Protestants: The 1500 yrs

[seamusmohr]

Yes, he is. These are called the Petrine Gifts. One of them is the duty to strengthen his brethren. After his restoration, Jesus gave him other, including the responsibility to feed and care for HIs flock.

Friend it is incumbent on yourself and the Vatican Acolytes around you to prove your point regarding the Position of the Bishop of Rome and his authority, which I maintain doesn’t go beyond the Suburbicarian Church of Italy! You are making fantastic claims that are ignored certainly before 350 AD. It is up to you to prove them and not from the later popes or their acolytes!

And in fact, since you are the one asserting an innovative position not held by the Aposltes and their disciples, it is incumbent upon you, rather, to prove that the three rocks in that passage, Christ, Cephas, and the rocky statement can or should be somehow separated one another.

Read the early fathers! Not just isolated clips.

You have to go farther still and tell us how the Petrine mantel falls upon the Bishop of Rome?

 

[GaryTaylor]

Read the Bible and passages which correspond?

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.

IGNORED before 350 AD? I don’t think so.

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]).

In Matthew 16:18 as He was establishing His Church, Jesus gave us a guarantee. He said: “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***

 

[tqualey]

Hi, P101,

Let me address what I can and hopefully others will join in and,at the end of the day, we look at what we have…

For simplicity, I have grouped some of your statements together to conserve space. So, let’s see what we have …

One Church In All Ages

There was one Church in Old Testament times, there is one Church now in the present dispensation, and there will be one Church in the millennial dispensation, and all the members of the Church in all the dispensations constitute the one Church.

There have been those who have denied these truths concerning the Church and I would challenge you to explain why the church did not start before AD32 or whenever one would want to say that the Roman Catholic Church actually did start.

So much depends on being exact when we use words - and while I think I know what you talking about… problems immediately develop when assumptions like this are made.

So, let’s take a look at ‘Church’ as identified in the Catechism of the Catholic Church and see if we can work with that:

751 The word “Church” (Latin ecclesia, from the Greek ek-ka-lein, to “call out of”) means a convocation or an assembly. It designates the assemblies of the people, usually for a religious purpose. Ekklesia is used frequently in the Greek Old Testament for the assembly of the Chosen People before God, above all for their assembly on Mount Sinai where Israel received the Law and was established by God as his holy people. By calling itself “Church,” the first community of Christian believers recognized itself as heir to that assembly. In the Church, God is “calling together” his people from all the ends of the earth. The equivalent Greek term Kyriake, from which the English word Church and the German Kirche are derived, means “what belongs to the Lord.” scborromeo.org/ccc/para/751.htm

So, here we being with the Chosen People as identified in the OT - and we find that the Salvation Plan God has intended for us does not end there. There really is a difference between the OT and the NT - and that difference is the design of God. I really can not answer your question any better than that.

From all eternity, God chose to send His Son, born of a woman, to redeem us from our sins. He first established His Church on earth (about the year 32AD) as recorded in Matt 16:18, promised that He would send the Spirit of Truth to reveal all Truth to us as recorded in John 13:14 - and further, promised not abandon us (Deut 31:6, John 14:18). Then He suffered, died and rose from the dead. And then… a number of interesting things didn’t happen!

St. John writing his Gospel about 50 years after these events - with the ability to see what had already been written - identified not once (Ch 20) but twice (Ch 21) that Christ did more than is recorded here! In short, Scripture DOES NOTcontain everything. And then… there is the First Pentecost - and while quite a lot was written about this - the birthday of the Catholic Church - we find that among all of the Gifts of the Holy Spirit that were so lavishly given - He did not deliver a book or a set of blue prints on how the Church was to run!

