T
Topaz1128
Guest
I am going through RCIA right now and an answer to this question would really help solidify my faith in the Catholic Church. Thank you.
If Protestantism is so good, then where was it for the first 1,500 years?
- Status
G
geekborj
Guest
I think you really have to ask those anti-Catholic protestants.
Think about this: Would Protestantism exists if the Catholic Church weren’t there on the first place?
A: (Fact) The Holy Spirit runs the Catholic Church.
B: (Proposition) The Catholic Church once in the past, apostasized with the Protestants as the remnants of the Church.
C: Then either the Holy Spirit failed to prevent the Church from being “prevailed by Hell” OR the Church actually continued to live as the Catholic Church today since Pentecost.
But the Holy Spirit cannot fail, hence the Catholic Church IS the Church that Christ has built. Hence we could notice:
(Assertion) Protestantism has no place in the Christian world without the Catholic Church actually existing beforehand.
(Assertion) The Catholic Church can exist independent of whether there are other religious groups (though this can greatly help the Church develop).
Let us pray that our separated Brethren will heed the call of the Holy Spirit so that “all may be one.”
M
MarcoPolo
Guest
I am not joking I was recently in a conversation with a Protestant who argued that the early Church believed as Protestants do today, but that the Catholic Church destroyed the evidence of this. She of course has quoted no basis for this except telling me to read an anti-Catholic book from which she would not quote an example even after I aksed. The closest she came was to cite Catholics having done bad things during the Inquisition in 11th-12th century which was from left field in relation to the topic at hand.
Sometimes the poverty of an argument can solidify one’s opponent’s argument.
Sometimes the poverty of an argument can solidify one’s opponent’s argument.
B
Brian_Culliton
Guest
Why do you want to become a Roman Catholic, and how do answers to this question influence your decision?
S
Scoobyshme
Guest
Topaz, you will find the vast majority of Protestants don’t know the history of Christianity between the New Testament and the Reformation. It’s a big blank for them. As John Henry Cardinal Newman once said, “To be deep in history is to cease to be a Protestant.”
They have no answer for Christianity before the Reformation in those years that any facts support. They don’t realize that their Bible, at least the New Testament, comes from the Catholic Church and wasn’t decided upon till the fourth century. Or that there were relatively few people, percentage-wise, who could either read or write until the 1800’s or later. Most people were illiterate, making their “Bible-reading, self-interpreting” approach to faith impractical, at best. Jesus didn’t create a Bible-reading Church. He created a teaching, preaching Church and trained 12 Apostles to teach ALL that He taught them. The Bible says that NOT all Jesus said or did is in the Bible (John 21:25), yet He commanded them to teach all (Matt. 28:20).
Their approach, by design, will always result in continual splintering into more and more denominations, with no final authority. Each man, woman, and child is his/her own final authority, i.e., his/her own pope. That’s why there are literally thousands of Protestant denominations, and counting.
A
Atemi
Guest
And to be fair and accurate, even more Roman Catholics are just as ignorant.
To mock one people for what most of your own have perfected shows a weakness in the argument.
…
A
Atemi
Guest
“Protestantism” has always been the Christian norm and has always been here since Pentecost.
BTW, I am defining “Protestantism” here as any Christian faith and practice that is not totally Roman Catholic.
The fact is that the early church and all of the early church fathers did not believe Roman Catholicism as it is taught today.
A piece here and a piece there is not enough for the RC paradigm. Some similarities rather than all similarity is total proof of this “Protestantism” rather than some mythological, monolithic Roman Catholicism for 2000 years.
For example, a man like Augustine could not be a modernist Roman Catholic today. He would not even call modernist Catholics, “Catholics.”
To abandon “Protestantism” is to abandon how the Christian church is designed to operate.
Best of luck to you.
…
M
MarcoPolo
Guest
Topaz as a point of interest, you may be interested in reading this exchange by Catholic apologist Mark Bonocore to James White (a Reformed Baptist) challenging him to come up with an Early Church Father who could be considered an orthodox Reformed Baptist.
M
MarcoPolo
Guest
For Topaz and others - To discount the Catholic Church by this line of thinking is fallacious. Mark Bonocore on another occasion just happened to refute James White who tried to apply the same standard. Here is the exchange. Pay special attention to the discussion of Acts 15.
The short way to refute this line of thinking is to substitute the word “Protestantism” for “Catholic Church” in this argument. It will still be a true statement reading: “The fact is that the early church and all of the early church fathers did not believe Protestantism as it is taught today.”
And thus the Protestant would have to throw out his own belief. He ends up diffusing himself. Catholics for their part believe in doctrinal development, as did the early Church from Acts 15 to the early development of the Trinity or Incarnation. Every Catholic dogma is rooted in the apostolic deposit of faith. Many dogmas developed quickly and can be seen explicitly in the first 300-400 years of the Church. These are dogmas like the Real Presences or regeneration of baptism that most Protestants reject today.
