is this true?

[fellowChristian]

see this timeline

http://i34.tinypic.com/9tpmrc.jpg

I’m curious to hear your answer…

If Martin Luther founded the Lutheran Church and King henry VIII founded the Anglican Church,then who started the “Roman Catholic Church”?

And what churches were involved in the “Great Schism”? Because I only see one branch going to the left, where is the other branch that should be going to the right?

 

[Tomster]

James,

What both you and I and all Catholics on this message board know, understand and believe regarding the nature of Christ’s Church is completely foreign to most of our Protestant visitors. AACO8’s unbelievable attempt at historical revisionism is classic example of their struggle to come to some understanding of what our Lord actually did while He walked on the earth. We both can see where private judgement, a cardinal Protestant dogma, leads.

To carry on His work of instruction and sanctification until the end of time, Christ founded a society or agency called the Church. This Church was commissioned to teach all nations the doctrines which Christ explicitly or implicitly taught. It was not at liberty to add or subtract from these truths. It was to hand them down integrally. To it also were confided the means through which the fruits of the redemption were to be channelled to men. In brief, the Church was to be the link between God and man.

The well defined character of the Church is derived from the three elements of which it constituted. These elements are incorporated in the definition which is as follows: The Church is a society of Christ’s followers who profess belief in all of His doctrines, admit the efficacy of all of His menas of sanctification and are governed by superiors all of whom are subject to a supreme spiritual ruler.

One of the elements which makes Christ’s Church a unit distinct from any othe religious group is that all its members believe the same set of doctrines. Christ launched the teaching effort of the Church with the instruction to the Apostles.

“Go into the whole world and preach the Gospel to every creature. He who believes and is baptized shall be saved, but he who does not believe shall be condemned.” (Mark 16:15)

Several things are implied in this and similar passages. Christ clearly intimates that in His Church there would be those who must be regarded as official teachers and those who receive this this teaching. When Christ said that those who refused to accept His teaching would be condemned, He evidently eliminated them from His Church. No matter how vehemently they protest to be His followers, they contradict themselves when they claim the right to pass judgement on the acceptability of His doctrines.

Another element that is embraced by the proper term “Christ’s Church” is that the members of this society admit the efficacy and use of all the means of sanctification instituted by Christ. In establishing these means, Christ endowed them with an indispensable character. He said that without rebirth of water and the Holy Spirit, it is impossible to enter heaven; that adults would not have spiritual life unless they ate the flesh of the Son of Man and drank his blood and that sins retained on earth would be retained in heaven.

Just as Jesus distinguished between the teachers and the learners of His doctrine, so He distinguished between the dispensers and the receivers of the means of grace. It is characteristic of Christ’s Church that it makes available to its members all the means of sanctification confided to it. And in view of the importance of these means, the person who rejects them because he denies their efficacy, rejects membership in the organization to which they were confided.

The last element which constitutes Christ’s Church as an organized society is that its members are subject to legitimate authority. Without any real authority, as seen in all Protestant sects, no organization can maintain its individuality and identity. Christ knew this and so endowed certain members of His Church with power to rule. Over the entire Church He placed a person with supreme jurisdiction. This ruler was to be to the Church what a foundation rock is to a building, what the keeper of the keys is to a city and what a shepherd is to a flock. The implication of jurisdiction is obvious. In Matthew 18:17 we read, “And if he refuse to hear them, appeal to the Church, but if he refuses to hear even the Church, let him be to thee as the heathen and the publican. Amen, I say to you, whatever you bind on earth shall be bound also in heaven; and whatever you loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven.”

In this passage Christ explicitly states that recognition and subjection to authority of the Church is one of the conditions for membership in His Church.

We have seen that in the mind of Christ the term “Church” embraces three elements which make for a definite society.It does not have the vague, elusive meaning that some attach to it.

Although the Church can be proved to be a well-defined organization, the Gospels yield additional evidence concerning its nature and purpose. We can consider corollaries not only because they lead us to a better understanding of the Church’s scope but also to be able to answer certain critics who have raised their objections concerning their existence. These corollaries being: 1) The Church is Spiritual, 2) The Church is Visible and 3) The Church is Perfect.

Another time perhaps.

 

[Randy_Carson]

There is certainly nothing in it that even supports your idea of “many thousands” of Protestant denominations. Can you even give me a single point where Protestants are not of one mind and one belief?

Sure. Only one?

1. Should infants be baptized or is baptism for adults only?
2. Does baptism regenerate or is it merely symbolic?
3. Can women be ordained to leadership positions?
4. Bishops, Priests and Deacons - yes or no as Church leaders?
5. The Lord’s Supper - is Jesus really present in the elements or not?
6. The Rapture - when does it occur? Pre-, mid-, or post-tribulation? Or is this a false doctrine?

Some Protestants would vote one way, some another.

What say you? That anyone who disagrees with you is not a true believer?

And I’m curious…how does the ONE Church which is (allegedly) made up of all true believers regardless of their confession or denomination reconcile these conflicting and contradictory doctrines? Or is doctrine not really all that important?

I look forward to your full explanation.

