tell us what happened? They are long dead. Their voices are long silenced and we are essentially left with a number of written works. As indicated by me, despite the claim of the OP, those works don’t look terribly Catholic b/c they only make passing mention of Mary. I might add that the concept of indulgences and other very Catholic doctrines are also missing. What I see the Catholics doing on this thread is basing everything on two (or more) assumptions. First, it is assumed that the CC can not err in doctrine. Second, it is assumed that the ECFs would never introduce a novelty and would only “develop” doctrines from seeds planted by Jesus and the apostles. With those two assumptions in place it follows that, for example, the Catholic doctrines of Mary must have been passed on as oral traditions from the very start and it is not possible that they didn’t exist in the first hundred years or so. Instead it must be that any written record of those doctrines from that era must have been lost somehow.
nothing else except for a couple of assumptions?..
The proper approach would be to allow that the CC could have erred (note…not assuming that it must have erred) and allow that the ECFs could have introduced novelty (note…not assuming that they must have introduced novelty) and then proceed to consider whether there are reasonable grounds for concluding that the ECFs did or did not introduce novelty.

///////////////////

This, of course, explains the Protestant mindset. We would like to look to the records produced by the people who lived at the time of the events and not at the records of people who lived 300 or even 100 years after the events.
How can the people from 100 AD tell us what happened? They are long dead. Their voices are long silenced and we are essentially left with a number of written works. As indicated by me, despite the claim of the OP, those works don’t look terribly Catholic b/c they only make passing mention of Mary. I might add that the concept of indulgences and other very Catholic doctrines are also missing. What I see the Catholics doing on this thread is basing everything on two (or more) assumptions. First, it is assumed that the CC can not err in doctrine. Second, it is assumed that the ECFs would never introduce a novelty and would only “develop” doctrines from seeds planted by Jesus and the apostles. With those two assumptions in place it follows that, for example, the Catholic doctrines of Mary must have been passed on as oral traditions from the very start and it is not possible that they didn’t exist in the first hundred years or so. Instead it must be that any written record of those doctrines from that era must have been lost somehow.
nothing else except for a couple of assumptions?..
The proper approach would be to allow that the CC could have erred (note…not assuming that it must have erred) and allow that the ECFs could have introduced novelty (note…not assuming that they must have introduced novelty) and then proceed to consider whether there are reasonable grounds for concluding that the ECFs did or did not introduce novelty.

///////////////////

This, of course, explains the Protestant mindset. We would like to look to the records produced by the people who lived at the time of the events and not at the records of people who lived 300 or even 100 years after the events.
How can the people from 100 AD tell us what happened? They are long dead. Their voices are long silenced and we are essentially left with a number of written works. As indicated by me, despite the claim of the OP, those works don’t look terribly Catholic b/c they only make passing mention of Mary. I might add that the concept of indulgences and other very Catholic doctrines are also missing. What I see the Catholics doing on this thread is basing everything on two (or more) assumptions. First, it is assumed that the CC can not err in doctrine. Second, it is assumed that the ECFs would never introduce a novelty and would only “develop” doctrines from seeds planted by Jesus and the apostles. With those two assumptions in place it follows that, for example, the Catholic doctrines of Mary must have been passed on as oral traditions from the very start and it is not possible that they didn’t exist in the first hundred years or so. Instead it must be that any written record of those doctrines from that era must have been lost somehow.
nothing else except for a couple of assumptions?..
The proper approach would be to allow that the CC could have erred (note…not assuming that it must have erred) and allow that the ECFs could have introduced novelty (note…not assuming that they must have introduced novelty) and then proceed to consider whether there are reasonable grounds for concluding that the ECFs did or did not introduce novelty.

///////////////////

 

[tqualey]

Hi, Nhylan,

As a Catholic, you will really have to do better then making a claim and expecting it to stand without any supporting evidence.

You may want to consider these two links:

oce.catholic.com/index.php?title=Anglican_Orders

papalencyclicals.net/Leo13/l13curae.htm

These links will not only give you the cogent argument on why Anglicans do not have valid orders, but they also give you the historic basis onhow this came about. You will honestly need to address to press your position.

God bless

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.

 

[tqualey]

Hi, Radical,

Please excuse teh bumbled attempt to send you a response… I set my sheet up - and then hit send in error! You see… there really is no subsititute for hand-eye coordination! Hopefully, this will get through without a disaster!

This, of course, explains the Protestant mindset. We would like to look to the records produced by the people who lived at the time of the events and not at the records of people who lived 300 or even 100 years after the events.

