Is the Catholic church today the same church that codified the Bible in 400ad?

  • Thread starter Thread starter MariaG
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
40.png
brianberean:
Questions that might help clarify:

Did the church of 400AD officially teach and require its members to believe in:

Purgatory?
Indulgences?
Papal infallibility?
Universal authority of the bishop of Rome?
Mandatory confession to a priest (w/ exceptions)?
Immaculate Conception?
Assumption of Mary?
The current accepted Catholic OT canon?
Transubstantiation?
7 sacraments?

Looking for “official” evidence here…

Brian
Click to expand...
All of these are additions to the catholic faith…
most all of the ones on this list didn’t come into existance until after the crusades…a few in just the past 60 years…to bad all the folks before these last changes were made didn;t really know the “fullness of truth” line the catholic church tries to feed their parishiners…makes you wonder what additions and/or changes the catholic church will make to its teachings in the next 100 years…and how current catholics will undoubtedly have new doctrines added to their religion as the MEN who run the religions government decide that they need even more power…and the truth that catholics understand today will once again be revealed to not be the “Full Truth”:o
 
All of these are additions to the catholic faith…
most all of the ones on this list didn’t come into existance until after the crusades…a few in just the past 60 years…to bad all the folks before these last changes were made didn;t really know the “fullness of truth” line the catholic church tries to feed their parishiners…makes you wonder what additions and/or changes the catholic church will make to its teachings in the next 100 years…and how current catholics will undoubtedly have new doctrines added to their religion as the MEN who run the religions government decide that they need even more power…and the truth that catholics understand today will once again be revealed to not be the “Full Truth”:o
Click to expand...
**Well, Jimmy did a great job:yup: **of showing early church writing that show that the Catholic Church did believe in these things at a quite early stage. Do you have any evidence to refute the mountain of evidence provided by Jimmy?

*There is a difference between making up new doctrine and the development in understanding of that which has already been revealed. *The Trinity is a perfect example. If other Christians did not also accept the teaching of the Trinity, the Catholic Church would be accused of “inventing” the Trininty in the fifth century.

While in the Protestant Churches, I was always taught that if you do not have better understanding of Scripture, learn “new” things, (things that have always been true, but you just now are understanding), that you are not seeking God with your whole heart. In my opinion, the Catholic Church has had 2000 years to come to understanding. And I certainly hope that in 100 years that the Catholic church has GREATER and better understanding of Scripture. I hope the Catholic Church never stops trying to understand the fullness of God.

Protestants tend to stop at that which is sufficient for Salvation. Catholics have always, (and the early church clearly reflects this attitude) sought for a FULL understanding and do not rest in understanding that which God wants us to.

God Bless,
Maria

And BTW, No comments on the Scripture I cited either?
 
The problem with the way the question is phrased is that most Protestants would say that of course the Catholic Church is descended from the early Church, but so are Orthodox and Protestant churches. So the “Catholic Church” today is not identical with the original Catholic Church. Rather, all existing churches are developments of that original church, and unfortunately they have developed in such a way as to become divided from each other. We would grant (at least I would grant) that in a lot of important ways the Catholic and Orthodox Churches are closer to the early Church than any other church, but in other ways they aren’t. We see, for instance, a far more active role for the laity in the early Church than exists in the Catholic Church today. Many Protestants who favor a congregational polity would argue (with some reason, I think) that the role of bishops in the early Church was a lot closer to that of local pastors today than to that of Catholic/Anglican/Orthodox bishops (or still less that of Methodist or Lutheran bishops!). Baptists can point to the widespread practice as late as the 4th century (whether it was a survival of the original practice or a relatively new practice can’t really be proved historically) of not baptizing the children of Christian parents until they were old enough to make a profession of faith on their own account (most of the great theologians of the 4th century–Augustine, Chrysostom, the Cappadocian Fathers, Jerome–were not baptized as infants, even though most of them had Christian parents or at least a Christian mother). Mind you, that’s a very different thing than arguing for the rebaptism of those baptized as infants!

