If Protestantism is so good, then where was it for the first 1,500 years?

[Drawmack]

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.

It might help if you could phrase the question in such a way that it is charitable.

 

[Topaz1128]

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.

Thank you. You have pretty much summed up what I believe!

 

[TEPO]

It might help if you could phrase the question in such a way that it is charitable.

Strange, I thought it sounded like a very genuine question? You see, these are the types of questions that we catholics can’t help but to wonder…

I dont think the OP intended to be uncharitable at all.

Peace.
TEPO

 

[Scoobyshme]

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.

Brian,

 I think it's clear you don't understand the analogy, either because you didn't read it carefully, or because you don't want to understand it.  I'm not sure which.

 Clearly, if I looked at pictures of you as an infant compared to pictures of you now, there would barely be any resemblance, would there?  Yet, you are the same person.  This is the same analogy applied to the Church.  The Church, unlike Protestant denominations, is a living, Divine entity.  Living things were meant to grow and mature.  This is exactly what the Church has done!  It's far larger and more mature than the early Church.

 

[TEPO]

Brian,

 I think it's clear you don't understand the analogy, either because you didn't read it carefully, or because you don't want to understand it.  I'm not sure which.

 Clearly, if I looked at pictures of you as an infant compared to pictures of you now, there would barely be any resemblance, would there?  Yet, you are the same person.  This is the same analogy applied to the Church.  The Church, unlike Protestant denominations, is a living, Divine entity.  Living things were meant to grow and mature.  This is exactly what the Church has done!  It's far larger and more mature than the early Church.

 

[MarcoPolo]

This is because the claim of the RCC is that it teaches exactly what the Apostles taught.

So you believe the Catholic Church denies doctrinal development? Where on earth did you get that from?

 

[Bluegoat]

My answer would be that this is a red herring and an issue of semantics.

The Church was one in the beginning. It’s history was unified.

At various times there have been divergences. Two organizations or parties existed where before there was one. They share a history up to that point, after which it becomes separate. But it is not the case that one of the groups suddely appeared from nothing, and has no history.

For example the English Church began very early in the history of Christianity, when the political organization of the Church was much more decentralized. Its origins are rather cloudy. In the 4th century it became much more closely tied politically to the Roman Church, and remained that way until the English Reformation. During all of this time it was clearly part of the True Church, and the history of the English Church is part of the history of the whole Church. After the reformation they diverge, but neither is “new”.

 

[Br.Rich_SFO]

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.

It was hiding!

 

[Drawmack]

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.

How about writings from the early fathers that contradict modern teaching or are you morally vested in possing an impossible challenge?

 

[Drawmack]

Strange, I thought it sounded like a very genuine question? You see, these are the types of questions that we catholics can’t help but to wonder…

I dont think the OP intended to be uncharitable at all.

Peace.
TEPO

I understand that. However, it is always good to attempt to phrase questions in a non-antagonistic manner. For example: “I don’t understand why there were no Protestant theologians for the first 1500 years of Christendom: could someone please explain this to me?”

It says the same thing without being antagonistic.

 

[CSJ]

Brian,

I think it’s clear you don’t understand the analogy, either because you didn’t read it carefully, or because you don’t want to understand it. I’m not sure which.

Clearly, if I looked at pictures of you as an infant compared to pictures of you now, there would barely be any resemblance, would there? Yet, you are the same person. This is the same analogy applied to the Church. The Church, unlike Protestant denominations, is a living, Divine entity. Living things were meant to grow and mature. This is exactly what the Church has done! It’s far larger and more mature than the early Church.

That was very well put, Scooby. I may use that as well in the future.

To the OP, I would like to state that I spent over 20 years in Evangelical/Pentecostal churches during my travels. I do not regret those years - they were very formative in my early development. Nonetheless, as I delved deeper into theology, I found a lot of gaps and “troublesome” verses that seemed to contradict some of the basic tenets of my faith (i.e. James 2:24 v.s the doctrine of sola fide).

I began to investigate the early Church and what I discovered was that it was very apostolic and very Catholic. I studied Catholicism for approximately 5 years. I dissected the doctrines and I discovered that they had reason, logic and were defended by Scripture. I originally had no intention of becoming Catholic, but the more I studied and prayed, the more I longed for Christ in the Eucharist. What I also discovered was that the Catholic faith “completed” my faith. Those contradictions and “troublesome” verses were no longer an issue because they backed up Catholic teaching. In fact, the Bible became very much more alive for me and it also made more sense when teachings were taken from a more ancient perspective.

God Bless you in your journey.

CSJ

 

[Atemi]

**“Protestantism” is not a religion. It is not a set list of doctrines. It is a concept. It is a position… **

Then Protestantism is a divider.

Your conclusion does not follow from what I said.

**Simply to not be Roman Catholic in entirety is to be “Protestant” (for all intents and purposes)… **

If this were true, you would not worship Jesus… Somehow I doubt this is the case… Right?

Nah.

That is true and I worship Jesus in spirit and truth.

**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.”… **

Anyone who worships Jesus belongs to the Catholic Church… They may be heretical and in dissent, but part of the Church none the less.

Yes. We are all already familiar with this common Roman Catholic claim now days.

This has not been the testimony of the historical Catholic Church, however, which had a very different opinion than the one you posit above.

…

 

[Atemi]

**“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.**

If you continue with your logic, the Protestant fathers also did not believe Protestantism as it is today.

You refer to men such as Luther and Calvin, correct?

Maybe not.

