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

[JonNC]

=joe370;7390458]Hey Jon; merry Christmas brother…

The same to you, my friend.

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.”

Joe, how long will that guidance take? When He says, “more than you can now bear”, is He speaking temporally only? And when, at what point, will He make everything known.
My point is the Spirit’s guidance is always ongoing. If sin divides us, is it not safe to say that the Spirit is working to guide us back together? Has the Spirit stopped guiding the Orthodox?

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.

Certainly He was, and still is. The Church Militant will be guided into all truth, and that guidance will not stop, nor be completed until Parousia.

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?

Teaching, Joe, and guiding. Today even as it was in the first century, He is guiding us.

Jon

 

[Jerusha]

Here is an old debate on the subject.

What we are talking about is the radical Restorationists. Those people weren’t mild-mannered Anglicans or Lutherans. The Restorationists hated the Anglicans and Lutherans almost as much as they hated Catholics. I have been reading Campbell’s works lately, and he hated anything that resembled Catholicism in any way. They also exist in those end-times preachers you see on TV, who teach from the OT. They rarely teach from the NT, because they believe that even that was distorted and perverted for the 1500 years that the “apostate” Catholic church protected it.

books.google.com/books?id=mnIwAAAAYAAJ&pg=PA125&lpg=PA125&dq=campbell+apostasy+bishop&source=bl&ots=levG-3l-3V&sig=rGsRmwca4WWv6gTM4UoRueZqE4Q&hl=en&ei=qYsSTZDHOoufnAfV9t2RDg&sa=X&oi=book_result

They produced the Seventh-Day Adventists, the Jehovah’s Witnesses, and Mormonism.

 

[Waiting]

“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

The gates of Hell shall not prevail means no evil, no error , will turn the teachings of the Catholic Church from the truth that Jesus taught. Therefore, although the Church is made up of imperfect human beings, she cannot hold teachings that are contrary to those that Jesus taught. Individual Catholics can, and do, make mistakes, but they are not official Church teachings. The pope can make mistakes, that is true, but not when he makes official pronouncements of church teachings. Then he speaks infallibly, as Jesus promised. Otherwise, error, or the gates of hell would prevail.

 

[joe370]

JonNC;7390693]The same to you, my friend.

Joe, how long will that guidance take? When He says, “more than you can now bear”, is He speaking temporally only? And when, at what point, will He make everything known.

They could bear it once the Paraclete came on Pentecost; All was made known…made crystal clear on Pentecost, for Jesus’ fledgling church militant - right?

My point is the Spirit’s guidance is always ongoing.

Absolutely agree. Without the ongoing guidance of the spirit of truth, I would not trust that the CC, in the 4th century, got it right about the correct inclusion of books in the bible and the correct exclusion of books from the bible.

If sin divides us, is it not safe to say that the Spirit is working to guide us back together?

I believe that the holy spirit guides each individual, but I also believe what you believe - that the holy spirit guides the church, founded by Jesus Christ into all truth, just as He guided Jesus’ church in the 1st century, 2nd century, 3rd century, 4th century…into all truth, when individuals within Jesus’ church were introducing heretical ideas into Jesus’ church (Arianism for example) - and protects and safeguards those doctrinal truths that were revealed to His established apostolic church leaders, on Pentecost, and passed on to trustworthy successors. who then did the same - which is why we, as Christians, can trust (regardless of the century, or the periodic abuses, such as the indulgence abuses of a few) - what Jesus’ church taught yesterday, teaches today and will teach tomorrow. I have heard people say that the indulgence abuses for example, by a few, were at the root of the “great apostasy” - but clearly those abuses were not supported by the church as a whole, and as a matter of fact, Martin Luther had this to say regarding indulgences properly administered:

“Let him be anathema and accursed who denies the apostolic character of the indulgences.”

Has the Spirit stopped guiding the Orthodox?

If I say yes then I will simply draw negative attention to my claim, so I will just say this: the holy spirit cannot guide the CC and the EOC into all truth, at the same time, if, all the while, those 2 churches continue ( since the east west schism) - to have opposing beliefs regarding even one thing, doctrinally speaking. Either the CC or ther EOC (post east west schism) - continues to be guided by the holy spirit into all truth; I believe it is the CC where the fullness of truth continues to be found, and I believe that the holy spirit continues to safeguard those doctrinal truths, found in the EOC, leading up to the east west schism, just as those folks belonging to the EOC believe, only in reverse, and I respect that. The CC split and became 2 churches, and I honestly do not see how the spirit of truth could continue to guide each respective church into all truth, when opposing truths from each respective church - surface. I guess we have 2 choices:

1. The HS continues to guide Jesus’ one church (regarding the fullness of truth) - into all truth, just as the spirit of truth did for 1000 years, prior to the east west divide.

