Did the church lose its authority as Protestants claim? How do we answer that?

[Frankenfurter]

Many main line Protestants have no issue with saying that the Catholic church was the church founded by Jesus, and that the bible was defined by the Catholic faith, and that the Church had authority to interpret scriptures etc, but that this was somehow lost through corruption. Then the Protestants re-claimed the original church authority, etc. by making the church back to what it was supposed to be.

I know many Protestants who sincerely feel this way.

So none of the arguments about how the Catholic church was the one true church, wrote/compiled the biblle, etc., works because they just agree, but then say that this was lost through corruption.

I would appreciate any good way to answer this, that will be accepted by them, for the next time I see some of these folks.

In particular, some of these folks are Baptist, some are Methodist. I also know some LDS who make this point.

One other thing, they all claim to be united on this point. Sometimes it just feels anti-Catholic for the sake of being anti-Catholic.

But I would love a good answer to have if there is one. Something to help with their stumbling block.

 

[fred_conty]

They would have to establish the time frame of corruption.
Then show that what we have today reflects the catholic church and not the protestant before the time of corruption.

The reason I say this is that each objector may have a different time frame for the beginning of this corruption.

In addition, what are they describing as corruption? Non Sola Scriptura? Non OSAS? ???

 

[johnnyc176]

Many main line Protestants have no issue with saying that the Catholic church was the church founded by Jesus, and that the bible was defined by the Catholic faith, and that the Church had authority to interpret scriptures etc, but that this was somehow lost through corruption. Then the Protestants re-claimed the original church authority, etc. by making the church back to what it was supposed to be.

I know many Protestants who sincerely feel this way.

So none of the arguments about how the Catholic church was the one true church, wrote/compiled the biblle, etc., works because they just agree, but then say that this was lost through corruption.

I would appreciate any good way to answer this, that will be accepted by them, for the next time I see some of these folks.

In particular, some of these folks are Baptist, some are Methodist. I also know some LDS who make this point.

One other thing, they all claim to be united on this point. Sometimes it just feels anti-Catholic for the sake of being anti-Catholic.

But I would love a good answer to have if there is one. Something to help with their stumbling block.

"And I tell you, you are Peter, and on this rock I will build my church,** and the gates of Hades will not prevail against it.** I will give you the keys of the kingdom of heaven, and whatever you bind on earth will be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth will be loosed in heaven.”

 

[triumphguy]

Ordination is sacramental.
The sacraments are valid whether or not the ministers are sinful.

Any “corruption” or sinfulness on behalf of those administering the sacrament of ordination and the consecration of Bishops in the early Church is entirely irrelevant.

 

[ChurchSoldier]

Explain the church acknowledged their faults and corrected what needed to be corrected with the counter-reformation.

 

[Jeanne_S]

Many main line Protestants have no issue with saying that the Catholic church was the church founded by Jesus, and that the bible was defined by the Catholic faith, and that the Church had authority to interpret scriptures etc, but that this was somehow lost through corruption. Then the Protestants re-claimed the original church authority, etc. by making the church back to what it was supposed to be.

I know many Protestants who sincerely feel this way.

So none of the arguments about how the Catholic church was the one true church, wrote/compiled the biblle, etc., works because they just agree, but then say that this was lost through corruption.

I would appreciate any good way to answer this, that will be accepted by them, for the next time I see some of these folks.

In particular, some of these folks are Baptist, some are Methodist. I also know some LDS who make this point.

One other thing, they all claim to be united on this point. Sometimes it just feels anti-Catholic for the sake of being anti-Catholic.

But I would love a good answer to have if there is one. Something to help with their stumbling block.

Why are there now some 30,000 different Protestant faiths?Which of them reclaimed the original church?

 

[steve_b]

Many main line Protestants have no issue with saying that the Catholic church was the church founded by Jesus, and that the bible was defined by the Catholic faith, and that the Church had authority to interpret scriptures etc, but that this was somehow lost through corruption.