 

[twb1621]

This is a much more accurate graph and a clearer depiction of many of the splits. That yellow graph is messed up…!
AAC08: unfortunately it shows the truth that the Catholic Church did not divert at all.
forums.catholic-questions.org/attachment.php?attachmentid=4339&d=1224186622

It is God’s desire that we make the choice to love Him on our own throughout our mortal lives so that what we give to Him is honest, heart felt love and devotion, not just compliance out of fear. That free will continues to our last breath of mortal life and until that last breath is taken, the test is not over. In order to love someone with the respect and devotion that leads one’s heart to that all natural love, a person must have the desire to learn to know that person intimately and it is the continually growing knowledge that strengthens that love which in turn determines the depth of the devotion. It is not enough to claim we know scripture and conclude based on that we know Him. If scripture conflicts with itself you’re interpretation has to be wrong, there is no other reason for it. We see that right here in front of us. Too many of us have too many interpretations of scripture and all but one is within the structure of the Church the Christ, Jesus, founded. Do I say this with ill feelings or prejudice toward others who claim Christianity as their faith? Of course not. It is sad that we cannot see. I say it based on what each of us should be able to see but do not. Through ego and self-pride we take a stance of competition toward each other instead of opening our hearts and minds enough to understand who created this division. And yes Jesus knew it would happen and it is Satan who causes us to be tested because it is he who tries to sway us. That some of us have been scattered like sheep, sifted like wheat and so on. Oh, all the warnings of all the things that would happen have been outlined to us and yet we look at the scriptures and the confusion we brought on ourselves through Satan’s encouragement and debate it amongst ourselves instead of regrouping with the hunger to really know.
I ask one question; how is it so many can recite the gospel verses yet outright choose to ignore other verses that conflict with what we choose to believe? And we don’t question that as much as compete between ourselves.
God’s eternal love in heaven is our gift for doing no more than loving Him with the same devotion as He offers each of us. He gave His son to prove what we mean to Him.

 

[Tomster]

The last element which constitutes Christ’s Church as an organized society is that its members are subject to legitimate authority. Without any real authority, as seen in all Protestant sects, no organization can maintain its individuality and identity. Christ knew this and so endowed certain members of His Church with power to rule. Over the entire Church He placed a person with supreme jurisdiction. This ruler was to be to the Church what a foundation rock is to a building, what the keeper of the keys is to a city and what a shepherd is to a flock. The implication of jurisdiction is obvious. In Matthew 18:17 we read, “And if he refuse to hear them, appeal to the Church, but if he refuses to hear even the Church, let him be to thee as the heathen and the publican. Amen, I say to you, whatever you bind on earth shall be bound also in heaven; and whatever you loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven.”

In this passage Christ explicitly states that recognition and subjection to authority of the Church is one of the conditions for membership in His Church.

We have seen that in the mind of Christ the term “Church” embraces three elements which make for a definite society.It does not have the vague, elusive meaning that some attach to it.

Although the Church can be proved to be a well-defined organization, the Gospels yield additional evidence concerning its nature and purpose. We can consider corollaries not only because they lead us to a better understanding of the Church’s scope but also to be able to answer certain critics who have raised their objections concerning their existence. These corollaries being: 1) The Church is Spiritual, 2) The Church is Visible and 3) The Church is Perfect.

Another time perhaps.

 

[Tomster]

AACO8,

If you have taken the time to seriously consider the refutation of your position by all of the Catholics posting on this thread, I think it is safe to say that you are no longer invinceably ignorant.

Tomster

 

[twb1621]

"… A quote from St. Alphonsus Mary De Liguori (1696-1787), Bishop and Doctor* of the Church. St. Francis Jerome, when he visited the parents of St. Alphonsus shortly after his birth, made this prophecy: “This child will be blessed with length of days; he shall not see death before his ninetieth year; he will be a bishop and will do great things for Jesus Christ.” This prophecy certainly came true. One of the most accomplished of all the saints is Alphonsus Liguori. He was a lawyer in both civil and Church law before he dedicated his whole life to serving God. He was founder of a religious order, author of more than a hundred books, originator of modern moral theology, renowned preacher and confessor, bishop, musical composer and painter. For all of his 91 years on earth, he was also a man of prayer and deep personal holiness. He gives an example of true Christian living that all of us would do well to follow. Now the quote:
"A church which is not one in its doctrine and faith can never be the True Church … Hence, because truth must be one, of all the different churches … only one can be the true one … and out of that Church there is no salvation. Now, in order to determine which is this one true Church … it is necessary to examine which is the Church first founded by Jesus Christ, for, when this is ascertained, it must be confessed that this one alone is the true Church which, having once been the true Church must always have been the true Church and must forever be the true Church. For to this first Church has been made the promise of the Savior that the gates of Hell would never be able to overturn it (Matthew 16:18) … In the entire history of religion, we find that the Roman Catholic Church alone was the first Church, and that the other false and heretical churches afterwards departed and separated from her. This is the Church which was propagated by the Apostles and afterwards governed by pastors whom the Apostles themselves appointed to rule over her … This character can be found only in the Roman Church, whose pastors descend securely by an uninterrupted and legitimate succession from the Apostles of the world (Matthew 28:20)
"The innovators themselves do not deny that the Roman Church was the first which Jesus Christ founded … however, they say … that it was the true Church until the fifth century, or until … it fell away, because it had been corrupted by the Catholics … But how could that Church fall which St. Paul calls the “pillar and ground of truth” (I Timothy 3:15)? … No. The Church has not failed … The truth is … that all the false churches which have separated from the Roman Church have fallen away and erred … To convince all heretical sects of their error, there is no way more certain and safe than to show that our Catholic Church has been the first one founded by Jesus Christ; for, this being established, it is proved beyond all doubt that ours is the only true Church and that all the others which have left it and separated are certainly in error … But, pressed by this argument, the innovators have invented an answer: they say that the visible Church has failed, but not the invisible Church … But these doctrines are diametrically opposed to the Gospel.
“The innovators have been challenged several times to produce a text of Sacred Scripture which would prove the existence of the invisible church they invented, and we are unable to obtain any such text from them. How could they adduce such a text when, addressing His Apostles whom He left as the propagators of His Church, Jesus said: “You cannot be hidden” (Matthew 5:14)? … Thus He has declared that the Church cannot help but be visible to everyone … The Church has been at all times, and will forever be, necessarily visible, so that each person may always be able to learn from his pastor the true doctrine regarding the dogmas of faith … to receive the Sacraments, to be directed in the way of salvation, and to be enlightened and corrected should he ever fall into error…”
Continued at stas.org/apologetics/chur…ontraref.shtml