Anyway, the bigger issue is that Protestants see the divisions of Christendom as divisions within the Church, not away from it. We are all part of the same Church that existed in the early centuries, which is why Christian unity is so important (at least in the view of moderate, ecumenical Protestants–of course fundamentalists see most modern Christian groups as backslidden or apostate, and many evangelicals are content with the phantom of “invisible unity”). Now I recognize that there are serious problems with this view. But don’t dismiss it too quickly. Consider the example of the Orthodox. You guys recognize that their churches are true particular churches. You thus recognize, whether you want to put it that way or not, that the Orthodox churches have a valid claim to be descendants of the original Catholic Church, just as you do. So you can’t simply identify the historic Catholic Church with those churches that today are in communion with Rome. Valid apostolic succession has been preserved outside your communion, and you can’t get around that fact.

In Christ,

Edwin
 
Okay, let’s back up a bit then. Would you agree that the Catholic church of 1000 years ago, before the break, was the same Church that Christ established?

God Bless,
Maria
 
40.png
MariaG:
Okay, let’s back up a bit then. Would you agree that the Catholic church of 1000 years ago, before the break, was the same Church that Christ established?

God Bless,
Maria
Click to expand...
No, there are clear HISTORICAL indications that there are gaps in church history…of course we aren;t allowed to discuss them on this board without fear of bing removed from the discussion…

So basically the evidence one would use to refute your claims on serves to get one banned from further discussions…the full truth can’t be discussed here.
 
40.png
realityofitall:
No, there are clear HISTORICAL indications that there are gaps in church history…of course we aren;t allowed to discuss them on this board without fear of bing removed from the discussion…

So basically the evidence one would use to refute your claims on serves to get one banned from further discussions…the full truth can’t be discussed here.
Click to expand...
Well, if there are “clear HISTORICAL indications that there are gaps in church history” or evidence to refute that the Catholic Church IS INDEED the same Church that codified the Bible, why don’t you post that proof? Saying that the evidence will get you banned is a rather lame statement and a cheap shot at these forums which are very open to non-Catholics who are willing to engage in serious debate. Proof please.
 
No, there are clear HISTORICAL indications that there are gaps in church history…of course we aren;t allowed to discuss them on this board without fear of bing removed from the discussion…
Click to expand...
Since when can’t you discuss them? I’ve not seen anyone banned from discussions for bringing up ideas contrary to the Church. Let’s see your gaps so we can address them honestly and fairly. It’s not very Christian to throw out accusations without substance.
 
40.png
realityofitall:
No, there are clear HISTORICAL indications that there are gaps in church history…of course we aren;t allowed to discuss them on this board without fear of bing removed from the discussion…

So basically the evidence one would use to refute your claims on serves to get one banned from further discussions…the full truth can’t be discussed here.
Click to expand...
You know, there is really nothing you need to be afraid of. Go ahead and post your evidence. 😃

Justin
 
Unless, of course, the secret Jesuit Commandos are waiting to swoop down on you in Black Helicopters…

Justin
 
40.png
brianberean:
Did the church of 400AD officially teach and require its members to believe in:

Assumption of Mary?
The current accepted Catholic OT canon?

Looking for “official” evidence here…
Click to expand...
Great questions Brian 🙂

According to the Catholic Encyloclopedia, the belief concerning Mary’s Assumption comes from an apocryphal work, which dates from the fourth or fifth century, and two other sources:
The belief in the corporeal assumption of Mary is founded on the apocryphal treatise De Obitu S. Dominae, bearing the name of St. John, which belongs however to the fourth or fifth century. It is also found in the book De Transitu Virginis, falsely ascribed to St. Melito of Sardis, and in a spurious letter attributed to St. Denis the Areopagite. (Emphasis mine.)

Source: Catholic Encyloclopedia Article
Click to expand...
Pius XII first defined the belief as dogma for Roman Catholics in Munificentissimus Deus on November 1, 1950. There is no evidence to suggest that the Early Church (pre 4th-5th century) believed and taught this, nor is there any historical evidence that the Early Christians (again, pre 4th-5th century) were “required” to believe this teaching.

There was an interesting discussion on the Assumption of Mary thread here a while back that you might want to skim through.

As for the Catholic OT canon?

That was “officially” defined at the Council of Trent-4th Session on 8 April 1546.