Of course, God can clearly get His Message through without having to write it down (Num 22:28). Please note, that when Christ and the Apostles walked the Judean countryside - there was not an official position of Deacon (Acts 6:5). And, as we look at the history of how this position came into being we find that the Catholic Church was growing (developing as some like to say) and the Apostles needed help. And rather than put an ad in the “Help Wanted” section, or whatever 1st Century Classified Advertisements were available to them - they prayed. This is really an important idea, although I am giving it a light touch… The Roman Empire at the time was a world power concerning agriculture, mining, shipping, building, etc - there was always a need for workers - and based on historical finds (e.g., excavations from Pompeii en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pompeii) we find a merchant and tradesman class, guilds - yes, even famous silversmiths (Acts 19:24). The Holy Spirit inspired the creation of the position of Deacon - God gets His message across and does so in his own maner.

So, to conclude this part … I think using the term ]'Chruch" as you did and as I defined … is perfectly fine. The idea of God forming a Chosen People and Him forming a Church, while one I had not thought of previously, sounds good to me. And, we see the developmental aspects of God’s Plan as it unfolds - starting out with our First Parents, progressing to Abramham and the covenant, then Issac to Moses to the Prophets to John the Baptist - we see God, like a potter putting items in place here, removing items from there until He sent His Son. And, then we have the Church Christ founded - and from this Church we have the NT with the guarantee of God Himself that it is His Inspired Word.

Let me stop there for a bit…

Tom

 

[tqualey]

Hi, P101,

Here…I am on my ‘second wind’…

When our Lord Jesus Christ said, “Upon this rock I will build My church, and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it.” That “Rock” was God. [Christ.]

Not really.Guanophore has really sent out some excellent posts addressing this very issue. And, these are really much better than what I am going give you … but, here goes.

Recall how I told you that twice St. John tells that Christ did things that were not recorded. Well, this is an item that was recorded. Christ is the cornerstone (Matt 21:41) and, as you identified Christ is God. Christ chose to work His Salvation Mission through humanity - He was born of a virgin and she nursed Him and reared Him (Luke 2:51) He later chose weak, cowardly, boastful but good-hearted Peter to be the leader - and Christ did this because Peter would be united to Christ making the formation for the Church that God had intended.

The poof of the pudding - if you do not accept this Scripture as written - is to look at how it was understood by those who followed the Apostles from the 1st Century onward. We have the Early Church Fathers supporting the Pope as the Successor of Peter. Here is an interestig link which demonstrates the point: catholic.com/library/Peter_Primacy.asp As you look down the long hall of history beginning in about 33AD there is this steady succession of men to replace the previous successor of Peter. newadvent.org/cathen/12272b.htm Actually, it was an impressive list when Luther first tacked his 95-Thesis to the door - with Pope Leo X being the 218th Pope. That means that there was a sibstantial history backing up the interpretation of Matt 16:18 - and, just throwing an interpretation that questions this without documentation will really not fly. Candidly, about all I can see is that the interpretation you have presented only justifies the Protestant Revolt - and it took place 1500 years after the fact. Don’t you think that if there was a real flaw in the position of the Catholic Church - it would have been exploited from the time of Peter’s death? Human nature being what it is - there would not have been a second pope! What is being demonstrated is the Hand of God moving to protect His Church.

How can it be said, then, that there was no Church until it was revealed to the apostle Paul after his conversion, when he himself expressly declares that in his unconverted days he persecuted the Church of God?

Who said this? Matthew 16:18 appears ahead of Acts 9 both chronologically and cannonically. There was a real Church called “The Way” and that is the group that Saul was breathing fire against. Sometime between 36AD (approximate date of St Paul’s conversion) - 108AD (letter from Ignatius of Antioch calling the Church Catholic) “The Way” changed its name. There is no record of this to my knowledge - but, it is there in Acts and then not spoken of again. All I can think of is that they were not keeping records of such matters with the idea of proving things to groups who had objections. I really can not add anything else.

Some wrongly contend that there was no Church at all prior to the apostle Paul! All that is contrary to the teaching of Scripture, and is therefore dangerous heresy.

