Protestants: The 1500 yrs

[guanophore]

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.

This is how the CC has used this term continuously from the NT time until today. IT denotes unity.

The structure of the Church that began in the NT and is still functioning today certainly is an important evidence that God preserved that which He founded.

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.

I could see why the discussion of the ECF;s would not be very beneficial. They were clearly all Catholic.

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.

The CC is not a “denomination”. and yes the beliefs of the Reformers, by and large, can be found throughout the early church, At that time, they were called “heresies” and those who embraced them “apostates.” They were no longer considered members of the Church founded by Christ.

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.

I will be interested to look at the evidence that supports this imaginative rendition of history.

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.

I am also eager to see the “unity” among the Christians that have separated themselves from the Apostolic Succession.

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.

I am curious to see how this idea can be demonstrated in the Holy Scripture (especially the NT).

Which Protestant denomination that is is up for debate, but that is a belief held by not a few Protestants I know.

Yes, this is not the first time I have heard this very creative accounting.

 

[GaryTaylor]

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.

How would explain the writtings of the ECF in post 456? Considering the Scriptures of the Last Supper were all dated between 30-AD and 50-AD. And today the thinking is closer to all within a decade. Then immediately after you have the ECF such as Ignatius clearly writting “Catholic” how could there be any debate on it significance? Add to equation when Ignatius, for example wrote “Catholic” he found no need to define the word. It was already a known that everyone would understand exactly what he was talking about?

Thus you have the bridge from the Last Supper to then Ignatius being fed to the Lions crossed within a couple decades?

While I believe it makes for wonderful conversation, and I also believe its no wonder there are doubters, we have young men and women who doubt we landed on the Moon in the 60’s. So this here comes as no surprize. Nonetheless, scripture and the ECF leave “zero” doubt to the authentic church, which is the Catholic Church.

I can clearly understand why one who is not part of the CC would want to deny the Truth of it. The magnitude of the alternative is enormous. Wouldn’t you agree?

Theres a special place in my heart for Lutherans, I’ve done much reading and research on out lost brother Martin Luther. In many ways I seen some great thinking. But the error is very hard to overlook which I believe Erasmus latched onto very quickly.

I could easily picture Luther kneeling and ascending up those Holy Stairs for the indulgence of each step with time erased from Purgatory. I wasn’t there but I could feel him.

God Bless, Gary

 

[CMatt25]

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

Hi Tom, I’m not certain I can expand any further than what I’ve already done. Yes I believe Jn 20 allows for confession to clergy. In fact it was at least according to my prior knowledge a precept of the Catholic Church to confess serious sins once/per yr. But now Guanophore tells me it is not the only way to be forgiven for mortal sins. I thought of other ways such as Anointing or having a contrite heart at the moment of death. But he/she decided my asking about this was immaterial.

I already sited a direct method, “forgive us our trespasses” from our Lord’s Prayer along with passages referring to us also being forgiven if we forgive others and by confessing to one another we are healed.

What I meant by my statement was some might argue the Catholic Church added the mandatory requirement to do Jn 20:23 once a year as an obligatory means to be forgiven.

Peace and God bless you too!

 

[tqualey]

Hi, Seamusmohr,

I thought I could do this in one post … but, I will need to break this into two parts… This is Part 1

Here are some examples of statements by ECF concerning Peter and succession. Here is the link where these came from in case you need more evidence.

]"Clement of Alexandria
“[T]he blessed Peter, the chosen, the preeminent, the first among the disciples, for whom alone with himself the Savior paid the tribute [Matt. 17:27], quickly g.asped and understood their meaning. And what does he say? ‘Behold, we have left all and have followed you’ [Matt. 19:27; Mark 10:28]” (Who Is the Rich Man That Is Saved? 21:3–5 [A.D. 200]).

Tertullian
“For though you think that heaven is still shut up, remember that the Lord left the keys of it to Peter here, and through him to the Church, which keys everyone will carry with him if he has been questioned and made a confession [of faith]” (Antidote Against the Scorpion 10 [A.D. 211]).