Or

1. The sin of man, once the CC split, finally trumped the HS’s ability to guide Jesus’ one church into all truth, until the end of time. Of course I can certainly understand why # 2 seems more appealing to those belonging to a non-Catholic church, and I certainly respect their opinion, even if I don’t agree.

Certainly He was, and still is. The Church Militant will be guided into all truth, and that guidance will not stop, nor be completed until Parousia.

Jon, when you say that the church militant will be (is being) - guided into all truth, and that guidance will not stop, nor be completed until Parousia, I believe you are referring to all of the churches in the world today, being guided into all truth, as opposed to just one specific church being guided into all truth; is that correct?

 

[joe370]

The gates of Hell shall not prevail means no evil, no error , will turn the teachings of the Catholic Church from the truth that Jesus taught. Therefore, although the Church is made up of imperfect human beings, she cannot hold teachings that are contrary to those that Jesus taught. Individual Catholics can, and do, make mistakes, but they are not official Church teachings. The pope can make mistakes, that is true, but not when he makes official pronouncements of church teachings. Then he speaks infallibly, as Jesus promised. Otherwise, error, or the gates of hell would prevail.

Waiting, from every angle, that makes perfect sense, and was one of the reasons why, I came home to the Catholic Church!!!

 

[Waiting]

Waiting, from every angle, that makes perfect sense, and was one of the reasons why, I came home to the Catholic Church!!!

We’re happy you’re here. Merry Christmas!

 

[JohnnyReb]

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.

Let me explain what I mean in context of the conversation. Simplying pointing out one scripture, and the interpretation of it by any group, only proves so much. It would be like quoting 2 Timothy 3:16 and saying, look, this proves Sola Scriptura is true, case closed. Of course I would not do that.

 

[JohnnyReb]

Johnny, what is your response to the OP?

I meant for post #5 to be an explaination of my position. What would you like to clarify? I don’t think the Catholic church apostacized completely, because apostasy is a complete abandonment of the Christian faith.

 

[pismopal]

Let me explain what I mean in context of the conversation. Simplying pointing out one scripture, and the interpretation of it by any group, only proves so much. It would be like quoting 2 Timothy 3:16 and saying, look, this proves Sola Scriptura is true, case closed. Of course I would not do that.

If there were other scriptural references that would, for example… indicate that Christ did not give the leadership of His Church to Peter along with authority…etc etc. I will be glad to read about them. Happily…they are not there. I am satisfied that there is no contradictory scripture on the matter as much as some want…not talking about you specifically…but some. Sola Scriptura is a totally different matter. There is no scriptural authority for that…just another vain attempt to disconnect Church authority and authenticity.

 

[joe370]

Hey Johnny…

I meant for post #5 to be an explaination of my position. What would you like to clarify? I don’t think the Catholic church apostacized completely, because apostasy is a complete abandonment of the Christian faith.

Well, like my friend JonNC said here on this thread: *“Apostasy is a rejection of the faith. It isn’t heterodoxy, 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.” *and therefore the CC either completely apostatized, necessitating the need for a reformed church, which you do not believe, or, certain members of the Catholic church, (such as Arian or Tetzel) - in various places and at various times in history, were guilty of abuses, (eg indulgence abuses) - individual apostasy, individual heterodoxy or individual doctrinal heresy, by either rejecting the official teachings of the Catholic church, or altering doctrinal truth or fabricating doctrinal truth. The first one (total rejection of the faith) - seems like a good reason to leave the Catholic church, but certainly not the second one, unless of course you believe the Catholic Church (teaching office) - was in fact guilty, at some point, of heterodoxy or altering doctrinal truth or fabricating doctrinal truth. Is this what you believe?

From what I have read, it seems that JonNC is correct in saying that the reformation was a reaction to what the reformers saw as abuses, particularly of the Mass and indulgences, on an individual basis, (with which by the way the teaching office of the CC agreed, and cleaned house, almost immediately) - as opposed to a partial apostasy, and I say that because you said: “I don’t think the Catholic church apostatized completely.” Like you said though: apostasy is a complete abandonment of the Christian faith, so perhaps I should have used the word heterodox instead. If the CC was/is guilty of heterodoxy, then it seems that the individual with his or her bible, is the judge who decides if the teachings of the Catholic church were/are in agreement with his or her accepted beliefs/doctrine or dogma, but that doesn’t seem very biblical; quite the contrary.

