Hasn't time proven that Protestanism always leads to Heresy

[Hail_Linus]

Since most Protestant organizations have roots in the Catholic church…does that prove Catholicism always leads to heresy?

While the Church itself is not heretical (please do not get upset, I know non-Catholics do not agree) the clergy and lay-persons of the Catholic Church certainly have to take some of the blame for causing conditions that give heresies an opportunity to form.

But that is not really the topic. It would be interesting for another thread.

 

[NetStar]

I believe the Catholic Church to be perfect. However it doesn’t mean that all Catholics who attend the Catholic Church are perfect. We are all human, none of us are perfect, we all sin.

Do I believe the Cahtolic Church to be the Church that Jesus started through Peter. Yes, without a doubt.

Do I think that Protestrants are a broken off flock of the Catholic Church. Yep, hisotry proves that.

Yes, the King James Bible had all the same books the Catholic Bible has. I beleive it was in 1611 that it was still the same and then it was changed…the Prodestant Bible was changed.

Some people do indeed think the Catholic Church and the Mass and our way of worship is “Old Fasioned.” Because as times change people think that “Worship” should change with the times.

Yet, God never changes, He is the Same Now as He was then and will always be. His Word the Bible doesn’t change, (unless man of course comes out with new bibles changing the “meanings” of the Word of God. And I’ve seen this done.)

So since God doesn’t change and through His Son Jesus, the Catholic Church was started, by Jesus himself appointing Peter…then could someone explain to me where and why they expect that God would be happy with any changes? He is God, He is who we worship and yet “we” (in general terms here.) are going to tell God that He should be Happy that “we” are going to change the way we worship Him? I think not. He is God, we are not. I think I’ll stick to the “Old Fashioned” Church…The Catholic Church. If it was good enough to God/Jesus to start this Catholic Church, who am I to change it?

Now to my Protestant brothers and sisters. I believe with all my heart, that you love God just as much as I do. I believe that you worship him in your churchs. I’m not out to condem you, so please don’t take my statements that way.

For years I had attended many Protestant Churchs, before comming back to the Catholic Church. I just missed being in the Church that was started by Jesus. Protestant Churchs and the Catholic Church are not the same.

May God Bless you all.

 

[CMatt25]

The premise of this thread doesn’t even make sense. This entire thread smacks of exactly what drives most protestants AWAY from the Catholic Church. The “we are perfect, you are stupid” attitude which blantantly false.

Many Protestant churchs have held to their values, and I’m sorry but the Reformation happened for a reason…the church was corrupt and needed to be reformed. Catholics are not perfect…no one is. They are also not smarter or better than anyone else. Quit acting like it and you might win more people over. Keep acting like it and you feed the anti Catholics more material to use in their sterotypes. Your Call.

Some good points. Except I note some Catholics here, including Cat, JackVk, and Valentino have offered kind posts on this thread towards Protestants and I think Jesus123 answered no to the question. I’ll only add what you described can also drive Catholics away from full communion. God bless you and peace.

 

[JohnnyReb]

I am going to try again. I will take the blame for perhaps stating the original question in an offensive way. You can rest assured that I do not hate Protestants nor do I think they are stupid so please try to stick to the topic.

In the early 20th century, the Progressive movement began to infiltrate Christianity. It has affected the lay people as well as the clergy. This goes for Catholicism too.

However, the difference is the Catholic Church (I am including the Orthodox here) has safeguards that prevent the progressives from altering our Church doctrine.

For example, consider contraception. There was a time when all Christians believed it was immoral. Little by little it progressed and eventually became acceptable to most protestant Churches.

Yes, there are Catholic lay people as well as clergy that are pro-contraception. However, it has not changed in the official Church teaching for the simple fact that the Church does not have the authority to change this teaching. Even the Pope has no authority to change this.

We can also look at the ordination of Women Priests. The Anglican church now permits the ordination of women priests. It is true that many Catholics keep arguing in favor of permitting the ordination of women priests but they are wasting their time. The Catholic Church does not have the authority to change this teaching. Even the Pope has no authority to change this.