“[T]he Lord said to Peter, ‘On this rock I will build my Church, I have given you the keys of the kingdom of heaven [and] whatever you shall have bound or loosed on earth will be bound or loosed in heaven’ [Matt. 16:18–19]. . . . Upon you, he says, I will build my Church; and I will give to you the keys, not to the Church” (Modesty 21:9–10 [A.D. 220]).

The Letter of Clement to James"Be it known to you, my lord, that Simon [Peter], who, for the sake of the true faith, and the most sure foundation of his doctrine, was set apart to be the foundation of the Church, and for this end was by Jesus himself, with his truthful mouth, named Peter, the first fruits of our Lord, the first of the apostles; to whom first the Father revealed the Son; whom the Christ, with good reason, blessed; the called, and elect" (Letter of Clement to James 2 [A.D. 221]).

Origen
“*f we were to attend carefully to the Gospels, we should also find, in relation to those things which seem to be common to Peter . . . a great difference and a preeminence in the things [Jesus] said to Peter, compared with the second class [of apostles]. For it is no small difference that Peter received the keys not of one heaven but of more, and in order that whatsoever things he binds on earth may be bound not in one heaven but in them all, as compared with the many who bind on earth and loose on earth, so that these things are bound and loosed not in [all] the heavens, as in the case of Peter, but in one only; for they do not reach so high a stage with power as Peter to bind and loose in all the heavens” (Commentary on Matthew 13:31 [A.D. 248]).

Cyprian of Carthage*
“The Lord says to Peter: ‘I say to you,’ he says, ‘that you are Peter, and upon this rock I will build my Church.’ . . . On him [Peter] he builds the Church, and to him he gives the command to feed the sheep [John 21:17], and although he assigns a like power to all the apostles, yet he founded a single chair [cathedra], and he established by his own authority a source and an intrinsic reason for that unity. Indeed, the others were that also which Peter was *, but a primacy is given to Peter, whereby it is made clear that there is but one Church and one chair. So too, all [the apostles] are shepherds, and the flock is shown to be one, fed by all the apostles in single-minded accord. If someone does not hold fast to this unity of Peter, can he imagine that he still holds the faith? If he [should] desert the chair of Peter upon whom the Church was built, can he still be confident that he is in the Church?” (The Unity of the Catholic Church 4; 1st edition [A.D. 251]).
*

 

[tqualey]

Hi, Seamusmohr,

This is Part 2 {/QUOTE]

In answer to your question, I honestly did not think much of it - you failed to provide an author for this quote or a citation. But, you are moving from the thread and we need to get back on track.

During the first 1500 years of Catholic Church, the ECF played an important role in spreading and defending the Catholic Faith - many died duirng the persecutions by the Roman Empire. While not infallable, the ECF provide tremendous insight into the grown and development of the Church as it spread throughout the world. These ECF recognized Peter as the leader of the Chruch because they recognized Christ as having appointed him to this position. It really is not complex: Christ said it, it was recorded in the Bible - that means that the inerrant Word of God is clearly idenfitying what He as done and the promise Christ made to His Curch.

God bless

tqualey;7858253:

Hi, Seamusmohr,

**

Actually, it was your good self who mentioned the Early fathers in supporting “the successors of Peter”. Indeed it is the ,"Holy Roman Church, that makes the claims about the Matthew 16. Claims that are not supported by Holy Tradition, i.e. either Councils of Bishops or individual fathers! Petrine Claims that give power to an individual that goes totally against the teachings of the fathers and the Seven Ecumenical Councils?
Several times this information has been sought in the present correspondence, with no results. The traditional catholics do not have to prove anything, the Holy Roman Church, has to do the proving!
**

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?

Just as a matter of interest did you read the quote regarding S.Peter and Rome’s unsubstantiated claims for his authority to rest with Rome?

If you did, what do you think is the reason for the quote given ?

 

[Tantum_ergo]

From CMatt:
What I meant by my statement was some might argue the Catholic Church added the mandatory requirement to do Jn 20:23 once a year as an obligatory means to be forgiven.

