Non-Catholic friends, why do some (not all) - non-Catholics believe and disseminate the idea that the Catholic Church apostatized........

  • Thread starter Thread starter joe370
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
J

joe370

Guest
Non-Catholic friends, why do some (not all) - non-Catholics believe and disseminate the idea that the Catholic Church apostatized, necessitating the need for a reformed church? Could a non-Catholic please provide me with the genuine historical document or evidence, which conclusively proves this to be factual and true - when this supposed “great apostasy” occurred - and where said reformed church can now be located in the world today?

Thanks… :christmastree1:
 
Non-Catholic friends, why do some (not all) - non-Catholics believe and disseminate the idea that the Catholic Church apostatized, necessitating the need for a reformed church? Could a non-Catholic please provide me with the genuine historical document or evidence, which conclusively proves this to be factual and true - when this supposed “great apostasy” occurred - and where said reformed church can now be located in the world today?

Thanks… :christmastree1:
I’m not a non-Catholic, but I thought I would add a comment here. It isn’t possible for the Catholic Church to apostacize, so a non-Catholic couldn’t produce a genuine historical bit of evidence showing that it had. I can say this with confidence because Jesus assured His Apostles that He was building His Church on rock (Peter), and that He would stand behind it and keep it from error, and that the gates of hell would not prevail against it. Matthew 16:13-20. Therefore, a reformed church would not have Jesus standing behind it, as His words clearly state.
 
OP, I don’t know how non-Catholics really would answer this question. But one all-too-easy thing for them to do would be simply to line up typically non-Catholic or Protestant ideas and compare them one-by-one to all available texts of the ancient Church - say Church historians, Church “Fathers”, heresiologists, Church thinkers, bishops, philosophers, theologians, etc. E.g., they could pick out something written by a Church “Father” and say - “Look, here he denies sola scriptura”, or “Here he supports proto-transubstantiation”, or “Here he supports the primacy of Rome”, etc. - and put such selections on an “Apostasy list”.

Then they could simply label as “Apostasy” every point of the ancient Church writers that contradicts “sound” Protestant principles. Easy, huh?

Granted, they wouldn’t find a single document in which the Church “apostasized”, but they could, little-by-little, accumulate “Romish” principles, traditions, dogmas, theories from pre-Reformation Catholic sources. Then they could compile all the different documents into one big volume or series of volumes and say, “There - a record of Catholic Apostasy”. It would be a self-compiled record from multiple “Apostasy” sources.
 
As I recall I was taught as a child that the Medieval Catholic Church invented doctrines that weren’t in the Bible and that the early church, was Reform-like. I think most Protestants sort of assume that. I have been studying early Church history and I haven’t found that to actually be the case.
 
I’m not a non-Catholic, but I thought I would add a comment here. It isn’t possible for the Catholic Church to apostacize, so a non-Catholic couldn’t produce a genuine historical bit of evidence showing that it had. I can say this with confidence because Jesus assured His Apostles that He was building His Church on rock (Peter), and that He would stand behind it and keep it from error, and that the gates of hell would not prevail against it. Matthew 16:13-20. Therefore, a reformed church would not have Jesus standing behind it, as His words clearly state.
Well yes that is the Catholic position on the matter, but that does not by default make it correct. Since I do not believe the Catholic church apostocized-that would mean cease to follow the Christian faith-if I answered I would only be speaking for others.

Most Christians I know would point to the Bible, and point to the passages they believe counter Catholic doctrine and dogma. After all the Bible is a historical document.
 
Well yes that is the Catholic position on the matter, but that does not by default make it correct. Since I do not believe the Catholic church apostocized-that would mean cease to follow the Christian faith-if I answered I would only be speaking for others.

Most Christians I know would point to the Bible, and point to the passages they believe counter Catholic doctrine and dogma. After all the Bible is a historical document.
What part of “And the gates of hell shall not prevail against it,” am I misunderstanding? Since this is God, Himself, assuring that the Church will not fall into error, how can anything anyone offers to add from any source, change the meaning? Incidentally, the Bible is a Catholic book. Does anyone actually challenge the Catholic Church’s interpretation? Remember, Jesus assured His Apostles that His Church would not fall into error.
 
