Protestants: The 1500 yrs

[CMatt25]

Yes, you have. The inexplicable part, though, that she is inquiring about, is why you put more confidence in your own fallible and human position than what God has revealed to mankind through His Church.

It’s not inexplicable for me Guan. First I wouldn’t necessarily say I put more confidence. But I look at it as well by asking myself what if the Catholic Church is wrong too. So I can only go with my conscience at this point as I travel along my walk of faith with Him.

 

[araiceil]

No, I haven’t really said anything about them, because that hasn’t been the topic of the discussion.

Which is why I can’t figure out on why I keep getting lectured about what are my presumed Protestant deficiencies. It makes me very testy. Why not just talk about the topic, rather than trying to prove that people are stupid for not being Catholic? I am pretty sure that never wins people over.

I really don’t have disdain for Catholicism, though there are a few things in it I think are quite wrong. As I am sure Catholics think of other Christians. Not, for the most part, things that have been discussed here.

But I do get very frustrated with the implication that anyone who isn’t Catholic doesn’t know anything about history, or the history of the Church, or the Fathers. I spent four years at university dedicated to studying the writings of the early Church, and when people dismiss the possibility that I could actually have reasons not to be Catholic, and try to make points playing language games, it really gets my back up. (And in my experience, Catholics and pretty much any educated Christians understand that the case for Catholicism, or another Christian position, is not simple and clear-cut and obvious.)

Anyway, this whole discussion seems to have made me angry, which is why I stopped posting at CAF for a while. That may have been the better decision.

It’s funny how God can send you the lesson you need right when you need it…
I wanted to apologize to you, to say whatever magic words I could to bring you back to the conversation, because I really do believe that as infuriating as these debates can be we all need them for healing and for learning. I did not know how, and honestly my pride would not allow me…

But then I popped on Catholic Radio on my way home from work… They have changed up their schedules lately, and now on my commute I am treated to an hour of conversion stories… This was todays (I looked it up so I could share it)

youtube.com/watch?v=qiMWR9Kx64I

And BAM! With several laughs from this very entertaining, charismatic man I learn the lesson that perhaps you and others on here have been trying to teach me…

That fundamentally, we all share the same beliefs and desires. That we all have Jesus Christ, and we all wish to share him and be his light to the world. That we all just want our own seat in His kingdom and are trying to earn it as best we can.

Perhaps you and I will never see eye to eye on everything, but I now have a better understanding that this is more because of the faith you have been taught vs the faith I have been taught and less to do with your desire to ‘**** me off’

So, I ask you to please not give up on CAL, and please don’t give up on me! I feel that we still have much to learn from each other, and much to teach each other. God gives us many blessings, but does not ensure they all come easily or without strife. Please bless me with your opinions and beliefs and allow me to bless you with mine. Perhaps we will both grow closer to Christ in this way, which I believe is ultimately our mutual goal. I cannot guarantee that I will agree with most (or any) of what you say, but I promise I will open myself up to whatever Christ is teaching me through you. I would be honored if you would do the same!

 

[guanophore]

I read a brother perhaps is not being told to pray for his brother’s mortal sin and to expect it to suffice. But no where in the 1Jn passage you offered am I reading we can not pray for our own mortal sin for forgiveness. In the James passage I read Anointing of the Sick.

.

So, if praying for another’s mortal sin does not suffice, what will?

Of course we need to pray for our own forgiveness. This is what the sacrament of reconciliation IS!

The anointing of the sick is a sacrament provided by the “elders” (priests). Like reconciliation, it is a healing sacrament.

Sin sometimes makes people physically sick as well.

 

[guanophore]

It’s not inexplicable for me Guan. First I wouldn’t necessarily say I put more confidence. But I look at it as well **by asking myself **what if the Catholic Church is wrong too. So I can only go with my conscience at this point as I travel along my walk of faith with Him.

Yes, that is what I meant by saying that your faith is in yourself. I think I have already pulled your thread too far afield, however, so let us not go down this road again!