We are in total agreement there! I do not know who you have been hanging around with - but, this idea about there being no Church prior ot Paul … well … they aren’t good! Fortunately, you have CAF to give you a community in which you can freely share ideas. Chances are, if you spent more time with CAF, you would have less time to listen to such nonesense!

God bless

 

[Protestant101]

Hi, P101,

Welcome back… You know, it is just not the same without you… I mean, just where else are we treated to such creativity … Let me explain…

There are certain DISCOVERIES that have stayed in my mind over the years:

1492 Columbus DISCOVERS Americia
1628 Harvey DISCOVERS the circulation of blood
1848 Gold DISCOVERD in California
1970 I DISCOVERED my future wife and married her

Hey; your “discovery” in 1970 is very interesting Tom! Do you know what you did right? In another month or so my wife & I will make it to 21 years! But you got us beat! LOL (I’ll be back for the other questions asap, in a day or two).

 

[guanophore]

I would be surprised to learn that this was the true teachings of the Roman Catholic Church. If it is; I would like to see where. Do you have specific references from official writings?

You mean, that they have access, or that it is imperfect unity?

One is “in Christ” to the extent that one embraces His Teachings and Commandments. We recognize all those who are validly baptized as Christians, but all of our separated brethren reject some portions of the One Faith that was committed once for all to the Church. For that reason, they are imperfectly joined with us to Christ.

 

[Protestant101]

You mean, that they have access, or that it is imperfect unity?

One is “in Christ” to the extent that one embraces His Teachings and Commandments. We recognize all those who are validly baptized as Christians, but all of our separated brethren reject some portions of the One Faith that was committed once for all to the Church. For that reason, they are imperfectly joined with us to Christ.

“Imperfectly” joined? There is no such thing. Either you are or you are not. No middle ground is in the Bible anywhere.

 

[guanophore]

I have no means within my power to keep track of even half of the posts and questions and other points that come to me through this forum, and others I belong to. I do my best to answer to ones I think are priorities, according to ideas stated here by other members. If I miss something you don’t have to waste time accusing me of “deflecting” or “refusing” or any other similar thing. Kindly recap the question and link to the post concerned, and then I have something to reply to.

Go to the top of the thread and use the “view last read?” button. that will take you to the next post. If you use that, you will miss less of them.

 

[GKC]

Friend it is incumbent on yourself and the Vatican Acolytes around you to prove your point regarding the Position of the Bishop of Rome and his authority, which I maintain doesn’t go beyond the Suburbicarian Church of Italy! You are making fantastic claims that are ignored certainly before 350 AD. It is up to you to prove them and not from the later popes or their acolytes!

And in fact, since you are the one asserting an innovative position not held by the Aposltes and their disciples, it is incumbent upon you, rather, to prove that the three rocks in that passage, Christ, Cephas, and the rocky statement can or should be somehow separated one another.

Read the early fathers! Not just isolated clips.

You have to go farther still and tell us how the Petrine mantel falls upon the Bishop of Rome?

How’s Fred?

GKC

 

[GKC]

The points about the various Popes are not germane, true or not.

I agree, but they are as relevant as the comments regarding Henry’s sex life! Further the comments regarding Henry can be seen to cover a lack of knowledge,or paucity of thought regarding the wider subject! It is childish of our opponents to imagine that the matter of the English Reformation and the Church in England was guided by no other object than Henry’s lust!

 

[guanophore]

The Bible was discovered by the Church; not written by.

I know that may be what you were given to understand, P101, but it is not the Christian point of view. We believe that the New Testament was written by the Apostles and their disciples (Catholics) in the first century. These separate writings were preserved and promulgated by the Church (Catholics) until 382 AD, when they were, by the Catholic Church, bound together with the Alexandrian Septuagint (the OT collection used by Jesus and the Apostles) to form the modern 'Bible".

