For Protestants: 3 Questions

[germys9]

This is for any protestant in these forums, whether you are anti-catholic, you are here to save catholics, or you are really considering the catholic faith. It is truly out of curiousity, that I ask the follwing questions, so please give an honest answer. This is not to discuss whether the Catholic Church is the true church or not, just an answer to the questions:

Who started the Catholic Church? Catholics say Jesus himself, but if you are protestant you obviously don’t beleive that (I gues you could). So who started it?

When was the Catholic Church founded?

Where was the Catholic Church founded?

Remeber this is not to discuss how you think the Catholic Church has erred, it is just out of pure curiosity that I ask. I know the majority of Protestant Churches date back to one man (Luther, Calvin, Smith, etc…). That’s just a historical fact, but who, in your minds, started the Catholic Church?

 

[PhilVaz]

<< Who started the Catholic Church? >>

St. Augustine around 400 AD.

<< When was the Catholic Church founded? >>

400 AD.

<< Where was the Catholic Church founded? >>

North Africa.

Most evangelicals, especially those who are anti-Catholic, don’t like answering such “blunt” questions. They’ll say the Emperor Constantine (313 AD) to “the fathers of the council of Trent” (1545 AD) or anything in between.

For most of them, what Jesus founded was some kind of a universal or catholic church, with true believers or true Christians being the “saved”, but it wasn’t the “Roman Catholic Church.” Here is the Geisler/Mackenzie position from their (usually) excellent and fair book Roman Catholics and Evangelicals (1995)

“Evangelicals also believe that the church is visible, existing now in the world. What is at issue is the claim that the Roman Catholic jurisdiction is the only true manifestation of the body of Christ on earth. This is the question of authority over which Catholics and Protestants disagree…it is true that when the body of Christ began it was all visible since no believers had died and gone to heaven, so of course it was a visible church when Christ founded it. The invisible church only grew as Christians died and went to heaven. Protestants do not deny that there was a visible Christian church on earth that traces back to the apostles who exercised authority over it, including excommunication. What Protestants object to (and Catholics have not proven) is that [the] Roman Catholic jurisdiction is the sole heir to this original visible church that began with the apostles and will continue until Christ comes without the gates of hell destroying it.” (Geisler/MacKenzie, Roman Catholics and Evangelicals [Baker, 1995], page 112, 276-277)

Phil P

 

[carol_marie]

PhilVaz,
We’ve finally gotten off the evolution threads so I can now say I agree with you 100%.
CM

 

[jmm08]

<< Who started the Catholic Church? >>

St. Augustine around 400 AD.

<< When was the Catholic Church founded? >>

400 AD.

<< Where was the Catholic Church founded? >>

North Africa.

Wow!
Is this really true?

I am in RCIA and I am a member of a predominantly Black Baptist Church. If this is all true then the Roman Catholic Church is much more Black than I thought.

By the way, November is Black Catholic History Month (I’ll start a new thread).

 

[germys9]

Well there is definitely proof that very distinct Catholic beliefs were believed before Augustine, but the part about there being many Africans in the Catholic Church is very true. In fact, some think that the next pope could very well be an African (I don’t know is name).

 

[jmm08]

germys9:

Well there is definitely proof that very distinct Catholic beliefs were believed before Augustine, but the part about there being many Africans in the Catholic Church is very true. In fact, some think that the next pope could very well be an African (I don’t know is name).

I think it might be a banned topic. I am so thankful for Pope John Paul II. He has been so strong.

Cardinal Francis Arinze is prefect of the Congregation of Divine Worship and the Sacraments. Last month on September 25, he was a keynote speaker at the Eucharistic Congress sponsored by the Council of Major Superiors of Women Religious (CMSWR) at the Basilica of the National Shrine of the Immaculate Conception (Washington DC). His speech was carried live on EWTN. I told my Black stepdaughter (a Baptist) that this Black Cardinal might well be the next Pope. He speaks very good English. Cardinal Arinze also speaks very well with a message of sound doctrine.

By coincidence, I went to the 12:10 Mass at the Basilica on September 24th and stayed for the Friday afternoon Eucharistic Adoration. I left a little early to make it home before sunset (Yom Kippur). When I got home, my wife and I had a small amount of kosher wine with our dinner that night. I’m not Jewish, but I get a strong feeling at times that God is so Jewish (and Catholics are so Jewish too even if they don’t know it). On the evening of September 25th, I went to Little Zion Baptist Church where we had a very wonderful and very small praise and worship service (Little Zion’s 125th pre-anniversary celebration). I was often praying for the Eucharistic Congress in the Basilica that night – while secretly holding my rosary. I thank God that I have been given such a beautiful life. Blessings like my September 24-25 are rare but also they are too beautiful.