Suffice to say that persons in the first 1500 years thow used their own standards to determine right and wrong were not considered part of the Church founded by Christ. For the Christians of the Church founded by Christ, He had the say about what was right and wrong, and His followers were expected to abide by His commandments.

 

[CMatt25]

the Church does not teach that the only manner in which mortal sins can be forgiven is if they are confessed to a priest.

Yes. This is a good way to avoid doing things the way God set them up, and still assuage your conscience that you are right with Him, and right with the Church, while in a state of disobedience.

Guan, I truly did not know the Church no longer had as one of Her 6 precepts, “to confess our serious sins once a year”. So without confessing to a priest, being Anointed, or making an act of contrition in my heart at the moment I take my last breath, how can I be forgiven for the mortal sins the Catholic Church says I have on my soul? Because you say when I pray directly to God for the forgiveness of them, that I “avoid doing things the way God set them up” and that I assuage my conscience in doing so while disobeying.

 

[CMatt25]

So, if praying for another’s mortal sin does not suffice, what will?

Of course we need to pray for our own forgiveness.

What you said above ^ or the heart being contrite at the moment of death or if one is so inclined and they wish to confess to a clergyperson or receive an Anointing, that’s fine too. These are ways I believe.

 

[CMatt25]

I think I have already pulled your thread too far afield, however, so let us not go down this road again!

 

[guanophore]

So without confessing to a priest, being Anointed, or making an act of contrition in my heart at the moment I take my last breath, how can I be forgiven for the mortal sins the Catholic Church says I have on my soul?

This is rather immaterial, isn’t it? You don’t believe you have them, and you don’t believe the CC has the authority to define them, or warn you that you have them, or remit them on your behalf, so it doesn’t really matter, does it?

Because you say when I pray directly to God for the forgiveness of them, that I “avoid doing things the way God set them up” and that I assuage my conscience in doing so while disobeying.

But, that is ok, right" The keeping of your conscience is what is most important to you.

It doesn’t really matter what anyone else thinks about God, or how they think He set things up.

These are ways I believe.

That is what is most important to you, I know.

Looks like you are all squared away. :dancing:

 

[seamusmohr]

Hi, Bluegoat,

We now come to Christ’s action in Matt 16 - put Peter in charge! What identifies this as a flase teaching is that the Early Church Fathers carried on with their understanding of the Successor of Peter being in charge.

**Rome’s authority came from a series of circumstances far beyond Rome’s power. Firstly, the Bishop of Rome was the head of that Communion of Catholics within the chief city of the Empire’ large and powerful. It made him the parish priest of the Emperor and the Church in Rome became virtually a dept, of state doing odd jobs for a busy emperor. At one time he repossessed houses taken by the Donatists . He worked so hard that eventually ,one of the Valentinians, gave him the authority to use the Roman Stasi, to enforce his own will in theological and disciplinary matters. Later Emperors added to this authority and we find S.Leo actually having the cossacks dragging one of the Doctors of the Church over the Alps in the middle of winter and then clapping him in jail. This behaviour carried on even when the Empire split in to east and west. Later the papacy inherited Rome and Northern Italy thus being able to use their own Stasi afte, becoming an elective monarchy! **

 

[tqualey]

Hi, Lovesa,

Let me take a look at two items you mentioned and offer an answer.

Based on these assumptions, I wonder this: Why does the church use the Bible to argue for its authority? Is it only the events documented therein that give it its authority, or does the divinely inspired nature of the Bible somehow contribute to the vailidity of apostolic succession? Considering that I have repeatedly heard that the Bible does not give the church its authority, but the other way around, why use the Bible to argue for apostolic succession? Is this just a way to talk to protestants on their own terms? Is this a way to show that apostolic tradition, while not deriving its power from the bible, is in the Bible and does not contradict it?

