I agree, the reformation did bring the needed change. Sad truth is that was done from inside the church as stated by you, by those who chose to remain “in” the church. To weigh the good of the reformation can only be done by viewing them seperate from the CC in the 500 years since the reformation.
nhylan I didn’t respond to you on the other thread but I notice a constant refrain with you about others Tone? Because one doesn’t agree with you, and you catch feeling’s over it doesn’t make them wrong. It just means you caught feelings over what was said. This is the CAF forum and a great deal of us today see the reformation as part of the reason we are in the position we are in today in regards to Christianity. Especially in the US and the West.
I have no problem with people disagreing with me, but there are polite ways of doing something without accusations of heresy and insinuation. Can you imagine your church’s leaders going to an eccumenicle council with Lutherans and whenever the Lutherans say something that your leadership disagree with they respond with "heresy! " how far do you think that would get us? That’s not listening, that’s a tape recording.
this was done by King Henry the 8th to anyone who was not part of his reformation.
Any every pipe before the 20th century. Again, this doesn’t get us anywhere.this was done by King Henry the 8th to anyone who was not part of his reformation.
.
no it absolutely gets us no where. this threads quickly become rampant with spite in a matter of minutes.
How does History disagree with the claim that the Catholic Church is the church of the Apostles?
It made no sense to her,because she cannot admit it makes perfect sense…
I would like to know the answer to this as well.
I have no problems with Lutherans or Angelicans I believe my first page post indicates that. But I hear what your saying.
Catholic Church is the original church established by Jesus Chirst from Bible, and the letters of the church fathers such as Ignatius of Antioch who wrote “Catholic Church” in 104-AD among other’s confirms this. Or Irenaeus to name another, never mind the Roman and Jewish Historians who also confirm this. You do realize the church existed before the New Testament did right?
Assuming this question is open in goodwill, allow me an opinion, by addressing it.
Personal perspective on anything is based on personal understanding.
We see no further than the eyes we are given.
Catholics are steeped in the indoctrination that their view is the only view that constitutes the Church founded by Christ.
I say indoctrination in order to underline the default perspective Catholics adopt when the word Church is presented.
So, it is not surprising then to hear a Catholic mantra, given a Catholic teaching.
Catholics believe, starting with Peter, history speaks in support of the Catholic Church, as the legitimate Church intended by Christ.
But, was the Catholic Church the Church of day one?
The Catholic Church says yes; but, history says no.
Is the Catholic view the longest held within the Christian Church?
The Catholic Church says yes and history says yes.
Two thousand years of Catholic tradition.
Age may be contributory to wisdom or senility; but is not authoritative per se, by either.
If it is, the Christian upstart fails, given comparison to Judaism.
History shows that the Christian Church is expressed in Catholic, Protestant, and Orthodox denominations.
If a denomination should prefer to label itself as Church, as Catholics choose, so be it.
Reformation is not a singular event born in 1054, but an ongoing process, since Matthew 16:18.
The 1054 Reformation was another advent in that process.
Is every Christian who is not Catholic lost to God?
I don’t think so, though perhaps the Catholic Church does; but, probably does not.
And if not, then Catholics agree that non-Catholic Christians have access to the Father through Christ.
By comparison to that significance, everything else is one’s own window dressing, isn’t it?
The contributions of Catholic thought to the Christian Church are ineffably profound – for which, all Christians are grateful – but, history demonstrates God does not want the Keys to rest with Catholics exclusively; regardless, of the Catholic spin on events, attempting to convince others [or themselves], otherwise.
Interestingly, your observation that your Protestant friend found your question made no sense to her is similar to my experience with Catholics. My questioning of their view makes no sense to them.
Thank you, for posing the issue; though, likewise, I would not be surprised that my thoughts probably don’t make sense to the Catholic in you.
At the very least, we all are surrendered to Christ and His judgement.
You, me, and Gary eagerly await a response!I would like to know the answer to this as well.
that seems to be the case…quite a spectrum
another thing to keep in mind is that the ECFs often had a Platonic or Neoplatonic view of reality which is very different from our scientific based view of the material world…As such, when such an ECF said the bread was Christ’s body, he meant it in a way supported by a Platonic/neoplatonic philosophic outlook. The modern Catholic has abandoned that philosophic understanding of how things exist and so, IMHO it is anachronistic to base a modern claim to a real bodily presence on a ECF’s Platonic/neoplatonic declaration…the ECF based his understanding of how the bread could be Christ’s body on his Platonic/neoplatonic outlook and so the “how it is” of an ECF is very different than the “how it is” of a medieval or of a modern Catholic…just b/c the same wording is used, doesn’t make the meaning the same (or even close to being the same)…at least that is MHO.
I sense there is an interesting story behind that.I became a christian and was baptized in the Nazarene church, a Wesleyan denomination. I never heard much about the church fathers or the early history of the church. I think most pastors aren’t preaching church history because most congregants aren’t interested. They want to know how to deal with the problems they’re having now, not the problems the church has had in the past.
The pastors in this denomination have to go through seminary, and keep learning and studying throughout their tenure as pastors. I’m sure they talk about church history from a protestant viewpoint, but since they don’t deal with tons of people asking about why Luther believed in the real presence and we don’t, they don’t bring it up or think about it a lot.
So maybe she said it didn’t make sense because she doesn’t know enough about it to make sense of it? I probably would have said the same thing two-three years ago, before I started studying all of this on my own. Hope this helps some!
Interesting? I don’t know.I sense there is an interesting story behind that.
Maybe. I think you all might consider it kinda blasphemous, actually. 
PM would be fine.Interesting? I don’t know.
I don’t want to derail the thread, but if you want I can pm you, or maybe find one about conversion stories to add my story to.