In my opinion, this is the key to your argument. And, while I think this has a few logical holes in it, I’m willing to take it as far as it will go!

So, we are looking for the records of the people who were there at the time - eye witness testimony that has been reduced to writing and is without error… and … these will be accepted. OK. Let’s take a look at the Eucharist and see what develops. Let’s begin with the 6th Chapter of John’s Gospel.

1.) John 6:30 - Christ begins His Eucharist Discourse by saying He is the Bread of Life. The Jews think this is a metaphor - and, you will notice that Christ keeps insisting on the idea and then expands on it. In fact, He provides the clarification He wants - this is REALLY HIS FLESH.

2.) John 6:54-56 Christ makes His postion perfect clear and then reinforces it - if you want life, then you must eat His Flesh.

2.) John 6:60 The Jews understand! And, then reject Christ strictly for doctrinal reasons, and then walk out. Note, they did not have any problems thinking this was a metaphor - if they did, Christ would have corrected the misunderstading as He did in Matt 16:5-12

3.) John 6:66 Christ’s listeners are shocked and conflicted - they have seen His signs but reject Him making claims to be the Son of God and of being required to eat His Flesh. Things are not the same - this is a watershed in the Public Ministry of Christ - and, you know, it still is a watershed in the lives of evry Chrsitians today: some believe in the Words of Christ and some don’t. Nothing has changed.

4.) Then go the Synoptic accounts of the Last Supper, where Christ in the words of three spearate Gospel Writers identifes His Flesh is being given to His Apostles for them to eat. There is no confusion - Christ is making Himself totally available in the most intimate way to His Friends.

5.) 1Cor 10:16 St. Paul (who was not present at the Last Supper but, was a contemporary of Christ - and had several intimate conversations with Christ) clearly identified that when we participate in the eucharist we are participating in the Body and Blood of Christ. Note - no problem with metaphor here.

But the problem here is that even with clearly stated words - there are those who came along 16 centuries later and not only refused to believe the words of Christ and St. Paul, but taught others to not believe.

So, here is where we find the logical hole - if we only claim to accept original accounts and then reject these accounts - what are we left with? Glad you asked

We go to the writers who were next closest and see how they interpreted and then enacted the message of Christ on the Eucharist. We go to the ECF - let’s take a look at just three

"Ignatius of Antioch, who had been a disciple of the apostle John and who wrote a letter to the Smyrnaeans about A.D. 110, said, referring to “those who hold heterodox opinions,” that “they abstain from the Eucharist and from prayer, because they do not confess that the Eucharist is the flesh of our Savior Jesus Christ, flesh which suffered for our sins and which the Father, in his goodness, raised up again” .

Then we go further…

"Forty years later, Justin Martyr, wrote, “Not as common bread or common drink do we receive these; but since Jesus Christ our Savior was made incarnate by the word of God and had both flesh and blood for our salvation, so too, as we have been taught, the food which has been made into the Eucharist by the Eucharistic prayer set down by him, and by the change of which our blood and flesh is nourished, . . . is both the flesh and the blood of that incarnated Jesus”.

And then we go a little further in time

"Origen, in a homily written about A.D. 244, attested to belief in the Real Presence. “I wish to admonish you with examples from your religion. You are accustomed to take part in the divine mysteries, so you know how, when you have received the Body of the Lord, you reverently exercise every care lest a particle of it fall and lest anything of the consecrated gift perish. You account yourselves guilty, and rightly do you so believe, if any of it be lost through negligence”

So, here you have it: what did the original words say and how were these words understood after the last Apostle died and continuing on with the Faith in Christ that He entrusted to us through His Church - and, that would be the Catholic Church.

Looking forward to hearing from you.

God bless

 

[tqualey]

Hi, Bluegoat,

You hve presented some interesting thoughts here. Let me comment on a few of them…

I don’t think Protestants see themselves as a sort of “block” though. Catholics sometimes comment on Protestants being so fractured, as if they intend themselves to somehow represent one POV or be one institutional Church. They don’t though. It can be a bit like saying the heritics are fractured, or the non-Christians, and they should try to achieve unity.