Maybe an analogy would be helpful? One way to look at the Catholic Church would be like looking at a 3-legged stool. All three legs are needed if the stool is to function as intended. There are 3 major elements that must be identified in the Catholic Church - the Church founded by Christ on Peter. Here are my very brief working definitions:

1.) Sacred Tradition - this was the influence, direction and guidance God gave to the Early Catholic Church that was not written down.

2.) Holy Scripture - this is God’s revealed Word - His message of Salvation that is without error - and was given to the world in its completed form by the Catholic Church.

3.) The Magesterium - the official teaching authority of the Catholic Church: the Pople and the Bishops thare are united with him defining the doctrine of our Faith (and that includes the interpretation of Scripture).

Far better definitions for these terms can be found at: newadvent.org/cathen/

Holy Scripture is not an added on reference source, like having an extra internet ‘Search Engine’. It really is the Word of God and, as such, is Holy and deserves not only reverence but a genuine understanding of what God is telling all of humanity. That is where the Magisterium of the Catholic Church comes in and we see the conflict caused by the Protestant Revolt claiming anyone can interpret Scripture.

The Bible is like no other book on earth - One Principal Author and many writers overs thousands of years revealing God’s saving message using various types of literary styles. It is not an easy book to read - and, judging from the various, competing and contradicting statements of what it says, not an easy book to understand.

Christ tells us that he who hears you (the Apostles) hears me (Luke 10:16) and earlier in Matthew 16, Christ promised that whatever Peter bound was bound and whatever he losed was losed. The teaching authority given to the Apostles by God was never taken away in the 16th Century.

Sure thing. The only debate left is whether they taught official error. This, protestants would argue, is where we differ.

This is where the action lies! So, let us take a few Official Teachings - those statements that we as Catholics must believe if we are to be real members of the Catholic Church - and see how they stack up against those elements mainly claimed by Protestant denominations. (As you know there are thousands of Protestant denominations that all believe different things and are united in only one element - the Catholic Chruch is wrong).

1.) Baptism is necessary - this is a truth the Catholic Church has always taught - yet many denominations deny its necessity, claim it is just an ‘ordinance’ and an optional one at that and strictly up to the believer wanting to make a public profession.

2.) Confessing one’s sins to another man - Christ gave the power to the Apostles (John 20:21) to forgive or retain men’s sins. This is done within the context of a priest taking the place of Christ forgiving the sins of a truly repentant individual. Most denominations say that you can just bring your sins to God for forgiveness and that is all it takes.

3.) Holy Eucharist - Christ told His listeners to ‘eat His Flesh and drink His Blood’ in John 6 and as recorded by Matthew, Mark and Luke, at the Last Supper identified how we are to do this. Most denominations say this is just a memorial or rememberance of the Last Supper and is not the Body, Blood, Human Soul and Divinity of Jesus Christ.

4.) Primacy of Peter - God the Father selected Peter from the 12 to give Christ the correct answer to the question He had asked. Christ announced this - and declared that He was building His Church on Peter - and gave Peter the keys as a symbol of this authority. No denomination I am aware of recognizes Peter’s authority or that it was passed down to his successors - with the current occupant of the Chair of Peter being Benedict XVI.

So, here are just four items that are part of the Official Teaching of the Catholic Church… and were in place for about 1500 years before the Protestant Revolt. And, while there are others, it would not make a lot of sense to bring them forward if we can not address these four.

God bless

 

[tqualey]

Hi, Seamusmohr,

It is customary that if you are going to make a statement about the beliefs of the Early Church Fathers - you actually quote these ECFs specific to the point you are trying to make.

The absence of any references to what was actually said by the ECF is a serious omissin. Would you like to now provide some authorative source at this time?

Thank you

God bless

We now come to Christ’s action in Matt 16 - put Peter in charge! What identifies this as a flase teaching is that the Early Church Fathers carried on with their understanding of the Successor of Peter being in charge. Oh, and did I mention that the group Christ founded became known as the Catholic Church by 108AD. And, for those who claim that this name was appropirated by a rogue group and that this “Early Church” somehow ceased to be - where is your proof? The proof would have to be two-fold: 1- Christ lied in that the Chruch He founded on Peter is no more and 2-Surely there is a biblical record for such a major event.