Then they are saying,when Jesus said “I will build my Church and not even the gates of hell shall prevail against it” that Jesus failed? sheesh!!!

[Matthew 16:18](Matthew - The Genealogy of Jesus the Messiah - Bible Gateway 16:18&version=NASB) They are saying the gates of hell prevailed against His Church.

To put it bluntly, it’s not only a galactically stupid argument, they’ve painted themselves into a corner.

• They see it’s the Catholic Church that Jesus said He will build and does build.
• that means All Our Lord’s promises go to the Catholic Church. One of those promises is not even the gates of hell will prevail agianst it. Jesus is putting the worst possible case scenerio into the protection of the Catholic Church which He builds
• And there’s the box they are in. They can’t then claim ignorance on the following. [846 (Catechism of the Catholic Church - Paragraph # 846)

F:

Then the Protestants re-claimed the original church authority, etc. by making the church back to what it was supposed to be.

I wouldn’t be surprised if every heretic in history has used that argument in one form or another. What’s new? These protestants belong to one of [The Great Heresies (http://www.catholic.com/tracts/the-great-heresies) in history. Paul had some very strict words to say about heretics. [Titus 3:10 (Titus 3:10 RSVCE - As for a man who is factious, after - Bible Gateway)
“As for a man who is factious ( [αἱρετικὸν (http://bibleapps.com/greek/141.htm) heretic ), after admonishing him once or twice, have nothing more to do with him, 11 knowing that such a person is perverted and sinful; he is self-condemned.”

Catch that? they are Perverted because they cling to error and won’t listen to truth (see above), and as a result, they are self condemned because their sin is mortal.sin. Which means hell is in their future unless they change their trajectory
F:

I know many Protestants who sincerely feel this way.

So none of the arguments about how the Catholic church was the one true church, wrote/compiled the biblle, etc., works because they just agree, but then say that this was lost through corruption.

Again, they have no leg to stand on. They are really saying Jesus failed His promise. This is why Paul calls heretics perverted…
F:

I would appreciate any good way to answer this, that will be accepted by them, for the next time I see some of these folks.

Look at what they agree on about the Catholic Church. That tells you they are not going to be able to use the ignorance defense on their judgement day. They know the Catholic Church was instituted by Jesus for salvation of the world. And they are NOT in it.

when you can’t reason with heretics who won’t listen, pray for them and move on.
F:

In particular, some of these folks are Baptist, some are Methodist. I also know some LDS who make this point.

These guys (baptists and methodost) don’t even agree with each other. Re: baptists, The reason there are so many baptist sects, is because baptist sects don’t agree with each other let alone other protestant sects. LDS don’t have valid baptism so they aren’t even Christian.

what you describe is perversion on steroids. Paul nailed it in a short sentence

 

[bisco]

what was the corruption? i don’t see anyone starting a new religion over the clergy sex abuse scandal.

 

[fhansen]

Many main line Protestants have no issue with saying that the Catholic church was the church founded by Jesus, and that the bible was defined by the Catholic faith, and that the Church had authority to interpret scriptures etc, but that this was somehow lost through corruption. Then the Protestants re-claimed the original church authority, etc. by making the church back to what it was supposed to be.

I know many Protestants who sincerely feel this way.

So none of the arguments about how the Catholic church was the one true church, wrote/compiled the biblle, etc., works because they just agree, but then say that this was lost through corruption.

I would appreciate any good way to answer this, that will be accepted by them, for the next time I see some of these folks.

In particular, some of these folks are Baptist, some are Methodist. I also know some LDS who make this point.

One other thing, they all claim to be united on this point. Sometimes it just feels anti-Catholic for the sake of being anti-Catholic.

But I would love a good answer to have if there is one. Something to help with their stumbling block.

So, then, what did God do, pass on authority to groups of people who often disagree with each other? I’d submit that, unless authority is and continues to be vested in a united, visible, historical Church that God established at the beginning of Christianity, then there is no authority, no way to know with any degree of certainty the meaning of the gospel.