 

[Tomster]

Sure. Only one?

1. Should infants be baptized or is baptism for adults only?
2. Does baptism regenerate or is it merely symbolic?
3. Can women be ordained to leadership positions?
4. Bishops, Priests and Deacons - yes or no as Church leaders?
5. The Lord’s Supper - is Jesus really present in the elements or not?
6. The Rapture - when does it occur? Pre-, mid-, or post-tribulation? Or is this a false doctrine?

Some Protestants would vote one way, some another.

What say you? That anyone who disagrees with you is not a true believer?

And I’m curious…how does the ONE Church which is (allegedly) made up of all true believers regardless of their confession or denomination reconcile these conflicting and contradictory doctrines? Or is doctrine not really all that important?

I look forward to your full explanation.

CAUTION - DO NOT HOLD YOUR BREATH ! :compcoff:

 

[twb1621]

Let me say that once more…
This is a much more accurate graph and a clearer depiction of many of the splits. That yellow graph is messed up…!AAC08: unfortunately it shows the truth that the Catholic Church did not divert at all.
forums.catholic-questions.org/attachmen…9&d=1224186622

It is God’s desire that we make the choice to love Him on our own throughout our mortal lives so that what we give to Him is honest, heart felt love and devotion, not just compliance out of fear. That free will continues to our last breath of mortal life and until that last breath is taken, the test is not over. In order to love someone with the respect and devotion that leads one’s heart to that all natural love, a person must have the desire to learn to know that person intimately and it is the continually growing knowledge that strengthens that love which in turn determines the depth of the devotion. It is not enough to claim we know scripture and conclude based on that we know Him. If scripture conflicts with itself you’re interpretation has to be wrong, there is no other reason for it. We see that right here in front of us. Too many of us have too many interpretations of scripture and all but one is within the structure of the Church the Christ, Jesus, founded. Do I say this with ill feelings or prejudice toward others who claim Christianity as their faith? Of course not. It is sad that we cannot see. I say it based on what each of us should be able to see but do not. Through ego and self-pride we take a stance of competition toward each other instead of opening our hearts and minds enough to understand who created this division. And yes Jesus knew it would happen and it is Satan who causes us to be tested because it is he who tries to sway us. That some of us have been scattered like sheep, sifted like wheat and so on. Oh, all the warnings of all the things that would happen have been outlined to us and yet we look at the scriptures and the confusion we brought on ourselves through Satan’s encouragement and debate it amongst ourselves instead of regrouping with the hunger to really know.
I ask one question; how is it so many can recite the gospel verses yet outright choose to ignore other verses that conflict with what we choose to believe? And we don’t question that as much as compete between ourselves.
God’s eternal love in heaven is our gift for doing no more than loving Him with the same devotion as He offers each of us. He gave His son to prove what we mean to Him.

 

[Tomster]