**

 

[tqualey]

Hi CMatt25,

That is an interesting point of view that maybe you could expand upon.

Here we have in John 20, Christ giving the Apostles the Holy Spirit in a very special way prior to Pentecost - and delegating the Power of God to forgive (or not forgive) the sins of men.

So, here are the challenges:

What other reference(s) in the NT are there that offer this concept not involving a priest (Elder)?

According to your statement, what did the Catholic Church add?

The Catholic Church - as an official teaching - believes that Christ gave the Power of God to forgive sin to the Apostles who in turned passed it down so that every valid priest can provide this Sacrament. What else is necessary is that the person confessing have repentance in their hearts for their sin and a firm purpose to amend their lives so this sin does not become a habit of evil.

Here is an excellent link that should provide additional information: catholic.com/library/Confession.asp

God bless

Therein lies a problem some might have Tantum. The Catholic Church take lets say Jn 20:23 and then seemingly to some proceed to add to Scripture by turning it into the ONLY manner in which to confess mortal sins.

Yet remember the words from the Lord’s Prayer I asked PRMerger about in which we pray, “Forgive us our trespasses”?

And Matt 6:14 For if you will forgive men their offences, your heavenly Father will forgive you also your offences.

And James 5:16 Therefore, confess your sins to one another and pray for one another, that you may be healed. The fervent prayer of a righteous person is very powerful.

I have no problem with someone confessing to a priest as an option.

But what I rather currently do is this. Matt 6:6, But thou when thou shalt pray, enter into thy chamber, and having shut the door, pray to thy Father in secret: and thy Father who seeth in secret will repay thee. And then I recite The Lord’s Prayer and ask God for forgiveness.

 

[seamusmohr]

Hi, Seamusmohr,

**

It is customary that if you are going to make a statement about the beliefs of the Early Church Fathers - you actually quote these ECFs specific to the point you are trying to make.

[/QUOTE]

 

[tqualey]

Hi, Bluegoat,

So, does this mean you accept the idea that St. Paul consecrated bishops (Titus and Timothy, for example) and that these bishops had the authority to consecrate other bishops but that St. Peter didn’t have this authority?

So I am thinking that you are saying that the pope in the early church did not have the power to appoint and depose bishops?

Actually, just the opposite! The Pope had this authority and, as you will recall, was given the keys as a symbol of his authority to bind and lose. This was not a time sensitive gift - Peter could bind and lose as long as he was alive - and this was passed on to his successors. Just like consecrating bishops was passed on from St. Paul’s writings.

Your demand that Scripture answer your question explicity is futile - it was not written for this purpose. Guanophore presented an excellent post on this matter. Scripture does not stand alone - it had to wait 400 years before the NT was approved by the Catholic Church! So, that means that the Catholic Church is 400 years older than the NT. The NT Scripture was not ‘found’ as some have claimed (like Moses in the basket?) but was written by human authors who formed the early Catholic Church.

During this 400 year hiatus we have the entry of the Early Church Fathers - and, it is important to see how they (although not infallible) addressed the subects that challenged the early Catholic Church. Ignoring this historical evidence is needless,. Claiming the Bible has it all is truly UN-biblical (John 20 and 21 have statements that NOT EVERYTHING HAS BEEN WRITTEN) and, finally, it must be recognized that the bible is not a catechism - the bible was written for believers.

God bless

 

[tqualey]

Hi, Bluegoat,

You are the second person who has said they have studied the ECF and used this term “Early Church”. The impression I have is that this 'Early Church" is not the Catholic Church - and, this truly seems to be a Protestant invention or distortion of history.