 

[CathConvert602]

SteveB did a great post! Give them 2 attempts, then move on. Pray for them, live your life as an example, and let God work!

 

[Abu]

Such an assumption denies the Christ, Son of the Living God, for it was the Christ who emphatically declared, taught and re-emphasised:
All four promises to Peter alone:
“You are Peter and on this rock I will build My Church.” (Mt 16:18)
“The gates of hell will not prevail against it.”(Mt 16:18)
I will give you the keys of the Kingdom of heaven." ( Mt 16:19)
“Whatever you bind on earth will be bound in heaven.” (Mt 16:19) [Later to the Twelve].

Sole authority:
“Strengthen your brethren.” (Lk 22:32)
“Feed My sheep.”(Jn 21:17).

How could these commands be fulfilled if Peter or his successors could TEACH error? Do they think that the Christ lied?
And the authority of the Pope is that of Christ. Of him Christ said, “He that heareth you, heareth Me; and he that despiseth you, despiseth Me.” [Lk10:16]. Again, Christ said, “If a man will not hear the Church, let him be as the heathen.” [Matt. 18:17]. Our Lord could never have commanded men to obey two conflicting authorities.

No Magisterial dogma or doctrine has ever been revoked, or can be shown to be wrong, notwithstanding some bad and immoral Popes.

Further Christ and Christ’s chosen, from the Sacred Scriptures His Church gave us, have warned against just such Protestant errors, as the Sacred Scriptures confirm Christ’s expressed conferring of authenticity:
I will not leave you orphans; I will come to you." (John 14:15-18) “The Advocate, the Holy Spirit that the Father will send in my name, he will teach you everything and remind you of all that I told you.” (John 14:26) “But when he comes, the Spirit of truth, he will guide you to all truth. He will not speak on his own, but he will speak what he hears, and will declare to you the things that are coming. He will glorify me, because he will take from what is mine and declare it to you. Everything that the Father has is mine; for this reason I told you that he will take from what is mine and declare it to you.” (John 16:13-15)

Jesus warned dissenters: “if he refuses to hear even the Church let him be like the heathen and a publican.” (Mt 18:17).

St. Paul has counseled you as to whom to avoid: “Preach the word. Be urgent in season, out of season; reprove, entreat, rebuke with all patience and teaching. For there will come a time when far from being content with sound teaching, people are avid for the latest novelty and collect themselves a whole series of teachers according to their own tastes.” (2 Tim 4:3).

The Church is "the pillar and bulwark of the truth” (1 Tim 3:16).

St. Paul says also, “through the Church the manifold wisdom of God might now be made known to the principalities and powers in the heavenly places (Eph 3:10).” The Church teaches even the angels! This is with the authority of Christ!

St John counsels: “We belong to God, and anyone who knows God listens to us, while anyone who does not belong to God refuses to hear us. This is how we know the spirit of truth and the spirit of deceit.” (1 Jn 4:6 ).

In Colossians 2: 4-23, St Paul calls on his flock to follow Christ “as you were taught” and warns against merely “human precepts and teachings.”

1 Cor 1:10: I urge you brothers, in the name of Our Lord Jesus Christ, that all of you agree in what you say, and that there be no divisions among you, but that you be united in the same mind and in the same purpose.

 

[TxGodfollower]

No Magisterial dogma or doctrine has ever been revoked, or can be shown to be wrong, notwithstanding some bad and immoral Popes.

Could you please clarify this statement? It seems inconsistent with most of what I’ve heard about Catholicism and Papal Infallibility.

 

[TxGodfollower]

Many main line Protestants have no issue with saying that the Catholic church was the church founded by Jesus, and that the bible was defined by the Catholic faith, and that the Church had authority to interpret scriptures etc, but that this was somehow lost through corruption. Then the Protestants re-claimed the original church authority, etc. by making the church back to what it was supposed to be.

I know many Protestants who sincerely feel this way.

So none of the arguments about how the Catholic church was the one true church, wrote/compiled the biblle, etc., works because they just agree, but then say that this was lost through corruption.