Many people equate Orthodoxy with conservatism. Without turning this into a debate about women’s ordination or contraception, I want to point out, what you call a safeguard to Orthodoxy others call an inability to be open to new ideas and to self examination of positions held to see if they are truly sound or should be re-examined.

 

[JohnnyReb]

Catholicism and Orthodoxy are basically the same until you come to the Pope. I agree that Protestantism is subject to constant change. Looking back that was a good reason to flee from it. Without the Magisterium there’s no way to tell whose interpretation of Scripture is right.

Luther and Calvin to my understanding believed that baptism was required for salvation, but the organization I grew up in said it was only a symbol. It would be interesting to see what Luther and Calvin thought about how the Protestant world looks today.

To the Protestant that does not accept your ecclesiaology, this argument doesn’t carry much weight. Catholic Christians believe the Magisterium is guarded from error and such, and if we believed it to, we would seek reconcilation with the CC. In the Protestant view of things, the Catholics and Orthodox are just two more groups with no more special authority or claim that any other group has. In other words, the Catholic answer does not resolve the confusion.

As for constant change, the CC declaring new dogmas over the years where there is no proof that those dogmas were universally held in the early chruch looks like change to us.

 

[Alix1912]

To the Protestant that does not accept your ecclesiaology, this argument doesn’t carry much weight. Catholic Christians believe the Magisterium is guarded from error and such, and if we believed it to, we would seek reconcilation with the CC. In the Protestant view of things, the Catholics and Orthodox are just two more groups with no more special authority or claim that any other group has. In other words, the Catholic answer does not resolve the confusion.

As for constant change, the CC declaring new dogmas over the years where there is no proof that those dogmas were universally held in the early chruch looks like change to us.

Well put. I find so many of the arguements on this site, for obvious reasons, are very biased towards Catholics. They automatically assume that everyone should agree with them and when they don’t they are just misled. What they fail to often realize is that we as protestants treasure our faith and traditions, and beliefs just as much as they treasure theirs.

 

[ESMDHokie77]

What they fail to often realize is that we as protestants treasure our faith and traditions, and beliefs just as much as they treasure theirs.

That’s not sola scriptura!

 

[Eric_Hilbert]

**It’s all fun and games until someone puts an eye out.

Lets stay on the topic of the OP and not let this spiral into an attack thread.
MMMMmmmkay?**

 

[Alix1912]

That’s not sola scriptura!

Sola Scriptura NEVER meant no tradition…it meant Tradition could not contradict scripture.

 

[Cat]

Many people equate Orthodoxy with conservatism. Without turning this into a debate about women’s ordination or contraception, I want to point out, what you call a safeguard to Orthodoxy others call an inability to be open to new ideas and to self examination of positions held to see if they are truly sound or should be re-examined.

This is a more concise wording of what I was trying to say in my first post in this thread.

Some Protestants would say that Christ never intended for us to be static and do things the way they’ve always been done.

But I agree with what the OP is saying. I’ve been there and seen it. E.g., now many denominations ordain and hire practicing homosexual pastors. How did this happen?!! In the not-so-distant past, these same denominations recognized that practicing homosexuality is a sin. Now they’ve become “open-minded” and in doing this, they’ve opened the door to heretical teaching.

In the denomination that I grew up in (Conference Baptist), drinking alcohol or having any association with alcohol (e.g., wearing a Budweiser t-shirt) was considered “sin.” This has totally changed. Now I realize that many of you would say, “GOOD!” But I find this upsetting. It makes me doubt what I was taught growing up, and causes me to ask whether ANYTHING that I was taught growing up is really “truth.” Or will these teachings be dropped, too? Now it’s OK to drink. Is it also OK to have sex with someone who I’m not married to if I love them? Or is it OK for me to have an abortion because I am not ready to take care of a child?

Another big change is divorce. When I was growing up, no one divorced. Again, there are many of you who say, “GOOD! Back in the old days, many women were forced to live with abusive husbands because the church considered divorce a sin. Things are better now.”

Are they really better? Yes, women are free to leave a man who beats them, but interestingly, many abused women are not able to leave their abusers.