It did not fall from the sky into a field, or get stashed under a rock by an angel to be “discovered” by the Church.

Historically; the Church has always been allowed to "fall" from truth to error.

I am sure it seems this way to you, since you are suffering from a deficient understanding of the nature of “Church”. When Jesus founds something, (since we believe He is God) it is infallible, and cannot err.

Although, we are in agreement that God gives man free will, and he is able to reject the Teachings if he so chooses. Many Catholic men in high positions within the Holy Bride of Christ have certainly fallen from grace. However, Holiness is not defined by those who depart from it. These reprobates can no more sully the pure bride of Christ than Judas’ betrayal of Jesus can invalidate His Teachings.

It depends upon the individual and corporate decisions of the congregation being looked at.

This is the major difference between the Catholic Church, and all other ecclesial communities. The Catholic Church, founded by Christ, with Jesus as her Head, is not a “corporation” from human origin. She has as her Soul the Holy Spirit, who cannot err.
She is much more than the local “congregation”.

All Churches have equality on that count; while all of our respective churches also have the privilege of being “one in Christ;” making us all equal in Christ. Your church has no more “status” before God than anyone else.

I am not sure “status” is a good word. It is more about characteristics or qualities.

Eph 1:17-2:1
… which he accomplished in Christ when he raised him from the dead and made him sit at his right hand in the heavenly places, 21 far above all rule and authority and power and dominion, and above every name that is named, not only in this age but also in that which is to come; 22 and he has put all things under his feet and has made him the head over all things **for the church, 23 which is his body, the fulness of him who fills all in all. **

Catholics receive the apostolic teaching that the Church is the fullness of Him.

Eph 3:10-11
10 that **through the church **the manifold wisdom of God might now be made known to the principalities and powers in the heavenly places.

God has chosen to reveal Himself through the Church. The fulnees of God’s revelation is expressed in Christ, and Christ is revealed through the Church. That is why we understand her to contain the fullness of the Truth.

Eph 5:23-30
Christ is the head of the church, his body, and is himself its Savior. 24 As the church is subject to Christ, so let wives also be subject in everything to their husbands. 25 Husbands, love your wives, as Christ loved the church and gave himself up for her, 26 that he might sanctify her, having cleansed her by the washing of water with the word, 27 that he might present the church to himself in splendor, without spot or wrinkle or any such thing, that she might be holy and without blemish. 28 Even so husbands should love their wives as their own bodies. He who loves his wife loves himself. 29 For no man ever hates his own flesh, but nourishes and cherishes it, as Christ does the church,

We believe the Church is the Bride of Christ, and therefore protected by Him from the world. He has washed her, sanctified her, and presented her to Himself without spot, wrinkle, or blemish.

It is not the human members of the Church that make her what she is, but the Divine.

 

[guanophore]

As for the last one, that happened in Bible times. It’s an exception, so to say. After the Bible wasn’t being written anymore, that’s when the intervention ends, I guess.

On what basis can you say Jesus protecting His Church in 'bible times" is an exception?

Your speculation that Jesus stopped keeping His promises to the Church is exactly what you state - a “guess”. You cannot reconcile this “guess” with Scripture, or history.

However, it does make sense that it would seem to you that He abandoned His promises, because the Church in Europe at the time of the Reformation was dismally represented. The Roman clerics were opulant and steeped in sins of greed and bids for power. It would be difficult to see the witness of Christ through their lives.

I don't know. It's the biggest issue I have with my faith, and I've never been able to solve it. Not knowing for sure you're right about the Bible isn't fun, but it's usually seen as a test of faith or something when I've asked a pastor about it.

You are right that this is the biggest issue of faith for all of us. Either Jesus kept HIs promises, or He did not. Cathlolics believe that He did, and has accomplished all those things I quoted in the post above about His One Body, the Church.

:) I'd have to modify that to a "different understanding of the Church" to agree, but yeah. The followers=invisible church. He protects this. This is incorrupt. The visible church? It gets its nudges, sure, but its on its own mostly.