I am quite confident that none of the protestants see themselves as anything other than followers of Christ…and, never being a block to Him. But commenting on fractured belief structures, theology and the on-going splintering of these groups - is like commenting on a hot day in Texas in the summer. It is not only very obvious, but it is the only possible outcome for all groups that have left the True Church founded by Christ on Peter (Matt 16:18)

Seriously, without putting too fine a point on the topic of same-sex marriage. Look at the various denominations that have already caved in to the demands of the world. In today’s new there was a report of the Presybeterians now actively debating if they will allow same-sex marriage through their effort to redefine the term marriage. Here is an Anglican site that seems to indicate at least some of you guys are holding steady: anglican-mainstream.net/2010/07/01/will-presbyterians-redefine-marriage/

While how others see themselves may seem important to those who are looking at themselves - somewhere along the line, we as Christians believe that our earthly life will eventually end and our eternal life will immediaely begin. Where we will spending that etermal life will be based on how well we followed Christ. Endless debates about Baptism being necessary or an ordinance, or just an option - even though Christ said it was required. Endless debates about the Eucharist and the requirement from Christ Himself saying we must eat His Flesh and there are those who doubt the Word of God and have taught others to doubt the clearly spoken words of Christ. The list is almost endless - but, I think you get the idea: error is endless, Truth is One.

In a way, we could say they are all labeled Protestants only due to some historical circumstances, and for convenience, and so people can talk about some similarities of theology.

But even those aren’t absolute - not all Protestants actually have their origins in the same historical thread - the Reformation actually describes a period with several groups breaking away from the RC Church. And as far as theological similarities, mainstream Protestants are a lot closer to Roman Catholics than they are to Mormons, although some would say Mormons are Protestants too.

Yes, the Reformation was a historical event or rather series of events. But, the on-going fragmentation must have surely caught your eye as something that is a major deviation from the Unity of God. What possible basis can there be - for such division and theological chaos. My hunch is human pride - but, there may be more to it than that.

And, yes some groups are closer to the Catholic Faith then others - but, the challenge is not near proximity but what direction has Christ chosen to walk - and, are we following him with the lights we have? That is the question we will all have to eventually individually answer.

God bless

 

[SnakeMauler]

Dear JustaServant,

Perhaps you are forgetting the meaning of the word “Catholic” in its original context? “Catholic” means “Universal” as used in your quote.

Why do you find it necessary to challenge Protestants? Perhaps it is the Roman Catholic church that looks like (or thinks that it looks like) the early church? That is a matter of perspective, though I think a correct one since the early church existed before the Roman Catholic church in its current form.

I doubt that you will get the response that you desire from this forum. Your baiting is rather too subtle for the average user to respond meaningfully to. May I suggest that you rather enjoy Christ?

Thank you for the useful timeline. I was never aware of the chronology of the writings until now.

Grace and peace be with you.

Right. And the Universal Church IS the Roman Catholic Church that you see in front of you today, simply, the word “Catholic” is preferred.

 

[Memaw]

This is a rather old thread. She exited last year (didn’t realize that till I’ve posted) . She made two posts and that was that for her. Unless she signed again in a different name

That’s OK, what you said was good for all of us. God Bless, Memaw

 

[Nicea325]

Quote:
Originally Posted by ChristIsLife
Dear JustaServant,

Why do you find it necessary to challenge Protestants? Perhaps it is the Roman Catholic church that looks like (or thinks that it looks like) the early church? That is a matter of perspective, though I think a correct one since the early church existed before the Roman Catholic church in its current form.

No, it is not a matter of perspective,but moreover a matter of historical facts. The ‘Roman’ Catholic Church already existed during the NT times because a community already was there in place. The "Roman’ Catholic Church is part of that early church community. What you fail to comprehend is that “Roman” refers to the rite,not an entire separate entity apart from the early church.

 

[jimpres]

No, it is not a matter of perspective,but moreover a matter of historical facts. The ‘Roman’ Catholic Church already existed during the NT times because a community already was there in place. The "Roman’ Catholic Church is part of that early church community. What you fail to comprehend is that “Roman” refers to the rite,not an entire separate entity apart from the early church.

Exactly, Amen. Universal church = Catholic

 

[Nicea325]

Quote:
Originally Posted by Nicea325
No, it is not a matter of perspective,but moreover a matter of historical facts. The ‘Roman’ Catholic Church already existed during the NT times because a community already was there in place. The "Roman’ Catholic Church is part of that early church community. What you fail to comprehend is that “Roman” refers to the rite,not an entire separate entity apart from the early church.

Exactly, Amen. Universal church = Catholic

Amen! I am not shocked one bit how so many people are trivial with early church history,instead of taking the time to truly study it.

 

[Memaw]

Amen! I am not shocked one bit how so many people are trivial with early church history,instead of taking the time to truly study it.