If ‘some’ argue that, Matt, they’d better be prepared to back it up with factual proof.

“Some” could argue that the “Catholic Church” added, subtracted, multiplied or divided anything they’ chose’, but ‘some’ would simply be indulging in fanciful speculation. Heck, ‘some’ of the Founding Fathers ‘might’ have added hidden ‘codes’ to dollar bills after they’d buried treasure under some great national landmark, you know?

They could also have ‘added’ or ‘subtracted’ from the ‘real’ Scripture, added and subtracted information about the “real” Jesus, etc. Once you start with the doubts, the whole Christian understanding is up for ‘speculation’ and then it’s ‘anything goes’ with what you personally, with absolutely no proof whatsoever, think seems ‘likely’, agreeable, or something you ‘feel’ like accepting, and anything else though it comes from exactly the same source (the Catholic Church) you feel you can simply ‘reject’. . .

 

[GaryTaylor]

Hi Tom, I’m not certain I can expand any further than what I’ve already done. Yes I believe Jn 20 allows for confession to clergy. In fact it was at least according to my prior knowledge a precept of the Catholic Church to confess serious sins once/per yr. But now Guanophore tells me it is not the only way to be forgiven for mortal sins. I thought of other ways such as Anointing or having a contrite heart at the moment of death. But he/she decided my asking about this was immaterial.

I already sited a direct method, “forgive us our trespasses” from our Lord’s Prayer along with passages referring to us also being forgiven if we forgive others and by confessing to one another we are healed.

What I meant by my statement was some might argue the Catholic Church added the mandatory requirement to do Jn 20:23 once a year as an obligatory means to be forgiven.

Peace and God bless you too!

Heres an excellent dialogue which is taken directly from Pope Benedict XVI “Jesus of Nazareth” Part One. Which he goes into great detail on the “Our Father”

If you haven’t read the book which btw Part II is on the Bestsellers list today as #5 I believe. So more than likely its at the local library. I would say its worth a read for sure. Both are in partucular fantastic reads. Considering he is one of the leading theologians alive today. It would be highly recommended.

google.com/url?sa=t&source=web&cd=1&ved=0CBwQFjAA&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.adoremus.org%2F0707BXVI_Jesus.html&ei=xszKTd7ZLcKRgQeW-7mGBg&usg=AFQjCNENGJHAWEanKBSQ9a3fYLWt7qCWww

 

[Bluegoat]

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!

Thank you for your very nice post. I am a bit prickly at times, and I know I am not always the easiest to get along with, though no, I’m not trying to tick anyone off on purpose!

I’m afraid I couldn’t watch the youtube video, as my sound card seems to have decided to go to electronics heaven. I agree though - most people IMO really do there best with regards to religion, and in the end more seems to have to do with their own experiences, up-bringing, and a whole host of chances rather than anything else. I find this to be true of non-Christians and even atheists. We can learn things from the most suprising people if we listen carefully.

 

[Bluegoat]

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?

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

I didn’t demand any Scriptural proof that I remember. I asked for evidence that the Bishop of Rome, the Patriarch of the West, had the power to appoint and depose bishops before, say, about 700 AD. That is, historical evidence.

I think I may see the issue though - I don’t mean the power to ordain a bishop - of course all bishops have that power. I mean the power to place bishops in other Sees, and to remove them, of his own volition.

 

[Bluegoat]

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.

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

Probably the reason you keep hearing it is that it is an accepted and widely understood term in the academic world.

It also has the advantage that it neither supports nor denies any particular modern religious claim. That is an advantage especially in a discussion like this where people who have different understandings of the structure and history of the Church are participating. No one can base their claim on language games, they have to actually provide some substance.

You keep begging the question - assuming that if the members of the Church before, say, 1000, considered themselves Catholic, than they much mean the modern Catholic Church. But that isn’t necessarily the case.

All early Christians considered themselves part of the one, holy, catholic, apostolic Church. Just as all modern Catholics, Orthodox, Anglicans, Lutherans, and some others do. The modern groups all have slightly different visions about what that means, some of them quite exclusive, but they all consider themselves continuous with the Early Church.