The difference makes it deficient.

You cannot support the idea that Jesus abandoned His One Body from any scripture, or any historical document. Such a perspective represents a significant departure from what the Apostles believed and taught.

1 Tim 3:15
15 if I am delayed, you may know how one ought to behave in the household of God, which is the church of the living God, the pillar and bulwark of the truth.

How can the Church possibly be the pillar and bulwark of the Truth without divine intervention?

If this intervention stopped when the NT was written, how is anyone to know which writings belonged in the Scripture?

If God stopped intervening when the Scriptures were written, then you cannot trust the canon itself, which was established through Sacred Tradition (the Word of God alive and well in the Church).

Yes, but God supposedly swooped into a corrupt setting and kept His Word from being corrupted. He is capable of literally anything, so it’s not hard to believe, I don’t think. It’s a mystery, in other words.

I do agree that the way Jesus keeps the Church pure is indeed a mystery. But to think that every Christian from the time the Bible was written to the present was corrupt is sheer nonsense.

I love that passage. It seems to me to validate the idea of different congregations.

But all those Churches mentioned in Revelation are Catholic - they are part of the One Church founded by Christ, which was the same all over the world.

We can't know. We can't. :eek: It's just what we deal with, searching for the truth, trying to figure out which denomination is right. I don't know a Lutheran who doesn't admit he/she might be totally wrong, but that his/her conscience guides him/her to the church they're in, so they stay.

If “we can’t know” then Jesus really has left us orphaned. And the Scriptures are lies. This passage:

1 Cor 11:19-20
for there must be factions among you in order that those who are genuine among you may be recognized.

Does not speak Truth, ifw the genuine cannot be recognized.

Oh, & the official stance on recognizing the genuine? Look for it in the Bible. Interpretation may vary.

Where in the Bible does it say this?

What was genuine was so before the NT was ever written. What makes you think the Church must depend upon it? When Jesus builds something, it is not a deficient building.

 

[tqualey]

Hey, P101 - the ‘secret’ is that I have a very patient wife!

Looking forward to your return … and, I expect some decent answers with references!

God bless

Hey; your “discovery” in 1970 is very interesting Tom! Do you know what you did right? In another month or so my wife & I will make it to 21 years! But you got us beat! LOL (I’ll be back for the other questions asap, in a day or two).

 

[guanophore]

It is childish of our opponents to imagine that the matter of the English Reformation and the Church in England was guided by no other object than Henry’s lust!

I agree.

Friend it is incumbent on yourself and the Vatican Acolytes around you to prove your point regarding the Position of the Bishop of Rome and his authority, which I maintain doesn't go beyond the Suburbicarian Church of Italy! You are making fantastic claims that are ignored certainly before 350 AD. It is up to you to prove them and not from the later popes or their acolytes!

Peter’s primacy is not a “fantastic claim” and is evident throughout the early writings. I will agree that the critical nature of Peter’s successor as a visible sign of unity was not as critical in the early years. This is why the office of the successor of Peter grew in importance and activity.

How can Peter “feed and care” for the flock if he has no jurisdiction over it? Can you imagine a shepherd putting someone else in charge of his flock but with the responsibility, no authority? He must protect the flock from the boundaries of his own field, even if they stray into another field? The charge is for the flock, no matter where they are.

Read the early fathers! Not just isolated clips.

I cannot find any passages in the ECF’s where Peter is separated from Christ, or the faith he expressed in Him. Please help me, if you were able to find them.

You have to go farther still and tell us how the Petrine mantel falls upon the Bishop of Rome?

If you cannot see the succession of the Apostles in the New Testament, then I don’t think I will be able to help you at all. The early writings on succession are all based upon the Teaching of the Apostles in the NT.

 

[guanophore]

“Imperfectly” joined? There is no such thing. Either you are or you are not. No middle ground is in the Bible anywhere.