But I do get very frustrated with the implication that anyone who isn’t Catholic doesn’t know anything about history, or the history of the Church, or the Fathers. I spent four years at university dedicated to studying the writings of the early Church, and when people dismiss the possibility that I could actually have reasons not to be Catholic, and try to make points playing language games, it really gets my back up. (And in my experience, Catholics and pretty much any educated Christians understand that the case for Catholicism, or another Christian position, is not simple and clear-cut and obvious.

If, according to you the ‘Early Church’ is not the Catholic Church what do Protestants say happened to it?

If the ECF were not Catholic (many were consecrated bishops) just what do Protestants say they were?

God bless

 

[tqualey]

Hi, Hn160,

It looks like there has bee activity about the Lutherans following the Anglican example and coming back to the Catholic Church.

500 years is a long time … can you tell me what progress has been made, from your perspective, in this reunification?

God bless

If you want to know what Lutheran ( at least LC-MS ) believe, read the Book of Concord - The Lutheran Confessions which can be found at dev.bookofconcord.org/.
By the way, I like coming to this site because I learn a lot about Roman Catholic theology, one other site that I visit is dominated by evangelicals and they don’t seem to like Lutherans because we are too Catholic.

 

[GaryTaylor]

Hi, Seamusmohr,

It is customary that if you are going to make a statement about the beliefs of the Early Church Fathers - you actually quote these ECFs specific to the point you are trying to make.

The absence of any references to what was actually said by the ECF is a serious omissin. Would you like to now provide some authorative source at this time?

Thank you

God bless
seamusmohr;7858145:

We now come to Christ’s action in Matt 16 - put Peter in charge! What identifies this as a flase teaching is that the Early Church Fathers carried on with their understanding of the Successor of Peter being in charge. Oh, and did I mention that the group Christ founded became known as the Catholic Church by 108AD. And, for those who claim that this name was appropirated by a rogue group and that this “Early Church” somehow ceased to be - where is your proof? The proof would have to be two-fold: 1- Christ lied in that the Chruch He founded on Peter is no more and 2-Surely there is a biblical record for such a major event.

That might even go under felony.

Its all on this thread somewhere thorugh I rarely miss those points. What we can say for sure without a doubt is the Catholic Church started at the Last Supper with the Eucharist.

The blood of animals could neither “atone” for sin nor bring God and men together. It could only be a sign of Hope, anticipating a Greater Obedience that would be Truly redemptive.

In Jesus words over the Chalice, all this is summed up an fulfilled; He gives Us the New Covenant.

Jesus knew He was about to die. He knew he would not be able to eat the Passover again. Fully aware of this he invited His disciples to a Last Supper of a very special kind.

One thats followed no Jewish tradition/ritual but rather constituted His farewell na d New Covenant; during the meal He gave them something New. He gave them Himself as the True Lamb and thereby instituited His Passover!

The Proclamation of the Kingdom of Heaven was now at hand.

The real question is not understanding what was said, and to whom, but comprehending it as it was relayed to the Apostles and how it relays to mankind through time. Here is the point where denial of truth seems to exist. The fact the Jesus and His chosen friends the Disciples [whom btw should also be noted that MARY is Christs “first” disciple] is the Church of Jesus Christ, the Mystical Body of Jesus Christ. As God gave to Jesus, Jesus gave to the disciples, now the disciples give to You.

God made No Mistakes, nor has there a single incident came along He did not have knowledge of.

My point is, we do not need to identify when the Church came into existence and with whom, the Holy Scripture defines this for us. And the dates of those scripture depending of if you are regarding Mark, Paul. John etc range form 30-AD to 50-AD. Though today its believed all were written within a decade of each other. Which Benedict XVI goes into great detail about in His Part II of Jesus of Nazareth. BTW if you haven’t read Part I + II i seriously recommend them. You may not read a better book written on Jesus Christ. Jesus Through the Centuries by Dr Pelikan is another I highly recommend. But I’m very partial to the Professor, so my advice here is more than likely bias.

So we know the Catholic Church starts right here at this Last Supper with this New Covenant which is still very much part of the CC.