That is to say, nothing “happened” to it, unless one is a restorationist, which most Protestants are not.

 

[PRmerger]

Hi Tom, I’m not certain I can expand any further than what I’ve already done. Yes I believe Jn 20 allows for confession to clergy. In fact it was at least according to my prior knowledge a precept of the Catholic Church to confess serious sins once/per yr. But now Guanophore tells me it is not the only way to be forgiven for mortal sins. I thought of other ways such as Anointing or having a contrite heart at the moment of death. But he/she decided my asking about this was immaterial.

I already sited a direct method, “forgive us our trespasses” from our Lord’s Prayer along with passages referring to us also being forgiven if we forgive others and by confessing to one another we are healed.

What I meant by my statement was some might argue the Catholic Church added the mandatory requirement to do Jn 20:23 once a year as an obligatory means to be forgiven.

Peace and God bless you too!

Like most Catholic answers, Matt, this is not an either/or but a both/and.

It’s like a parent telling a 5 yr old: yes, you have to wash your hand before you eat, AND you still have to take a bath.

When the 5 yr old says, “But why? Why do I have to take a bath when I already washed my hands?” no one ought to deny the parent the right to say, “Well, because I said so, firstly. Secondly, it’s for your own good. Thirdly, I could explain to you about germs and illness and your immune system, but you wouldn’t understand.”

 

[CMatt25]

Tantum, I’m so confused about this at the moment. Was confessing serious sins to a priest at least once a year a precept of the Catholic Church or not? And if so, where can I find that in Scripture as a mandatory obligatory means for being forgiven? I’m not asking where I can find it as one way to seek forgiveness. But as the mandatory means.

 

[tqualey]

Hi, CMatt25,

We have previously discussed that not everying is contained in Scripture. But, we really need to spend some time what is actually there, too!

Christ gave Peter the biggest signed ‘blank check’ in history when He said, "WHATEVER you bind on earth is bound…’ There is neither fine print or exclusionary footnotes attached to this promise. I think there are several steps we need to reach before we can go to the bottom line here.

1- Step 1 God so loved the world that He gave us His only begotten son… (John 3:16) and He not only expressed that Love for us by dying on the Cross - but in all of the actions He took during His earthly life. We need to look at one specific action now -

2- Step 2 Christ founded not only a church - but His Church (Matt 16:18). I do not think anyone knew He would do this, there is no prophecy I am aware of identifying that He would provide a very specific and physical mechanism for stayig in touch with His People (unlike the prophecies of where He would be born and that He woujld be the Sufferig Servant, etc.)

3- Step 3 God is All Powerful and constantly gives proof of His Power - and Mercy. God knew from all eternity not only about the failures of our First Parents - but the multiple failures of His First Leader of the Apostles - the First Pope! But, that did not stop Him - because He can accomplish His Will on earth as He does in Heaven!

4- Step 4 Christ has this tremendous love for each of us humans that He wants to be with us all of the time in the most intimte manner possible - He wants to be one with us! Not even the angels in Heaven ever have had this closeness of Christ! Christ gave us not only His Flesh to eat but the command that if we did not do so, we would not have life. (John 6)

5- Step 5 Christ is One with His Chruch - His Bride and has empowered His Church to bring all people to a knowledge of His Love. To this end, Catholic teaching is that we are to respond to God’s Love with our own love. At the very least, this is done with at least once a year we repent for the sins we have committed and go to Holy Communion in the state of grace with the proprer intention.

There is no limit expressed or implied in the word WHATEVER - and this is what was given to Peter and his successors.

God bless

Hi Tom, I’m not certain I can expand any further than what I’ve already done. Yes I believe Jn 20 allows for confession to clergy. In fact it was at least according to my prior knowledge a precept of the Catholic Church to confess serious sins once/per yr. But now Guanophore tells me it is not the only way to be forgiven for mortal sins. I thought of other ways such as Anointing or having a contrite heart at the moment of death. But he/she decided my asking about this was immaterial.