On the contrary, Paul writes about the Body of Christ compared to a human body. He chastizes the Corinthians for joining the members of Christ to a prostitute. Such a joining will cause the member in sin to be diseased, paralyzed, or possibly dead (gangrenous). This is why eating and drinking in an unworthy manner can cause sickness and death in a person. A person can be cut off (amputated) from the body, but the part is still considered to belong to the body.

Because our separated brethren are stand in the position of Apollos (in possession of only part of the Truth) they are not able to function with the Body as they would if they were more perfectly joined. Some of the body parts are like tics, spasmodically active but disruptive to the whole. Some behave as if they have a seizure disorder, acting on thier own, apart from the desires of the head. Some are carrying serious or fatal wounds.

 

[tqualey]

Hi, Seamushmohr,

Now, accusing your ‘opponents’ of ‘childish’ behavior sounds a bit simplistic to me.

The basic problem was Henry’s marriage to Catherine - everything else orbited around that fact. To claim it was inconsequential is to throw out the driving force (not just libido) that kept Henry at it.

Henry was pridful and willful - and did not tolerate any opposition. His desire to have all the money he wanted to spend on himself and his friends at court (sleeping partners and others) cost his country a lot - and caused discontent amongst the population. Henry was angry at the delay in Rome deciding his case and just took matters into his own hands. If he was his own pope he could wed and bed whomever he wanted - and that too is what he did. He appropirated the monesteries to gain needed revenue - for him it was a strictly financial arrangement. Throwing St. Thomas aBecket’s bones in the river was truly an royal but untimely hubris.

So, no, really - it is not JUST about GKC’s ‘Tripple H Theory" (“Henry Horney Hormones”) but any explanation of Henry’;s break with Rome that did not include Henry’s behavior would be truly a deficient explanation.

But, your continued defense of this philandering monarch and the absolute destruction he wrought on his own subjects is curious, indeed.

God bless

The points about the various Popes are not germane, true or not.

I agree, but they are as relevant as the comments regarding Henry’s sex life! Further the comments regarding Henry can be seen to cover a lack of knowledge,or paucity of thought regarding the wider subject! It is childish of our opponents to imagine that the matter of the English Reformation and the Church in England was guided by no other object than Henry’s lust!

 

[Bluegoat]

Hi, Bluegoat,

OK. The Early Church was the Catholic Church with the leader of the Catholic Church being in Rome. The Early Church Fathers(ECF) were the Early Catholic Church Fathers. As I appreciate the documentable history there were basically only three groups around at the beginning of the 1st Century when Christ founded His Church on Peter (Matt 16:18): Pagans, Jews and Catholics. Here is a brief list of these ECFs and how they addressed the authority of the pope: catholic.com/library/Authority_of_the_Pope_Part_1.asp

So, when you say you have studied the ‘Early Church’, do you mean the early Catholic Church? If so, fine, but, if not, then what group are you talking about?

I think it best to get this matter resolved before going further.

God bless

The Early Church was undivided until the split with the non-Chalcedonians, and then until the schism.

Almost all of the Christian groups we see today are descended from the Early Church. Some have changed quite substantially, some very little.

But that history connects all of them - even the few that deny it are really descended from the Early Church.

If you want to try and say the Catholic Church perfectly, or most perfectly, preserves those teachings, and even comprises “the Church” feel free. But please do not try to beg the question, which seems to be the direction you are going in. If you do I will have to insist that the Catholic Church cannot be “The Church” since they do not have the word “Orthodox” as part of their name. If you accept that argument, then I will accept yours.

As for me: my background is in Classics, from the pagan Greeks through to about the Renaissance. I studied mostly philosophy but also enough history to contextualize it. So lots of the EC’s, Augustine, Anselm, Bonaventure, Thomas, Boethius, as well as pre-Christian thinkers. Most of my studies were of Western writers, so recently I have been looking more at some of the Eastern Fathers.

