M
Mickey
Guest
Depends on what dictionary you use.
- Status
W
wabrams
Guest
Which helps sum up what I mean by biased and you can also throw in “one’s perspective.”Depends on what dictionary you use.
R
reggie
Guest
The ECF, who have now been accused of bias, are well regarded by protestants only when they have written something that seems to dispute or refute Catholic practice and doctrine as we know it today.
Early church writings, like those by theologians and apologists of today, were written to deepen understanding of doctrine or to defend those doctrines from people who believed and taught opposing doctrines.
It is ridiculous to accuse them of bias. The Catholic church was the Christian church. There has always been heretical theology that has been discredited by each successive generation building on the knowledge and teaching of the generation before. It cannot be disproven that the Catholic church as it is now is the successor of the earliest Christians. There is no other church from which people were considered outside. The beliefs of the Catholic church were universally held until Luther, Swingli and Calvin.
Of course, in nearly every generation, there were “christians” outside the church, who followed different beliefs, but those churches were never of any real consequence since they seldom grew beyond a small area or community. The Catholic church is the largest throughout the world. It is present on every continent and increases every generation. There is a reason for this fact. And for those who say that the church is the tool of Satan or some such thing, you are in effect saying that the Devil’s church is larger and stronger that any other on earth. It makes no sense in light of what Jesus promised.
Now as to the NT. What a contradiction to “admit” and “admire” the church for compiling the Bible and then turn around and say that it was not written by the church. Come on people, the facts of history are what they are, like the truth, it remains the same whether one agrees with or likes it. Finally, as for the “rock” of the church being Peter’s declaration of faith and not Peter himself.
Reread the Acts and note the many times Peter is the first. There is a reason for that as well. Figure it out.
The Holy Spirit has guided and protected the church from the beginning. It has never stopped and never will. The Church is perfect, even when her children are not.
Early church writings, like those by theologians and apologists of today, were written to deepen understanding of doctrine or to defend those doctrines from people who believed and taught opposing doctrines.
It is ridiculous to accuse them of bias. The Catholic church was the Christian church. There has always been heretical theology that has been discredited by each successive generation building on the knowledge and teaching of the generation before. It cannot be disproven that the Catholic church as it is now is the successor of the earliest Christians. There is no other church from which people were considered outside. The beliefs of the Catholic church were universally held until Luther, Swingli and Calvin.
Of course, in nearly every generation, there were “christians” outside the church, who followed different beliefs, but those churches were never of any real consequence since they seldom grew beyond a small area or community. The Catholic church is the largest throughout the world. It is present on every continent and increases every generation. There is a reason for this fact. And for those who say that the church is the tool of Satan or some such thing, you are in effect saying that the Devil’s church is larger and stronger that any other on earth. It makes no sense in light of what Jesus promised.
Now as to the NT. What a contradiction to “admit” and “admire” the church for compiling the Bible and then turn around and say that it was not written by the church. Come on people, the facts of history are what they are, like the truth, it remains the same whether one agrees with or likes it. Finally, as for the “rock” of the church being Peter’s declaration of faith and not Peter himself.
Reread the Acts and note the many times Peter is the first. There is a reason for that as well. Figure it out.
The Holy Spirit has guided and protected the church from the beginning. It has never stopped and never will. The Church is perfect, even when her children are not.
W
wabrams
Guest
What is the Church? Is it the traditions and doctrines or is it the make-up of people that worship God together? I’m not asking a rhetorical question, but a sincere one.
R
reggie
Guest
Your question illustrates a fallacy that has driven a spike in the unity of Christianity since the split of the “reformation”. Who or what is the Church?
Christ is the Church, we are the church, the traditions are the church, the sacraments are the church, the rituals are the church, the saints in heaven are the church. The church is the whole of Christianity. St. Paul describes it as a body, in need of each part in order to be whole, and each part has a purpose and is of benefit to all of the other parts. It is important also that all parts work together.
The main problem with protestants and dissident Catholics, IMHO,
is individualization. Everyone thinks of himself and only himself as the church without understanding the relationship of all of the parts. This leads to a disunity of all the parts. Everyone wants to be the head.
Another way the church is described in the Bible is as a vine with branches. This doesn’t mean the different denominations, but that each of us is a branch and we are all one in the vine. As Christ is the head of the “body of the church”, so He is also the vine from which all of the branches bloom.
It is not just people that are the church, it is also the doctrines, the traditions, the rituals etc…When Christ entered time as a man, He blessed all things with His presence. And everything that builds His church and brings grace to His people is part of the church. We do not stand alone, we are a part of the church, we are not the whole of the church.
In my mind, the Catholic church is not an institution. It is the means by which we build God’s kingdom on earth and each stone, regardless of size is as important to Christ as all of the other stones, but by the same token, each stone is as dependent on the others as all the other stones.