"… A quote from St. Alphonsus Mary De Liguori (1696-1787), Bishop and Doctor* of the Church. St. Francis Jerome, when he visited the parents of St. Alphonsus shortly after his birth, made this prophecy: “This child will be blessed with length of days; he shall not see death before his ninetieth year; he will be a bishop and will do great things for Jesus Christ.” This prophecy certainly came true. One of the most accomplished of all the saints is Alphonsus Liguori. He was a lawyer in both civil and Church law before he dedicated his whole life to serving God. He was founder of a religious order, author of more than a hundred books, originator of modern moral theology, renowned preacher and confessor, bishop, musical composer and painter. For all of his 91 years on earth, he was also a man of prayer and deep personal holiness. He gives an example of true Christian living that all of us would do well to follow. Now the quote:
"A church which is not one in its doctrine and faith can never be the True Church … Hence, because truth must be one, of all the different churches … only one can be the true one … and out of that Church there is no salvation. Now, in order to determine which is this one true Church … it is necessary to examine which is the Church first founded by Jesus Christ, for, when this is ascertained, it must be confessed that this one alone is the true Church which, having once been the true Church must always have been the true Church and must forever be the true Church. For to this first Church has been made the promise of the Savior that the gates of Hell would never be able to overturn it (Matthew 16:18) … In the entire history of religion, we find that the Roman Catholic Church alone was the first Church, and that the other false and heretical churches afterwards departed and separated from her. This is the Church which was propagated by the Apostles and afterwards governed by pastors whom the Apostles themselves appointed to rule over her … This character can be found only in the Roman Church, whose pastors descend securely by an uninterrupted and legitimate succession from the Apostles of the world (Matthew 28:20)
"The innovators themselves do not deny that the Roman Church was the first which Jesus Christ founded … however, they say … that it was the true Church until the fifth century, or until … it fell away, because it had been corrupted by the Catholics … But how could that Church fall which St. Paul calls the “pillar and ground of truth” (I Timothy 3:15)? … No. The Church has not failed … The truth is … that all the false churches which have separated from the Roman Church have fallen away and erred … To convince all heretical sects of their error, there is no way more certain and safe than to show that our Catholic Church has been the first one founded by Jesus Christ; for, this being established, it is proved beyond all doubt that ours is the only true Church and that all the others which have left it and separated are certainly in error … But, pressed by this argument, the innovators have invented an answer: they say that the visible Church has failed, but not the invisible Church … But these doctrines are diametrically opposed to the Gospel.
“The innovators have been challenged several times to produce a text of Sacred Scripture which would prove the existence of the invisible church they invented, and we are unable to obtain any such text from them. How could they adduce such a text when, addressing His Apostles whom He left as the propagators of His Church, Jesus said: “You cannot be hidden” (Matthew 5:14)? … Thus He has declared that the Church cannot help but be visible to everyone … The Church has been at all times, and will forever be, necessarily visible, so that each person may always be able to learn from his pastor the true doctrine regarding the dogmas of faith … to receive the Sacraments, to be directed in the way of salvation, and to be enlightened and corrected should he ever fall into error…”
Continued at stas.org/apologetics/chur…ontraref.shtml

Most excellent. Thank you.

On the topic of the Church Visible I’d like to add this. As I pointed out above Christ endowed ceratin members of the Church with jurisdiction. They were given the power to bind and loose; they were instructed to “Feed my lambs.” These words would be absolutely meaningless if those possessing jurisdiction did not know who their subjects were. The Church therefore, must be a visible society. Christ underscored this when He said that those examining the Church would notice it to be made up of the “wheat and weeds.”

The reason I call attention to the visible character Church is that some have denied it. Interpreting Christ’s words “the kingdom of God is within you” erroneously and out of context, they have held that it is impossible to discover who the members of Christ’s Church are.

 

[CentralFLJames]

There is certainly nothing in it that even supports your idea of “many thousands” of Protestant denominations. Can you even give me a single point where Protestants are not of one mind and one belief?

Uh huh. Gonna make me post the 10’s of thousands of obscure Protestant “bible” church denominations here along with all the more orthodox derivative breakaways from the Catholic Church before you believe the plain evidence? If you mean Protestants are all mostly ‘of one mind and one belief’ in how they all despise and reject most all things Catholic as a unifying principal I might be able to agree with you. But you do know who the father of all hate and rebellion is don’t you? .

I hate to break this to you but it takes more than wearing the same faded and soiled dungarees as a uniform and singing the same secular cowboy jingoism to “be of one mind and heart”. Put a bandanna over your face if you want to argue the merits of an invisible and vague Church. Nope, sorry, strapping on a KJV as a sixshooter (that is a tithe light of truth and most certainly not self teaching - except for the lesson of shooting oneself in the foot) and self-deputizing oneself by pinning on the secular-pentagram of the Five Pointed Protestant Solas does not give you an authority to troubleshoot God’s Catholic Church.

If we Catholics played dead and permit Luther and his minions to “have it his way” it would truly be the wild wild west here. There would be 800 million or so self proscribed Lone Rangers or Wyatt Earps all quick drawing on each other to see who is the better and faster pope.

Nope, the wild-west is not what Jesus had in mind when He said “Thou are Peter, and on this Rock I built my Church”. Authority is God given and apostolically blessed - it not self proclaimed. Nope again. Sorry, your “Christian Tree” graphic is a tumbleweed - an artifact most associated with “the old wild west” that has almost nothing to do with Christianity other than serving as biblical evidence of what happens to those who separate themselves from the root of the truth faith - they whither and die and get blown around like weeds and the dust of the earth.

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/d/dc/Pentagram_and_human_body_(Agrippa).jpg/120px-Pentagram_and_human_body_(Agrippa).jpghttp://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/5/5c/Inverted_pentacle.PNG/120px-Inverted_pentacle.PNG
Secular Badge of Authority (hired guns or self deputized)

Your observation is flawed based on one key point: you yourself lack any fundamental knowledge of Jewish judgment systems and historical Jewish thought for that matter.
Of course, if you put Christ in the modern day church the people would tell him off for being “un-Christian” and all the while telling him to be “more like Jesus”. See the broken picture here?

non-sequitur - you are making unsubstantiated assumptions and speculation.

There was never a canon issue among the Jews concerning the Old Testament. So can you tell me again when exactly did the Jews “elected to redefine a canon that was pragmatically closed by Jesus”?

You don’t recall the The “Council of Jamnia” around 90-100AD where some disgraced and out of work Jewish rabbis (from the temple being destroyed in 70 AD) decided with no authority whatsoever to strip the Septuagint books that Jesus quoted from and also declared all known Christian OT writings false (since they were losing Jewish members to Christian conversion)? These were the same shameful men that Luther “looked up to” as a false justification for his sacrificing a tithe of the Catholic Bible (7 OT books) on the secular altar of revolution as a goodwill offering to The State in exchange for support. You say you are a student of History? Do you have your degree yet?