Could you clarify as to when the Catholic Church (teaching office, as opposed to the respective individual) - was guilty of doctrinal heresy or heterodoxy, and could you provide me with the genuine historical document, or evidence, which conclusively proves this to be factual - and, of course, could you tell me where the reformed church, (which is not guilty of doctrinal heresy, heterodoxy) - can now be located, in the world today?

 

[JonNC]

=joe370;7391188]They could bear it once the Paraclete came on Pentecost; All was made known…made crystal clear on Pentecost, for Jesus’ fledgling church militant - right?

I’m not sure, Joe, that we can be certain the Christ meant it that way. ISTM He could have also meant when we enter the Church Triumphant

Absolutely agree. Without the ongoing guidance of the spirit of truth, I would not trust that the CC, in the 4th century, got it right about the correct inclusion of books in the bible and the correct exclusion of books from the bible.

If evidence came to light, along the lines of the Dead Sea Scrolls, that the Orthodox inclusion of other books was correct, would the CC accept this as continuing guidance?

I believe that the holy spirit guides each individual, but I also believe what you believe - that the holy spirit guides the church, founded by Jesus Christ into all truth, just as He guided Jesus’ church in the 1st century, 2nd century, 3rd century, 4th century…into all truth, when individuals within Jesus’ church were introducing heretical ideas into Jesus’ church (Arianism for example) - and protects and safeguards those doctrinal truths that were revealed to His established apostolic church leaders, on Pentecost, and passed on to trustworthy successors. who then did the same - which is why we, as Christians, can trust (regardless of the century, or the periodic abuses, such as the indulgence abuses of a few) - what Jesus’ church taught yesterday, teaches today and will teach tomorrow. I have heard people say that the indulgence abuses for example, by a few, were at the root of the “great apostasy” - but clearly those abuses were not supported by the church as a whole, and as a matter of fact, Martin Luther had this to say regarding indulgences properly administered:

“Let him be anathema and accursed who denies the apostolic character of the indulgences.”

Ok.

If I say yes then I will simply draw negative attention to my claim, so I will just say this: the holy spirit cannot guide the CC and the EOC into all truth, at the same time, if, all the while, those 2 churches continue ( since the east west schism) - to have opposing beliefs regarding even one thing, doctrinally speaking. Either the CC or ther EOC (post east west schism) - continues to be guided by the holy spirit into all truth; I believe it is the CC where the fullness of truth continues to be found, and I believe that the holy spirit continues to safeguard those doctrinal truths, found in the EOC, leading up to the east west schism, just as those folks belonging to the EOC believe, only in reverse, and I respect that. The CC split and became 2 churches, and I honestly do not see how the spirit of truth could continue to guide each respective church into all truth, when opposing truths from each respective church - surface. I guess we have 2 choices:

1. The HS continues to guide Jesus’ one church (regarding the fullness of truth) - into all truth, just as the spirit of truth did for 1000 years, prior to the east west divide.

Or

1. The sin of man, once the CC split, finally trumped the HS’s ability to guide Jesus’ one church into all truth, until the end of time. Of course I can certainly understand why # 2 seems more appealing to those belonging to a non-Catholic church, and I certainly respect their opinion, even if I don’t agree.

Number 2 seems to exclude the possibility that, for example, there is reconciliation between east and west, or reconciliation of doctrine between Lutherans and Catholics. Clearly, these possibilities remain, and are evidence of the guidance of the Holy Spirit of all of our communions. The sin of man can only be said to trump the HS if, in the end, His Church does not prevail, here on earth, or in the Church Triumphant. Like the abuses we’ve spoken of, division within His Church is temporal and temporary, and is not evidence that the gates of Hell can or will prevail.

Jon, when you say that the church militant will be (is being) - guided into all truth, and that guidance will not stop, nor be completed until Parousia, I believe you are referring to all of the churches in the world today, being guided into all truth, as opposed to just one specific church being guided into all truth; is that correct?

What I meant was it *might not * be completed until the Parousia. Remember, I, as a Lutheran, define “The Church” as the congregation of believers, where the Gospel is preached and the sacraments administered. To the extent that all Baptized are part of the Church, be they in communion with Rome or not, yes, that is exactly what I’m saying.

Jon

 

[joe370]

Hey Jon…:christmastree1:

I’m not sure, Joe, that we can be certain the Christ meant it that way. ISTM He could have also meant when we enter the Church Triumphant

Jon, I am not following you regarding the following passage, in connection with the church triumphant in heaven; could you maybe elaborate? The following words were directed at Jesus’ fledgling church militant, I think.