I already sited a direct method, “forgive us our trespasses” from our Lord’s Prayer along with passages referring to us also being forgiven if we forgive others and by confessing to one another we are healed.

What I meant by my statement was some might argue the Catholic Church added the mandatory requirement to do Jn 20:23 once a year as an obligatory means to be forgiven.

Peace and God bless you too!

 

[CMatt25]

most people IMO really do there best with regards to religion, and in the end more seems to have to do with their own experiences, up-bringing, and a whole host of chances rather than anything else.

:clapping: :tiphat:

 

[patricius79]

And if Catholic teachings needed reformed, they ask, why did it take Christ 1500 yrs?.

that is the issue, since there not even a single historical person between 100 and 1100 A.D. that even comes close to the Protestant interpretation of Scripture (oral traditions)

 

[CMatt25]

Hi, CMatt25,

We have previously discussed that not everying is contained in Scripture. But, we really need to spend some time what is actually there, too!

Christ gave Peter the biggest signed ‘blank check’ in history when He said, "WHATEVER you bind on earth is bound…’
God bless

Hi Tom, yes I know that is the Catholic argument that is advanced. Some would say though with regards to Peter’s blank check that 2 chapters later in Matthew, He gave other disciples the same check. Indeed God bless each of us along our faith journeys and peace!

 

[tqualey]

Hi, Bluegoat,

I must admit, I am quite surprised with your answer about this being so well established in the academic world.

The science and art of history is discovery and of placing things within context. This ‘advantage’ you speak of is a cover. Academics are to let the light of knowledge shine in their discipline and throughout the world so that learning can advance. I was honestly sad to read your response… it is a true disappointment.

There really was a Jesus Christ who was executed in Judea by the Roman Empire under Governor Pilate. Christ really did found His Church - and that Church can be traced from Him to Peter and through the 1st - 5th Centuries specifically and most clearly through the Early Church Fathers. There were only three religious groups at the time: Pagan, Jew and Catholic. So I say and so attest the ECF of this fact.

And, that is the way it is.

Did everyone live righteous lives filled with faith and charity … no. Did everyone do their absolute best to constantly further the Kingdom of Heaven … probably not. Is God still in charge … oh, yes and His Church, the Catholic Church is bringing the Grace of God to all who come to her. God’s Church has also been officially teachig the faith without error for the 1500 years before the Protestant Revolt and the 500 years following it.

God bless

Probably the reason you keep hearing it is that it is an accepted and widely understood term in the academic world.

It also has the advantage that it neither supports nor denies any particular modern religious claim. That is an advantage especially in a discussion like this where people who have different understandings of the structure and history of the Church are participating. No one can base their claim on language games, they have to actually provide some substance.

You keep begging the question - assuming that if the members of the Church before, say, 1000, considered themselves Catholic, than they much mean the modern Catholic Church. But that isn’t necessarily the case.

All early Christians considered themselves part of the one, holy, catholic, apostolic Church. Just as all modern Catholics, Orthodox, Anglicans, Lutherans, and some others do. The modern groups all have slightly different visions about what that means, some of them quite exclusive, but they all consider themselves continuous with the Early Church.

That is to say, nothing “happened” to it, unless one is a restorationist, which most Protestants are not.

 

[GaryTaylor]

Tantum, I’m so confused about this at the moment. Was confessing serious sins to a priest at least once a year a precept of the Catholic Church or not? And if so, where can I find that in Scripture as a mandatory obligatory means for being forgiven? I’m not asking where I can find it as one way to seek forgiveness. But as the mandatory means.

As soon as Jesus rose from the dead and earned salvation for us, he brought his apostles a new gift. After speaking peace to them, he said, “As the Father has sent me, even so I send you” (John 20:21). Just as Jesus was sent by the Father to reconcile the world to God, Jesus sent the apostles to continue his mission.

Jesus then breathed on the apostles. This is a verse that is often passed over, but it has extraordinary significance because it is only the second time in all of Scripture where God breathes on anyone. The other instance was at the moment of creation, when God breathed his own life into the nostrils of Adam. This should tell us that something of great importance is taking place. Upon doing this, Jesus said, “Receive the Holy Spirit. If you forgive the sins of any, they are forgiven; if you retain the sins of any, they are retained” (John 20:22–23).