I couldn’t help it. When I saw Cardinal Arinze live on EWTN at the Basilica (where I was the day before) I told my Baptist wife and family that I was there the day before. So my secret was out. That lately I’ve been sometimes going to the Catholic Basilica. I took Janet my wife back to the Basilica on September 27. I first took her to a small chapel with a replica of Lourdes France. And we went to the Crypt Church in time for the rosary (during Eucharistic Adoration) and then 12:10 mass. Janet followed me and came forward during the service to get a blessing. The incense and Eucharistic Adoration earlier on may have been a bit too much (she chose to sit near the back). But I do think that it must have been a powerful blessing for her as well as me that day.

 

[michaelp]

Hello, I am a Protestant and would like to help.

Jesus Christ founded the Catholic Church.
It began in Acts 2 on the day of Pentecost.
It was founded in Jerusalem.

Protestants believe that all believers in Christ are part of the Catholic Church (since catholic simply means universal and speaks to the invisible body of Christ that is universal in scope).

But, I suspect you mean the Roman Catholic church. When did it began? Officially we would say that it began in 1545 in Trent. We would see that as the time when the Roman Catholic church officially broke away from the Catholic church. This does not mean that Protestants believe that all Roman Catholics are not part of the body of Christ. It simply means that we see this as the time when the Roman Catholic church as an institution broke away from the Body of Christ. I hope that you understand the distinctions.

Very good question. Thanks for your honest inquiry.

Michael

 

[j_arden]

michaelp:

But, I suspect you mean the Roman Catholic church. When did it began? Officially we would say that it began in 1545 in Trent. We would see that as the time when the Roman Catholic church officially broke away from the Catholic church. This does not mean that Protestants believe that all Roman Catholics are not part of the body of Christ. It simply means that we see this as the time when the Roman Catholic church as an institution broke away from the Body of Christ. I hope that you understand the distinctions.

If the RCC broke away from the BoC in 1545 then what were the reformers protesting? Since the reformation began well before 1545 you are arguing that the reformers broke away from an institution that was still part of the BoC. Since the Council of Trent didn’t “invent” any new doctrines, how can the RCC move from being part of the BoC to not being part of the BoC without any doctrinal changes? Was it because it rejected the new Reformed theology? Are the Reformed Churches now the “institutional” representative of the BoC? Your logic unclear.

• JP

 

[montanaman]

But, I suspect you mean the Roman Catholic church. When did it began? Officially we would say that it began in 1545 in Trent

Wow. That’s a first. I should be keeping a scrapbook for all the new ones…

 

[michaelp]

Well, we did not choose the name Protestants for ourselves. It is un unfortunate “spin” name that was placed upon us. If you read the literature of the day, this is not what the Reformers would have named themselves.

We would say that many doctrines that were not officially part of the Catholic church became official for Roman Catholocism at Trent (e.g. Apocrypha).

You must Remember that Martin Luther was not trying to break away from anything. He just wanted to discuss some issues. When it became clear that there was major disagreement about these issues (some of which were not reconcilable), the Church as an institution broke away from the church as the Body of Christ. Again, this does not mean that all people who agree with the institution of RC were not a part of the Body of Christ, just that the confession of the institution itself departed. We would see this major departure taking place when, at Trent, the Roman Catholic church placed its anathema upon the Gospel itself when if said that “anyone who says that salvation is by faith alone with out the necessity of works, let him be anathema.”

Does this make sense. I am just trying to help you understand where Protestants are coming from. I hope it helps.

Thanks for the response,

Michael

 

[j_arden]

michaelp:

We would say that many doctrines that were not officially part of the Catholic church became official for Roman Catholocism at Trent (e.g. Apocrypha).

Michael,

I’m assuming by “e.g. Apocrypha” you mean the inclusion of the deuterocanonicals in the canon of scripture with the implication that the RCC first defined them as canonical at Trent. Is this correct? If so, what is your support for such an audacious claim?The RCC did not define the canon of scripture for the first time at Trent.

