Are there Protestants that don't believe that the RCC is the original church Jesus founded himself?

[smead2942]

There wasn’t an established Catholic church until the Romans adopted Christianity.

Just lots of Christian communities mainly scattered around those parts where the early apostles were able to travel to spreading the teachings of Christ.

Pauls writings mention much about those earliest places.

Wrong.

Here is an excerpt from St. Ignatius of Antioch (disciple of John the Apostle, appointed bishop by Saint Peter)'s epistle to the Smyrnaeans, written around 100 AD:

“See that you all follow the bishop, even as Jesus Christ does the Father, and the presbytery as you would the apostles; and reverence the deacons, as being the institution of God. Let no man do anything connected with the Church without the bishop. Let that be deemed a proper Eucharist, which is [administered] either by the bishop, or by one to whom he has entrusted it. Wherever the bishop shall appear, there let the multitude [of the people] also be; even as, wherever Jesus Christ is, there is the Catholic Church. It is not lawful without the bishop either to baptize or to celebrate a love-feast; but whatsoever he shall approve of, that is also pleasing to God, so that everything that is done may be secure and valid.”

Tell me again there was no established Catholic Church prior to its’ legalization in the Roman Empire.

 

[DaveBj]

Are there Protestants that don’t believe that the RCC is the original church Jesus founded himself?

By the time I reached my 40s, the distillation of what I had been taught and what I had studied on my own was something like this: The Church that Jesus founded was analogous to a train headed from New York to Miami. For several hundred years people got on this south-bound train. Then at some point (usually said to be in the 4th century), everyone fell asleep. In the 16th century a few people woke up and discovered that the train had been hijacked and was now on its way to Chicago. They managed to get some cars unhooked and headed south again, and that’s where we stand today, with one train headed for Chicago and another train headed for Miami. (Yeah, I know that it’s not a perfect analogy, but work with me here.)

What I didn’t have was access to the early writings, to see whether the early Church was a Pentecostal shout-fest free-for-all (like the church I was taken to in my childhood), or maybe something else. Then when we were visiting the flagship bookstore of our Pentecostal denomination, (!) my wife found a CD-ROM library that included all 37 volumes of the early Church Fathers (now easily available on multiple websites). I started reading, and my first impression was, “Wow!! The Apostle John isn’t even cold in his grave and already the Church was falling into the Catholic heresies!!”

“Ignorance of history . . .” – we’ve all heard or read that quote. It’s very true.

 

[JMM1957]

New Testament scripture points out in many instances that those members of the church of Christ “should be of one mind”, so I assume that is referring to theological beliefs, don’t you think? Did the early Christians of the first century have complete understanding of all that they were taught by the apostles and their successors? Scripture indicates that there were ongoing problems in both understanding of teachings and with behavior in various congregations that needed to be straightened out.

 

[PaulDupre1]

I don’t think it’s a meaningful claim, historically. As historical phenomnena, churches change.

Do I believe that the “RCC” is in continuity with the Church Jesus founded? Yes, definitely.

Do I believe that it is in more significant continuity with the Church Jesus founded than any other Church? Probably, with the Eastern Churches close rivals (Eastern Christianity is in most ways less changed from early centuries–but early centuries aren’t the same thing as the time of Jesus; there is Eastern Christianity within the Roman Communion; and the Papacy just by itself is a vitally significant element of continuity).

But do I believe that other Christian communities are also in continuity with the Church Jesus founded? Yes, definitely. So I hesitate to say simply “the RCC is the Church Jesus founded.” That’s certainly true in one sense, but it can be taken to mean a lot of things that clearly aren’t true (for instance, that in every way in which Catholics differ from Protestants, it’s because Catholics are faithful to Jesus’ intentions and Protestants aren’t–that obviously isn’t the case).

That’s my dilemma. (I’m currently in RCIA, by the way, but have not yet been received and am still struggling with whether this is the right thing to do–as I have been doing for nearly 20 years now.)

The Catholic Church itself does not claim to “be” the church that Jesus founded. The Catholic church claims that the church that Jesus founded “subsists in the Catholic Church”.