And now that divorce is “acceptable” and even “God’s will” , lots of people are getting divorced who aren’t being abused. They just want out of the marriage.

There are lots and lots of other things that have been “dropped” in some of the Protestant denominations, including mine. One of the things that has really gone by the wayside is the idea that we need to attend church. Many Protestants have rejected teachings about an organized church, and believe that we don’t need a building and ceremonies, but rather, we just need to have fellowship with other Christians. So they don’t associate themselves with any organized church. I knew a pastor who gave up pastoring because he stopped believing in organized churches.

So yes, I think the OP has raised a good point.

My personal feeling is that this sense of being “rudderless in a sinking boat” is driving many Protestants to investigate the more traditional Christian faiths, including Catholicism. About a year ago, Christianity Today published a long article about the return of young people to classic Calvinism–obviously these young people are looking for something solid, and that’s why they’ve gravitated to John Calvin. I’m hoping that the Holy Spirit will work in their hearts to teach them the flaws in Calvin’s theology, and then they’ll move even further back until they bump right into Rome! That’s what happened to me and my husband.

 

[Hail_Linus]

This is a more concise wording of what I was trying to say in my first post in this thread.

Some Protestants would say that Christ never intended for us to be static and do things the way they’ve always been done.

But I agree with what the OP is saying. I’ve been there and seen it. E.g., now many denominations ordain and hire practicing homosexual pastors. How did this happen?!! In the not-so-distant past, these same denominations recognized that practicing homosexuality is a sin. Now they’ve become “open-minded” and in doing this, they’ve opened the door to heretical teaching.

In the denomination that I grew up in (Conference Baptist), drinking alcohol or having any association with alcohol (e.g., wearing a Budweiser t-shirt) was considered “sin.” This has totally changed. Now I realize that many of you would say, “GOOD!” But I find this upsetting. It makes me doubt what I was taught growing up, and causes me to ask whether ANYTHING that I was taught growing up is really “truth.” Or will these teachings be dropped, too? Now it’s OK to drink. Is it also OK to have sex with someone who I’m not married to if I love them? Or is it OK for me to have an abortion because I am not ready to take care of a child?

Another big change is divorce. When I was growing up, no one divorced. Again, there are many of you who say, “GOOD! Back in the old days, many women were forced to live with abusive husbands because the church considered divorce a sin. Things are better now.”

Are they really better? Yes, women are free to leave a man who beats them, but interestingly, many abused women are not able to leave their abusers.

And now that divorce is “acceptable” and even “God’s will” , lots of people are getting divorced who aren’t being abused. They just want out of the marriage.

There are lots and lots of other things that have been “dropped” in some of the Protestant denominations, including mine. One of the things that has really gone by the wayside is the idea that we need to attend church. Many Protestants have rejected teachings about an organized church, and believe that we don’t need a building and ceremonies, but rather, we just need to have fellowship with other Christians. So they don’t associate themselves with any organized church. I knew a pastor who gave up pastoring because he stopped believing in organized churches.

So yes, I think the OP has raised a good point.

My personal feeling is that this sense of being “rudderless in a sinking boat” is driving many Protestants to investigate the more traditional Christian faiths, including Catholicism. About a year ago, Christianity Today published a long article about the return of young people to classic Calvinism–obviously these young people are looking for something solid, and that’s why they’ve gravitated to John Calvin. I’m hoping that the Holy Spirit will work in their hearts to teach them the flaws in Calvin’s theology, and then they’ll move even further back until they bump right into Rome! That’s what happened to me and my husband.

Yes! This is what I was talking about. A few years ago I tried to be ELCA Lutheran and it bothered me when the Pastor admitted that they were very different from Martin Luther’s teachings. It made me very nervous that this church or any Church can just change into anything. One of the reasons I returned to Catholicism is that I really liked the fact that the Church did not have the authority to change doctrine.

Of course we all know what happened to the ELCA. However, I still am friends with the Pastor. My boy was Baptized by him. He is also the splitting image of St. Martin de Porres.

 

[ESMDHokie77]

Sola Scriptura NEVER meant no tradition…it meant Tradition could not contradict scripture.