A
Atemi
Guest
Mark missed the point. That is totally unnecessary.
We need only see if any early church fathers did not believe the exact religion Roman Catholics are taught today.
That is all.
…
M
MarcoPolo
Guest
So you teach the following:
- The early Church did not match exactly with Catholicism, therefore Catholicism is FALSE.
- The early Church did not match exactly with Protestantism, therefore Protestantism is TRUE.
A
Atemi
Guest
And this demonstrates the error.
“Protestantism” is not a religion. It is not a set list of doctrines. It is a concept. It is a position.
Simply to not be Roman Catholic in entirety is to be “Protestant” (for all intents and purposes).
Catholics themselves know this, as they say it all the time. This is why many are so fond of letting everyone know who is or is not really a “Catholic.”
…
A
Atemi
Guest
The early church does not match exactly with Roman Catholicism today, therefore Roman Catholicism is false.
This is because the claim of the RCC is that it teaches exactly what the Apostles taught.
History tells a different story.
The early church does match exactly with “Protestantism” today (many differing opinions, independent churches, no monarchial and monolithic ecclesiology, etc…)
Therefore, “Protestantism” is true.
…
B
bankerdavid
Guest
Does the fact that an acorn doesn’t look anything like an oak tree actually mean that the oak tree did not come from the acorn?
No, the fact is that the Catholic Church had a beginning, Christ, an infancy, maturation period, and so on.
You can’t show us any belief that the Catholic Church has today, that it didn’t have 2000 years ago. You’ll find deeper understanding, but not difference.
No, the fact is that the Catholic Church had a beginning, Christ, an infancy, maturation period, and so on.
You can’t show us any belief that the Catholic Church has today, that it didn’t have 2000 years ago. You’ll find deeper understanding, but not difference.
T
TEPO
Guest
Then Protestantism is a divider.
If this were true, you would not worship Jesus… Somehow I doubt this is the case… Right?
Anyone who worships Jesus belongs to the Catholic Church… They may be heretical and in dissent, but part of the Church none the less.
C
CSJ
Guest
If you continue with your logic, the Protestant fathers also did not believe Protestantism as it is today. If Luther could have foreseen the over 30,000 Protestant denominations, he would have certainly rethought his decision. In a letter to the Pope, Luther lamented his creation of a schism and reiterated that it was better for the faithful to remain within the Catholic faith.
Augustine wrote of his desire to partake of the Eucharist daily - the Catholic Church has the Eucharist. Augustine is Catholic.
Your argument also does not account for doctrinal development. In the time of the apostles, the Catholic faith was but an acorn and in Augustine’s time, it was a small shoot of a tree. Today, it is an oak tree that is firmly planted in the soil of Sacred Scripture, Sacred Tradition, and the Magisterium. It is still the same oak throughout all history.
While much of Catholic doctrine was not as defined as it is today, it is presumptuous to assume that the early Church fathers did not believe them. A short investigation into the early Church fathers will also prove that many of the doctrines were believed - particularly the authority of the Church that was granted by Christ. Catholic doctrine can also be seen very clearly in Scripture - particularly in the typologies provided in the Old Testament. Not all are equally explicit, but the same could be said of some Protestant doctrines.
To ignore the perspective and tradition (passing on) of doctrine by the early fathers is foolish for they were much closer to the intent of the teaching. To try to understand Scripture solely from our 20th century western perspective is frightful at best. Sadly, this is why the Protestant faith continues to splinter - it is autonomous and has no authority to cling to. Much is based on “personal” interpretation - this is not God’s design.
I pray for the day when we are united with all our brothers and sisters in Christ.
CSJ
B
Brian_Culliton
Guest
That analogy is a complete fallacy.
The differences between the Roman Catholic Church today and the Ante-Nicene “catholic church” are significant. They are so significant that anyone who considers joining the RCC should take the time to examining the differences. That is if they care about the truth.
D
DCNBILL
Guest
If one is going to present this statement, as fact, one may want to have documentation from the early fathers writing about how they feel about how Roman Catholicism is practiced in the 21st century. I for one would be very interested to see these documents.
T
TEPO
Guest
Are there any differences that “take-away” from any truths that existed during the ante-Nicene age?
Otherwise the only differences would have been growth, which would mean that the “oak tree” analogy was not really a fallacy at all.
T
Topaz1128
Guest
I want to become Catholic because, through lots of research and praying, I’m becoming convinced that it is more complete than any Protestant branch, especially evangelicalism.
I ask this question because everyone’s viewpoints will help me choose the most complete church.
- Status