This is a necessary distinction, because as you’ve correctly pointed out, churches change. The Catholic Church has certainly grown larger and so more complex. I dare say if a 1st-century Christian walked into a 21st-century Catholic parish, he would not say “wow, this is my church!”. He probably would have no idea where he was - until mass started.

Then he would say "oh, they’re celebrating the mass just like we did. The sacraments and the apostolic authority to administer those sacraments are still alive and well within the Catholic Church.

I would also say that the church Jesus founded subsists within the Orthodox churches, as they also have valid sacraments and the apostolic authority to administer them.

Even the definition of what constitutes the Catholic Church is much more broad than most people realize.

Paul

 

[Randy_Carson]

I dare say if a 1st-century Christian walked into a 21st-century Catholic parish, he would not say “wow, this is my church!”. He probably would have no idea where he was - until mass started.

Then he would say "oh, they’re celebrating the mass just like we did. The sacraments and the apostolic authority to administer those sacraments are still alive and well within the Catholic Church.

I would also say that the church Jesus founded subsists within the Orthodox churches, as they also have valid sacraments and the apostolic authority to administer them.

Until after mass - when the Metropolitan would have to explain that he had no communion with the See of Peter. Then our 1st-century boy would wonder if he had been in real Church at all.

 

[Arizona_Samson]

That’s my dilemma. (I’m currently in RCIA, by the way, but have not yet been received and am still struggling with whether this is the right thing to do–as I have been doing for nearly 20 years now.)

Why do you feel you are struggling so, Contarini?

 

[Kliska]

If you or another Protestant don’t believe, please tell me why.

As others have already said, the church at Pentecost does not resemble the church presently. Things changed. So, yes, I guess I’m a “protestant” that doesn’t believe the RCC is the original church Jesus founded (and, yes, I’m one that believes in the church of all believers regardless of denomination). There are lots of “why’s” for me. For example, one of the simplest reasons has been discussed on here before; let’s take you for example, souldiver.

If you were present at Pentecost and believed what was proclaimed (preached), then you could have been added to the church that very day. Today if you go to a Catholic mass and believe what you hear preached, you could not (at least not if you weren’t about to die, or have another extraordinary situation) be added to the church that very day. Now you must go through RCIA and be formally accepted into the church that can take a year, plus more, depending on timing. Clearly there is a difference. If you were to attend one of the organizational churches I frequent, you could “join the church” that very day.

 

[cmodrmac]

well of course there are -should not be a surprise

 

[JonNC]

If you or another Protestant don’t believe, please tell me why.

I believe it truly is the one true Church, but not only and exclusively. To say that the Bishopric in Rome has not been a part of the Church since the early Church is just plain silly. But Christ’s Church on Earth is not limited to being in communion with the Bishop of Rome.

Jon

 

[PaulDupre1]

But Christ’s Church on Earth is not limited to being in communion with the Bishop of Rome.

Jon

The CCC agrees with you.

 

[spedteacherita]

Wrong.

Here is an excerpt from St. Ignatius of Antioch (disciple of John the Apostle, appointed bishop by Saint Peter)'s epistle to the Smyrnaeans, written around 100 AD:

“See that you all follow the bishop, even as Jesus Christ does the Father, and the presbytery as you would the apostles; and reverence the deacons, as being the institution of God. Let no man do anything connected with the Church without the bishop. Let that be deemed a proper Eucharist, which is [administered] either by the bishop, or by one to whom he has entrusted it. Wherever the bishop shall appear, there let the multitude [of the people] also be; even as, wherever Jesus Christ is, there is the Catholic Church. It is not lawful without the bishop either to baptize or to celebrate a love-feast; but whatsoever he shall approve of, that is also pleasing to God, so that everything that is done may be secure and valid.”

Tell me again there was no established Catholic Church prior to its’ legalization in the Roman Empire.

But Ignatius is NOT talking about ONE bishop…he’s referring to the bishops of each church in the various cities.

 

[greypiper]

I don’t believe there can be a Protestant who believes that, or else they WOULD be Catholic (or Orthodox )

 

[Randy_Carson]

If you were present at Pentecost and believed what was proclaimed (preached), then you could have been added to the church that very day.

Perhaps in that exceptional example, Kliska, but even in Galatians there is reference to the catechumens:

Galatians 6:6
6 Nevertheless, the one who receives instruction (katēcheō) in the word should share all good things with their instructor.

The Greek word katēcheō, is where we get our word “catechumen”, and so, within the pages of the NT, there is already a distinction being made in the Early Church between those who were already in the Church and those that were still under instruction.

I think you can cross another reason off your “Why I’m Not Catholic” list.

-]17. Can’t join the Catholic Church in one day./-]

 

[Randy_Carson]

But Ignatius is NOT talking about ONE bishop…he’s referring to the bishops of each church in the various cities.

How does that help you?

Where Jesus is, there is the Catholic Church.

Not the Anglican Church. Not the Babdist Church. Not the Methodist Church.

The Catholic Church.

And wherever a Bishop of the Catholic Church should be, that is where the people should assemble.

Not with the Arians. Not with the Nestorians. Not with the Pelagians.

With the Bishops of the Catholic Church.

 

[Contarini]

Well, technically it is not correct to say that protestant Churches are in continuity with the Church Jesus founded when they either take away or change key doctrines that are not up to opinion.

If those doctrines can be demonstrated to have been present from the beginning, then obviously they would not be in continuity in those respects. But they would be in continuity in other respects. And the points where Catholics and Protestants differ mostly concern developments of doctrine or interpretations where Scripture (and often the witness of the early postapostolic centuries as well) is not clear.

However, Protestants have a huge problem: they clearly did break in very important respects (not all respects, of course) with the medieval Church, which was the heir of the apostolic Church. Even if the medieval Church got a lot of things wrong, one can’t just go back to some lost state of “primitive Christianity.” One can be inspired by the early Church–one can’t recreate it. Many Protestants don’t see this as a problem. Confessional Protestants believe that their doctrines constitute the fullest development of orthodox Christianity, correcting some bad moves made in the later Middle Ages. Many evangelical and mainline Protestants have no problem with a wide variation in doctrine and practice within the Church.

It really is the case to say that protestant beliefs that undo Christ’s teaching are not faithful to Jesus’ intentions.

That’s a truism.

The biggest problem that plagues most protestant Churches is the “faith alone” doctrine that is not biblical or historical, and is vital to our understanding of God and man.

I agree that sola fide is an innovation, and insofar as it is a break with the Tradition and not a development it is unnecessary. (I think that the positive understanding of faith found in Luther’s teaching is a valuable development, but the conceptual break between justification and sanctification is a destructive error.)

Saints, especially Eastern saints like Basil, John Chrysostom, and later Maximus all explain the twofold way in which we were created, in the image and likeness of God. The image is purely a gift and grace of God to make us in a way that we have no control over, a mighty creation with great potential. The likeness truly requires “us”. We must strive to use our God given reason to “become” truly victors over the flesh. We really do earn a crown as scripture says. Of course the greater part is completely given to us by God and is believed in by Faith alone,

Caveat; I don’t think it’s greater and lesser. It’s 100% of God, but God’s action is not of such a kind as to exclude our action. (Louis Bouyer is good on this in The Spirit and Forms of Protestantism).

but the second part is crucial for us, since it does involve a lot, namely taking up our own cross and following Jesus. That this whole understanding is not taught and is actually spoken against by many protestants, and sadly even by many Catholics that don’t know any better, makes protestant belief not in continuity with the Church.

But as you admit, many Catholics don’t get it either. And many Protestants do. (My Wesleyan tradition would not fundamentally disagree with what you are saying.) So your example fails to support your thesis.

 

[Contarini]

How does that help you?

Where Jesus is, there is the Catholic Church.

Not the Anglican Church. Not the Babdist Church. Not the Methodist Church.

The Catholic Church.

And wherever a Bishop of the Catholic Church should be, that is where the people should assemble.

Not with the Arians. Not with the Nestorians. Not with the Pelagians.

With the Bishops of the Catholic Church.

Randy, you’re committing the logical fallacy called “begging the question.”

The question at issue is how the term “Catholic Church” is to be defined. You can’t argue for your definition by finding the term “Catholic Church” and reading your definition into it.

Edwin

 

[Randy_Carson]

Randy, you’re committing the logical fallacy called “begging the question.”

The question at issue is how the term “Catholic Church” is to be defined. You can’t argue for your definition by finding the term “Catholic Church” and reading your definition into it.

Edwin

So, Ignatius was not using “Catholic Church” as a proper noun?

 

[Contarini]

Why do you feel you are struggling so, Contarini?

Fundamentally because of what I said above: I believe that all baptized, Trinitarian Christians belong to the Church Christ founded. And to break communion with any such Christians goes against my conscience. But I also believe that I ought to be in communion with the successor of St. Peter!

There are personal issues as well, and the one major doctrinal issue I have with Catholicism is women’s ordination (also linked to my personal situation–my wife is in the ordination process in the Episcopal Church). But the personal issues dramatize the theological issues. It isn’t a matter of knowing that Catholicism is true but not wanting to offend my family, though in the past I have worried that it was (and even more so, I knew that one reason for my not becoming Catholic during my years at Huntington University was that I would probably have lost my job, and this troubled my conscience).

Edwin

 

[Gabriel_of_12]

As the two Orthodox Communions, the Assyrian Church and the Catholic Communion show, there is room for unity in diversity. As long as the faith is the same.

The Catholic Church has much diversity in languages, peoples, cultures, tribes and tongues. All these which were evangelized by the original Apostles still exist today. It is in these diverse communities were the faith is expressed beautifully and in diverse ways, but remains the same unchanged.

Protestantism has removed itself from this communion from antiquity and began a new path on its own. The Christian faith expression and practice from Protestantism is not the same as in the diverse Catholic rites to include Latin, Orthodox, Eastern Catholics. Some of these may be in and out of communion with each other, never the less the faith remains the same in the divine sacramental economy.

It is the divine sacramental economy that continues to make the One Church Jesus founded and began building His Church upon Peter and the apostles, into His mystical body. **One who removes him/herself from these universal (Catholic) sacred divine rites, which fulfill the Law and the prophets in Jesus Christ; places him/herself in danger of salvation.

One removing him/herself from the sacramental divine economy of salvation is not the same as for one who has never entered the full sacramental divine economy of salvation.**Entering the divine economy of salvation fulfilled in Christ is what needs to be emphasized more, not necessarily the authority and jurisdiction of the bishop of Rome who presides in the Chair of Peter.

At Pentecost those who were baptized in a single day and sins removed in one day were all Jews from different cultures. These Jews did not require instruction when they already had a sacramental system understanding, and saw how Jesus fulfilled them.

All others which followed these in The Way, required instruction so as not to place them in contempt with God. Especially the faith understanding of discerning the body and blood in the Eucharist; see 1Cor.11, so as not to be judged for the crucifixion of Jesus. The Catholic Church has never left this Apostolic biblical principle of entering the Kingdom of God.

Peace be with you

 

[Kliska]

Perhaps in that exceptional example, Kliska, but even in Galatians there is reference to the catechumens:

Galatians 6:6
6 Nevertheless, the one who receives instruction (katēcheō) in the word should share all good things with their instructor.

The Greek word katēcheō, is where we get our word “catechumen”, and so, within the pages of the NT, there is already a distinction being made in the Early Church between those who were already in the Church and those that were still under instruction.

I think you can cross another reason off your “Why I’m Not Catholic” list.

-]17. Can’t join the Catholic Church in one day./-]

No, Randy, it is firmly still right there staring everyone in the face, not just me. The Greek word used isn’t implying something “pre-belief” or “pre-baptism” or “pre-membership.” The context of the verse is about sharing what we have with those who teach us, not that we are outside the faith. Further, it did not just happen on Pentecost that believers joined in one day, in fact, as you know, you can read about conversions throughout the NT. The RCC has made the journey into a winding jungle that can take a year or longer to wind up in the church. That is most assuredly not what is in scripture.