God Bless You,
Becky 🙂
 
La Chiara:
Well, if there are “clear HISTORICAL indications that there are gaps in church history” or evidence to refute that the Catholic Church IS INDEED the same Church that codified the Bible, why don’t you post that proof? Saying that the evidence will get you banned is a rather lame statement and a cheap shot at these forums which are very open to non-Catholics who are willing to engage in serious debate. Proof please.
Click to expand...
Here are some great posts that outline History and the facts, not the rewritten information that the catholic church spreads…read posts 178 -181

forums.catholic-questions.org/showpost.php?p=173854&postcount=178
%between%
 
Becky, dear, once again you are doing the same thing that you did over on the “The Bible is a Catholic Document” thread–that is, selectively ignoring posts that have already provided the evidence you claim to be seeking. Please see the answers to your questions in posts #11 through 20. There is a lot of very hard evidence for everything you and Brian asked. Please take the time to read and then provide your evidence as it refutes what has already been posted. Thanks for your cooperation.
 
40.png
realityofitall:
Here are some great posts that outline History and the facts, not the rewritten information that the catholic church spreads…read posts 178 -181

forums.catholic-questions.org/showpost.php?p=173854&postcount=178
%between%
Click to expand...
The “rewritten information that the Catholic Church spreads”??? First, you forgot to capitalize the proper nouns that you used, and second, the last time I looked this IS a Catholic forum. (Just a little reminder in case you forgot where you were!) 😉
 
La Chiara:
The “rewritten information that the Catholic Church spreads”??? First, you forgot to capitalize the proper nouns that you used, and second, the last time I looked this IS a Catholic forum. (Just a little reminder in case you forgot where you were!) 😉
Click to expand...
The truth is the truth no matter where one is…I could be in an islamic church…the fact remains that the catholic church has rewritten it’s history for it’s own benefit.

If you believe they are proper nouns…you can capitalize them, I chose not to give them undue respect.
 
realityofitall,
So, I think you are saying that since the last apostle died, the church has become corrupted? Is that a fair summary? Obviously, others can and do hold other opinions, but is this a fair summary of yours?
 
40.png
MariaG:
realityofitall,
So, I think you are saying that since the last apostle died, the church has become corrupted? Is that a fair summary? Obviously, others can and do hold other opinions, but is this a fair summary of yours?
Click to expand...
I do believe that catholicism is corrupted and exists only for it’s own benefit and that catholic teachings mave been rewritten and twisted…all historical validity to catholic teachings are questionable.
ADMIN NOTE: realityofitall previously banned under a different username. That earlier banned applies to this newer user account as well.
 
40.png
realityofitall:
Here are some great posts that outline History and the facts, not the rewritten information that the catholic church spreads…read posts 178 -181

forums.catholic-questions.org/showpost.php?p=173854&postcount=178
%between%
Click to expand...
All I see are the opinions of an obviously biased commentator…not a single document from the sub-Apostolic church that would confirm your allegations. Would you care to give citations from Christian writings from, say, the two centuries pre- and post- Edict of Milan (A.D. 314), when Christianity was legalized? You ought to be able to show, from them, a substantive change in doctrine from before Christianity was legalized to afterward if what you say is true.

Justin
 
40.png
realityofitall:
I do believe that catholicism is corrupted and exists only for it’s own benefit and that catholic teachings mave been rewritten and twisted…all historical validity to catholic teachings are questionable.
Click to expand...
And because you say so, that makes one billion Catholics worldwide wrong. If only I had known the error of my ways. Thanks for sharing your wisdom with us! :whacky:
 
40.png
realityofitall:
I do believe that catholicism is corrupted and exists only for it’s own benefit and that catholic teachings mave been rewritten and twisted…all historical validity to catholic teachings are questionable.
Click to expand...
Translation: Anything you may have to say to me will be dismissed as a cunning lie.

Justin
 
40.png
Becky:
Great questions Brian 🙂

According to the Catholic Encyloclopedia, the belief concerning Mary’s Assumption comes from an apocryphal work, which dates from the fourth or fifth century, and two other sources:

Pius XII first defined the belief as dogma for Roman Catholics in Munificentissimus Deus on November 1, 1950. There is no evidence to suggest that the Early Church (pre 4th-5th century) believed and taught this, nor is there any historical evidence that the Early Christians (again, pre 4th-5th century) were “required” to believe this teaching.

There was an interesting discussion on the Assumption of Mary thread here a while back that you might want to skim through.

As for the Catholic OT canon?

That was “officially” defined at the Council of Trent-4th Session on 8 April 1546.

God Bless You,
Becky 🙂
Click to expand...
You really need to go into history much more than you have. That statement about the OT canon shows your ignorance.

Look at the councils of Rome, Hippo, Carthage, Flerence. They all define the OT and the NT canon in the same way and they all include the deuterocanonicals.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top