Protestants: The 1500 yrs

[Lovesa]

Can you produce any evidence to support this assertion?

I am afraid I can only offer what has already been given in evidence. The Protestant position on many Catholic teachings it considers anti-biblical has been presented, and I can’t offer any more on that than I already have. After all, I am only one person and in no way a scholar on the matter.

After all, I don’t claim the entirety of my statements as my own. In accordance with the purpose of the thread, I can only offer that which Protestants believe in all humbleness. I don’t claim that it is necessarily true–I wouldn’t be looking this deeply into Catholicism if I didn’t think it might be wrong. That is the statement of the Lutheran church, and, insofar as I am still currently Lutheran, I can only testify that that is what Protestants believe. As far as proving it, I’m afraid I have not been successful if it seems I have offered no proof. I don’t claim to believe all of my statements–I only seek to point out what my fellow Protestants believe as faithfully as I can.

Is that understandable? I’m not really as committed to “proving” Protestantism as I seem. After all, I’m very close to being Catholic. I just think that it’s worth noting what Protestants believe and why claiming things they do not believe as premises in a debate is illogical if the intention is to convince.

 

[CMatt25]

Of course not. Anyone can say anything about everything and claim it is factual. It is called: hearsay,opinions,etc,etc.

An “etc” I would include is: It is called faith. Take for instance what my friend Guano said, “God gave the power to legislate to the Magesterium”. But long before we can even attempt to prove that, we would have to take some steps back and first prove the existence of God. Now indeed I join you and Guano in believing in Him and in making room for Him in my faith. I for instance look around and believe in a Creator. And it is by faith I also believe Jesus was His Son. But it is by faith in which we believe. If there were absolute proof before we die or He comes again, would there be an atheist on the planet? It’s one thing to believe we know. But do you see the difference in saying we with 100% absolute certainty know the Truth? Catholics have their beliefs. And as Lovesa humbly has explained Protestants have their beliefs. Etc. Some humbleness I believe is a good thing when it comes to matters of faith and belief. God bless!

 

[Nicea325]

An “etc” I would include is: It is called faith. Take for instance what my friend Guano said, “God gave the power to legislate to the Magesterium”. But long before we can even attempt to prove that, we would have to take some steps back and first prove the existence of God. Now indeed I join you and Guano in believing in Him and in making room for Him in my faith. I for instance look around and believe in a Creator. And it is by faith I also believe Jesus was His Son. But it is by faith in which we believe. If there were absolute proof before we die or He comes again, would there be an atheist on the planet? It’s one thing to believe we know. But do you see the difference in saying we with 100% absolute certainty know the Truth? Catholics have their beliefs. And as Lovesa humbly has explained Protestants have their beliefs. Etc. Some humbleness I believe is a good thing when it comes to matters of faith and belief. God bless!

I would have to disagree when it applies to matters of history. Read the comment again:

Originally Posted by Lovesa
However, somewhere along the line the Catholic Church (as the term is used today) ceased being the only church, or, indeed, the true church.

If one makes the claim or charge the “true” church ceased and is not supported by any historical evidence clearly showing how and when it drifted off,then that my friend is an opinion or fabrication of history.

 

[guanophore]

I am afraid I can only offer what has already been given in evidence. The Protestant position on many Catholic teachings it considers anti-biblical has been presented, and I can’t offer any more on that than I already have. After all, I am only one person and in no way a scholar on the matter.

Fortunately we don’t need to be scholars here to participte in debate.

You made an assertion that Catholicism departed from the Church founded by Christ “at some point”. If you wish to use this concept as a foundation, then it will need to be supported with some evidence…

Entering an arguement just on the basis of speculation and opinion, we probably will not get far with the discussion.

Your foundation also assumes a extrabibilical non-apostolic premise that teachings are only valid if you can find them in your bible, or that they are erroneous if they do not seem consistent with how you understand the Scripture.

 After all, I don't claim the entirety of my statements as my own. In accordance with the purpose of the thread, I can only offer that which Protestants believe in all humbleness.

I think you have done well, except that I am sure we will agree that “Protestants” is a very broad spectrum of beliefs, and some are more consistent with Apostolic faith than not. Many beliefs that you hold as a Protestant are not shared by other Protetants. I is also true the many Protestants are lacking in the humility and courtesy that you demonstrate.