“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.”So what happened on Pentecost when the holy spirit descended upon the apostles?

If evidence came to light, along the lines of the Dead Sea Scrolls, that the Orthodox inclusion of other books was correct, would the CC accept this as continuing guidance?

Regarding the OT? That is a good question. That is a perfect example of what I was talking about regarding the infallible guidance of the holy spirit; regarding the books found in the OT, they can’t both be right, can they? The holy spirit (I don’t think) - would not be responsible for guiding the EOC to believe one thing regarding the OT, and the CC to believe another, regarding the OT. How does one know, which church is right, if in fact the holy spirit is still guiding Jesus’ one church into all truth? Maybe it doesn’t even matter; perhaps I am over thinking it.

I wonder what the CC would do if someone found a scroll claiming to be written by one of the apostles, and it dated all the way back to the apostolic age, and passed the theological litmus test?

To answer your question: I think that the CC would accept this as continuing guidance, but it would make me wonder why God allowed for this absentee of the word of God to take place for so long.

1. The HS continues to guide Jesus’ one church (regarding the fullness of truth) - into all truth, just as the spirit of truth did for 1000 years, prior to the east west divide.

Or

1. The sin of man, once the CC split, finally trumped the HS’s ability to guide Jesus’ one church into all truth, until the end of time. Of course I can certainly understand why # 2 seems more appealing to those belonging to a non-Catholic church, and I certainly respect their opinion, even if I don’t agree.

Number 2 seems to exclude the possibility that, for example, there is reconciliation between east and west, or reconciliation of doctrine between Lutherans and Catholics. Clearly, these possibilities remain, and are evidence of the guidance of the Holy Spirit of all of our communions. The sin of man can only be said to trump the HS if, in the end, His Church does not prevail, here on earth, or in the Church Triumphant. Like the abuses we’ve spoken of, division within His Church is temporal and temporary, and is not evidence that the gates of Hell can or will prevail.

Number 1 does seem more plausible. I absolutely agree with you that these possibilities remain, and are evidence of the guidance of the Holy Spirit of all of our communions!!! I also agree that the sin of man can be said to trump the HS if, in the end, His Church does not prevail, here on earth. For example, if the church (all churches, regardless of denomination) - simply ceased to exist, like the Roman Empire, then the gates of hell would have prevailed; maybe that is what Jesus meant. But, I also think that the sin of man, in some way, does in fact trump the will of God, if in fact the sin of man causes an alteration to the teachings of His Son, Jesus Christ. On some level, the devil would prevail against Jesus’ church, by succeeding at altering truth, in my humble opinion, but I could be wrong. However, John 14:16 and 16:13 and Matthew 28:20 seem to suggest that all truth will be preserved in Jesus’ church militant.

Continued…

 

[joe370]

Jon, when you say that the church militant will be (is being) - guided into all truth, and that guidance will not stop, nor be completed until Parousia, I believe you are referring to all of the churches in the world today, being guided into all truth, as opposed to just one specific church being guided into all truth; is that correct?

What I meant was it might not be completed until the Parousia. Remember, I, as a Lutheran, define “The Church” as the congregation of believers, where the Gospel is preached and the sacraments administered. To the extent that all Baptized are part of the Church, be they in communion with Rome or not, yes, that is exactly what I’m saying.

I’m still unclear as to what you mean when you say: “What I meant was it might not be completed until the Parousia.”

I agree with you brother, regarding the following, as does the CC, but not all churches agree with us regarding the Sacraments: “The Church” as the congregation of believers, where the Gospel is preached and the sacraments administered. To the extent that all Baptized are part of the Church, be they in communion with Rome or not."

By the way, the only reason I used the word apostasy, was because so many people, as evidenced by a simple google search, claim that the CC apostatized, but I do agree with your statement that that idea is ridiculous. I guess I was just curious as to why someone would steer clear of the CC, from a heterodoxy point of view. Can you think of any? For me personally, it was the inquisitions that kept me on the fence for so long.

Well, I’ve got to finally put my Christmas tree up. My house is the only house that looks out of place regarding Christmas decorations and lights - kind of like the house on the Burbs with Tom Hanks. LOL…

 

[wisdomseeker]

“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

Sorry John, but just how do you equalize the CC found by Christ to your lutheran congregation found by a man?
I am sorry but that cannot be, your congregation do not have authority to teach the Word of God much less enterpret it.

 

[wisdomseeker]

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

Yeah! we know where the CC gort her authority. As for you, how did you get your authority? this is not a child’s play where you think you can get your way by throwing a fit, this is very serious. God has giving His authority to one Church and One only. Those who lleave the Church and form their own religion apart from the True Church cannot teach or enterpret the Word of God. It is very clear from teh Epistles. The Apostles never allowed such a thing.