What part of “And the gates of hell shall not prevail against it,” am I misunderstanding? Since this is God, Himself, assuring that the Church will not fall into error, how can anything anyone offers to add from any source, change the meaning? Incidentally, the Bible is a Catholic book. Does anyone actually challenge the Catholic Church’s interpretation? Remember, Jesus assured His Apostles that His Church would not fall into error.
“And the gates of Hell shall not prevail”, is not the same as “people within the Church won’t make mistakes or teach error”. The Church is more than the Church Militant. It is the Church Triumphant as well. Certainly, no error is taught there, but here on earth where there is still sin, disagreements and misunderstandings still exist. Even if the pope is wrong on one teaching or another, or Orthodoxy is wrong in the same way, or Lutheranism is wrong, etc, that is not the gates of Hell prevailing against His Church.

Jon
 
Well yes that is the Catholic position on the matter, but that does not by default make it correct. Since I do not believe the Catholic church apostocized-that would mean cease to follow the Christian faith-if I answered I would only be speaking for others.

Most Christians I know would point to the Bible, and point to the passages they believe counter Catholic doctrine and dogma. After all the Bible is a historical document.
The Catholic position “on the matter” is…or seems to me to be the Bible position also, as pointed out by another poster. If the Catholic Church position is contradicted by the Bible, and I don’t for a second think it does…where in the Bible is the contradiction?
Actually the Catholic Church predates the codification of what we have as a Bible and I am confident that the early Church fathers would be careful to formulate dogma that is not contradicted by the Bible. The Bible is an “historical document” and so is the Church and our Traditions.
 
“And the gates of Hell shall not prevail”, is not the same as “people within the Church won’t make mistakes or teach error”. The Church is more than the Church Militant. It is the Church Triumphant as well. Certainly, no error is taught there, but here on earth where there is still sin, disagreements and misunderstandings still exist. Even if the pope is wrong on one teaching or another, or Orthodoxy is wrong in the same way, or Lutheranism is wrong, etc, that is not the gates of Hell prevailing against His Church.

Jon
I understand your position.It is true,people within any specfic Christian body will and can teach errors.Case in point,the Arian heresy and countless others.The Church is full of sinners;however,the fact Jesus sanctified His Church,in the end orthodoxy always comes up on top.:cool:
 
The Catholic position “on the matter” is…or seems to me to be the Bible position also, as pointed out by another poster. If the Catholic Church position is contradicted by the Bible, and I don’t for a second think it does…where in the Bible is the contradiction?
Actually the Catholic Church predates the codification of what we have as a Bible and I am confident that the early Church fathers would be careful to formulate dogma that is not contradicted by the Bible. The Bible is an “historical document” and so is the Church and our Traditions.
No, that is how Catholics interpret that passage. Its not as cut and dry as you want it to be.
 
I understand your position.It is true,people within any specfic Christian body will and can teach errors.Case in point,the Arian heresy and countless others.The Church is full of sinners;however,the fact Jesus sanctified His Church,in the end orthodoxy always comes up on top.:cool:
I would tend to agree to a certain point, the issue is when…the Catholic claim is that it will and has already. If by “his church” you mean the Catholic church exclusively, he and I would disagree with that as well, because if we didn’t we would be Catholic. 😃
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Nicea325
I understand your position.It is true,people within any specfic Christian body will and can teach errors.Case in point,the Arian heresy and countless others.The Church is full of sinners;however,the fact Jesus sanctified His Church,in the end orthodoxy always comes up on top.
I would tend to agree to a certain point, the issue is when…the Catholic claim is that it will and has already. If by “his church” you mean the Catholic church exclusively, he and I would disagree with that as well, because if we didn’t we would be Catholic.
Please elaborate.
 
I would tend to agree to a certain point, the issue is when…the Catholic claim is that it will and has already. If by “his church” you mean the Catholic church exclusively, he and I would disagree with that as well, because if we didn’t we would be Catholic. 😃
Yes, it is the implication of the exclusivity of those in communion with the Bishop of Rome
that we would disagree with. I, personally, would not exclude Rome, and would even recognize Rome’s central role and position in the Church, but not her exclusivity.

