History of the Roman Catholic Church

[Protestant101]

You are espousing what you THINK that Catholics teach. We WROTE the Bible brkn1. It is those who have separated themselves from Christ’s Church through the reformation that don’t hold to the correct gospel and don’t support what the Bible ACTUALLY, CONTEXTUALLY says. You can’t take OUR Bible, make changes to it, personally interpret it, then tell us what it means. That is what you and all non-Catholics as a result of the reformation who have come to believe in the teaching of man are doing. You obviously don’t see it that way, but that is exactly how it is. Luther and the reformers took our Bible, made changes, added to it, took away from it, re-interpreted it and taught that as Truth. 500 years later that is all non-Catholic Churches know. That is NOT Apostolic Truth. It is teaching of man.

What a joke! Your Church did not write the Bible. And I didn’t “separate” myself from no Church; God led me into one…

 

[Ferde_Rombola]

You counted did you? I have been told a few times; but quite a few of those times, I have been given different answers!! And from Catholics too!

Did you overlook it? Try message #268.

 

[Ferde_Rombola]

What a joke! Your Church did not write the Bible. And I didn’t “separate” myself from no Church; God led me into one…

If that’s true, we must assume He led the millions of protestants into the 33 thousand odd sects they inhabit. Do you really think God is a deceiver? Do you really think he’d lead anyone into error? The protestant sects teach error. All of them.

The Catholic Church didn’t ‘write’ the Bible, but she did gather the various books together and place them into the Christian canon of Scripture, the canon you recognize and use today. With the exception, of course, of the 7 books Luther discarded because he didn’t like what they taught.

It’s time to take the chip off your soulder and try to learn something. Right now you appear to be uneducable.

 

[bobregan]

What a joke! Your Church did not write the Bible. And I didn’t “separate” myself from no Church; God led me into one…

Which one of the 30,000 did God lead you in to? And did Jesus want this mess of 30,000 different interpretations of His teachings?

 

[guanophore]

That is a sad quote.
The Lord Jesus Christ often pointed to that “nothing more than” the written Word of God, when He explained or defended God’s Truth. Jesus distinguished God’s Written Word from tradition. He condemned the idea of tradition over God’s Word.

This is true, and as He did so, He was creating Sacred Oral Tradition. He also upheld the Sacred Oral Traditions that did not contradict God’s commandments. It was this Sacred Oral Tradition that Jesus committed to the Apostles, and this became the content of their preaching. This is the difference between Sacred Tradition and man made traditions (customs). Sacred Tradition is equal to the written word of God.

1 Thess 2:13-14

13 And we also thank God constantly for this, that when you received the word of God which you heard from us, you accepted it not as the word of men but as what it really is, the word of God, which is at work in you believers.

The Apostle commends the Thessalonians for receiving this Sacred Tradition for what it is, the Word of God. This preaching (kerygma) is what later produced the contents of the NT. This is why they are equal, they emanate from the same Source. If the Apostolic preaching was not infallible, then it could not be the Word of God. That is what defines Sacred Tradition, and distinguishes it from the traditions of men.

The Apostle demonstrates that the two are equal in value and authority:

2 Thess 2:15
15 So then, brethren, stand firm and hold to the traditions which you were taught by us, either by word of mouth or by letter.

Tradition is NOT Scripture.

I agree with this. Though Sacred Scripture and Sacred Tradition (Apostolic preaching and teaching) come from the same Source, they are two strands of God’s Revelation.

Tradition often goes against Scripture. Tradition has no business being called equal to (or even superior to) Scripture.

Sacred Tradition cannot contradict the Scripture, since both are the Word of God. They are equal, because the both come from the same Spirit who inspired them each in the Apostles.

However, it is true that the traditions of men do sometimes contradict both Sacred Tradition and Sacred Scripture. These are the traditions that Jesus criticized. He affirmed the Sacred Traditions that were consistent with the written Word.

The Lord Jesus Christ is the Living Word of God.
The Bible is the written Word of God.
Tradition is man’s words and ideas and has no business ever being called Scripture.

I was simply pointing out that there was a difference between the Word of God and man’s traditions. It does not matter if they are presented orally or written down. There is a difference and it is a mistake to treat them as if they are the same thing.

Tradition does not have the same authority as scripture.
The word of God is Gods word to us, tradition is not.

Scripture is the word of God tradition isnt.

Jesus described the Pharisees’ use of tradition to get around God’s commandment to honor one’s parents: “…Thus have ye made the commandments of God of none effect by your traditions.” (Matthew 15:6)
(Matthew 15:9) further defines the result of those who hold to man’s traditions being equal to God’s Word, when Jesus says: “But in vain do they worship Me, teaching for doctrines the commandments of men.”

