EO or RC. How can a Protestant decide?

[josie_L]

“Protestant” is a name splintered off of another formal organizational church that was labeled The Roman Catholic Church. Most protestant churches still agree with the Apostles creed and also consider ourselves a part of the one, holy, catholic and apostolic church. So, am I catholic? Yes. Are my views orthodox? Yes. Of course there are others who will not agree with me nor like that I use those terms to describe myself, a professed “protestant.” I have precious little respect for labels that divide instead of unite, which was the original use of “catholic” and “orthodox.”

I got brothers and sisters in Christ with all kinds of labels attached.

I have precious little respect for relativism, i.e., a redefining of what “catholic” and “orthodox” mean.

 

[Isaiah45_9]

Try googling “Assyrian Church 424.”

Got it, thanks.

 

[dzheremi]

The Church was/is universal, i.e., all those local churches which St. Paul referenced formed the one body of Christ and that one body had a name. It was not simply “church”

I’m not sure we’re even talking about the same thing. You asked me what the Church was called and I wrote that it was “the Church at _____” (Antioch, Thessaloniki, Alexandria, wherever). I was not looking for a proper name (a sort of “nomen concretum” referring to the Church, if you will) because there wasn’t one.

i.e., Bishops gathering at an ecumenical council represented the universal Church of different local churches, and as such proclaimed they were the “Catholic Church”,

Yes, because καθ όλου kath holou (from whence we get ‘Catholic’) literally means “throughout the whole”. These councils and writers want to emphasize that what they are declaring and writing is the belief of the whole church throughout the world. This in no way contradicts anything I have written.

Chalcedon attests to this

Chalcedon says lots of things, none of which I am bound to believe in the slightest. This is literally the worst possible example you could come up with in trying to make your point to me. I’m not sure whether that’s on purpose or what, but I do not accept it and do not hold anything it has declared as in any way necessarily reflecting the truth of the Orthodox Catholic faith.

Did you notice how they referred to the Church as the Catholic Church and it’s capitalized because it is a proper noun, i.e…, it is not simply an adjective?

No council anywhere ever issued decrees or drafted canons in English. That means absolutely nothing. I imagine that you find the Church just as “Catholic” in Arabic, Ge’ez, Devanagari, Chinese, Hangul, or any of the many other scripts used by Christians that do not have a capital/lowercase distinction. Really, this is not a point at all.

No, it is not a misapplication, the Church is universal/Catholic, i.e., from its inception or rather on Pentecost when the disciples received the Holy Spirit and spoke in various tongues, this signified the birth of the universal/Catholic Church. And if you disbelieve or assume that this is just modern apologetics, then, please explain this quote from St. Augustine:

I actually don’t disagree with what you’ve written above, only with how you’re applying the writings of the fathers to the modern day. The quote from St. Augustine, for instance, makes perfect sense: No heretic will claim to be “the Catholic church”, since they know that their faith is not what is believed throughout the whole. They know they are not the Catholic church. That does not mean that “The Catholic Church” is now a noun – of course, in a technical, grammatical sense it functions as a noun because it takes a determiner in that phrase, but something tells me that’s not what you meant (as that has no impact on ecclesiology at all; Christianity is not linguistics, though I have dedicated my life to both ). It is, if anything, an adjectival phrase…yes, even in all the ancient writings you’ve quoted.

Really, folks…I can keep repeating the same thing over and over, or you can stop responding to posts that say that the catholic church is not a proper name with this or that quote that say “the Catholic Church” as though I just need to read it one more time before I abandon my own church’s ecclesiology. It’s not happening.

No, it was not “the Church”, even St. Ignatius knew as much not to call it “the Church”. Moreover, there are significantly many more quotes from the fathers that attest that the Church was called Catholic:

And I agree with all of them, and not with you. Even EWTN seems to get this distinction:
*
As mentioned in the Acts of the Apostles, it is true that the followers of Christ early became known as “Christians” (cf. Acts 11:26). The name Christian, however, was never commonly applied to the Church herself. In the New Testament itself, the Church is simply called “the Church.” There was only one. In that early time there were not yet any break-away bodies substantial enough to be rival claimants of the name and from which the Church might ever have to distinguish herself.*

They err in the next paragraph and following in presenting the “Catholic Church” as a proper name from early on and connecting it to the modern RCC, but then what else would I expect. I respect RCC ecclesiology even as I disagree with it and find it wrong.

 

[josie_L]

I’m not sure we’re even talking about the same thing. You asked me what the Church was called and I wrote that it was “the Church at _____” (Antioch, Thessaloniki, Alexandria).