Well, perhaps you can give an example when Tradition contradicted Scripture.

On the topic… I believe the following:

1. Protestantism is a heresy, but I’m hard pressed to label protestants as heretics or apostates if they’ve never embraced the Catholic Faith in the first place.
2. Evangelical Protestantism gives un-believers a chance to grow very close to God. But if they look hard enough, they’ll find Truth and then become Catholic.

 

[hn160]

Yes! This is what I was talking about. A few years ago I tried to be ELCA Lutheran and it bothered me when the Pastor admitted that they were very different from Martin Luther’s teachings. It made me very nervous that this church or any Church can just change into anything. One of the reasons I returned to Catholicism is that I really liked the fact that the Church did not have the authority to change doctrine.

Of course we all know what happened to the ELCA. However, I still am friends with the Pastor. My boy was Baptized by him. He is also the splitting image of St. Martin de Porres.

This is what happens to Churches that don’t adhere to their confessions such as the ELCA which is Lutheran in name only. I also know because I was a member there for a long time before I left because of homosexual ordination and I got fed up over women ordination. I considered the Catholic Church but we found a conservative LC-MS church.

 

[JohnnyReb]

This is a more concise wording of what I was trying to say in my first post in this thread.

Some Protestants would say that Christ never intended for us to be static and do things the way they’ve always been done.

But I agree with what the OP is saying. I’ve been there and seen it. E.g., now many denominations ordain and hire practicing homosexual pastors. How did this happen?!! In the not-so-distant past, these same denominations recognized that practicing homosexuality is a sin. Now they’ve become “open-minded” and in doing this, they’ve opened the door to heretical teaching.

I’m not saying Progressivism is all that and a bag of donuts, it too has its flaws. You will see that in my reply, I hope. With extreme progressivism, nothing is certain, and with extreme conservativism, nothing can be questioned. Both extremes are uncomfortable to me.

Conservative Protestants and Conservative Catholics reject such developments and their views seem to be in harmony with each other. When Protestants become liberal, they take over a denomination and influence it to develope more liberal practices. When Catholics become more liberal, they stay, dissent to church teaching.

It is interesting to me how a church’s stance on homosexuality is now a litmus test for their orthodoxy…There are also theologies in the church that question that traditional understanding that homosexuality is morally wrong. Lets say that tomorrow a scholar was able to publish findings that show beyond a shadow of a doubt that the anti-homosexual position of the church was an errant understanding of Paul’s rejection of pagan temple sex, and that the Bible or Christian tradition never actually condemns homosexuality. Add to that, lets say the same scholar proved that God blesses same-sex unions the same way that he does heterosexual ones-that homosexuality was not a sin-would this damage your faith in Christ? What about Christianity would be lost?

I

n the denomination that I grew up in (Conference Baptist), drinking alcohol or having any association with alcohol (e.g., wearing a Budweiser t-shirt) was considered “sin.” This has totally changed. Now I realize that many of you would say, “GOOD!” But I find this upsetting. It makes me doubt what I was taught growing up, and causes me to ask whether ANYTHING that I was taught growing up is really “truth.” Or will these teachings be dropped, too? Now it’s OK to drink. Is it also OK to have sex with someone who I’m not married to if I love them? Or is it OK for me to have an abortion because I am not ready to take care of a child?

I understand what you are saying, but the drinking thing is hardly a uniquely Protestant problem. Drinking to me is nothing but an issue of concious-if it causes you or someone else to stumble, don’t do it. There is nothing in scripture that clearly opposes it. Its hardly and issue comparable to abortion or the boundries of sex within marriage. Therein lies the problem with extreme progressivism.

Another big change is divorce. When I was growing up, no one divorced. Again, there are many of you who say, “GOOD! Back in the old days, many women were forced to live with abusive husbands because the church considered divorce a sin. Things are better now.”

Yeah, I disagree with the church there. I could never tell a woman that she had to stay in an abusive relationship. That is just plain irresponsible and sinful.

Are they really better? Yes, women are free to leave a man who beats them, but interestingly, many abused women are not able to leave their abusers.