You might want to see the more “colorful” side of our Lord as well, who just couldn’t stop calling men like you “hypocrites”, “fools”, “blind guides”, and the like. So now, apart from Martin Luther being vulgar is there anything wrong in his protest against the corruption of the church?

And you obviously must be blind to your own hypocrisy if you can’t see the colorful contradictions in making ad-hominem attacks on me for correcting you can you?

No, the Early Church NEVER believed in Mary’s “perpetual virginity”, nor did the Early Church practice any of the Roman Catholic practices you people claim to be “apostolic traditions”.
There’s the Athanasian Creed, and there’s no single liturgy that we are bound to. First you say that Luther did not create a new religion, and that Protestantism is not a new religion, and now you say it is. Are you having bipolar disorder?

How do you know? You are not Catholic and so do not have knowledge of what we believed. If you read the early church fathers you could not say this except out of spite for the truth.

The other stuff you say is just crazy given that we are discussing the legions of new Protestant religious sects and you are splitting hairs over if the word legion means 30,000 or only 10,000 or so…

[continued]

James

 

[CentralFLJames]

[continued from prior]

The reason why the word “Bible” is not in the Bible is because it is the English name given to the Bible. The reason why you don’t find the word “Protestant” in the Bible is because that was a Roman Catholic insult against those who opposed the Roman Catholic church, just as the early believers were first called “Christians” as a derogatory term. Get the picture here? Now how do you suppose you would know that God did not command the Apostles to write the Bible? But the fact remains that the Apostles did write the Bible anyway, NOT the Catholic Church…

Interesting speculation. I imagined the word Protestant was more charitable than calling you all simply and generically “heretics and apostates”. Luther was not doing anything new - the church has always crushed heretical movements and he was just a new Johnny come lately. We gave you your own name so you could differentiate yourselves from the others heretics. Get the picture? Protestant heresies are just one photo among many in the large family photo album of heretics.

The NT was written for and by Catholics. The Church under Catholic Pope Damasus assembled it all under one cover that we now call the Bible as a response to preserve “The Way” from the many heresies and false writings that were cropping up.

Of course you Roman Catholics will deny it. The simple reason why Jesus underwent the dedication in the temple and circumcision and the pascal feast was because all of them were commanded by God to the Israelites.

Uh, huh. And did your bible tell you this or did Pope AAC VIII proclaim this infallibly?

Ah yes, I see many “buts” littering the site and it consists mostly argument from silence.

What do you expect here? No one can refute simple axiomatic truths that are self evident and speak for themselves. See, it even left you near speechless. Truth does that.

And I suppose these many other things which Jesus did has something to do with the doctrine of the Church?

You are starting to catch on. I am optimistic you are starting “to get it”.

The Church begot the Bible. The Bible did not beget the Church. Once you learn that simple truth there is no chicken and egg problem and things fall in place and one can no longer follow the legion of lost souls down the slippery slope of Protestantism along the many paths that all lead DOWN for the vast majority who can longer claim invincible ignorance as an excuse.

James

 

[clmowry]

And what churches were involved in the “Great Schism”? Because I only see one branch going to the left, where is the other branch that should be going to the right?

The pre 1054 Trunk seems to be without name. I wonder what church that could have been?

Chuck

 

[CentralFLJames]

There’s a big difference between a rock and a ruler.

Indeed, if you take upon yourself an inversion of authority to make the embarassing mistake to interpret “ruler” as a device to measure the one that rules. Of course then the next sectarian division would be over metric or English or Roman standards of measurement. sigh…

Once one goes down the path of thinking they can question divine authority or even any current authority one can pretty much find anything one wants to believe to justify insubordination and rebellion. If is gonna be mob or even majority rule - let me out since I don’t trust the force of might anymore so than I trust a rule by lease common denominator consensus to get to the excellence we need for eternal life.

If the bible had not been in existence in Luther’s time then he would have gone back and pulled spurious works of earlier heretics or reinterpreted the homilies of various saints and bishops in new novel ways to justify his revolution.

Neither did Christ say “you will be my Vicar” nor did he say “you will represent me as head of the church” or any such statement. Furthermore, Peter himself was subject to Paul’s rebuke, so how indeed can you claim that Peter is the Vicar of Christ, let alone a Pope? Far be it from you to make sinful mortal men Vicars of Chris

Neither did Christ say “Luther” will come and sort you all out someday. Christ told us in no uncertain terms that his church would prevail and that there would come false teachers and plausible liars but do not put your trust in them. Luther taught something completely contrary to what the apostles taught - therefor Luther is a false teacher.

Again, with the “Deposit of Faith” rubbish. The Councils did more than simply elaborate on the teachings; the Second Council further split the Roman Catholic, creating one more division calling itself “Traditionalist Catholic”.