Notice that Jesus is not simply commissioning the apostles to preach about God’s forgiveness. He is not saying, “Go tell everyone that when God forgives men’s sins, they’re forgiven.” In using the second person plural you, Jesus is telling his apostles that by the power of the Holy Spirit he has given them the power to forgive and retain the sins of men. Having the power to forgive and to retain sins implies that the apostle knows what a person’s sins are, which in turn implies oral confession. Otherwise, how is the apostle to know what to retain or forgive?

In the same way that Jesus gave his apostles other supernatural powers (such as raising men from the dead), he gave them power to absolve sins (raising them from spiritual death). In Matthew 9, we read that Jesus forgave a paralytic and then healed him so “that you may know that the Son of man has authority on earth to forgive sins” (Matt. 9:6)

“Confess your sins in church, and do not go up to your prayer with an evil conscience. This is the way of life. . . . On the Lord’s Day gather together, break bread, and give thanks, after confessing your transgressions so that your sacrifice may be pure” (Didache 4:14, 14:1 [A.D. 70]).

“[Regarding confession, some] flee from this work as being an exposure of themselves, or they put it off from day to day. I presume they are more mindful of modesty than of salvation, like those who contract a disease in the more shameful parts of the body and shun making themselves known to the physicians; and thus they perish along with their own bashfulness”(Tertullian, Repentance 10:1 [A.D. 203]).

“[The bishop conducting the ordination of the new bishop shall pray:] God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ . . . pour forth now that power which comes from you, from your royal spirit, which you gave to your beloved Son, Jesus Christ, and which he bestowed upon his holy apostles . . . and grant this your servant, whom you have chosen for the episcopate, [the power] to feed your holy flock and to serve without blame as your high priest . . . and by the Spirit of the high-priesthood to have the authority to forgive sins, in accord with your command” (Hippolytus, Apostolic Tradition 3 [A.D. 215]).

How Often Should You Go to Confession?:

While Catholics are only required to go to Confession when they are aware that they have committed a mortal sin, the Church urges the faithful to take advantage of the sacrament often. A good rule of thumb is to go once per month. (The Church strongly recommends that, in preparation for fulfilling our Easter Duty to receive communion, we go to Confession even if we are aware only of venial sin.

You’ll find Catholics vary on this, for example I go to confession the First Five Saturdays of the chruch year in reparartion of sinners. Aside from what I do besides.

God Bless, Gary

 

[tqualey]

Hi, CMatt25,

I think you are referring to Matt 18:18. But, you know that Peter was the only one to get the Keys - the symbol of authority over the Church. This is commonly understood that the Magisterium - the teaching authority of the Church with the Bishops united with the Pope make a definitive statement.

Note, there were several bishops in the early Catholic Church who created their own doctrine - and developed heresies. Here are twi examples of early bishops who were not united with the pope.:

Apollinarianism. This heretical doctrine of Apollinaris (310-390), bishop of Laodicea in Asia Minor, held that Christ had a human body but only a sensitive soul-and no rational human mind or human free will, these having been replaced in Christ by the divine Logos, or Word of God.

Macedonianism. A heresy named after Macedonius, an Arian bishop of Constantinople (d. ca. 362,) whose followers denied the divinity of the Holy Spirit: the Spirit was declared by them not to proceed from the Father but to be a creation of the Son.

“God bless us every one!” T. Tim

Hi Tom, yes I know that is the Catholic argument that is advanced. Some would say though with regards to Peter’s blank check that 2 chapters later in Matthew, He gave other disciples the same check. Indeed God bless each of us along our faith journeys and peace!

 

[GaryTaylor]

I am a bit prickly at times, and I know I am not always the easiest to get along with, though no, I’m not trying to tick anyone off on purpose!.

If you say so, but I don’t see it that way. Haven’t seen you post in a moment through must of needed a break eh?

God Bless, Gary