Of course, this conclusion does not follow my post because the very reason for the Reformation was because of Scripture and the belief and practices of the early church.

If Luther could have foreseen the over 30,000 Protestant denominations, he would have certainly rethought his decision.

Nice speculation, but nothing to comment on.

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.

Can you show us where Luther reverted back to the RC errors he earlier denounced?

No?

Maybe you misunderstand what he was saying.

Augustine wrote of his desire to partake of the Eucharist daily - the Catholic Church has the Eucharist. Augustine is Catholic.

Augustine would not say any modernist RCs today are Catholic.

There are way more to Catholic claims than merely the Eucharist.

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.

Why do you assume that it is an oak tree today and not a small shoot of a tree?

Interesting.

Secondly, the Apostolic witness does not all for “development of doctrine” as even the Orthodox confess.

If there are new dogmas that need to be believed by anyone to be saved, they are definitely not part of the Apostolic deposit.

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.

Sorry, but I know otherwise.

Many denied what the RCC teaches today.

A short investigation into the early Church fathers will also prove that many of the doctrines were believed

Merely “many”?

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.

There are those mentioned in Scripture that were so “close” to the Apostolic teaching that they actually learned the faith directly at the feet of the Apostles.

Yet what do we find?

We find the Apostles themselves, again and again, correcting these same churches and leaders for all the many errors they were falling into and teaching.

So, according to the Holy Spirit, being “closer” does not matter one bit. The churches planted by the very Apostles were falling into error immediately.

The ONLY thing that matters is obedience and faithfulness to the Word of God as originally taught…which we find totally unadulterated in Scripture.

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.

Nah.

I would never call the very Word of God “no authority.”

You can choose to do as you like.

I pray for the day when we are united with all our brothers and sisters in Christ.

The problem is, you are waiting for a day that has long been here.

When we misunderstand what true unity in Christ is, and that it is not a nod in the direction of a laundry list of doctrines, this error will continue.

…

 

[Atemi]

 Clearly, if I looked at pictures of you as an infant compared to pictures of you now, there would barely be any resemblance, would there?  Yet, you are the same person.  This is the same analogy applied to the Church.  The Church, unlike Protestant denominations, is a living, Divine entity.  Living things were meant to grow and mature.  This is exactly what the Church has done!  It's far larger and more mature than the early Church.

The Body of Christ was not a little baby at Pentecost.

If anyone wants to know how mature Christ was at Pentecost, one need only read the first chapter of Acts. No little babies there.

…

 

[Atemi]

How about writings from the early fathers that contradict modern teaching or are you morally vested in possing an impossible challenge?

I have found out from Catholic apologists that those many testimonies from the early fathers simply do not count.

Only those testimonies that seem to agree with modern Catholic teaching are relevant for some reason.

This is problematic.

…

 

[Atemi]

This is because the claim of the RCC is that it teaches exactly what the Apostles taught.

So you believe the Catholic Church denies doctrinal development? Where on earth did you get that from?

Wow.

My apologies.

So you are saying that the Catholic Church does not teach what the Apostles taught?

OK.

I believe there are many Catholics that agree with you.

…

 

[Steven_John]

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.

Hi,
I cant speak for protestants but in response to the subject question i think they might say they were there.

Your question hints of bad encounter or experience given its phrasing.

I know lots of nice protestants and lots of nice Catholics, i dont hang on doctrine but the love people bare.

Please dont be put of of Catholics by the ones here spreading hate in the way they post. I personally have lots of them i love very much and Our Father has blessed me through them as He has through protestants.

IMO you would do well to read your bible pray and do as The Spirit guides you. If you do have something of bad experience maybe working through it first is a good idea.

while G-d calls us all to one religion,
His love is much bigger than all our religions.

Bless ya, Pray to The Father as Yeshua (pbwh) teaches and all will be willed.

 

[MarcoPolo]

So you are saying that the Catholic Church does not teach what the Apostles taught?

No, I did not say anything like that. We teach exactly what the Apostles taught, which includes how to develop doctrine. We do not believe, however, the doctrines the Apostles taught were static and exhausted or were not intended to be understood more fully when understood together over time. Neither did the Apostles believe this. Paul even taught Timothy how to discern what would be sound doctrine, which he would not have done if there was just a list not to be more deeply understood.

The Church, which includes Her doctrines, is built upon the foundation of the Apostles. As has been discussed much in this thread and elsewhere, because you were once an infant does not mean you are now a different person as an adult.

 

[TEPO]

No, I did not say anything like that. We teach exactly what the Apostles taught, which includes how to develop doctrine. We do not believe, however, the doctrines the Apostles taught were static and exhausted or were not intended to be understood more fully when understood together over time. Neither did the Apostles believe this. Paul even taught Timothy how to discern what would be sound doctrine, which he would not have done if there was just a list not to be more deeply understood.

The Church, which includes Her doctrines, is built upon the foundation of the Apostles. As has been discussed much in this thread and elsewhere, because you were once an infant does not mean you are now a different person as an adult.

Well said Marco! :tiphat:

 

[TEPO]

I’m definantly no scholar, thats for sure! But the way view the Church is the Mother Church (RCC) in the center, with denominational rings surrounding her… The Churches “rings” prevent Catholic dissenters from completely departing from the Church, thus allowing them an opportunity to “protect” the Church…

They protect the Church from her enemies by forming rings around her… The Denominations also offer the ability to regain her membership.

Cause we all know -it’s not easy being Catholic.

No offense honestly… Like I said, I’m no scholar… It’s Just my opinion.