In my original post to which you responded to I said that the universal church must of had a name, i.e., all the local churches which comprised the one body or if you would prefer “throughout the whole”.

Yes, because καθ όλου kath holou (from whence we get ‘Catholic’) literally means “throughout the whole”. These councils and writers want to emphasize that what they are declaring and writing is the belief of the whole church throughout the world. This in no way contradicts anything I have written.

Which is another way of saying “universal”, i.e., the whole Church spread throughout the world.

Chalcedon says lots of things, none of which I am bound to believe in the slightest. This is literally the worst possible example you could come up with in trying to make your point to me. I’m not sure whether that’s on purpose or what, but I do not accept it and do not hold anything it has declared as in any way necessarily reflecting the truth of the Orthodox Catholic faith.

Whether you disagree with Chalcedon or not does not signify as I am not asking you to believe its doctrinal views so much as referencing what the bishops labeled the Church to which they belonged to, i.e., the Church to which your church once belonged to.

No council anywhere ever issued decrees or drafted canons in English. That means absolutely nothing. I imagine that you find the Church just as “Catholic” in Arabic, Ge’ez, Devanagari, Chinese, Hangul, or any of the many other scripts used by Christians that do not have a capital/lowercase distinction.

Forgive me, Dhzeremi but I’m pretty sure that the decrees and canons drafted at Chalcedon were also written in Greek and Latin, so if you’re going to make a point then please state whether or not those languages included capital letters (because the Greek or Latin version of the acts of Chalcedon was more than likely used for the English translation).

The quote from St. Augustine, for instance, makes perfect sense: No heretic will claim to be “the Catholic church”, since they know that their faith is not what is believed throughout the whole. They know they are not the Catholic church. That does not mean that “The Catholic Church” is now a noun – of course, in a technical, grammatical sense it functions as a noun because it takes a determiner in that phrase, but something tells me that’s not what you meant (as that has no impact on ecclesiology at all; Christianity is not linguistics, though I have dedicated my life to both ). It is, if anything, an adjectival phrase…yes, even in all the ancient writings you’ve quoted

Yes, St. Augustine is using the word “Catholic” as a proper name for the Church which he belongs to, and to which the heretics are not a part of:

“There are many other things which most properly can keep me in [the Catholic Church’s] bosom. The unanimity of peoples and nations keeps me here. Her authority, inaugurated in miracles, nourished by hope, augmented by love, and confirmed by her age, keeps me here. The succession of priests, from the very see of the Apostle Peter, to whom the Lord, after his resurrection, gave the charge of feeding his sheep [John 21:15-17], up to the present episcopate, keeps me here. And last, the very name Catholic, which, not without reason, belongs to this Church alone, in the face of so many heretics, so much so that, although all heretics want to be called ‘Catholic,’ when a stranger inquires where the Catholic Church meets, none of the heretics would dare to point out his own basilica or house” (Against the Letter of Mani Called ‘The Foundation’ 4:5 [A.D. 397]).

He is not using it as an adjective so much as identifying (with a proper name) the one true church which he belongs to.

Really, folks…I can keep repeating the same thing over and over, or you can stop responding to posts that say that the catholic church is not a proper name with this or that quote that say “the Catholic Church” as though I just need to read it one more time before I abandon my own church’s ecclesiology. It’s not happening.

Who said I want you to abandon your church’s ecclesiology when my intent is only to show you that the Church did indeed have a proper name, and that name was the “Catholic Church”. Oh, and a word of advice if you’re fed up with repeating yourself don’t respond to the posts.

And I agree with all of them, and not with you.

And I agree with all of them, and not with you.

As mentioned in the Acts of the Apostles, it is true that the followers of Christ early became known as “Christians” (cf. Acts 11:26). The name Christian, however, was never commonly applied to the Church herself. In the New Testament itself, the Church is simply called “the Church.” There was only one. In that early time there were not yet any break-away bodies substantial enough to be rival claimants of the name and from which the Church might ever have to distinguish herself.

If during apostolic times the Church was simply referred to as Church because there were no rival claimants then when did she begin calling herself something other than Church to distinguish herself from other “Christian” churches?

They err in the next paragraph and following in presenting the “Catholic Church” as a proper name from early on and connecting it to the modern RCC, but then what else would I expect.

The Catholic Church is a proper name.

I respect RCC ecclesiology even as I disagree with it and find it wrong.