This is why it is so important to distinguish between Sacred Tradition and the traditions (customs) of men. For example, altar calls are a tradition of man. They do not contradict Scripture, though. There is nothing wrong with the traditions of men in and of themselves.

 I use Scripture as being the same as saying God's Word, without much concern about whether it is actually written or not.

Are you saying that you also have another Source for God’s Word, besides Scripture?

I see that you have distinguished between Scripture and Tradition in your last two sentences. Your implied claim that they are both equally inspired by God is something that you could not prove by Scripture. If God inspired it, it would be God’s Word, not man’s “Tradition”.

I think these two passages from Thessalonians cited above make it clear that the preached Word of God was held with the same esteem as the Written. I agree, when it is God’s Word, it is not “man’s tradition”.

 

[Always_For_Him]

You counted did you? I have been told a few times; but quite a few of those times, I have been given different answers!! And from Catholics too!

If its too much for you to show me specific quotes in official Catholic writings that say definitely when the Catholic Church was born; I can understand that, given the way you talk to people.

THAT answer has been provided for you many times as well. You are so indoctrinated in your man-made theology that there is nothing we are going to be able to say to convince you. You have been on this site long enough and have received beautiful, factual Catholic scholarship that you immediately discount all of it because you believe someone else’s teaching. That is sad. All you can do is comment on how I talk to people. Great contribution.

 

[Always_For_Him]

What a joke! Your Church did not write the Bible. And I didn’t “separate” myself from no Church; God led me into one…

So, if the Catholic Church didn’t write the Bible under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit AFTER teaching Christ’s Deposit of Faith by oral teachings and Sacred Tradition for centuries before they were all brought together, determined as inspired and canonized, who wrote it? The Catholic Church provided every bit of information that ALL christians use whether it was by writing their teachings down or orally teaching them. Even at the time of Luther and the other reformers, it was still mainly taught by oral teaching and through Sacred Tradition.

You are a member of a group that is less than 200 years old teaching less than 200 year-old teachings that were created by humans. I am sorry if you think I am being rude. I am just stating the truth.

 

[guanophore]

Well; you need to give people more credit than this. People don’t “lie,” just because they disagree.

Good point. It would be more accurate to say that you are pandering deceit about the Catholic Church. However, since you appear to be convinced that what you are saying is true, it does not, technically, qualify as a “lie”. A lie is a deliberate attempt to deceive someone. Since you believe what you are saying, you are more properly described as being in a state of denial.

You actually raise some good questions here re Church history, and “the first church.”

The earliest Christians (in New Testament times) were Jews; (not Catholics) and in their new faith, they found a solid continuity with the old. They remembered how that our Lord said He had come to fulfil, not to abolish the law and the prophets. It is totally useless for people to deny this.

Did you get the impression that Catholics “deny” that the first members of the Church were Jews? Or that Jesus is a Jew? Did you know that the entire Catholic liturgy is lifted from the Jewish synagogue service?

The Jewish roots of Christianity is undeniable in history; something that Catholics can never steal away or obscure. (and yes, I know what the Catechism says re Jews)

It is a great honor to stand in fulfillment of God’s plan for his people through the Jews. Who would want to steal away or obscure such a rich and wonderful heritage? You might wish to listen to some of the talks by Rosalyn Moss. She does a great job of appreciating the Jewish heritage of the Catholic Church.

But then; we haven’t even begun to discuss the OLD Testament “first Christians…” Ahhhh…these are subjects that are patently rejected by Catholic apologists.

This is just a silly statement. No such rejection has ever taken place.

Can anyone tell us when the Roman Catholic Church was officially born? What year was that? And how would you prove it?

First of all, the Catholic Church is not “Roman”. The Catholic Church was born out of the side of Christ when He poured blood and water from the cross. She was Christened on Pentecost, when the Spirit, who is the Soul of the Church, was poured out upon that small group of Jews who had become Catholic.

The Roman Rite did not develop until some centuries later as a result of political and economic separations in the empire.

 

[guanophore]

I suppose you are correct that I could not disprove what you define as “Tradition”, since the RCC Tradition did not exist during the time of Christ.

It was not “Roman”,but it was the Sacred Oral Tradition (teaching of the Apostles). This was the backbone of the Church during the first four centuries before the canon was closed.

There is something about oral tradition that makes it less reliable than Scripture. Man’s oral transmission tends towards error, as you point out about false traditions.

This would be true if it were just dependent upon man. However, God prepared a people for centuried to keep His Sacred Word through oral tradition. He is able to watch over His word to preserve it.