I don't claim that it is necessarily true--I wouldn't be looking this deeply into Catholicism if I didn't think it might be wrong. That is the statement of the Lutheran church, and, insofar as I am still currently Lutheran, I can only testify that that is what Protestants believe. As far as proving it, I'm afraid I have not been successful if it seems I have offered no proof. I don't claim to believe all of my statements--I only seek to point out what my fellow Protestants believe as faithfully as I can.

One reason that you are pressed for “proof” or I would say, “evidence” is that all of those areas where our separated brethren difffer from us in doctrine represent departures from the One Faith we received from the Apostles. That being the case, when an honest inquiry is made, the investigator may quickly find that what she has been told is erroneous, and it is a fairly simple matter to move forward to the next issue.

  I'm not really as committed to "proving" Protestantism as I seem. After all, I'm very close to being Catholic. :shrug: I just think that it's worth noting what Protestants believe and why claiming things they do not believe as premises in a debate is illogical if the intention is to convince.

Yes, this is understandible. It is necessary to question a false premise, however, The assumption that the CC went “off the rails” at some point is a necessary component to Protestant theology. There is no reason to change doctrine that was right, so the assumption is made that “error crept in”. When an inquirer is pressed to show when, where, and how this occurred, it can be helpful in determining what happened,.

 

[Lovesa]

If one makes the claim or charge the “true” church ceased and is not supported by any historical evidence clearly showing how and when it drifted off,then that my friend is an opinion or fabrication of history.

Hi. I’d just like to point out that never was it claimed to be anything but an opinion. It is an opinion, which protestants believe is supported by the church’s increasing teaching of things which protestants believe are contrary to the Bible. There can be no specific date given, because (again, protestants believe) the perceived errors entered gradually, not all at once, so that there can be no one date. There can only be the point of the Reformation when the perceived abuses were finally addressed in a way that had lasting impact.

Also, this thread did not ask for proof of the opinions initially. It merely asked protestants how they explain the first 1500 years; the statement addresses that. That is how protestants address the first 1500 years. Claiming that stating an opinion when asked one requires irrefutable proof is not conducive to this thread’s purpose. I offered what protestants believe to be proof–supposed false teachings, the impact of the Reformation, etc. I can do no more.

 

[guanophore]

I would have to disagree when it applies to matters of history. Read the comment again:

Lovesa:

However, somewhere along the line the Catholic Church (as the term is used today) ceased being the only church, or, indeed, the true church.

I agree, Nicea. This does not sound to me like a creedal statement based upon a profession of faith. On the contrary, Protestantism is a faith position that is founded upon this assertion, which has no valid historical support.

To that extent, to say that it is a statement of faith basically places anything built upon it in a sandy foundation.

One does not have to “prove God exists” to look at the evidence in history. An atheist can still evaluate the evidence on this matter, without having even Christian, much less Catholic faith.

 

[CMatt25]

I would have to disagree when it applies to matters of history. Read the comment again: If one makes the claim or charge the “true” church ceased and is not supported by any historical evidence clearly showing how and when it drifted off,then that my friend is an opinion or fabrication of history.

Nothing else put forth in faith and belief would be accepted by one who puts their faith and belief in the Catholic Church’s interpretation of Scripture. In Her interpretation of Herself. And faith in the ECFs. So I expected you to disagree. God bless you on your faith journey and peace.

 

[Lovesa]

Fortunately we don’t need to be scholars here to participte in debate.

Agreed.

You made an assertion that Catholicism departed from the Church founded by Christ “at some point”. If you wish to use this concept as a foundation, then it will need to be supported with some evidence…

Entering an arguement just on the basis of speculation and opinion, we probably will not get far with the discussion.

Your foundation also assumes a extrabibilical non-apostolic premise that teachings are only valid if you can find them in your bible, or that they are erroneous if they do not seem consistent with how you understand the Scripture.

Granted. However, I do not claim to have a specific date when this derailment occurred. I have only what protestants say, and that is the meat of my argument. If protestants believe it is not extrabiblical to assume that nonconsistence with the personal reading of scripture is a good premise for belief, I must argue from there.