Christ is the Church, we are the church, the traditions are the church, the sacraments are the church, the rituals are the church, the saints in heaven are the church. The church is the whole of Christianity. St. Paul describes it as a body, in need of each part in order to be whole, and each part has a purpose and is of benefit to all of the other parts. It is important also that all parts work together.
The main problem with protestants and dissident Catholics, IMHO,
is individualization. Everyone thinks of himself and only himself as the church without understanding the relationship of all of the parts. This leads to a disunity of all the parts. Everyone wants to be the head.
Another way the church is described in the Bible is as a vine with branches. This doesn’t mean the different denominations, but that each of us is a branch and we are all one in the vine. As Christ is the head of the “body of the church”, so He is also the vine from which all of the branches bloom.
It is not just people that are the church, it is also the doctrines, the traditions, the rituals etc…When Christ entered time as a man, He blessed all things with His presence. And everything that builds His church and brings grace to His people is part of the church. We do not stand alone, we are a part of the church, we are not the whole of the church.
In my mind, the Catholic church is not an institution. It is the means by which we build God’s kingdom on earth and each stone, regardless of size is as important to Christ as all of the other stones, but by the same token, each stone is as dependent on the others as all the other stones.
D
dennisknapp
Guest
Thanks reggie, that was great!
Peace
S
Shibboleth
Guest
Dennis Knapp I am not sure if I am even the type of Protestant you are considering in this post but I am at this time a Protestant and if you would like an answer I will give it to you,
The main area that we are going to differ is in the first 800 years of Christianity. We can either work from the beginning if you wish or we can start from the appearance of the false Decretals and move backwards, it is your choice. I don’t have much time to post but I can do one large post every night if this is what you would like.
The main area that we are going to differ is in the first 800 years of Christianity. We can either work from the beginning if you wish or we can start from the appearance of the false Decretals and move backwards, it is your choice. I don’t have much time to post but I can do one large post every night if this is what you would like.
D
dennisknapp
Guest
Let’s start from the beginning. How about the first 200 years. I say we take it in 200 year increments.
Peace
M
mercygate
Guest
A Catholic *might *say that The Church is people who worship God together – but by “together” he would mean something pretty concrete, involving that thread of the visible Church which traces itself in history and charism back to the Apostles and to Christ himself. My analogy is that since Christ had a physical body when he walked the earth as a man, then the Church must also have a physical body to live his life until he comes again. That body must be “attached” to the vine, not just ‘spiritually’ (which, when I was a Protestant, meant ‘imaginary’) or doctrinally but physically.
It gave me chills the other day when I went to confession. My confessor hears my confessions in his office, and I always kneel for absolution. I realized when he placed his hand on my head that hand-to-head, concretely, that physical touch had reached all the way back to the night when the Lord washed the feet of the disciples. YOW!
But this thread is about Protestant views – I return you to the original topic.
I
Ignatius
Guest
How could it be otherwise? If the church was founded by one of the Apostles, it’s practices would be the same as the rest of the Church was in the first century.Did you know that in the 16th century, the Portuguese discovered a thriving Christian Church on India’s southwestern coast. This Church traces it’s roots back to the apostle St Thomas, who is believed to have brought Christianity to India in the year 52. These Christians are referred to as St Thomas Christians or Mar Thoma Christians.
Up until this community was discovered, they had lived in secret isolation for about 1500 years having no contact with The Catholic Church, The Orthodox Church (after the great schism), or any of the heretics including the early protestants.
Today, most of them are either Catholic or Eastern Orthodox. But what is fascinating is that when they were discovered, their practices were vitually identical to the Catholic/Orthodox Traditions. Seven Sacraments, Real Presence, Infant Baptism, etc.
O
oriel36
Guest
The Johannine issue was very much a central part of the early Church and very much part of ours for the Book of Revelation comes from that community.You may see the miracle at work today in the gospel passage they used for the Pope - John 21 and its enigmatic nature.I apologise,the story of how the Johaninne gospel connects with the Book of Revelation is a long Spiritual way off.
As a matter of practicalities,the early Church was being undermined by Pseudo-Christians who were disturbing Christian faith by being too progressive or sorting and sifting early Christian writings to suit their purpose.You will hear the author complain about the gnostic Marcion and indeed many like this man were trying to strangle the early Christian faith for more ’ progressive ’ or individual interpretations.
earlychristianwritings.com/text/muratorian.html
christianorigins.com/marcion.html
Christianity relies on the Trinity of God made man,some like the Arians diluted Jesus role to a moral spokesman while the other extreme made him pure Spirit without human traits and there were many variaties of these people,still are.
The Catholic and Protestant split is a pale political split that no longer serves any purpose and in comparison to the huge compromises that were needed in the early Church and still exist,the more you look on the early Church and breathe in the Spiritual atmosphere the more you love Christ and Christianity and you will eventually determine that a Catholic/Protestant split is foolish.
Again,compromises were made in the early Church and especially in the absorbtion of the Johannine community into its ranks.
R
RattleSnake
Guest
You know… .through all my time on message boards… THIS question will NEVER be answered by a nonCatholic.
Never.
And it results in…
As a Catholic … I would really like to know the History of the Protestant Church.
I have read numerous times… and can repeat it by heart… the “Catholic Church story.”
I want to learn where my protestant FRIENDS are coming from regarding THE HISTORY OF THE CHURCH.
I have NEVER received an answer.
Never.
And it results in…
- “no fair”
- “you are mean spirited”
- “quit bashing protestants”
- “quit baiting”
- “the winner writes the history”
- many many more…
As a Catholic … I would really like to know the History of the Protestant Church.
I have read numerous times… and can repeat it by heart… the “Catholic Church story.”
I want to learn where my protestant FRIENDS are coming from regarding THE HISTORY OF THE CHURCH.
I have NEVER received an answer.
C
Catholicious
Guest
Wabrams,
Here are some quotes from an early writer [early 2nd century] and saint of the Church, St. Ignatius of Antioch. Also called Theophorus; born in Syria, around the year 50; died at Rome as late as 117. He was a disciple and auditor of the Apostle John the Evangelist [along with St. Polycarp]. He was a successor of St. Peter as Bishop of Antioch.
[The Epistle of Ignatius to the Smyraeans, 107 A.D.]
*Let no man do anything connected with the Church without the bishop. Let that be deemed a proper Eucharist, **which is[administered] either by the bishop, or by one to whom he has entrusted it. Wherever the bishop shall appear, **there let the multitude [of the people] also be; even as, wherever Jesus Christ is, there is the Catholic Church. *
– Do nothing without the bishop, and celebrate a proper Eucharist under his authority. This is the first time in writing that the Church JESUS CHRIST established was referred to as the Catholic Church [107 A.D.]. If you look at the context of the passage where it is stated, you are aware that he did not just coin the phrase and that it had been used for some time, maybe back to the Apostles themselves.
[The Epistle of Ignatius to the Ephesians, 110 A.D.]
*Now the more any one sees the bishop keeping silence, the more ought he to revere him. For we ought to receive **every one whom the Master of the house sends to be over His household, as we would do Him that sent him. It is **manifest, therefore, that we should look upon the bishop even as we would upon the Lord Himself. *
– These are pretty strong words, from one of the disciples and auditors of St. John the Evangelist [St. Polycarp was another one] and successor of St. Peter as Bishop of Antioch, in regards to looking upon the bishop as CHRIST Himself.
[The Epistle of Ignatius to the Romans, 110 A.D.]
*“Ignatius … to the church also which holds the precedency, in the location of the country of the Romans, worthy of God, worthy of honor, worthy of **blessing, worthy of praise, worthy of success, worthy of sanctification, and because you hold the presidency in love, named after Christ and named after the **Father … You [the church in Rome] have envied no one, but others you have taught. I desire only that what you have enjoined in your instructions may *
*remain in force.” *
– His statement of teaching churches, and being worthy of sanctification appears to speak to the primacy in action that Rome held at this early date. He is acknowledging not just the Church in Rome but her authority as well.
Code:
Catholicious
R
reggie
Guest
In watching the coverage of the death of our beloved pope it has amused me to no end to hear so many protestants refer to the history of the church and the line of the papacy.
Bill Clinton in an interview with Brian Williams said that he was overwhelmed by the history of the office of the pope and the 2000 year history of the church represented in him.
Is this the worst form of pandering? Or does Bill Clinton not realize what he was saying? How does one recognize the history of the papacy and still reject the church? I have been amazed by so many who have said, “While I disagree and reject some of the doctrines of the Catholic Church, I have great admiration for the pope and the history of his office.”
So, is the history of the church 2000 years old? And if it is, why would anyone dispute all that she proclaims? Protestants were so anxious to be seen as ecumenical they were just babbling all kinds of praises without realizing that by their words they were legitimizing the Catholic church and delegitimizing their own.
Afterall, if the history of the church is 2000 years old, logic should then indicate that the Catholic church must therefore be the one Christ founded on Peter? No other church can trace itself back to the first Apostles. Or am I wrong? Is there anyone here who can show through more than the words of their founder that their church can be traced back any further than a few hundred years?
Bill Clinton in an interview with Brian Williams said that he was overwhelmed by the history of the office of the pope and the 2000 year history of the church represented in him.
Is this the worst form of pandering? Or does Bill Clinton not realize what he was saying? How does one recognize the history of the papacy and still reject the church? I have been amazed by so many who have said, “While I disagree and reject some of the doctrines of the Catholic Church, I have great admiration for the pope and the history of his office.”
So, is the history of the church 2000 years old? And if it is, why would anyone dispute all that she proclaims? Protestants were so anxious to be seen as ecumenical they were just babbling all kinds of praises without realizing that by their words they were legitimizing the Catholic church and delegitimizing their own.
Afterall, if the history of the church is 2000 years old, logic should then indicate that the Catholic church must therefore be the one Christ founded on Peter? No other church can trace itself back to the first Apostles. Or am I wrong? Is there anyone here who can show through more than the words of their founder that their church can be traced back any further than a few hundred years?
O
oriel36
Guest
The Church is founded on Christ,not on Peter.
." On this rock, therefore, He said, which thou hast confessed. I will build my Church. For the Rock (Petra) was Christ; and on this foundation was Peter himself also built. For other foundation can no man lay than that is laid, which is Christ Jesus."
newadvent.org/fathers/1701124.htm
I am a Catholic and very proud of the late Pope and especially his presence among fellow Christians.Whatever authority you imagine that would permit baiting of fellow Christians by one side or the other only tells me that under the guise of debate my Catholic tradition is turning rotten from the inside.
It is easier to shout insults at someone than to find agreement and even if there are genuinely great people here who are original ,those who chose the ‘us and them’ of denominational differences undo whatever good that can come from these forums.
D
dennisknapp
Guest
Wait, wait, wait…
What you are saying is inflamitory.
We do have differences and they are real. If they were not real we would be One, would we not?
If I as a Catholic believe that Mary was sinless and my Protestants brothers and sisters say she was not then we have a problem, correct? For we both cannot be right at the same time and in the same sense.
If I as a Catholic believe that the Eucharist is the body, blood, soul and divinity of Christ and my Protestant brothers and sisters do not, and think it only a symbol or just vaguely spiritual–is this not a problem? For we both cannot be right at the same time and in the same sense.
I for one have a problem with accepting contradictions. The issues that divide are not merely political, that would be lessening what many have lived and died defending for over 2000 years.
Truth is important. It was important to those given to the lions in Rome, it is important to those Chinese Catholics unjustly imprisoned for their faith in China, and it is important to me.
Peace
O
oriel36
Guest
St Augustine said no more than Paul said.
"11For no one can lay any foundation other than the one already laid, which is Jesus Christ. "
biblegateway.com/passage/?book_id=53&chapter=3&verse=11&version=31&context=verse
The Apostolic Church recognises two types of complimetary Christians within its ranks as typified by the apostles Peter and John and again,I appeal to a Catholic to help find the relevent passage where St Augustine eloquently expresses where both Christians mesh within the Church and seperate (as Jesus did so in John 21 through Peter and the beloved disciple).
I am a Catholic and proud of my late Pope,should a Catholic assume that there is a one-size-fits-all doctrine to be used against other fellow Christians, they represent neither Peter or John for if contradictions exist,these represent Spiritual deficiencies arising from the inability to acknowledge why two types of complimentary Christians exist within the Church.
[Ultimately,Christianity is best represented by the Catholic tradition however judging from the fervor of our fellow Christians in vigorously fighting against empty secular influences through invoking pseudoscientific empirical principles as opposed to prseodscientific creationist arguments we Catholics have shown ourselves to be wanting in instructing both sides how they made a mess of things,both Spiritual and natural.]
M
mj330
Guest
You claim to be a convert from Protestantism, then you should know the answers to your questions. If you are looking for a debate, then why not put forth the statements that you view to be questionable and ask for a rebuttal? The form of the question that you pose looks argumentative (we should not offend others, my brother). Peace.
K
Kevan
Guest
I’m something of an outsider in this situation, but it looks to me like we have two kinds of Catholicism in conflict here. A professor at a Catholic university told me once that the Steubenville folks have a zeal for Catholicism, “but it’s a pre-Vatican-Two kind of Catholicism.”
I like the Steubenville kind of Catholicism better; but I’m a Fundamentalist, so what do you expect?
Dennis, it looks like your peers are going to shout you down around here. Maybe you should wade into some Protestant forum where the culture is more absolutistic.
I like the Steubenville kind of Catholicism better; but I’m a Fundamentalist, so what do you expect?
Dennis, it looks like your peers are going to shout you down around here. Maybe you should wade into some Protestant forum where the culture is more absolutistic.
C
CatherineofA
Guest
This is a good question. However, because you have not gotten an answer to your question, you have to assume that there is not an answer due to the answer NOT existing. Therefore, YOU have to list an assessment of Catholic church history along with evidence that backs up THAT assessment. This paints a picture of “true” history. No help from others and no links or referrals. Without a detailed review from your own point of view, there are two possibilities. You do not know the history of your faith or the history you want to exist isn’t there. In either case, someone, on either side, is assuming something is there that isn’t or more informed education in Christianity is needed. Let’s here from you!
- Status