Here is what the *New International Bible Dictionary *(A non-Catholic source if there was one) has to say: “The early Christian church . . . took over the LXX as their Bible. Their use of it, to prove that Jesus was the Messiah, caused a change in the Jews’ attitude toward it. Soon after 100 A.D. the Jews completely gave up the LXX, and it became a Christian book. The Jews sponsored new translations of the OT [Old Testament].” (*New International Bible Dictionary, based on the NIV, *Douglas and Tenney, eds., Zondervan Publishing House, 917).

The “LXX” is also known as the Septuagint and contains all the material Catholics refer to as Deuterocanonical and Protestants refer to as Apocryphal. The history of the Protestant canon of scripture is plain: Protestants removed seven books. They did so because they believed they weren’t inspired. Fair enough. However, it’s disingenuous to argue that the RCC didn’t consider them as part of the canon before Trent.

As to your claim about Luther not being a schismatic, you’re only telling half the story. It is clear that Luther’s first intention was to reform the RCC. However, after the RCC required him to recant certain statements under pain of excommunication, Luther became actively schismatic. He no longer wanted to reform the RCC from the inside but oppose it from the outside.

• JP

 

[j_arden]

michaelp:

Well, we did not choose the name Protestants for ourselves. It is un unfortunate “spin” name that was placed upon us. If you read the literature of the day, this is not what the Reformers would have named themselves.

We would say that many doctrines that were not officially part of the Catholic church became official for Roman Catholocism at Trent (e.g. Apocrypha).

You must Remember that Martin Luther was not trying to break away from anything. He just wanted to discuss some issues. When it became clear that there was major disagreement about these issues (some of which were not reconcilable), the Church as an institution broke away from the church as the Body of Christ. Again, this does not mean that all people who agree with the institution of RC were not a part of the Body of Christ, just that the confession of the institution itself departed. We would see this major departure taking place when, at Trent, the Roman Catholic church placed its anathema upon the Gospel itself when if said that “anyone who says that salvation is by faith alone with out the necessity of works, let him be anathema.”

Does this make sense. I am just trying to help you understand where Protestants are coming from. I hope it helps.

Thanks for the response,

Michael

 

[michaelp]

Excuse me. I should have been more clear. What I meant to say is that from the Protestant perspective (and I think I have this one right) the apocrypha was not officially declared to be canonical until Tent. There should be nothing offensive about this. This is comon in the history of the Church for doctrine to be developed and then declared to be official sometime later.

The apocrypha was held by some and rejected by others until Trent (i.e Jerome rejected it Augustine accepted it or some of it). The LXX (the 2 post 300 AD Codex manuscripts that are extant) contains some books of the apocrypha and some other books as well that both Protestants and RCs reject–that itself is very interesting). Now this does not make it correct or incorrect, it is just stating what happened historically. Protestants would see the official inclusion of the apocrypha at Trent as part of that which the institution adopted that (from our perspective) crossed one of the many lines that the Church as an institution had been crossing.

In actuality, this is not the the key issue. I, personally, think the apocypha is very good and helpful (some books more than others).

But, again, I am just trying to be helpful for the person who asked the question. I am not trying to convert anyone. I just want to be used to help you understand what Protestants believe if you are truly wanting to understand. If not, I am not trying to battle you. I appreciate that this is a Roman Catholic website and not one which I should come with my boxing gloves on. I will, to the degree that you all let me and to the degree that I think that I am benifiting you, continue to correspond with you. I certianly don’t have all the answers (and Protestantism does not have all the answers!).

Michael

 

[jimmy]

Michael,

If you would like I could give you the declarations from the councils of Rome, Hippo, Carthage, Trullo, and Florence which all declared the deuterocanonicals to be scripture. Rome, Carthage, and Hippo were all in the fourth century. Trullo was in the 8th century I think and Flourance was in the begining of the 15th century.

I could also dig up some quotes from Justin Martyr from about the year 130AD which would support the LXX if you would like.
Just tell me if you would like them. If not I will not do the search because I have work to do.

 

[j_arden]

michaelp:

What I meant to say is that from the Protestant perspective (and I think I have this one right) the apocrypha was not officially declared to be canonical until Tent.

False. The issue here is an historical claim that can be answered regardless of “perspective.”

There should be nothing offensive about this.

Offensive/not offensive shouldn’t be an issue here as long as the debate stays civil–and there is no reason to think it won’t.

This is comon in the history of the Church for doctrine to be developed and then declared to be official sometime later.

Very true. Many Protestants don’t recognize this.