Sorry, you simply don’t know what you are talking about. There was no agenda to crate a new Traditionalist Catholic. One of the major themes of Vatican II was to reinvigorate efforts to unify the fallen away Christian sects and also to admit where it’s own faults distracted from unity.
See the following topics here:The Second Vatican Council

1. Decree on Ecumenism (Unitatis Redintegratia) made a careful distinction between spiritual ecumenism, mainly prayer and the practice of virtue, and practical ecumenism, which actively fosters Christian reunion
2. Decree on the Catholic Eastern Churches (Orientalium Ecclesiarum) encouraged Eastern Catholics to remain faithful to their ancient traditions, reassured them that their distinctive privileges would be respected, and urged closer ties with the separated Eastern churches, with a view to fostering Christian unity.
3. Declaration on the Relation of the Church to Non-Christian Religions (Nostra Aetate) urged Catholics to enter, with prudence and charity, into discussion and collaboration with members of other religions.

True, but the heresies that I reject are the Roman Catholic heresies which are not practiced by any of the Early Christians.

Do not confuse ecclesial policies and practices and our various Catholic rites with practices that are contrary to dogmatic teaching nor early church practice. If we took your ideas as the standard and reverse engineered everything then you would call Catholics heretics for no longer offering themselves up to be fed to the lions and holding mass by candlelight in catacombs.

From what Early Christian practise did you Protestants come up with the idea for Altar Calls and for the tradition of all the redneck shouting and screaming in loudspeakers in revival tents that scream “Come to Jesus and be saved brother!” ?

That’s not John 12:48. This is:

Actually I mistyped the wrong verse reference. Here is full text of what I wanted to say:
Luke 10:16
16 “The one who listens to you listens to Me, and the one who rejects you rejects Me; and he who rejects Me rejects the One who sent Me.”

The bottom line is you reject the apostolic authority of the Catholic Church and the true Christian teaching and so fall under this warning.

James

 

[sodak]

There was never a canon issue among the Jews concerning the Old Testament. So can you tell me again when exactly did the Jews “elected to redefine a canon that was pragmatically closed by Jesus”?

Try the search function. This has been well documented in other threads.

No, the Early Church NEVER believed in Mary’s “perpetual virginity”, nor did the Early Church practice any of the Roman Catholic practices you people claim to be “apostolic traditions”.

Yes, they did.

The reason why the word “Bible” is not in the Bible is because it is the English name given to the Bible.

And Pope is the name given to the Successor of St. Peter, the Vicar of Christ. He hadn’t yet died in the Bible, hence no word called “Pope”. Yet the office remains.

Of course you Roman Catholics will deny it.

Ah yes, I see many “buts” littering the site and it consists mostly argument from silence.

I was pretty much silent in this thread simply because so many of your assertions are demonstrably false, you’ve lost your credibility. You start by asking a question, and then go on to insulting Catholicism and several of our posters.

The pre 1054 Trunk seems to be without name. I wonder what church that could have been?
Chuck

Give me a minute, I know this one!!!

 

[Randy_Carson]

No, the Early Church NEVER believed in Mary’s “perpetual virginity”, nor did the Early Church practice any of the Roman Catholic practices you people claim to be “apostolic traditions”.

Really?

Well, let’s take a look at what the Early Church Fathers wrote, shall we?

Proto-evangelium of James

“And behold, an angel of the Lord stood by [St. Anne], saying, ‘Anne! Anne! The Lord has heard your prayer, and you shall conceive and shall bring forth, and your seed shall be spoken of in all the world.’ And Anne said, ‘As the Lord my God lives, if I beget either male or female, I will bring it as a gift to the Lord my God, and it shall minister to him in the holy things all the days of its life.’ . . . And [from the time she was three] Mary was in the temple of the Lord as if she were a dove that dwelt there” (Proto-evangelium of James 4, 7 [A.D. 120]).

“And when she was twelve years old there was held a council of priests, saying, ‘Behold, Mary has reached the age of twelve years in the temple of the Lord. What then shall we do with her, lest perchance she defile the sanctuary of the Lord?’ And they said to the high priest, ‘You stand by the altar of the Lord; go in and pray concerning her, and whatever the Lord shall manifest to you, that also will we do.’ . . . [A]nd he prayed concerning her, and behold, an angel of the Lord stood by him saying, ‘Zechariah! Zechariah! Go out and assemble the widowers of the people and let them bring each his rod, and to whomsoever the Lord shall show a sign, his wife shall she be. . . . And Joseph [was chosen]. . . . And the priest said to Joseph, ‘You have been chosen by lot to take into your keeping the Virgin of the Lord.’ But Joseph refused, saying, ‘I have children, and I am an old man, and she is a young girl’” (ibid., 8–9).

“And Annas the scribe came to him [Joseph] . . . and saw that Mary was with child. And he ran away to the priest and said to him, ‘Joseph, whom you did vouch for, has committed a grievous crime.’ And the priest said, ‘How so?’ And he said, ‘He has defiled the virgin whom he received out of the temple of the Lord and has married her by stealth’” (ibid., 15).

“And the priest said, ‘Mary, why have you done this? And why have you brought your soul low and forgotten the Lord your God?’ . . . And she wept bitterly saying, ‘As the Lord my God lives, I am pure before him, and know not man’” (ibid.).

---

Origen

“The Book [the Proto-evangelium] of James [records] that the brethren of Jesus were sons of Joseph by a former wife, whom he married before Mary. Now those who say so wish to preserve the honor of Mary in virginity to the end, so that body of hers which was appointed to minister to the Word . . . might not know intercourse with a man after the Holy Spirit came into her and the power from on high overshadowed her. And I think it in harmony with reason that Jesus was the firstfruit among men of the purity which consists in [perpetual] chastity, and Mary was among women. For it were not pious to ascribe to any other than to her the firstfruit of virginity” (Commentary on Matthew 2:17 [A.D. 248]).