And that is a shame that they cannot.

And now that divorce is “acceptable” and even “God’s will” , lots of people are getting divorced who aren’t being abused. They just want out of the marriage.

I share such frustration with how liberally people are becoming divorced now. As I pointed out in regards to homosexuality, such divorced persons should not be pointing the finger at gays. Sin is sin, period, and if the gays are going to hell for living with a partner, you may be headed the same way for the sin of adultery. Just wanting out of a marriage is not acceptable. If people are faithful to the marriage vows they would not divorce over those reasons.

My personal feeling is that this sense of being “rudderless in a sinking boat” is driving many Protestants to investigate the more traditional Christian faiths, including Catholicism. About a year ago, Christianity Today published a long article about the return of young people to classic Calvinism–obviously these young people are looking for something solid, and that’s why they’ve gravitated to John Calvin. I’m hoping that the Holy Spirit will work in their hearts to teach them the flaws in Calvin’s theology, and then they’ll move even further back until they bump right into Rome! That’s what happened to me and my husband.

Interesting. I am fairly young, and while I considered and I am still considering Rome, I have found myself in a conservative Anglican church because of the grounding in the historical Christian tradition, the sacramental theology and the like.

 

[Cat]

Well, perhaps you can give an example when Tradition contradicted Scripture.

On the topic… I believe the following:

1. Protestantism is a heresy, but I’m hard pressed to label protestants as heretics or apostates if they’ve never embraced the Catholic Faith in the first place.
2. Evangelical Protestantism gives un-believers a chance to grow very close to God. But if they look hard enough, they’ll find Truth and then become Catholic.

This is very good, especially point #2. I honestly believe this because it’s what happened to my husband and me. We hungered and thirsted after righteousness, and God kept his promise and made sure that we were offered the opportunity to be filled (Eucharist/Catholic Church). And we took the opportunity.

The problem with evangelical Protestantism is that it is such an all-encompassing lifestyle that it’s very hard to walk away from it. I think that if we had not gotten kicked out of our evangelical church, we would not have been able to say goodbye to it even when offered Jesus Himself in the Eucharist. We would have not been able to leave our friends and our “life.” So getting kicked out was a merciful thing that God allowed to happen to us. It was the only way to make us willing to give up our “lifestyle” for the Truth of the Catholic Church.

When we were evangelical Protestant, church was our life. We were in the church or involved with a church ministry 5-6 days/evenings week. My daughters literally grew up in church.

All of our spiritual and social life was connected wiht our church, at least until our family got involved with figure skating. But that was a conflict–many of our church friends denounced our involvement with figure skating and said that we need to drop the “worldly” involvement and stay closer to the church. (Not all said that–our beloved Christian and Missionary Alliance pastor said that we were called to be in the skating rink because it was our “mission field”–we would be light and salt in the rink). But for the most parts, evangelicals spend much of their waking moments involved with church.

There is a list of “rules” in evangelical Protestantism that isn’t written down and isn’t in any church Statement of Faith, but it’s there nonetheless. Years ago on this board, I attempted to write out the “rules,” and other evangelicals (ex-evangelicals) chimed in and said, “YES! This is the way it is/was!”

When the evangelical gives up these rules to join another church (e.g., the Catholic Church), we feel “uncomfortable” and guilty. E.g., Mondays were often free, but Tuesday evenings were usually given over to some kind of planning or business meeting with fellow evangelicals. On Wednesdays, I was usually teaching a club ministry and/or participating in the Bible study/prayer meeting. Thursday evening was usually choir practice and fellowship. Friday evening was usually a social activity of some kind, always with evangelical friends. Same for Saturday evening–that was often when the church had “All Church socials” like banquets, concerts, or picnis.

All of this was totally alcohol-free, BTW. And it was awesome fun and very upfliting. We didn’t have to drag ourselves to these activities–we loved them and looked forward to them. Babysitting was always provided; nursery ministries were highly organized by qualified people and there was always a group of loving volunteers, including many teenagers who took care of our children during our activities.