I think you have done well, except that I am sure we will agree that “Protestants” is a very broad spectrum of beliefs, and some are more consistent with Apostolic faith than not. Many beliefs that you hold as a Protestant are not shared by other Protetants. I is also true the many Protestants are lacking in the humility and courtesy that you demonstrate.

Thank you. Yes, I know that many beliefs I hold are not held by many Protestants. I disagree with many Lutherans as well, so I can only speak for myself, I am afraid. Anything else I claim can only be judged against the truth of what other protestants believe.

One reason that you are pressed for “proof” or I would say, “evidence” is that all of those areas where our separated brethren difffer from us in doctrine represent departures from the One Faith we received from the Apostles. That being the case, when an honest inquiry is made, the investigator may quickly find that what she has been told is erroneous, and it is a fairly simple matter to move forward to the next issue.

True, true. I disagree with my fellow Lutherans on many matters where they disagree with the faith of the apostles. However, I am not sure whether this indicates an intentional departure or human error taking hold of modern Lutheranism.

Yes, this is understandible. It is necessary to question a false premise, however, The assumption that the CC went “off the rails” at some point is a necessary component to Protestant theology. There is no reason to change doctrine that was right, so the assumption is made that “error crept in”. When an inquirer is pressed to show when, where, and how this occurred, it can be helpful in determining what happened,.

I really wish I could tell you exactly where and exactly when. I don’t know when confession was made a requirement. I don’t know when the idea that the CC is the only true church became dogma (a Catholic may argue at the start, but still). I am aware that it may very well be a false premise, but if the point of a discussion is to prove Catholicism as correct, it seems to me unconductive to start with the premise that “Catholicism has never been wrong” in convincing non-Catholics.

I am trying to determine what happened, however. I do believe that there is no specific date in the Protestant argument, simply because errors are stealthy and come one by one, so that p(name removed by moderator)ointing a date is difficult. If I could give one, I would.

 

[CMatt25]

Hi. I’d just like to point out that never was it claimed to be anything but an opinion. It is an opinion, which protestants believe is supported by the church’s increasing teaching of things which protestants believe are contrary to the Bible. There can be no specific date given, because (again, protestants believe) the perceived errors entered gradually, not all at once, so that there can be no one date. There can only be the point of the Reformation when the perceived abuses were finally addressed in a way that had lasting impact.

Also, this thread did not ask for proof of the opinions initially. It merely asked protestants how they explain the first 1500 years; the statement addresses that. That is how protestants address the first 1500 years. Claiming that stating an opinion when asked one requires irrefutable proof is not conducive to this thread’s purpose. I offered what protestants believe to be proof–supposed false teachings, the impact of the Reformation, etc. I can do no more.

Lovesa, as author of the OP let me assure you, I appreciate yours and others explanations of Protestant belief. You can do no more because you already did a good job of explaining. God bless you on your journey and peace.

 

[Lovesa]

Lovesa, as author of the OP let me assure you, I appreciate yours and others explanations of Protestant belief. You can do no more because you already did a good job of explaining. God bless you on your journey and peace.

Thanks, and peace to you as well.

 

[GaryTaylor]

So claiming that Lutherans cannot look back on that as part of their history is moot.

We are now on th same page on is point.

They were simply Christians. & Ignatius said Catholic, maybe, but I don’t recall him claiming to be Catholic in the modern sense.

Its documented History, in the letters of Ignatius. Why the denial?

And yes, some did evolve to be Lutherans.

I could name a few who are highly regarded for you. I’m here to teach Catholic faith and defend it. But your right!

No one has the (intellectual) right to deny that.

The ecumenical councils did it all the time, that was their purpose.

We do not “like to seperate themselves from the Jewish Faith”.

Yes that was mentioned in this thread not by you, I am sorry if I directed something to you which doesn;t belong. Please forgive me!

The hour has been “almost over” for at least a thousand years, if not more. Christians have been claiming that for ages. Not saying it isn’t necessarily true, but I don’t see how it factors into church history.