---

Hilary of Poitiers

“If they [the brethren of the Lord] had been Mary’s sons and not those taken from Joseph’s former marriage, she would never have been given over in the moment of the passion [crucifixion] to the apostle John as his mother, the Lord saying to each, ‘Woman, behold your son,’ and to John, ‘Behold your mother’ [John 19:26–27), as he bequeathed filial love to a disciple as a consolation to the one desolate” (Commentary on Matthew 1:4 [A.D. 354]).

---

Athanasius

“Let those, therefore, who deny that the Son is by nature from the Father and proper to his essence deny also that he took true human flesh from the ever-virgin Mary” (Discourses Against the Arians 2:70 [A.D. 360]).

---

**Epiphanius **

“We believe in one God, the Father almighty, maker of all things, both visible and invisible; and in one Lord Jesus Christ, the Son of God . . . who for us men and for our salvation came down and took flesh, that is, was born perfectly of the holy ever-virgin Mary by the Holy Spirit” (The Man Well-Anchored 120 [A.D. 374]).

“And to holy Mary, [the title] ‘Virgin’ is invariably added, for that holy woman remains undefiled” (Medicine Chest Against All Heresies 78:6 [A.D. 375]).

(cont.)

 

[Randy_Carson]

Jerome

“[Helvidius] produces Tertullian as a witness [to his view] and quotes Victorinus, bishop of Petavium. Of Tertullian, I say no more than that he did not belong to the Church. But as regards Victorinus, I assert what has already been proven from the gospel—that he [Victorinus] spoke of the brethren of the Lord not as being sons of Mary but brethren in the sense I have explained, that is to say, brethren in point of kinship, not by nature. [By discussing such things we] are . . . following the tiny streams of opinion. Might I not array against you the whole series of ancient writers? Ignatius, Polycarp, Irenaeus, Justin Martyr, and many other apostolic and eloquent men, who against [the heretics] Ebion, Theodotus of Byzantium, and Valentinus, held these same views and wrote volumes replete with wisdom. If you had ever read what they wrote, you would be a wiser man” (Against Helvidius: The Perpetual Virginity of Mary 19 [A.D. 383]).

“We believe that God was born of a virgin, because we read it. We do not believe that Mary was married after she brought forth her Son, because we do not read it. . . . You [Helvidius] say that Mary did not remain a virgin. As for myself, I claim that Joseph himself was a virgin, through Mary, so that a virgin Son might be born of a virginal wedlock” (ibid., 21).

---

**Didymus the Blind **

“It helps us to understand the terms ‘first-born’ and ‘only-begotten’ when the Evangelist tells that Mary remained a virgin ‘until she brought forth her first-born son’ [Matt. 1:25]; for neither did Mary, who is to be honored and praised above all others, marry anyone else, nor did she ever become the Mother of anyone else, but even after childbirth she remained always and forever an immaculate virgin” (The Trinity 3:4 [A.D. 386]).

---

**Ambrose **

“Imitate her [Mary], holy mothers, who in her only dearly beloved Son set forth so great an example of material virtue; for neither have you sweeter children [than Jesus], nor did the Virgin seek the consolation of being able to bear another son” (Letters 63:111 [A.D. 388]).

---

**Pope Siricius I **

“You had good reason to be horrified at the thought that another birth might issue from the same virginal womb from which Christ was born according to the flesh. For the Lord Jesus would never have chosen to be born of a virgin if he had ever judged that she would be so incontinent as to contaminate with the seed of human intercourse the birthplace of the Lord’s body, that court of the eternal king” (Letter to Bishop Anysius [A.D. 392]).

---

**Augustine **

“In being born of a Virgin who chose to remain a Virgin even before she knew who was to be born of her, Christ wanted to approve virginity rather than to impose it. And he wanted virginity to be of free choice even in that woman in whom he took upon himself the form of a slave” (Holy Virginity 4:4 [A.D. 401]).

---

**Leporius **

“We confess, therefore, that our Lord and God, Jesus Christ, the only Son of God, born of the Father before the ages, and in times most recent, made man of the Holy Spirit and the ever-virgin Mary” (Document of Amendment 3 [A.D. 426]).

---

**Cyril of Alexandria **

“[T]he Word himself, coming into the Blessed Virgin herself, assumed for himself his own temple from the substance of the Virgin and came forth from her a man in all that could be externally discerned, while interiorly he was true God. Therefore he kept his Mother a virgin even after her childbearing” (Against Those Who Do Not Wish to Confess That the Holy Virgin is the Mother of God 4 [A.D. 430]).

 

[Randy_Carson]

Now, let’s take a look at what some of the EPF’s had to say:

Early Protestants on the Perpetual Virginity of Mary

Martin Luther (1483-1546)

“Christ, our Savior, was the real and natural fruit of Mary’s virginal womb…This was without the cooperation of a man, and she remained a virgin after that.”

“Christ…was the only Son of Mary, and the Virgin Mary bore no children besides Him…I am inclined to agree with those who declare that ‘brothers’ really mean ‘cousins’ here, for Holy Writ and the Jews always call cousins brothers.”