 

[josie_L]

Here is an excerpt of that excellent article Dhzeremi provided me if any of you are interested in reading it:

As mentioned in the Acts of the Apostles, it is true that the followers of Christ early became known as “Christians” (cf. Acts 11:26). The name Christian, however, was never commonly applied to the Church herself. In the New Testament itself, the Church is simply called “the Church.” There was only one. In that early time there were not yet any break-away bodies substantial enough to be rival claimants of the name and from which the Church might ever have to distinguish herself.

Very early in post-apostolic times, however. the Church did acquire a proper name–and precisely in order to distinguish herself from rival bodies which by then were already beginning to form. The name that the Church acquired when it became necessary for her to have a proper name was the name by which she has been known ever since-the Catholic Church.

The name appears in Christian literature for the first time around the end of the first century. By the time it was written down, it had certainly already been in use, for the indications are that everybody understood exactly what was meant by the name when it was written.

Around the year A.D. 107, a bishop, St. Ignatius of Antioch in the Near East, was arrested, brought to Rome by armed guards and eventually martyred there in the arena. In a farewell letter which this early bishop and martyr wrote to his fellow Christians in Smyrna (today Izmir in modern Turkey), he made the first written mention in history of “the Catholic Church.” He wrote, “Where the bishop is present, there is the Catholic Church” (To the Smyrnaeans 8:2). Thus, the second century of Christianity had scarcely begun when the name of the Catholic Church was already in use.

Thereafter, mention of the name became more and more frequent in the written record. It appears in the oldest written account we possess outside the New Testament of the martyrdom of a Christian for his faith, the “Martyrdom of St. Polycarp,” bishop of the same Church of Smyrna to which St. Ignatius of Antioch had written. St. Polycarp was martyred around 155, and the account of his sufferings dates back to that time. The narrator informs us that in his final prayers before giving up his life for Christ, St. Polycarp “remembered all who had met with him at any time, both small and great, both those with and those without renown, and the whole Catholic Church throughout the world.”

**We know that St. Polycarp, at the time of his death in 155, had been a Christian for 86 years. He could not, therefore, have been born much later than 69 or 70. Yet it appears to have been a normal part of the vocabulary of a man of this era to be able to speak of “the whole Catholic Church throughout the world.”
**
ewtn.com/faith/teachings/churb3.htm

 

[josie_L]

I found two more quotes:

Theodosius I

Theodosius I, Emperor from 379 to 395, declared “Catholic” Christianity the official religion of the Roman Empire, declaring in the Edict of Thessalonica of 27 February 380:

It is our desire that all the various nations which are subject to our clemency and moderation, should continue the profession of that religion which was delivered to the Romans by the divine Apostle Peter, as it has been preserved by faithful tradition and which is now professed by the Pontiff Damasus and by Peter, Bishop of Alexandria, a man of apostolic holiness. According to the apostolic teaching and the doctrine of the Gospel, let us believe in the one Deity of the Father, Son and Holy Spirit, in equal majesty and in a holy Trinity. We authorize the followers of this law to assume the title Catholic Christians; but as for the others, since in our judgment they are foolish madmen, we decree that they shall be branded with the ignominious name of heretics, and shall not presume to give their conventicles the name of churches. They will suffer in the first place the chastisement of the divine condemnation, and in the second the punishment which our authority, in accordance with the will of heaven, will decide to inflict.[18] Theodosian Code XVI.i.2

St Vincent of Lerins

A contemporary of Augustine, St. Vincent of Lerins, wrote in 434 (under the pseudonym Peregrinus) a work known as the Commonitoria (“Memoranda”). While insisting that, like the human body, church doctrine develops while truly keeping its identity (sections 54-59, chapter XXIII),[20] he stated:

"In the Catholic Church itself, all possible care must be taken, that we hold that faith which has been believed everywhere, always, by all. For that is truly and in the strictest sense ‘catholic,’** which, as the name itself and the reason of the thing declare, comprehends all universally.** . This rule we shall observe if we follow universality, antiquity, consent. ]We shall follow universality if we confess that one faith to be true, which the whole church throughout the world confesses; antiquity, if we in no wise depart from those interpretations which it is manifest were notoriously held by our holy ancestors and fathers; consent, in like manner, if in antiquity itself we adhere to the consentient definitions and determinations of all, or at the least of almost all priests and doctors" (section 6, end of chapter II).[21]

Again, the Church of Christ is referred to as the Catholic Church, i.e., this is the proper name of the Church which is universal or throughout the whole.