Jon
 
“And the gates of Hell shall not prevail”, is not the same as “people within the Church won’t make mistakes or teach error”. The Church is more than the Church Militant. It is the Church Triumphant as well. Certainly, no error is taught there, but here on earth where there is still sin, disagreements and misunderstandings still exist. Even if the pope is wrong on one teaching or another, or Orthodoxy is wrong in the same way, or Lutheranism is wrong, etc, that is not the gates of Hell prevailing against His Church.
Hey Jon; merry Christmas brother…👍

Jon, certainly, no error is taught in the church triumphant, in heaven; no one would disagree with you on that point. However, the following words were spoken to Jesus’ church militant, here on earth, in the 1st century, to the fledgling fallible and sinful leaders of Jesus’ church militant:

“I have much more to say to you, more than you can now bear. But when he, the Spirit of truth, comes, he will guide you into all the truth. He will not speak on his own; he will speak only what he hears, and he will tell you what is yet to come. He will glorify me because it is from me that he will receive what he will make known to you. All that belongs to the Father is mine. That is why I said the Spirit will receive from me what he will make known to you.”

According to the holy bible Jesus’ established church militant (in the 1st century) - was told by Jesus that the holy spirit would be sent to His church militant, on earth, to guide His church into all truth. In spite of all the sin, disagreements and misunderstandings (due to fallibly minded folks, and the never ending onslaught of the marauding underworld) - that still existed in the 1st century, encompassing and assailing the church militant, comprised of the apostles themselves, and their disciples such as Luke, Mark and Titus and Timothy, surely you would agree that the holy spirit, as per John 16:13, was in fact protecting and safeguarding doctrinal truth, in Jesus’ church militant, from within and without, in the 1st century? Up until Pentecost Jesus’ church militant had not received the holy spirit and the divine protection that would enable Jesus’ church militant to reliably speak the truth regarding all that Jesus taught, for the simple fact that Jesus had yet to be glorified:

John 7:39 By this he meant the Spirit, whom those who believed in him were later to receive. Up to that time the Spirit had not been given, since Jesus had not yet been glorified.

But once Jesus was glorified the following occurred:

John 14 - “If you love me, keep my commands. And I will ask the Father, and he will give you another advocate to help you and be with you forever— the Spirit of truth. The world cannot accept him, because it neither sees him nor knows him. But you know him, for he lives with you and will be[c] in you.

John 14:26 But the Counselor, the Holy Spirit, whom the Father will send in my name, will teach you all things and will remind you of everything I have said to you.

John 15:26 "When the Counselor comes, whom I will send to you from the Father, the Spirit of truth who goes out from the Father, he will testify about me.

John 16:7 But I tell you the truth: It is for your good that I am going away. Unless I go away, the Counselor will not come to you; but if I go, I will send him to you.

John 16:13 - “I have much more to say to you, more than you can now bear. But when he, the Spirit of truth, comes, he will guide you into all the truth. He will not speak on his own; he will speak only what he hears, and he will tell you what is yet to come. He will glorify me because it is from me that he will receive what he will make known to you. All that belongs to the Father is mine. That is why I said the Spirit will receive from me what he will make known to you."

Jon, in your opinion, did the holy spirit, (the spirit of truth) - testify about Jesus, as per John 15, and teach Jesus’ fledgling church militant all things, and remind Jesus’ fledgling church militant of everything that Jesus said, when He was with His church militant on earth, as per John 14, and did the holy spirit, in fact, guide Jesus’ church militant into all truth, as per John 16, and continue to remain with Jesus’ church militant, forever, as per John 14, safeguarding said truths, revealed to Jesus’ fledgling church militant, in the first century, on Pentecost?
 