The term being coined “Catholic Church” I went into detail with on a previous page 17 I do believe. With all the church fathers as a matter of fact . But yes Ignatius of Antioch wrote the words Catholic Church, which btw was also written with the understanding that everyone reading his letter would clearly comprehend what he was speaking about. Thus the word Catholic was no mystery by the time Ignatius placed it into History.

Much Love in Learning!

God Bless, Gary

Repent the Kingdom of God is at hand. Make straight a highway in the wasteland for Our God!

 

[GaryTaylor]

And I tell you, you are Peter, and on this rock I will build my church, and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it.

John 1:42 Cephas and Peter are from the word for rock in Aramaic and Greek, respectively .

Ephesians 2:20

2:20 built on the foundation of the apostles and prophets, Christ Jesus himself being the cornerstone,

Revelation 21:14

And the wall of the city had twelve foundations, and on them were the twelve names of the twelve apostles of the Lamb.

Nonetheless…

Ignatius of Antioch

“Be not deceived, my brethren: If anyone follows a maker of schism *, he does not inherit the kingdom of God; if anyone walks in strange doctrine *, he has no part in the passion [of Christ]. Take care, then, to use one Eucharist, so that whatever you do, you do according to God: For there is one flesh of our Lord Jesus Christ, and one cup in the union of his blood; one altar, as there is one bishop, with the presbytery and my fellow servants, the deacons” (Letter to the Philadelphians 3:3–4:1 [A.D. 110]). \

Shortly after the death of the apostle John, his disciple, Ignatius of Antioch, referred to the Church as the Catholic Church. In his Letter to the Smyrnaeans he wrote: “Where the bishop is present, there is the Catholic Church” (8:2 [A.D. 107]).

In reading the Early Fathers we see a Church with bishops in authority over priests and deacons. We see a church that baptized infants and believed in the Real Presence of Jesus in the Eucharist. We see a Church that believed in the primacy of Rome, the intercession of the saints in heaven and the Immaculate Conception of Mary. Thus we are lead to the inescapable conclusion that the early Church was the Catholic Church.

Justin Martyr

“We have been taught that Christ is the first-begotten of God, and we have declared him to be the Logos of which all mankind partakes [John 1:9]. Those, therefore, who lived according to reason [Greek, logos] were really Christians, even though they were thought to be atheists, such as, among the Greeks, Socrates, Heraclitus, and others like them. . . . Those who lived before Christ but did not live according to reason [logos] were wicked men, and enemies of Christ, and murderers of those who did live according to reason [logos], whereas those who lived then or who live now according to reason [logos] are Christians. Such as these can be confident and unafraid” (First Apology 46 [A.D. 151]).

Irenaeus

“In the Church God has placed apostles, prophets, teachers, and every other working of the Spirit, of whom none of those are sharers who do not conform to the Church, but who defraud themselves of life by an evil mind and even worse way of acting. Where the Church is, there is the Spirit of God; where the Spirit of God is, there is the Church and all grace” (Against Heresies 3:24:1 [A.D. 189]).

“[The spiritual man] shall also judge those who give rise to schisms, who are destitute of the love of God, and who look to their own special advantage rather than to the unity of the Church; and who for trifling reasons, or any kind of reason which occurs to them, cut in pieces and divide the great and glorious body of Christ, and so far as in them lies, destroy it—men who prate of peace while they give rise to war, and do in truth strain out a gnat, but swallow a camel. For they can bring about no ‘reformation’ of enough importance to compensate for the evil arising from their schism. . . . True knowledge is that which consists in the doctrine of the apostles, and the ancient constitution of the Church throughout all the world, and the distinctive manifestation of the body of Christ according to the successions of the bishops, by which they have handed down that Church which exists in every place *” (ibid., 4:33:7–8).

Clement of Alexandria

“Before the coming of the Lord, philosophy was necessary for justification to the Greeks; now it is useful for piety . . . for it brought the Greeks to Christ as the law did the Hebrews” (Miscellanies 1:5 [A.D. 208]).