But when we were kicked out of our evangelical church and had all our evenings free. This was extremely strange for us and very lonely. We felt totally adrift. We had never watched evening television before, and we felt guilty turning on the TV. (Figure skating, BTW, is generally “over” by 5:00 p.m. because hockey takes over the rink, so we couldn’t head down to the rink).

When I first became Catholic, I tried to re-invent my evangelical lifestyle by getting involved with three different Bible studies, volunteering at the parish school, and playing piano for Mass at another parish. In other words, I filled every evening with “church” activities.

Eventually I dropped most of these church activities and got involved in community activities instead, which is a challenge because many of these are not overtly “Christian.” I think this is a good thing. One problem with evangelical lifestyle is that it does not “evangelize” because so much of it is done with other Christians! Many evangelical Protestants never do anything with non-believers–isn’t it funny that they call themselves “evangelicals” when they are not?

And of course, we’re still mega-involved with figure skating, even though our daughters are grown up. But now we don’t feel guilty being involved!

 

[FrankOfBoston]

Dear Everyone,

I’m new to this site and have really enjoyed the breadth and depth of discussion and the openness of all to really lay it on the line, as it were. I can understand how in a topic like this one people can begin to take some of the comments personally; after all, is not religion one of the most emotionally charged subjects? I can still remember how certain members of my own family had to be handled with care when the subjects of theology or church teaching came up, because many people hold their beliefs very close to the heart, which is, perhaps, as it should be. But if anything will stand as a barrier between us, it is Pride, the chief of the seven deadly sins.

Clearly, untangling the issues at the heart of the Protestant-Catholic discussion is a challenge that goes back centuries. My intent here is not to criticise anyone, but to simply give a brief recap of early Church history as I understand it because, I believe, which ever side has the fullness of the truth ought to be able to demonstrate a consistency, a continuity, with the teachings and spirit of the early Church, as revealed in the writings of the Church Fathers. And by early Church I mean before the Council of Nicea, ca. AD 325. That is, before that collected work we call the New Testament had been made official and published by the Church.

If I recall correctly, Jesus promised His disciples He would send them the Holy Spirit and that the Holy Spirit would then guide and comfort the Church until the 2nd coming. I have absolutely no reason to doubt that this is exactly what has and continues to happen. So, isn’t the real question not whether one side in the debate has led to more and more heresy but, really, what happened to, or in, the early Church that would make one side’s propagated teachings more consistent with those of the early Church? The root of this schism must be in the history of the early Church. I believe the key to resolving the whole debate rests in this. By the way, this assumes that, as Christ is the same yesterday, today and forever, the teachings of His Church are as well, even if, in the fullness of time, the Church’s understanding of those truths becomes deeper and broader. I can’t think of a single discussion I’ve heard with a Catholic convert from Protestantism where he or she didn’t cite the writings of the early Church Fathers as being where their change of heart toward Catholicism was nearly complete, if not a done deal. So, the light to be shed on this issue must be found in the question, what happened in the early Church? What was it like? Do Saints Ignatius, Irenaeus, Augustine sound like Protestants?

Very respectfullly and peace be with you all,

Frank

 

[rainman10]

The premise of this thread doesn’t even make sense. This entire thread smacks of exactly what drives most protestants AWAY from the Catholic Church. The “we are perfect, you are stupid” attitude which blantantly false.

Many Protestant churchs have held to their values, and I’m sorry but the Reformation happened for a reason…the church was corrupt and needed to be reformed. Catholics are not perfect…no one is. They are also not smarter or better than anyone else. Quit acting like it and you might win more people over. Keep acting like it and you feed the anti Catholics more material to use in their sterotypes. Your Call.

Catholics do not claim to be perfect, we only claim to have the fullness of God’s truth. Some of the church members were corrupt at the time of the Deformation and needed to be corrected, but the Church doctrine did not need change or correction then or now.

 

[rainman10]

Since most Protestant organizations have roots in the Catholic church…does that prove Catholicism always leads to heresy?

No, but I think it does prove that the further one gets away from Catholicism, the more they get into heresy.