 

[dzheremi]

Whether you disagree with Chalcedon or not does not signify as I am not asking you to believe its doctrinal views so much as referencing what the bishops labeled the Church to which they belonged to, i.e., the Church to which your church once belonged to.

“Does not signify”? What do you mean? If you mean it doesn’t matter, you’re wrong. Not only does it matter because I do not see their decisions as actually representing the catholic Christianity they claim to be representing, I also do not agree that they were “labeling” their church in the way that you apparently think they are, or at least not any more or less than any other council that had issued similar decrees that this was the faith that they were proclaiming.

I’m pretty sure that the decrees and canons drafted at Chalcedon were also written in Greek and Latin, so …] please state whether or not those languages included capital letters (because the Greek or Latin version of the acts of Chalcedon was more than likely used for the English translation).

Again, this is not a point. Are you reading from the original Greek or Latin? Ttranslations have their own biases, and that these biases are most likely to be present in those matters which the translators have internalized (i.e., even the very idea that capitalization means what you think it means; that’s a presupposition that I don’t share, even though we’re communicating in the same language right now, and I know its punctuation conventions).

Yes, St. Augustine is using the word “Catholic” as a proper name for the Church which he belongs to, and to which the heretics are not a part of

I’ve addressed this already. What more do you want me to say?

He is not using it as an adjective so much as identifying (with a proper name) the one true church which he belongs to.

He’s writing about who would call their church “the Catholic Church” and who wouldn’t. In that, I don’t disagree with him. You, on the other hand, seem to be saying that this proves that “The Catholic Church” was understood as some kind of nomen concretum in the mind of the early church, whereby the RCC can be said to be continuing the or an apostolic understanding. I disagree, but I would like to make it clear that, as the RCC idea is a sort of narrowing of the original (adjectival) use of the term, the original way of understanding is big enough to subsume the more narrow ecclesiology within it. In other words, as we believe that the “Catholic Church” is that which holds to the Orthodox Catholic faith, it both refers to particular churches which hold that faith (e.g., the Catholic Church at a given place is the Egyptian, elsewhere it is the Armenian, elsewhere it is the British…it all depends on what’s available where; some places, conceivably, do not have recognized Catholic churches, in that they lack Orthodox bishops to preside there) and to the communion of such churches. Sort of like the point you made earlier about the church being universal as well as local. That is something I can’t imagine any Orthodox person disagreeing with. Where we do disagree, however, is with the RC stance that (from an Orthodox point of view) equates “Catholic” with “in union with the Roman Pope” and/or “holding to the faith that the Roman Pope and those in communion with him hold”. That’s not Catholic, even if every early church father without exception were to use the phrase “the Catholic Church” in English, with that very capitalization. And since that’s not what Catholic means, we’re…um…having this conversation.

Who said I want you to abandon your church’s ecclesiology when my intent is only to show you that the Church did indeed have a proper name, and that name was the “Catholic Church”.

A point which is directly related to our differing ecclesiologies, right? I think it is or else I wouldn’t have bothered writing any of this in an attempt to get you to understand why this is important, and presumably RC apologists and believers would not bother seeking out and collecting masses of quotes from early Christian writers using the phrase “the Catholic Church” as though it supports their particular ecclesiology.

Oh, and a word of advice if you’re fed up with repeating yourself don’t respond to the posts.

I just might.

If during apostolic times the Church was simply referred to as Church because there were no rival claimants then when did she begin calling herself something other than Church to distinguish herself from other “Christian” churches?

Why, after there began to be claimants, of course. As far as the exact date, take your pick: After Ephesus I, after Chalcedon, after 1054…the date itself does not matter. What it represents does, and exactly what that is will vary depending on your church’s understanding of proper ecclesiology and the history surrounding it.

The Catholic Church is a proper name.

Yes, now it is, at least for you and those in communion with you (and I suppose likewise for us, as you have absconded with this term and made it into something it wasn’t when we were still in communion, but of course we still also maintain our own understanding of what it refers to). I maintain that it was not always so.

 

[Melvin]

Both Churches claim that the faith has been deposited once and for all by the Apostles, being led by the Holy Spirit to all truth.

But the Orthodox Church does not seem to accept doctrinal development as much as the Catholic Church.

In my personal search, that seems to be the biggest issue: Staying as close to the faith that had been delivered or having spiritual knowledge being continually expounded upon by the Church.

“It’s completely foreign to the Apostolic faith and the early Church fathers” vs. “Things are being revealed throughout history for the benefit and salvation of humanity.”