 

[wisdomseeker]

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

and just how do you figure that another Catholic Church was needed to be found by a rebellious priest? specially with his behaviour after condenming the CC?

 

[wisdomseeker]

Waiting, from every angle, that makes perfect sense, and was one of the reasons why, I came home to the Catholic Church!!!

Welcome home. That is the way it should be. Some think that they can just believe whatever they want and God just follows them. The Truth is that Jesus found One Holy Church that all man must believe her and enter into her to be able to follow the One True God. God is against rebellious man specially those who rebel against HIs Church.

 

[JonNC]

I appreciate your faith, wisdomseeker, but as I am familiar with your triumphalist point of view, I won’t spend much time responding to it. So, just a couple of comments:

Sorry John, but just how do you equalize the CC found by Christ to your lutheran congregation found by a man?
I am sorry but that cannot be, your congregation do not have authority to teach the Word of God much less enterpret it.

You are welcome to your polemics.

Yeah! we know where the CC gort her authority. As for you, how did you get your authority? this is not a child’s play where you think you can get your way by throwing a fit, this is very serious. God has giving His authority to one Church and One only. Those who lleave the Church and form their own religion apart from the True Church cannot teach or enterpret the Word of God. It is very clear from teh Epistles. The Apostles never allowed such a thing.

Hmmm. Don’t remember throwing a fit. And since I haven’t left the Church, not sure what your talking about.

and just how do you figure that another Catholic Church was needed to be found by a rebellious priest? specially with his behaviour after condenming the CC?

Don’t remember saying anything about another Catholic Church. Besides, I find polemics about the behavior of people who lived 500 years ago, whether it is Luther or Leo, Tetzel or Carlstadt, is really quite the waste of time, as well as off-topic to the thread.

However, I’m sure Joe would appreciate your opinion on the subject. I gave mine, which you ignored,
*“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.” *

Jon

 

[rainman10]

Doesn’t the Bible state that if there is a disagreement amongst each other, take it to the Church? I think this was in order to protect God’s true Church and to keep it from splitting into thousands of different churches. If Luther had stuck to this, how many churches do you think would now exist? And what would be the name(s) of these churches? Yes, he did have valid claims against the people of the Church and, yes, he was initially ignored, but God did not place exceptions on His request to take it to the Church. God did not say that if you take it to the Church and you are ignored, go off and start your own, and while you are at it, re-write the Bible and re-interpret some of the verses because, although the original Church was lead by the Holy Spirit, apparently the Holy Spirit did not really know what He was doing and, therefore, made some mistakes. I just don’t see how anyone can justify the existence or any church other than the Catholic Church.

 

[JonNC]

=rainman10;7396011]Doesn’t the Bible state that if there is a disagreement amongst each other, take it to the Church? I think this was in order to protect God’s true Church and to keep it from splitting into thousands of different churches. If Luther had stuck to this, how many churches do you think would now exist?
And what would be the name(s) of these churches? Yes, he did have valid claims against the people of the Church and, yes, he was initially ignored, but God did not place exceptions on His request to take it to the Church.

This is a high standard you set. First, you rightly point out that we are to take it “to the Church” (we can debate later what is meant by Church here). You then affirm that Luther had legitimate concerns, that he did take them to the Church. The fact, however, is he wasn’t ignored! He was required to recant, even those things the Church later said he was right about. He was excommunicated, and his life had a bounty. He certainly wasn’t ignored.

God did not say that if you take it to the Church and you are ignored, go off and start your own, and while you are at it, re-write the Bible and re-interpret some of the verses because, although the original Church was lead by the Holy Spirit, apparently the Holy Spirit did not really know what He was doing and, therefore, made some mistakes. I just don’t see how anyone can justify the existence or any church other than the Catholic Church.

We can here, 490 years later, rehash those events (again), and the conclusion is still the same. As the Catholic Catechism says in 817, “But in subsequent centuries much more serious dissensions appeared and large communities became separated from full communion with the Catholic Church - for which, often enough, men of both sides were to blame”.
The division is now approaching 500 years. Pointing fingers at each other, hurling anathemas back and forth, and making triumphalist claims has not healed the wounds of division within Church. As Pope Benedict said when he visited the Lutheran Church in Rome last March:
*“We must not content ourselves with the successes of ecumenism over recent years, because we still cannot drink from the same chalice or gather together around the same altar,” the Pope said. "We must entrust ourselves to the Lord, because He is the only one Who can give us unity. " *

Jon