 

[GKC]

Hi, Seamushmohr,

Now, accusing your ‘opponents’ of ‘childish’ behavior sounds a bit simplistic to me.

The basic problem was Henry’s marriage to Catherine - everything else orbited around that fact. To claim it was inconsequential is to throw out the driving force (not just libido) that kept Henry at it.

Henry was pridful and willful - and did not tolerate any opposition. His desire to have all the money he wanted to spend on himself and his friends at court (sleeping partners and others) cost his country a lot - and caused discontent amongst the population. Henry was angry at the delay in Rome deciding his case and just took matters into his own hands. If he was his own pope he could wed and bed whomever he wanted - and that too is what he did. He appropirated the monesteries to gain needed revenue - for him it was a strictly financial arrangement. Throwing St. Thomas aBecket’s bones in the river was truly an royal but untimely hubris.

So, no, really - it is not JUST about GKC’s ‘Tripple H Theory" (“Henry Horney Hormones”) but any explanation of Henry’;s break with Rome that did not include Henry’s behavior would be truly a deficient explanation.

But, your continued defense of this philandering monarch and the absolute destruction he wrought on his own subjects is curious, indeed.

God bless
seamusmohr;7847901:

The points about the various Popes are not germane, true or not.

It was a mixture of Henry’s dynastic problems (both the weakness of the Tudor claim to the throne, and his lack of a legitimate male heir), the historical relationship and running battle between the throne and Rome, running back at least to the First Statute of Westminster, and, chronologically the last to enter the picture, Henry’s infatuation with la Boleyn, suggesting a simpler approach to his problem than what he has been considering, which didn’t involve seeking a decree of nullity. It functioned, finally, in the context of the convoluted system of impediments, dispensations and decrees of nullity that evolved, and were evolving, to permit the Church to manage the sacrament of matrimony, and the state to function, as dynastic marriages were made and unmade; a blending, as was much of society, of theology and politics. It played out, as it was intended to, with a mixture of theology and politics . Had the political situation not included Charles, and the continental political situation, post Pavia, Henry likely would have received his decree. But he was trumped.

History is complicated, full of bits and pieces. Interesting, though.

GKC

 

[Lovesa]

Hi, God DOES “…prevent doctrinal errors from arising in the Catholic Church…” and being taught as the truth. I have given you the Scriptural verses that back that statement up. But, please note, this guarantee was made by Christ to the Apostles - the First Bishops of the Catholic Church. The Bishops, in union with the Pope (the Bishop of Rome and head of the Catholic Church throughout the world) make official doctrine. An example of such a Doctrine was the establishment of the Canon of Scripture. The Bible you hold (even though it is in an abridged form) can be traced directly back to the Catholic Church in about 400AD. Prior to this, there was no guarantee that the books (scrolls, actually) people were reading, were, in fact, inspired. You claim your Bible is the '…inerrant Word of God…" and I am telling you how it got that way. Luther pridefully and sinfully removed Scripture from the Bible in direct violation of God’s command (Deut 4:2 and Rev 22:19) because they did not agree with his view of how religion should be. This is the basic reason why the so-called Protestant Bible is shorter than the Catholic Bible - inspired books and portions of books have been removed.

You are most correct in that the thoughts you have expressed are truly ‘not happy’ and I have every confidence you have run into many expressions of such thoughts prior to coming to CAF. You will be reading posts from others waving the banner proclaiming such unhappiness is what God has given us - and you will then see those proponents of human religion and the traditions of man refuted.

Evaluate everything and learn all you can. We will be judged based on the how we have responded to the Grace of God.