 

[Radical]

Dear Everyone,

I’m new to this site and have really enjoyed the breadth and depth of discussion and the openness of all to really lay it on the line, as it were. I can understand how in a topic like this one people can begin to take some of the comments personally; after all, is not religion one of the most emotionally charged subjects? I can still remember how certain members of my own family had to be handled with care when the subjects of theology or church teaching came up, because many people hold their beliefs very close to the heart, which is, perhaps, as it should be. But if anything will stand as a barrier between us, it is Pride, the chief of the seven deadly sins.

Clearly, untangling the issues at the heart of the Protestant-Catholic discussion is a challenge that goes back centuries. My intent here is not to criticise anyone, but to simply give a brief recap of early Church history as I understand it because, I believe, which ever side has the fullness of the truth ought to be able to demonstrate a consistency, a continuity, with the teachings and spirit of the early Church, as revealed in the writings of the Church Fathers.

doesn’t this assume that the ECFs did not add to the initial deposit of faith? …for if they did, then consistency and continuity with their teachings would simply be, in some cases, consistency and continuity with innovation

And by early Church I mean before the Council of Nicea, ca. AD 325. That is, before that collected work we call the New Testament had been made official and published by the Church.

well let’s not worry about when the collection we call the NT was made official, but rather, let’s concern ourselves as to what was the original deposit of faith…and in that regard the best evidence is those works now called the NT, followed by the works now called the Apostloic Fathers. We should also consider the early apocryphal works and other works of the ECFs from the 2nd century.

If I recall correctly, Jesus promised His disciples He would send them the Holy Spirit and that the Holy Spirit would then guide and comfort the Church until the 2nd coming. I have absolutely no reason to doubt that this is exactly what has and continues to happen.

who determines: a) who stands in for the apostles as the beneficiary of that promise and b) how, exactly that promise has been fulfilled? …it seems that a number of candidates want to proclaim that they are the beneficiary and that the promise has been fulfilled in the doctrine that they have put forward, but that is rather self-serving

So, isn’t the real question not whether one side in the debate has led to more and more heresy but, really, what happened to, or in, the early Church that would make one side’s propagated teachings more consistent with those of the early Church? The root of this schism must be in the history of the early Church. I believe the key to resolving the whole debate rests in this. By the way, this assumes that, as Christ is the same yesterday, today and forever, the teachings of His Church are as well, even if, in the fullness of time, the Church’s understanding of those truths becomes deeper and broader.

who decides if the change is as a result of the truth becoming “deeper and broader” or whether the change is an innovation that is merely being passed off as a deepening of the truth? (it would be more than a little self-serving if the body putting forward the innovation/deepening was also the arbitrator of how it should be labelled).

I can’t think of a single discussion I’ve heard with a Catholic convert from Protestantism where he or she didn’t cite the writings of the early Church Fathers as being where their change of heart toward Catholicism was nearly complete, if not a done deal. So, the light to be shed on this issue must be found in the question, what happened in the early Church? What was it like? Do Saints Ignatius, Irenaeus, Augustine sound like Protestants?

b/c I don’t trust that the ECFs didn’t add to the deposit of faith, I would rather ask whether Paul or Peter sound like Protestants or Catholics…but I think I know how that would work out…the Catholic will read Paul’s letter to the Corinthians and understand that it speaks about a real bodily presence and the Anabaptist will read that same letter and understand that it doesn’t speak of a real bodily presence.

Very respectfullly and peace be with you all,

back at you

 

[Alix1912]

Catholics do not claim to be perfect, we only claim to have the fullness of God’s truth. Some of the church members were corrupt at the time of the Deformation and needed to be corrected, but the Church doctrine did not need change or correction then or now.

The doctrine of selling indulgences and the practice of bribing cardinals to elect certain people as Pope needed to change.

Also the Reformation is an actual historical time period…it’s beginning signaled by Luther and it’s ending generally placed at the Council of Trent (which would never have happened without Protestant’s breaking away). To call it by anything other than it’s name is silly. That is like calling the American Revolution the silly colonial rebellion. It’s not the historically accurate name for the time period, and simply reinforces the bad image of Catholics being holier than thou to protestants.