Well cults and sect on the fringe of protestant thinking have been claiming this for centurys. he lastest being May 21st this month. My point is catholic teaching whch has never claimed this till recently as a direct result from Pope Leo XIII, Pope Pius and the Miracle at Fatima. Never in recorded History has GOD predicted a miracle, dated and timed it. And then it happened just as He said it would. In this case it was the Holy Spirit working through the BVM, but regardless the Miracle was from God who entered into real time. Same basic message he gave Abraham in regards to sodom and gomorrah? Thats what I’m talikng about. A century given to satan by Christ as a time of testing. Which ends this decade. So yes while I don’t believe we need to further predict doom and gloom? I believe its a great time to pay attention, an do all we can to unite christianity to save Souls which is exactly what the BVM stated and God confirmed.

Again, I never made these claims. Where do you get the idea that I want to involve politics? I am quite opposed to the mixing of politics and religion.

No not so much you, it s acomplex problem with Christianity. Problem is we are confronted with Judaism/Islam which in this regard are very similiar. So my point becomes there is a greater need for us to get our act together as Christians. Even if we can’t agree on everything. Here is where we need to focus common bond. At some point down the road when we can again learn to trust and love, we can figure out the issues which seem odd to us. But are not really the issues which seperate, like he veneration of the BVM who interceeds for manking through Jesus. Luther clearly understood this.

As Christians being Lutherans, Catholics, Angelicans, and Orthodox…Wouldn’t you say there is much more we have in common that that which see as an obstacle?

I’m convinced Jesus Chist is coming very soon, I know He is. But I would have to talk private relelation of my life which is inappropriate for this forum.

None the less this is why I constantly beat the drum of Unity and not Division. Christs message was love your enemy, he opposed the politcal/religion if the Jews. We must find a way to ushed this into mankind.

No one is claiming Luther was perfect. Some of his early writings were quite good; the fact that his age made him a little less sound in mind does not invalidate what he wrote earlier.

Your right of course, but there are emotional issues from the start also. Its doesn’t distract from his main points early on being correct. But the flags were all their from the start.

Do I read that stuff? No; I never felt a need to.

Originally the points were a good debate. I have read them all. Erasmus with a level head objected to the idea that we as “humans” ought admit we don’t have all the answers in Gods World. And by default we should accept the teachings of the church non-dogmatically. This is correct!

Thats just good skeptical philosophy. Especially when you consider how the church served the family in the first 1500-years. My point of Luthers wittings were his last writtings which really became far fetched. Not from a Lutheran or Catholic point of view, but from a psychological anaylsis. Which is my career and field of interest.

Really? So the majority can think Jesus was a time-traveling alien and they’re right? Hardly.

Hey did you see the ancient etching in stone found in Africa with Jesus Christ and a Alien Space craft?

I’m hearing you, I’m starting to beleve our thinking isn’t so far apart, Than as Luthereran/Catholic’s it really shouldn’t be.

I evidently misunderstood the thread’s first question, then. Oh, well. I agree the idea isn’t conversion.

My agenda is WORLD PEACE through the teachings of Jesus Christ in the NT and Our lady of Fatima.

Im glad you and I and CMatt talked I feel I knwo you both much better. Good People both of you

God Bless, Gary

 

[Easter_Joey]

To my Protestant friends, I wish I had a better understanding of Protestant thought on this so can you help me? As we know the 1st 1500 yrs are often brought up by Catholics. The East-West 1054 Schism aside, they maintain that sure while there may have been heretical beliefs exisiting among groups, there was one universal Church founded by Christ, existing with the beliefs that we know as Catholic beliefs. Even if some of those beliefs took time to develop into definition. And if Catholic teachings needed reformed, they ask, why did it take Christ 1500 yrs? I asked a Protestant friend of mine and she said my question made absolutely no sense to her.

I’m not exactly sure what you’re asking. Is it about why Protestants broke, why the Church got it “wrong”, or just basic beliefs? Or are you asking something entirely different? There are many Protestants who think the Church went heretical in the Middle Ages. IT was fine until Constantine came, or fine until the Crusades, etc. church history shows otherwise. Asking why it took Christ 1500 years to reform the Church doesn’t make sense to most Protestants, because they think of the “invisible church” as Christ’s Church, with no true visible church anymore, because a drunk German got it right, then every one else got it right, but they still didn’t agree (or something like that). Sorry if this doesn’t help. After all, I’m only a dumb teenager

 

[tqualey]

Hi, Lovesa,

This has been a very interesting dialogue, and I think a lot of understanding is developing. I would like to examine one idea a little more deeply.