Forgive me if I oversimplify or make erroneous assertions.

That’s one of the best summaries of the differences between the RC and Orthodox I have ever read…it seems so simple, when you put it like that…thank you…

 

[pocohombre]

No evasion at all. But it is my fault if I wasn’t clear enough in my reply.

I did not want to go into the disagreement rabbit trail, thus Cain.

ok

 

[dronald]

So then it’s believed by the Roman Catholics that the Orthodox are not really, “Catholics”? Or just Lutherans and everyone else?

 

[josie_L]

So then it’s believed by the Roman Catholics that the Orthodox are not really, “Catholics”? Or just Lutherans and everyone else?

Where is this coming from?

 

[dronald]

1. 
   

   Where is this coming from?

   The argument is that everyone wants to call themselves “Catholic” but not all are. Assuming that there is only One Holy Catholic, Apostolic Church then only one can rightly claim to be Catholic. That’s what I’m asking.
   
   By your response I’m assuming you don’t believe this; so are Lutherans Catholic? Anglicans? Evangelicals?

 

[SteveVH]

So then it’s believed by the Roman Catholics that the Orthodox are not really, “Catholics”? Or just Lutherans and everyone else?

The Orthodox are in schism with the Catholic Church. The faith traditions which originated with the “reformation” are heretical, to varying degrees. Big difference. The Eastern Orthodox share the same faith as the Catholic Church, with very few differences. The daughters and sons of the “reformation” have, for the most part, rejected nearly everything the Catholic Church had taught for 1500 years, retaining only the Church’s holy book, the Bible. The authority of the Church Christ founded has been exchanged for the authority of the individual. The result? Chaos, with little to no uniformity of belief among non-Catholic Christians.

 

[Isaiah45_9]

1. 
   
   The argument is that everyone wants to call themselves “Catholic” but not all are. Assuming that there is only One Holy Catholic, Apostolic Church then only one can rightly claim to be Catholic. That’s what I’m asking.
   
   By your response I’m assuming you don’t believe this; so are Lutherans Catholic? Anglicans? Evangelicals?

1. 
   This is best understood by the document I linked earlier: Dominus Iesus.
   
   All who have been baptized in the name of the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit belong to the Catholic Church - some in an imperfect way. In that sense they are catholics not in communion with the Catholic Church.

 

[JonNC]

The Orthodox are in schism with the Catholic Church. The faith traditions which originated with the “reformation” are heretical, to varying degrees. Big difference. The Eastern Orthodox share the same faith as the Catholic Church, with very few differences. **The daughters and sons of the “reformation” have, for the most part, rejected nearly everything the Catholic Church had taught for 1500 years, retaining only the Church’s holy book, the Bible. **The authority of the Church Christ founded has been exchanged for the authority of the individual. The result? Chaos, with little to no uniformity of belief among non-Catholic Christians.

Steve,
It seems I have done a poor job these last years in representing.

Jon

 

[dronald]

This is best understood by the document I linked earlier: Dominus Iesus.

All who have been baptized in the name of the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit belong to the Catholic Church - some in an imperfect way. In that sense they are catholics not in communion with the Catholic Church.

So then I am Catholic now?

 

[Isaiah45_9]

So then I am Catholic now?

In an imperfect union, yes .

We can meet and take care of that

 

[truthseeker32]

Hello dronald,

As someone who spent years wrestling between the two traditions, I thought I would share why I ultimately chose the Eastern Orthodox faith.

After leaving the Mormon faith about 5 years ago I began exploring other faith traditions and eventually ended up in RCIA. My experience with the LDS faith made me extremely cautious and skeptical, so I did not complete RCIA in one or even two years. Eventually, though I believed enough to commit to baptism. As luck would have it I took a religious studies course where we watched a documentary about religion in Russia. Several scenes depicted the Orthodox liturgy and I was captivated.

I began asking my Roman Catholic friends about Orthodoxy. They voiced various opinions. Some said Orthodox Christians were basically Catholic; some had a less favorable view and offered me various resources as to why Eastern Orthodoxy’s claims to being one, holy, catholic and apostolic are less legitimate than Roman Catholicism’s.

Because of my curiosity and skepticism I heavily scrutinized arguments made by both sides. I became so interested in questions of apostolic succession and the development of the office of bishop that I began working towards a masters degree in early Christian history. Additionally, I put off baptism as I attempted to figure things out. Ultimately, I found Roman Catholic apologetics to often be wanting, narrow, and anachronistic.