God bless

Trust me there; I know how the Bible got to its current state. The fact that the Catholic Church compiled it is usually seen as a happy coincidence, or just an inevitable product of the church being the only real body capable of compiling scripture at the time it was compiled into the one book known as the Bible. We trust the Bible because God would protect that; it’s too horrible to think he wouldn’t. Scripture also calls itself incorrupt–which is taken to mean the compiled version, not individual books. I’m not very clear on how we know it’s all true or right or supposed to be there.

(I’m afraid my Bible isn’t abridged either; I own several protestant ones, but the one I use most often is the Catholic, given me by a friend.)

Do you have a Scripture verse that says “after the Bible wasn’t being written anymore, that’s when the intervention ends”?

I’m afraid I don’t off-hand. I got a few of them in confirmation class, but none of them are popping up with a flip through the Bible.

This from 1 Corinthians is popular quoting among Lutheran pastors:
" Love never fails. But where there are prophecies, they will cease; where there are tongues, they will be stilled; where there is knowledge, it will pass away. 9 For we know in part and we prophesy in part, 10 but when completeness comes, what is in part disappears. 11 When I was a child, I talked like a child, I thought like a child, I reasoned like a child. When I became a man, I put the ways of childhood behind me. 12 For now we see only a reflection as in a mirror; then we shall see face to face. Now I know in part; then I shall know fully, even as I am fully known."

It’s a tenuous argument, I must say, but I’m only saying what’s believed, not claiming it’s logical.

 

[Lovesa]

On what basis can you say Jesus protecting His Church in 'bible times" is an exception?

Your speculation that Jesus stopped keeping His promises to the Church is exactly what you state - a “guess”. You cannot reconcile this “guess” with Scripture, or history.

However, it does make sense that it would seem to you that He abandoned His promises, because the Church in Europe at the time of the Reformation was dismally represented. The Roman clerics were opulant and steeped in sins of greed and bids for power. It would be difficult to see the witness of Christ through their lives.

I’m not so sure he “abandoned his promise” that he didn’t mean he’d protect the physical church, doctrine, etc., while in Heaven, unless divine intervention became absolutely necessary (some would argue, in the Reformation).

I also am perfectly content to admit this is a guess on my part. I’ve no real scripture to back it up, as you say, and while I’m sure a more learned protestant could dig up a few passages to indicate as much, I wouldn’t know where to look or what to look for. However, it does not seem to me that God would leave His Church in the arms of corrupt men (meaning any men), even if it were “divinely protected”. After all,

Mark 7
"And he continued, “You have a fine way of setting aside the commands of God in order to observe[c] your own traditions! 10 For Moses said, ‘Honor your father and mother,’[d] and, ‘Anyone who curses their father or mother is to be put to death.’[e] 11 But you say that if anyone declares that what might have been used to help their father or mother is Corban (that is, devoted to God)— 12 then you no longer let them do anything for their father or mother. 13 Thus you nullify the word of God by your tradition that you have handed down. And you do many things like that.”

For what purpose would Christ divinely protect the church if traditions are not to be put ahead of scripture? (I don’t mean to nullify tradition entirely–that smacks of extremism to me.) Why would Christ allow new traditions to be introduced in his church and presented as if they were law, when the law does not make man clean? I don’t mean to refer to perfectly biblical tradition, or even traditions that do not contradict scripture, but the abuses of the church do not seem to most Protestants to point to a divinely protected church in the least, especially the abuses of the reformation. For my part, I have to wonder what gave the church the authority to introduce certain new rules, for instance the idea I’ve seen around many Catholics that eating meat on Lenten Fridays is a sin. Christ explicitly told us we could eat anything, and also not to follow the laws of men.

You are right that this is the biggest issue of faith for all of us. Either Jesus kept HIs promises, or He did not. Cathlolics believe that He did, and has accomplished all those things I quoted in the post above about His One Body, the Church.

I don’t mean to suggest that Jesus did not keep his promise. He is with us, and he protects all believers. However, he protects the faith as an abstract, not as an earthly institution. Again, this is the belief. I’m not keen on endorsing it, but that’s what it is.