Those that do, find themselves face to face with the ONE, HOLY, CATHOLIC,& APOSTOLIC Church founded by Jesus Christ and still here today, over 2,000 years later, in the fullness of TRUTH. Jesus said, “The TRUTH will set you free.”, God Bless, Memaw

 

[tammyjean34]

The catholic church today, is NOT the same church that it was in the first 3 centuries AD. If you are truly studying history of the church, you will find how much has changed, the inaccurate information through the centuries and the dark side of the church leaders of the middle ages. That is why some of the different religions exist at all. If the Vatican did not deceive the people and try to force Latin on everyone Lutheranism would not exist. Once the bible was translated to German and English, the people and many of the Bishops found out the hypocracy coming from the Vatican once they had the opportunity to read the Bible in their own languages.
To be Christian is not to challenge other religions it is to believe in your faith and your God. We are not here to judge. That is Gods job. If you are sure about your faith, then live it and share it and love all. Tammy

 

[Memaw]

The catholic church today, is NOT the same church that it was in the first 3 centuries AD. If you are truly studying history of the church, you will find how much has changed, the inaccurate information through the centuries and the dark side of the church leaders of the middle ages. That is why some of the different religions exist at all. If the Vatican did not deceive the people and try to force Latin on everyone Lutheranism would not exist. Once the bible was translated to German and English, the people and many of the Bishops found out the hypocracy coming from the Vatican once they had the opportunity to read the Bible in their own languages.
To be Christian is not to challenge other religions it is to believe in your faith and your God. We are not here to judge. That is Gods job. If you are sure about your faith, then live it and share it and love all. Tammy

Not sure where your coming from but your information is way off base. ‘The Truth is the Truth even if NObody believes it and a lie is still a lie even if Everybody believes it!’. said by Archb. Fulton J. Sheen.
While there have been many in the Catholic Church, (then as now) that were not holy, the Church Jesus founded is the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church, protected by the Holy Spirit. Same Doctrine today as was giving to it by Jesus and HIS Apostles. . Jesus promised that and he does NOT go back on HIS promises. Study your faith and you will know that. Even one of HIS chosen Apostles was a traitor but that didn’t stop Jesus from establishing HIS True Church. And HE promised it would be here till the End of the World and HE would be with us. The Catholic Church has outlived every ruler and every persecution thrown at it, (from the inside as well as from the outside) for the past 2,000 years or more. She still teaches the same truths given her by Christ and will till the end of Time. To be a true Catholic is not to “Live and Let Live” but to help others understand and come to the fullness of TRUTH. Jesus said ,“The Truth will set you free.” We don’t judge, we teach and pray and LOVE. God Bless, Memaw

 

[Arandur]

The catholic church today, is NOT the same church that it was in the first 3 centuries AD. If you are truly studying history of the church, you will find how much has changed, the inaccurate information through the centuries and the dark side of the church leaders of the middle ages.

And what might those changes and ‘inaccuracies’ be?
I’ll agree, rites matured and early doctrines were further explored, building on the foundations of the early Church and maintaining continuity. Christ was building His Church, and we must expect it to grow and achieve greater understanding throughout the ages, or Christ Himself would be dead and the Spirit would be leading no one to truth.

That is why some of the different religions exist at all.

I’ll agree that the sinfulness of Church members always makes it vulnerable to further damage, and thus the vulnerability to schisms. Ignorance also lead to schisms.

If the Vatican did not deceive the people and try to force Latin on everyone Lutheranism would not exist. Once the bible was translated to German and English, the people and many of the Bishops found out the hypocracy coming from the Vatican once they had the opportunity to read the Bible in their own languages.

Deceive how?
We are all hypocrites; I assume you had something more particular in mind?
And you might want to check up on your claim about the vernacular translations. Luther was far from the first. There were many vernacular translations available, including in German.
jloughnan.tripod.com/fun1_2.htm
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bible_translations_in_the_Middle_Ages

That you repeat this very basic old canard calls into serious question any credibility you claim about knowing history. I expect you believe the Inquisition killed millions and, along with the Crusades, were all about forced conversion. That the Galileo affair was about persecution of science and that popes just went about inventing new doctrines with no hint of ancient, Biblical, or apostolic origin. Etc.

To be Christian is not to challenge other religions it is to believe in your faith and your God. We are not here to judge. That is Gods job. If you are sure about your faith, then live it and share it and love all. Tammy

Charity is of the utmost importance. But so is Truth. Both are a person, and the object of our worship. Love without Truth is not Truly Love.