The apocrypha was held by some and rejected by others until Trent (i.e Jerome rejected it Augustine accepted it or some of it).

Individuals rejecting something doesn’t necessarily mean the RCC had no position. Luther rejected the book of James as an “epistle of straw” but there is no question as to whether Protestants consider it canonical or not.

I am not trying to convert anyone.

Why not? I ask that seriously. As long as you are respectful and honest–which you seem to be–why not? Charitably sharing what you believe to be the truth is loving. I think even the JWs going door to door can be loving–I just strongly disagree with their truth claims.

• JP

 

[michaelp]

Again, if one were to study this issue historically, it is not quite as simple as you make it out to be. A quick “false” may not be sufficient. I do appreciate your zeal, but intellectual honesty is the starting place that I think we need to all begin with intellectual honest.

Read the counsels of Hippo and Carthage and see if they accepted the books that RC has in the apocrypha. Read the differences of opinion among many in church history concerning the apocypha. Read the copies of the LXX and see what books they contain. I’m sure you will see that history is not so decisive on this issue. Read those RCs today who would see it as a “second” canon, not as inspired as the other books.

Martin Luther did say that it was a book of straw, but you have better interpret what he means from reading him in his context before you interpret his conclusions to mean that he rejected it. I think that you have been listening to propaganda meant to show the “falacies” of Protestant arguments. I myself have said that 3 John is a weak book. Not because I don’t think it is inspired, but because I believe that it is less relavent than other books. Think about it. Can you tell me without looking what 3 John is about? It is interesting that God placed it in the canon, but that is another issue.

I don’t think that it is accurate, even for a Roman Catholic, to compare Prostestants to JWs, who fall outside the pale of historic orthodoxy in denying the Trinity and the deity of Christ. If you must go to ad hoc arguments of association, we will not get very far in understanding each other. Your have a preset agenda to prove yourself right and me wrong rather than to discuss the issues.

Why am I not trying to convert? Because I think that neither us us sees the truth completely. I think that we can benifit from discussions. Do I think I am correct? Yes. Does that mean I cannot change? NO! The Reformers had a principle of semper reformana which means “always reforming.” I think that we can all reform together, coming to a better understanding of Christ and the Christian life.

For the Kingdom.

 

[jimmy]

I have read this stuff. The question is, have you?

The Catholic Church never said what was not scripture but they did say what was scripture. In the councils I named they named the books of scripture and the deuterocanonicals were included. Now, it might not say each book by name because Wisdom was one of the 5 books of solomon and baruch was part of Daniel I think it was. But they are all there.

 

[michaelp]

Let me clarity something that is very important to me. I am not doing back flips over the apocypha. It is really not the issues that the Reformation hinges on. The issues is justification by faith alone. This is being discussed on a separate thread on this site called Doesn’t Catholicm fit the Protestant view of salvation?

I don’t mind discussing the Apocypha, but I don’t want someone to misunderstand, thinking that Protestants are all bent out of shape over the RCs inclusion. Even if I were to convince you that they should not be included, or you were to convince me that they should not, the primary issue does not change and no major essentail doctrine would be “overturned” or proven right or wrong.

 

[michaelp]

jimmy:

I have read this stuff. The question is, have you?

The Catholic Church never said what was not scripture but they did say what was scripture. In the councils I named they named the books of scripture and the deuterocanonicals were included. Now, it might not say each book by name because Wisdom was one of the 5 books of solomon and baruch was part of Daniel I think it was. But they are all there.

I really think you need to reread the sources. Not all of the apocrypha is included sometimes, and other times books such as 1 and 2 Esdras were included. Which way do you go? Again, many of the church fathers Athanasius, Jerome and many others questioned it. At the very least you can say that it was not as solidified as the Jewish canon of the Old Testament. If you cannot admit to that, I don’t think that we are going to get anywhere.

But again, minor issue to me.

 

[j_arden]

Michael,

I wasn’t equating Protestants and JWs. I was just using the example to make a point.

You’re right that the canon of scripture is not the main issue of the Reformation. I and other posters keep at the issue because you made claims about it that are not true. However, it is important in that it relfects the main issue of the Reformation: authority.

About Luther, what context is there that makes his comment on James mean that he just thought it wasn’t as helpful as other books? The book deals with the relationship between faith and works, the role of suffering, and submission to God. How can its importance be negligible? Is it only coincidence that James 2:24 directly refutes Luther’s claim that justification is by faith alone?

• JP