Paul speaks about how the Holy Scriptures are able to “make thee wise unto salvation through faith which is in Jesus Christ.”
Paul next explains: “All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness:
That the man of God may be perfect (complete), throughly furnished unto all good works.” [2 Timothy 3:16-17]

Absolutely! Yet, Jesus gave the task of teaching, reproving, correcting and trainign to people. These people, beginning with the Apostles and extending to those like Timothy who were ordained by them are the ones entrusted with the task of building up the saints for the work of the ministry. The Scriptures were never meant to be separated from the authority appointed by Christ.

Paul is very clear about the sufficiency of the Holy Scriptures in the above verses, which could not include any RCC scriptures, since none existed then.

The passage makes it clear that the scriptures are profitable to be used in these duties, given to the church. The only scriptures in the NT are penned, preserved, promulgated and canonized by the Catholic Church. There is nothing in them that is not Catholic. That is why there are no contradictions between the Scripture and the teaching of the Church.

I agree with you, though, they are not “Roman” and that the Roman Rite did not exist at that time.

 

[Hisalone]

The earliest Christians (in New Testament times) were Jews; (not Catholics) and in their new faith, they found a solid continuity with the old. They remembered how that our Lord said He had come to fulfil, not to abolish the law and the prophets. It is totally useless for people to deny this.

Did you get the impression that Catholics “deny” that the first members of the Church were Jews? Or that Jesus is a Jew? Did you know that the entire Catholic liturgy is lifted from the Jewish synagogue service?

First of all, the Catholic Church is not “Roman”. The Catholic Church was born out of the side of Christ when He poured blood and water from the cross. She was Christened on Pentecost, when the Spirit, who is the Soul of the Church, was poured out upon that small group of Jews who had become Catholic.

The Roman Rite did not develop until some centuries later as a result of political and economic separations in the empire.

Many, many here ave said the bible is a Catholic book written by Catholics. Now you speak the truth and say the earliest Christians were Jews, the same people that penned the NT. So if we are confused with your changing position it is understandable.
We make the distinction of Roman Catolic Church to the catholic church because the RCC is different than the 1st century church.

 

[Hisalone]

For Catholics,
"We believe that the Holy Scriptures are completed, explained and interpreted by Holy Tradition and that this is found in the seven Ecumenical Councils and the Consensus of the Greek Fathers. of the early centuries.

There is no competition between the Scriptures and Holy Tradition
they compliment each other!

Anglican Catholic.

Yet by this very position you interpret scripture by tradition making scripture subject to your tradition making tradition of more authority than scripture.

 

[luckyfredsdad]

Yet by this very position you interpret scripture by tradition making scripture subject to your tradition making tradition of more authority than scripture.

In doing this we follow the teachings of the Apostles and Apostolic fathers! When Paul tells Timothy,“O Timothy keep the Deposit by the Holy Spirit that dwells in us”. We believe that he is telling us to preserve the teachings of Christ and the Apostles as well as those whom the Apostles taught!

This has always been the teaching of the Anglican Church, or if you prefer it, the Church in England! We do not make Holy Tradition , as I said before we simply follow what we have been taught by Scripture and the Councils, the seven pillars of the Church! The arrogance of individuals to decipher scripture and the teachings of Christ by themselves is not for us!
You must judge for yourself.

 

[Ferde_Rombola]

Yet by this very position you interpret scripture by tradition making scripture subject to your tradition making tradition of more authority than scripture.

Prove it. As it stands now, you have merely repeated one of many common protestant errors. It’s an uninformed opinion and ultimately worthless.

 

[Hisalone]

Prove it. As it stands now, you have merely repeated one of many common protestant errors. It’s an uninformed opinion and ultimately worthless.

I have nothing to prove by your very words you condemn yourself.
If you interpret scripture through tradition then you subject scripture to tradition.

 

[Hisalone]

In doing this we follow the teachings of the Apostles and Apostolic fathers! When Paul tells Timothy,“O Timothy keep the Deposit by the Holy Spirit that dwells in us”. We believe that he is telling us to preserve the teachings of Christ and the Apostles as well as those whom the Apostles taught!

This has always been the teaching of the Anglican Church, or if you prefer it, the Church in England! We do not make Holy Tradition , as I said before we simply follow what we have been taught by Scripture and the Councils, the seven pillars of the Church! The arrogance of individuals to decipher scripture and the teachings of Christ by themselves is not for us!
You must judge for yourself.

The poverty of those that refuse to accept the word of God as it is written and to neglect such a precious gift as the Spirit of truth.

 

[bobregan]

I have nothing to prove by your very words you condemn yourself.
If you interpret scripture through tradition then you subject scripture to tradition.