Granted. However, I do not claim to have a specific date when this derailment occurred. I have only what protestants say, and that is the meat of my argument. If protestants believe it is not extrabiblical to assume that nonconsistence with the personal reading of scripture is a good premise for belief, I must argue from there.

I am trying to determine what happened, however. I do believe that there is no specific date in the Protestant argument, simply because errors are stealthy and come one by one, so that p(name removed by moderator)ointing a date is difficult. If I could give one, I would.

I think it is important to make a distinction between a ‘faith statement’ and a historical statement’. For example, a ‘faith statement’ for Catholics is that, “The Sacrament of Penance provides forgiveness of sin as it reconciles us to God and His Church.” scborromeo.org/ccc/para/980.htm
An example of a ‘historical statement’ would be, “Setting a beginning date for Pre-columbian indian civilizations in the Americas is not specific” en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pre-Columbian_era. Note that this particular 'historical statement does not have a beginnikng date attached to it - but, the matter is being researched and the authors have a general idea of when at least some of these tribes began to develop.

As I see it, when you make the statement that the Catholic Church stopped being the true church - and when challenged, then state this is what Protestants believe - you are not responding in a manner that would well serve either Catholics or Protestants. If you are going to present the Protestant statement - then you really need to back it up. While requiring some type of documentation has been mentioned by others - my focus is that you need this for your own self.

Admittedly, there is not a lot of rigor inthe various forms of Protestant argumentation - they claim Christ was talking about Himself instead of Peter, that Peter was never the leader of the Apostles, that the Resurrected Christ really did not mean for Peter to be in charge when he was commanded by Christ three times to feed His sheep - and this is just arguing with Scripture. The we get to the 100AD - 313AD period (from the end of the Apostolic Age to the Edict of Milan) where there was an ‘invisible church’ that contained the seeds of the Protestant revolt (but, they never bloomed until the 16th Century) then there was the various Church Councils that gave us the Canon of Scripture for both OT and NT about 400AD - and while the NT Canon was acceptable, this OT Canon was in error (according to Luther) so we now have the question of error being introduced into the previously universal acceptance of Scripture. It goes on and on - the point however, if something as dramatic as the Catholic Church - once identified as the true chruch - has now been characterized as now just another church out there - surely someone in the Revolt can identify a date that makes sense.

I submit, looking into the validity of the Lutheran argument is necessary for your own self if you are considering joining the Catholic Faith. Most of us who have responded to you can tell you the Catholic Church is the one founded by Christ - but, your previous posts indicate that you want to present the Protestant position - even though you do not really know how to defend it. Should you want to become a Catholic - I would want you to defend the Catholic Church in a knowledgeable manner.

God bless

 

[Lovesa]

We are now on th same page on is point.

Its documented History, in the letters of Ignatius. Why the denial?

I could name a few who are highly regarded for you. I’m here to teach Catholic faith and defend it. But your right!

The ecumenical councils did it all the time, that was their purpose.

Yes that was mentioned in this thread not by you, I am sorry if I directed something to you which doesn;t belong. Please forgive me!

Well cults and sect on the fringe of protestant thinking have been claiming this for centurys. he lastest being May 21st this month. My point is catholic teaching whch has never claimed this till recently as a direct result from Pope Leo XIII, Pope Pius and the Miracle at Fatima. Never in recorded History has GOD predicted a miracle, dated and timed it. And then it happened just as He said it would. In this case it was the Holy Spirit working through the BVM, but regardless the Miracle was from God who entered into real time. Same basic message he gave Abraham in regards to sodom and gomorrah? Thats what I’m talikng about. A century given to satan by Christ as a time of testing. Which ends this decade. So yes while I don’t believe we need to further predict doom and gloom? I believe its a great time to pay attention, an do all we can to unite christianity to save Souls which is exactly what the BVM stated and God confirmed.