I agree that the following verse (“And the gates of Hell shall not prevail”) - is not the same as (“people within the Church won’t make mistakes…”). Jesus’ church militant is comprised of all fallible people; no one is perfect and therefore mistakes are bound to happen. However, if truth, (all truth) - which was revealed to Jesus’ fledgling church militant on Pentecost, was at any time, compromised, (for example the Eucharistic truth or the necessity of Baptism) - then the gates of hell would have prevailed against Jesus’ church militant, in my humble opinion. After all, the devil wants to claim as many souls as possible, and what better way to achieve that then to alter the very truths, (revealed to Jesus’ church militant on Pentecost, by the holy spirit) - that draw us closer to God and keep God’s church militant one and united - the very thing Jesus prayed for in John 17? Wouldn’t Jesus Christ, Who is with His church forever, entrust truth to the 21st century Christians, via His church militant, just as He entrusted those same truths to the 1st century Christians via His church militant, albeit some truths have been clarified a tad more over time, eg the Trinity, and we can trust those clarifications of sinful fallible leaders, comprising Jesus’ church militant, because the holy spirit is forever with Jesus’ church, making sure that those clarifications are correct.

I believe that Jesus’ church militant, on Pentecost, was guided by the holy spirit, into all truth, as per the bible, and those same truths, revealed to Jesus’ fledgling church militant, have been reliably passed on to successors, through every century, for the simple fact that the holy spirit is forever present in Jesus’ church militant, as per John 14:16, and this will continue until the end of time:

"Then Jesus came to them and said, “All authority in heaven and on earth has been given to me. Therefore go and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, 20 and teaching them to obey everything I have commanded you. And surely I am with you always, to the very end of the age.”

Your thoughts friend? 🙂
 
No, that is how Catholics interpret that passage. Its not as cut and dry as you want it to be.
Just one of the several points you raise by your post…various sects of Christianity and individual non Catholics seem to think that interpretation of the Bible is a matter of personal points of understanding. I don’t want anything but the truth…I am not looking for validation of my own points of view.
How would you interpret the aforementioned scripture about how Christ established His Church…Peter’s role in that Church…and how the Church He founded came NOT to be the Church that He founded in violation of His promise?
Sorry to put you on the spot but if I were you I would sure want to get it right.🤷
 
I agree. 👍 If CC position was contradicted by the bible then an apostasy would have taken place, and there would have been at least a historical footnote revealing this supposed apostasy, but there isn’t…
The Catholic position “on the matter” is…or seems to me to be the Bible position also, as pointed out by another poster. If the Catholic Church position is contradicted by the Bible, and I don’t for a second think it does…where in the Bible is the contradiction?
Actually the Catholic Church predates the codification of what we have as a Bible and I am confident that the early Church fathers would be careful to formulate dogma that is not contradicted by the Bible. The Bible is an “historical document” and so is the Church and our Traditions.
 
Jon, what would be your response to the OP, from a non-Catholic perspective?
Yes, it is the implication of the exclusivity of those in communion with the Bishop of Rome
that we would disagree with. I, personally, would not exclude Rome, and would even recognize Rome’s central role and position in the Church, but not her exclusivity.

Jon
 
Jon, what would be your response to the OP, from a non-Catholic perspective?
Non-Catholic friends, why do some (not all) - non-Catholics believe and disseminate the idea that the Catholic Church apostatized, necessitating the need for a reformed church? Could a non-Catholic please provide me with the genuine historical document or evidence, which conclusively proves this to be factual and true - when this supposed “great apostasy” occurred - and where said reformed church can now be located in the world today?
Apostasy is a rejection of the faith. It isn’t heterdoxy, or even heresy. It is absolutely ridiculous to claim that the Catholic Church, at any time in history, fell into apostasy. Therefore, the Reformation was not a reaction to apostasy. It was a reaction to what the reformers saw as abuses, particularly of the Mass and indulgences.
Further, from a Lutheran perspective, the Augsburg Confession was an attempt to show that the reformers were in fact, Catholic. *“Only those things have been recounted whereof we thought that it was necessary to speak, in order that it might be understood that in doctrine and ceremonies nothing has been received on our part against Scripture or the Church Catholic. For it is manifest that we have taken most diligent care that no new and ungodly doctrine should creep into our churches.” *

We confess the creeds. We recognize the early councils. Joe, if you are apostate, then so am I.

Jon
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top