I see how you like to quote Thomas Merton. If I recall from his autobiography, Merton had a strong belief in the Magisterium and Traditions of the Catholic Church (“The Seven StoreyMountain”). He was also a convert to Catholicism.

 

[Ferde_Rombola]

I have nothing to prove by your very words you condemn yourself.
If you interpret scripture through tradition then you subject scripture to tradition.

You beg the question. Your first sentence makes no sense and is just another empty accusation. The Catholic Church does not interpret Scripture with Sacred Tradition and that’s what I asked you to prove. Your inability to do so is what condemns your ignorant rants.

The New Testament was not written when the Apostles began to teach the word of the Lord. They taught through speech. That was the beginning of the Sacred Tradition of the Catholic Church. If you knew anything, you’d know that. As it is, you appear to know very little outside of what the revisionist heretics of the 16th Century and your revival tent cheerleaders told you to believe.

 

[Ne_OrangeKnight]

But really, can the ad hominem jabs just stop for a few posts? Just a few? This is getting more and more painful to read, and I find it rather discourages the desire to enter the discussion again.

Sam, the Neon Orange Knight

 

[raumzeitmc2]

That is a sad quote.
The Lord Jesus Christ often pointed to that “nothing more than” the written Word of God, when He explained or defended God’s Truth.

Actually, it would be more correct to say that Christ never “pointed” to the “written Word of God” at all!

Rather, he always, always and everywhere “pointed,” ultimately, to one thing and one thing only, viz, the very PERSON OF HIMSELF! The Bible you see, was always *subordinate *to HIM, and to HIS teaching and authority!

He, and he* alone, * was the ultimate and final teaching authority for his hearers, *never *the Scriptures!

And when the time came for him to commission his representatives, and to give them his authority to teach and bind, they too were then to be listened to and obeyed - as though they were Christ himself! Thus the apostle’s teaching was final and binding on all - no private interpretation.

Whoever listens to you listens to me. Whoever rejects you rejects me. And whoever rejects me rejects the one who sent me. -Luke 10:16

Any such “private interpretations” their hearers may have held were to be accounted as nothing compared to the teachings of either Christ, or of his representatives.

Furthermore, Christ always insisted on obedience to the religious leaders, even if they were bad - very bad!

Then Jesus spoke to the multitudes and to his disciples, 2 Saying: The scribes and the Pharisees have sitten on the chair of Moses. 3 All things therefore whatsoever they shall say to you, observe and do: but according to their works do ye not. Matt. 23:1-3

So the teaching of *Christ *, and of his legitimate representatives, was the norm, was the model, was the “ultimate authority” for the early Christians, not the Scriptures. This they knew and followed.

A* living Teacher*, i.e., the spoken Word, always and everywhere in Scripture trumps the written Word!

So let us always humble ourselves, and never seek a place above that of Christ’s very hearers. Listen to Luke 14:10 KJV:

But when thou art bidden, go and sit down in the lowest room; that when he that bade thee cometh, he may say unto thee, Friend, go up higher: then shalt thou have worship…

God bless!

---

“Almighty God gives me light to know what it is to be a pastor, and the wrong we have done to the Church by our injudicious rashness and indiscreet vehemence in rejecting the Pope.”

Wolfgang Capito to William Farel, “vers la fin de julliet, 1538” (“toward the end of July,” 1538):

The Edinburgh magazine, or Literary miscellany, July - December, 1824, vol. XV, p. 551
books.google.com/books?id=AWEAAAAAYAAJ&pg=PA551&dq=%22wrong+we+have+done+to+the+Church+by+our+injudicious+rashness%22&lr=

“God gives me light to know what it is to be a pastor…” (“Dominus videre dat quid sit agere pastorem…”)

In Correspondance des réformateurs dans les pays de langue franc̦aise (Correspondence of the reformers in the French-speaking countries), Aimé Louis Herminjard, 1878, vol. 5, p. 60.

books.google.com/books?id=HfoQAAAAIAAJ&pg=PA60&dq=%22sit+agere+pastorem%22&lr=&client=firefox

“God has given me to understand the mischief we have done by our precipitancy in breaking with the pope…”

books.google.com/books?hl=en&num=10&lr=&ft=i&cr=&safe=images&q=%22God%20has%20given%20me%20to%20understand%20the%20mischief%20we%20have%20done%20%22&um=1&ie=UTF-8&sa=N&tab=wp

 

[Protestant101]

There sure is a lot of authoritative posting going on; but now we must wonder why a simple answer about when the Catholic Church was born is being evaded.

Catholics, by their silence on this point are admitting that they are not “the first church.” How can anyone believe what you say without evidence? If I have been told “a zillion times;” it doesn’t matter because you cannot even say where I have been given this specific answer to this one question.