Origen

“[T]here was never a time when God did not want men to be just; he was always concerned about that. Indeed, he always provided beings endowed with reason with occasions for practicing virtue and doing what is right. In every generation the wisdom of God descended into those souls which he found holy and made them to be prophets and friends of God” (Against Celsus 4:7 [A.D. 248]).

“I will build my Church; and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it.” If the Protestant hypothesis is correct, the gates of hell did some serious prevailing and Jesus Christ is a liar. But of course such is not the case.

God Bless, Gary***

 

[GaryTaylor]

I wanted to add these verses which relate to the above.

---

Matthew 16:19
“I will give you the keys of the kingdom of heaven; whatever you bind on earth will be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth will be loosed in heaven.”

Isaiah 22:22 " I will place on his shoulder the key to the house of David; what he opens no one can shut, and what he shuts no one can open."

Matthew 18:18 "I tell you the truth, whatever you bind on earth will be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth will be loosed in heaven.

John 20:23 “If you forgive anyone his sins, they are forgiven; if you do not forgive them, they are not forgiven.”

Revelations 1:18 “I am the Living One; I was dead, and behold I am alive for ever and ever! And I hold the keys of death and Hades”

Revelations 3:7 “To the angel of the church in Philadelphia write: These are the words of him who is holy and true, who holds the key of David. What he opens no one can shut, and what he shuts no one can open.”

…

Matthew 16:18 “And I say to thee: That thou art Peter; and upon this rock I will build my church, and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it.”

Ephesians 2:20 “built on the foundation of the apostles and prophets, with Christ Jesus himself as the chief cornerstone”

Acts 20:28 “Keep watch over yourselves and all the flock of which the Holy Spirit has made you overseers. Be shepherds of the church of God, which he bought with his own blood”

Revelation 21:14 “And the wall of the city had twelve foundations, and on them were the twelve names of the twelve apostles of the Lamb.”

I thought I had all these scripture verse’s together but apparently not. My intention here is just to place them all in one place for view. Sorry

God Bless, Gary

 

[Lovesa]

If, according to you the ‘Early Church’ is not the Catholic Church what do Protestants say happened to it?

If the ECF were not Catholic (many were consecrated bishops) just what do Protestants say they were?

God bless

Yup; that’s Protestant teaching all right. The early church may have used the word Catholic, but not in the sense that Catholics use it today, only to indicate correctness. The early church may also have had bishops, but many Protestants have bishops today. That is hardly seen as proof, either, merely as proof that the Church has always been somehow organized.

As for what the ECF were? They were Christians, plain and simple, for there was no real split in the church back then. One must understand, when discussing “what were the early church fathers” that many Protestants don’t see much meaning in this question, when the idea of denominations only really became prevalent when the Reformation came into play.

After all, though Protestants may have broken off from the Catholic Church, they do not tend to give it any more status than that of a denomination like any other. It only came “first”, because, after the split resulting from the reformation, it managed to still be the biggest church. There were people with the reformers’ opinions in the church that whole time.

However, they kept silent, and when the reform churches broke off from Rome they took the authority with them, because they were the ones with the truth. Christ (in the Protestant view I’m familiar with) follows the truth, as does His authority. Therefore, the Catholic Church ceased being the One Church of Christ on Earth when it parted with the Reformers, and as such lost the right to apostolic succession.

After the Reformation, the Church split in half–not in numbers, surely, but in authority. The Reformers are seen as loyal Christians like any other, still united with Christ and posessing unity with him. Catholics have this same status, no more, no less.

As for Christ breaking his promise that the “gates of hell shall not prevail against it”, He kept that promise by keeping the truth alive and well in the Church until the abuses became too great. After that, He simply moved the church away from what had become a corrupt institution and gave it a different name. Which Protestant denomination that is is up for debate, but that is a belief held by not a few Protestants I know.