Through many encounters at both the intellectual and mystical level I chose Orthodoxy. Figuring things out can be a long, taxing, and complicated process. Giving a complete answer as to why I chose Orthodoxy would take weeks, but the condensed version is that I chose Orthodoxy because it makes the most sense of the many facets of life. It is practical, it is versatile, and it is true.

Going forward in your search I will highlight a few things that helped me to discern things:

1. Watch out for narrow definitions. For example, a Roman Catholic might claim that Eastern Orthodoxy isn’t as “catholic” as Roman Catholicism, but this is only true if you accept the Roman Catholic definition of “catholic.” Once you acknowledge that “catholic,” or any other word that might be inserted here, may be defined otherwise such claims fall apart.
2. Look for valid, sound arguments. For instance, you will often see this argument:

-St. Peter had primacy among the apostles
-The Bishop of Rome is the successor of St. Peter
-Therefore the Bishop of Rome has primacy

There are several issues with this argument.

First, just because Peter had primacy among the apostles doesn’t mean that a single successor inherited this primacy. Further, the primacy Peter practiced among the apostles may have been completely different than the primacy now exercised by the Bishop of Rome. To see Peter’s primacy and Pope Francis’ primacy as synonymous is anachronistic.

Second, even if one was to concede that Peter passed on his primacy to a successor, why should we assume that primacy was given to Rome? After all, Peter established other churches.

To really understand St. Peter’s primacy and the Primacy of Rome, it is essential to research early Christian history to understand how the earliest Christians understood Peter’s primacy, how Peter practiced his primacy, and later why the Church in Rome was seen as the head. As one does this they need to make sure that they don’t apply 21st century definitions to 1st, 2nd, and 3rd century terms. Early Christians may have understood St. Peter’s role and the word “primacy” in a way completely different than our own understanding.

I recommend The Primacy of Peter(ed. John Meyendorff), which is a collection of essays from Eastern Orthodox scholars addressing St. Peter’s role in the early Church. The book is fine scholarship and has received praise from Eastern Orthodox and Roman Catholic theologians alike.

 

[SteveVH]

Steve,
It seems I have done a poor job these last years in representing.

Jon

Jon, I have learned more about the Lutheran faith from you than from any other source, really. That is why I qualified my statement as follows:

Originally Posted by SteveVH
The faith traditions which originated with the “reformation” are heretical, to varying degrees."

If I believe that the Catholic Church possesses the fullness of truth and that the Church has the authority to define that truth in its dogmas and doctrines, it is not unreasonable then to surmise that when a Lutheran belief conflicts with a doctrine of the Catholic Church (a definitive statement of belief, such as Transubstantiation) then that belief is heretical to one degree or another.

At the same time, I certainly recognize that the Lutherans desired to hold on to many of the truths and practices of the Catholic faith and did so. But there is a difference between the split between the Eastern Orthodox and the Catholic Church and the split between the Protestant denominations and the Catholic Church.

Sorry if I have offended you. That certainly was not my intention.

God bless.

Steve

 

[RyanBlack]

The Orthodox are in schism with the Catholic Church. The faith traditions which originated with the “reformation” are heretical, to varying degrees. Big difference. The Eastern Orthodox share the same faith as the Catholic Church, with very few differences. **The daughters and sons of the “reformation” have, for the most part, rejected nearly everything the Catholic Church had taught for 1500 years, retaining only the Church’s holy book, the Bible. **The authority of the Church Christ founded has been exchanged for the authority of the individual. The result? Chaos, with little to no uniformity of belief among non-Catholic Christians.

The bolded statement is a gross exaggeration. Here’s a list of traditional beliefs that most Protestants retained (it is not exhaustive). It took me just a few minutes to come up with the list, and entirely from memory. All of these are things I believed as a Protestant.

1. God as Trinity
2. Creation from nothing
3. The fall of man
4. The divinity and humanity of Christ
5. The virgin birth of Christ
6. Christ is the Savior of mankind
7. Christ instituted the Eucharist
8. Christ was crucified and died for our salvation
9. The resurrection of Christ
10. Christ established a church
11. Christ instituted the sacrament of baptism
12. Christ ascended to the Father
13. Christ gave the Church and believers the gift of the Holy Spirit
14. God’s revelation to mankind in the inspired Holy Scriptures

Of course, Protestant beliefs about the particulars of some of these matters of faith are not identical to Catholic beliefs, especially with respect to the sacraments and authority within the Church. On most of these issues, traditional Protestant teachings are virtually the same as Catholic teachings.