No not so much you, it s acomplex problem with Christianity. Problem is we are confronted with Judaism/Islam which in this regard are very similiar. So my point becomes there is a greater need for us to get our act together as Christians. Even if we can’t agree on everything. Here is where we need to focus common bond. At some point down the road when we can again learn to trust and love, we can figure out the issues which seem odd to us. But are not really the issues which seperate, like he veneration of the BVM who interceeds for manking through Jesus. Luther clearly understood this.

As Christians being Lutherans, Catholics, Angelicans, and Orthodox…Wouldn’t you say there is much more we have in common that that which see as an obstacle?

I’m convinced Jesus Chist is coming very soon, I know He is. But I would have to talk private relelation of my life which is inappropriate for this forum.

None the less this is why I constantly beat the drum of Unity and not Division. Christs message was love your enemy, he opposed the politcal/religion if the Jews. We must find a way to ushed this into mankind.

Your right of course, but there are emotional issues from the start also. Its doesn’t distract from his main points early on being correct. But the flags were all their from the start.

Originally the points were a good debate. I have read them all. Erasmus with a level head objected to the idea that we as “humans” ought admit we don’t have all the answers in Gods World. And by default we should accept the teachings of the church non-dogmatically. This is correct!

Thats just good skeptical philosophy. Especially when you consider how the church served the family in the first 1500-years. My point of Luthers wittings were his last writtings which really became far fetched. Not from a Lutheran or Catholic point of view, but from a psychological anaylsis. Which is my career and field of interest.

Hey did you see the ancient etching in stone found in Africa with Jesus Christ and a Alien Space craft?

I’m hearing you, I’m starting to beleve our thinking isn’t so far apart, Than as Luthereran/Catholic’s it really shouldn’t be.

My agenda is WORLD PEACE through the teachings of Jesus Christ in the NT and Our lady of Fatima.

Im glad you and I and CMatt talked I feel I knwo you both much better. Good People both of you

God Bless, Gary

I’m glad also. I’m also quite sure that unity is quite important at this point in time. The statement about OL of Fatima is interesting; is that where many get the idea that we’re definitely in the end times? I’m quite interested in her, but I haven’t heard that take on the events.

As for world peace, hopefully that will come in time. After all, despite differences Christ is about unity.

 

[Lovesa]

Hi, Lovesa,

This has been a very interesting dialogue, and I think a lot of understanding is developing. I would like to examine one idea a little more deeply.

I think it is important to make a distinction between a ‘faith statement’ and a historical statement’. For example, a ‘faith statement’ for Catholics is that, “The Sacrament of Penance provides forgiveness of sin as it reconciles us to God and His Church.” scborromeo.org/ccc/para/980.htm
An example of a ‘historical statement’ would be, “Setting a beginning date for Pre-columbian indian civilizations in the Americas is not specific” en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pre-Columbian_era. Note that this particular 'historical statement does not have a beginnikng date attached to it - but, the matter is being researched and the authors have a general idea of when at least some of these tribes began to develop.

As I see it, when you make the statement that the Catholic Church stopped being the true church - and when challenged, then state this is what Protestants believe - you are not responding in a manner that would well serve either Catholics or Protestants. If you are going to present the Protestant statement - then you really need to back it up. While requiring some type of documentation has been mentioned by others - my focus is that you need this for your own self.

Admittedly, there is not a lot of rigor inthe various forms of Protestant argumentation - they claim Christ was talking about Himself instead of Peter, that Peter was never the leader of the Apostles, that the Resurrected Christ really did not mean for Peter to be in charge when he was commanded by Christ three times to feed His sheep - and this is just arguing with Scripture. The we get to the 100AD - 313AD period (from the end of the Apostolic Age to the Edict of Milan) where there was an ‘invisible church’ that contained the seeds of the Protestant revolt (but, they never bloomed until the 16th Century) then there was the various Church Councils that gave us the Canon of Scripture for both OT and NT about 400AD - and while the NT Canon was acceptable, this OT Canon was in error (according to Luther) so we now have the question of error being introduced into the previously universal acceptance of Scripture. It goes on and on - the point however, if something as dramatic as the Catholic Church - once identified as the true chruch - has now been characterized as now just another church out there - surely someone in the Revolt can identify a date that makes sense.