“A new lie about me is being circulated. I am supposed to have preached and written that Mary, the mother of God, was not a virgin either before or after the birth of Christ…Scripture does not say or indicate that she later lost her virginity.”

“Scripture does not say or indicate that she later lost her virginity…When Matthew says that Joseph did not know Mary carnally until she had brought forth her son, it does not follow that he knew her subsequently; on the contrary, it means that he never did know her…This babble…is without justification…he has neither noticed nor paid any attention to either Scripture or the common idiom.”

John Calvin (1509-1564)

“Helvidius displayed excessive ignorance in concluding that Mary must have had many sons, because Christ’s ‘brothers’ are sometimes mentioned.”

“The inference he [Helvidius] drew from it was, that Mary remained a virgin no longer than till her first birth, and that afterwards she had other children by her husband…No just and well-grounded inference can be drawn from these words…as to what took place after the birth of Christ. He is called ‘first-born’; but it is for the sole purpose of informing us that he was born of a virgin…What took place afterwards the historian does not inform us…No man will obstinately keep up the argument, except from an extreme fondness for disputation.”

“Under the word ‘brethren’ the Hebrews include all cousins and other relations, whatever may be the degree of affinity.”

Huldreich Zwingli (1484-1531)

“I have never thought, still less taught, or declared publicly, anything concerning the subject of the ever Virgin Mary, Mother of our salvation, which could be considered dishonourable, impious, unworthy or evil…I believe with all my heart according to the word of holy gospel that this pure virgin bore for us the Son of God and that she remained, in the birth and after it, a pure and unsullied virgin, for eternity.”

Heinrich Bullinger (1504-1575)

“The Virgin Mary…completely sanctified by the grace and blood of her only Son and abundantly endowed by the gift of the Holy Spirit and preferred to all…now lives happily with Christ in heaven and is called and remains ever-Virgin and Mother of God.”

John Wesley (1703-1791)

“I believe…he [Jesus Christ] was born of the blessed Virgin, who, as well after as shebrought him forth, continued a pure and unspotted virgin.”

 

[Randy_Carson]

There is certainly nothing in it that even supports your idea of “many thousands” of Protestant denominations. Can you even give me a single point where Protestants are not of one mind and one belief?

Unless I missed it, you haven’t responded to the examples of disunity I presented. However, concerning the thousands of Protestant denominations, I’m afraid research proves you wrong. Here it is:

Title: World Christian Encyclopedia : a comparative survey of churches and religions in the modern world
Authors: David B. Barrett, George T. Kurian, Todd M. Johnson.
Edition: 2nd ed.
Published: Oxford ; New York : Oxford University Press, 2001.
Description: 2 v. : ill., col. maps ; 32 cm.
Notes: Includes bibliographical references and indexes.
Contents:
v. 1. The world by countries : religionists, churches, ministries
v. 2. The world by segments : religions, peoples, languages, cities, topics.

The Oxford Press is located in Cary, NC. I drove to their offices one day, and I’ve seen this book with my own eyes. Now, by the magic of the Internet, you have, too…take a close look:

http://www.bringyou.to/apologetics/WorldChristianEncy.jpg

 

[Randy_Carson]

The reason why the word “Bible” is not in the Bible is because it is the English name given to the Bible. The reason why you don’t find the word “Protestant” in the Bible is because that was a Roman Catholic insult against those who opposed the Roman Catholic church, just as the early believers were first called “Christians” as a derogatory term. Get the picture here?

Sure do.

So, you won’t mind if the word “pope” isn’t in the Bible, either, because it is an English title give to the man who holds the office that Jesus established when He named Peter to be the head of the Church in Mt. 16:19 and John 21:15-18.

Further, you won’t mind if we Catholics ask you to refer to our Church as the Catholic Church and not the Roman Catholic Church since, although that term is so common today that even we use it from time to time, it is not, in fact, the correct name. You’ll also refrain from using derogatory terms like “romish”, “popish” and “Whore of Babylon”. Thanks in advance for that.

Now how do you suppose you would know that God did not command the Apostles to write the Bible? But the fact remains that the Apostles did write the Bible anyway, NOT the Catholic Church. As much as the Old Testament books were penned by their respective authors, so were the New Testament books all penned by their respective acknowledged authors; to say that the Apostles did not write the Bible has some extent of truth, because only the New Testament was written by the Apostles, and not all Apostles actually wrote anything down. So in the end, the Catholic Church cannot get any credit for the writing of the Bible.

The only shortcoming here is that the Apostles were members of a Church, originally known as “the Way” and they were first called “Christians” in Antioch. Around 107 AD, the bishop of that town, a man named Ignatius wrote a letter in which he referred to the Church as the “Catholic Church”. Since Ignatius was a disciple of the Apostle John who had died just a few years before, it is entirely plausible that “the Way” was already called the “Catholic Church” within the lifetime of the last living Apostle. Finally, since the Apostles were Catholics and since the Catholic Church was responsible for identifying the inspired epistles and canonizing them (a canon which you accept to this day), the Catholic Church gets 100% of the credit for writing, canonizing, preserving, protecting and preaching the Word of God from the earliest days until our own time. It certainly wasn’t any “johnny-come-lately” Protestant denomination, that’s for sure.

Hope this helps. :tiphat: