Since the church has acknowledged wrong doing by Catholics took place, i think it was a possibility. Then again, it doesn’t really matter as someone, eventually, was going to jump ship. Catholics sometimes make Luther out to be some sort of villian…and i don’t think that’s accurate nor is it productive in our discussions.
Agreed
Agreed. A agree the catholic church gave it by the power of the Holy spirit. My problem comes in when Roman Catholics claim total jurisdiction over it with arguments right through this thread.
MichaelP3 there is no such thing as the “Roman Catholic Church” - it is an invention by the Anglicans when Henry VIII broke away from the Catholic Church. The term “Catholic Church” has its origins in the first century AD - the evidence is in the letter by the bishop of Antioch in 107 AD when he referred to “ekklesia katilikos” or the Church universal. There are about 22 rites which include the Latin (or Roman) rite, Chaldean, Maronite, to the Syro-Malabar in India.
I’m calling it the Roman Catholic Church to show I see a difference between the current one, and the first one. I can backtrack and refer to Catholic (those in communion with Rome) and catholic (Greek for universal) which is 2 different entities if you prefer.
But what else could they say he was? In their view, Ps didn’t exist until 1517, RCs didn’t exist until 1054, and OOs didn’t exist until 451.
But many people use “Roman Catholic” as a shortened form of “Roman-Rite Catholic”, thus excluding Greek Catholics and Oriental Catholics.
Yes I agree that can be stated from various directions. But the fact that that can even be asked is my concern given the absolute belief of “infallibility for the church” and things never changed and “Catholicism has always been right” and all the dogmas has always been believed and so on. Protestants don’t (And if you find one that does, I don’t agree with him) claim this. Therefore the fact that if 1517 is thrown at me, it isn’t much of a concern.
The argument that there **was **an authoritative agency in the ancient church (opening the canon, identifying the books, closing the canon, identifying Early Church Fathers and “Heretics”, identifying Sacred Tradition from mere traditions) seems undeniable. You might make a case that that this ancient Magisterium did its job, then either closed its shop, or was overthrown by a modern, unreliable magisterium, which attached to the same words “Catholic Church” that were used by the reliable, ancient one.
I have absolutely no problem with you believing in a Catholic Magisterium. I don’t personally from my side believe it will do anything to your salvation just like I don’t believe a Baptist or a Anglican is doing something “wrong”. Well wrong is I guess a matter of perspective (Obviously not for those obvious ones). And I really mean this sincere and not sarcastic.
. But just something like having no distinction between sins. Although yea, one can argue murder is worse than telling a lie, but that’s not the point. In Catholicism there is a clear cut distinction and even literally a list of mortal sins. Where it seems that with Orthodoxy, they rather leave this question to God and dare not interfere. I have a hard time taking the current Catholic Church as the absolute truth given basically everything. And even if some may be the truth, the claim to infallibility would make even one contradiction the catalyst for denying all the other. That is making me very skeptical.So then, what part does the promised Holy Spirit play in all of this controversy. It just seems to me that Protestant’s confess the Holy Spirit, but deny its power.I have absolutely no problem with you believing in a Catholic Magisterium. I don’t personally from my side believe it will do anything to your salvation just like I don’t believe a Baptist or a Anglican is doing something “wrong”. Well wrong is I guess a matter of perspective (Obviously not for those obvious ones). And I really mean this sincere and not sarcastic.
I am currently doing some research into the Orthodox Church and I must say I am more inclined to there belief. I am still a far way so I am not converting pretty soon
Being a Protestant makes a lot more sense to me, as we also have many controversies but we don’t claim infallibility.
So asking when it ended is a very valid question and I would love to see a current infallible institution.
During all my comments I hope I didn’t sound like " I am right, come and be Protestant". I was rather just asking “Why be Catholic?”. As to me Catholicism comes forth as infallible as every other Protestant denomination (including my own) and thus I cannot say you are wrong. But I cannot say I feel Catholicism is right either.
C. S. Lewis addresses many of your questions well, as does G. K. Chesterton. What I like about them (their writings) is that they are close enough to our time to understand the world we live in, yet a little distant so they are not too caught up in the arguments of the moment.I have absolutely no problem with you believing in a Catholic Magisterium. I don’t personally from my side believe it will do anything to your salvation just like I don’t believe a Baptist or a Anglican is doing something “wrong”. Well wrong is I guess a matter of perspective (Obviously not for those obvious ones). And I really mean this sincere and not sarcastic.
I am currently doing some research into the Orthodox Church and I must say I am more inclined to there belief. I am still a far way so I am not converting pretty soon
Being a Protestant makes a lot more sense to me, as we also have many controversies but we don’t claim infallibility.
So asking when it ended is a very valid question and I would love to see a current infallible institution.
During all my comments I hope I didn’t sound like " I am right, come and be Protestant". I was rather just asking “Why be Catholic?”. As to me Catholicism comes forth as infallible as every other Protestant denomination (including my own) and thus I cannot say you are wrong. But I cannot say I feel Catholicism is right either.
I’m reminded of a conversation I had, back in my preforum days, with a fairly learned Lutheran, who reframed the question as “Was there one?”
There were several Christian agencies. But only one - the ancient Magisterium supported by some Christians - was and is regarded as authoritative in the Reformation, and today, by Catholics (explicitly follow it) and by Protestants (implicitly follow it).
When we actually find out will it be too late?
The post I responded to said that it’s undeniable that “there was an authoritative agency in the ancient church”, but I’d like to hear a protestant view. Certainly we all agree that there was a Pope of Rome, and a Patriarch of Constantinople, and a Pope of Alexandria, and so on, but would Protestants truly see one singular authoritative agency? I doubt it, particularly since you don’t regard one see (Rome) has having “supremacy” over Constantinople, Alexandria etc. (I’m also very much aware of what Protestants say about the Council of Jerusalem, and in particular St. James.)When we actually find out will it be too late?
Yours is a misunderstanding of what the Catholic Church is. It includes all Christians - ie universal! Those that do not practise their faith within the Catholic Church are our separated brothers and sisters. There is only one Catholic Church as declared in the Apostle’s creed.
The Bible is indeed a universal and Catholic Book!
We may resort to Scripture: “You are Peter, and on this rock I will build my Church, and the gates of hell will not prevail against it” (Matt. 16:18).When we actually find out will it be too late?
My scepticism would rather be attributed to the fact that these seats failed to work in unison. It ended with one seat claiming supreme authority without the others buying into it.