I would appreciate any good way to answer this, that will be accepted by them, for the next time I see some of these folks.

In particular, some of these folks are Baptist, some are Methodist. I also know some LDS who make this point.

One other thing, they all claim to be united on this point. Sometimes it just feels anti-Catholic for the sake of being anti-Catholic.

But I would love a good answer to have if there is one. Something to help with their stumbling block.

I think your main problem here is actually with their argument not being presented correctly (or their lack of understanding). There are several scenarios that would have Christ’s promise to Peter being fulfilled, the Catholic Church being the initial authority, and then losing it. Consider, just one scenario that comes to mind; the Orthodox Church. At first the Catholics and Orthodox were one Church, united. A disagreement about doctrine came up, Catholics went one way, the Orthodox went another. Assuming that the united Catholic/Orthodox Church was the one Christ promised, one side in the argument had to be right. The other side, when they left, no longer was the “hell proof” Church that was promised. A similar logical argument could be made about the Protestant Reformation.

 

[robertkchacon]

Whenever I hear these vague and unsubstantiated arguments, instead of trying to respond to them, I require specifics! What so called corruption? Yes there were corrupt maybe even evil Medieval popes. But, make these critics specify what exactly they are talking about and what is their specific evidence. I get tired of responding to claims of unicorns and pixies- things about Catholicism that simply dont exist.

 

[ahs]

Could you please clarify this statement? It seems inconsistent with most of **what I’ve heard **about Catholicism and Papal Infallibility.

I think that many times, this is the core issue. Some, not all, people base their assumptions upon what they “heard”, instead of actual fact-finding. (I’m not accusing you, here; I’m just pointing this out since you mentioned it.)

At any rate, the topic of the OP, framed the way it is according to the view of those specific non-Catholics that the OP mentions, is whether Christ got it wrong and His Church to whom He promised all those things flopped. I think the Church Christ founded has never gone corrupt (though some men in it certainly have, and still do) because Christ said that it wouldn’t.

 

[Frankenfurter]

They would have to establish the time frame of corruption.
Then show that what we have today reflects the catholic church and not the protestant before the time of corruption.

The reason I say this is that each objector may have a different time frame for the beginning of this corruption.

In addition, what are they describing as corruption? Non Sola Scriptura? Non OSAS? ???

Timeframe: 1500 AD
Corruption: historylearningsite.co.uk/Roman_Catholic_Church_in_1500.htm

Note that this is a website used by kids doing research and does not have any serious historical credibility, but is what is assumed by everybody. It summarizes what most folks actually perceive to be the corruption. In summary the corruption is that the church just became about money and abused their authority for their own benefit.

 

[Frankenfurter]

"And I tell you, you are Peter, and on this rock I will build my church,** and the gates of Hades will not prevail against it.** I will give you the keys of the kingdom of heaven, and whatever you bind on earth will be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth will be loosed in heaven.”

They will say that the Church did not ultimately fail, because the Protestants saved it. Hence Jesus was not in error.

 

[Abu]

TxGodfollower #12
Could you please clarify this statement? It seems inconsistent with most of what I’ve heard about Catholicism and Papal Infallibility.

Much of what “is heard” about Christ’s mandate to St Peter and his successors is in denial of Christ’s establishment of His Magisterium. If you can state the alleged “inconsistencies”, they can be addressed, and the truth ascertained.

 

[ChurchSoldier]

Why are there now some 30,000 different Protestant faiths?Which of them reclaimed the original church?

It’s kind of difficult to use this argument because the same study which lists thousands of Protestant denominations also lists hundreds of Roman Catholic denominations. All they would really need to point out though is the Orthodox split in the Great Schism to show a church can be Catholic but not connected.

 

[Jeanne_S]

It’s kind of difficult to use this argument because the same study which lists thousands of Protestant denominations also lists hundreds of Roman Catholic denominations. All they would really need to point out though is the Orthodox split in the Great Schism to show a church can be Catholic but not connected.

hmm,good point,didn’t think of that!