I submit, looking into the validity of the Lutheran argument is necessary for your own self if you are considering joining the Catholic Faith. Most of us who have responded to you can tell you the Catholic Church is the one founded by Christ - but, your previous posts indicate that you want to present the Protestant position - even though you do not really know how to defend it. Should you want to become a Catholic - I would want you to defend the Catholic Church in a knowledgeable manner.

God bless

I acknowlege the difference between “faith statements” and historical ones. However, the satement is more than a faith statement. It is also a historical interpretation–maybe one many do not find accurate–but a historical interpretation. History is facts, yes, but the events are open to interpretation in their impact on the present. One can argue about whether the fall of the Soviet Union affected this or did that, but there will be differing opinions about the circumstances and why it happened.

As for becoming Catholic, yes, I do want to. However, I think that, as long as I am still a Lutheran and know their arguments best, and as long as I am not certain what the future of my faith is going to be, it seems to me most conductive to argue the Lutheran position. It can only serve to help me understand my positions and the CCs positions better, and it seems to me harmless in regards to whatever faith I have in the future. I am also a little given to arguing a point, not necessarily because I believe it, but because I think it deserves to have its arguments presented. My statements aren’t perfect, yes, but I have tried. If I convert, I am prepared to present a Catholic view when queried, occasionally offering a Protestant view as an ex-protestant. There is nothing in the Catholic faith banning this, so I should be fine.

As for the Lutheran interpretation of history and its impact on my faith? I’m studying church history this very moment, actually. Well, I have been studying it for about a week now, and I’m not sure I’m required to turn my reading of history on its head to become Catholic. Is it dogma that all (100%) of early Christians were Catholic (conformed to modern Catholic beliefs)? Is there a dogma regarding the faith of the people who died in the Roman persecution? I have yet to find one in my research of the faith, so I don’t see why I should adapt views that are not crucial to the faith. I would, of course, concede apostolic succession etc., but there are dogmas and there are opinions.

At any rate, if I convert, it won’t be because of church history. In all likelihood it will be something less definable and related to the love and presence of the Holy Trinity and the Eucharist.

God bless you too.

 

[tqualey]

Hi, CMatt25,

Proving the existence of God … sounds like a red herring to me. An effort to distract from the topic currently under discussion. Honest. I submit that such a new topic would best fit into a new thread much better than into this one. Protestants and Catholics do differ on a number of topics - but, I think all believe in the existence of God.

“Would there be an atheist on the planet?” I think so! And, probably a couple of them, too! Now, this may sound like an outrageous opinion … and it porbably is! But, the reason for this is man’s free will. It really does not make any difference how ‘clear’ or logical or obvious a fact may be - human nature being what it is, there will never be 100% agreement on anything this side of heaven.

God bless

An “etc” I would include is: It is called faith. Take for instance what my friend Guano said, “God gave the power to legislate to the Magesterium”. But long before we can even attempt to prove that, we would have to take some steps back and first prove the existence of God. Now indeed I join you and Guano in believing in Him and in making room for Him in my faith. I for instance look around and believe in a Creator. And it is by faith I also believe Jesus was His Son. But it is by faith in which we believe. If there were absolute proof before we die or He comes again, would there be an atheist on the planet? It’s one thing to believe we know. But do you see the difference in saying we with 100% absolute certainty know the Truth? Catholics have their beliefs. And as Lovesa humbly has explained Protestants have their beliefs. Etc. Some humbleness I believe is a good thing when it comes to matters of faith and belief. God bless!

 

[tqualey]

Hi, Lovesa,

I have really tried my best.

From my appreciation of your previous posts, I would say you were repeating the Protestant agruments against the Catholic Church - but, appareently really do not understand them., This is unfortunate from several perspectives - but, let’s just look at one statement you have made and move with that.

While one can argue about the meaning of a historical event like the fall of hte Soviet Union, there is no question that it actually did fall. I am telling you that Christ actually made Peter the foundation for the Church (Matt 16:18) and this happened in about 32-33AD.

The early Christians who were all Catholics believed these doctrines of faith:

Baptism is required for salvation

The Real Presence

Sins are forgiven through the Sacrament of Penance

Peter was made the leader of the Apostles - he was made the leader of the Church and Christ promised that “WHATEVER you bind on earth will be bound in heaven”

And that the Church speaks for Christ when giving an offficial teacing (the Pope and the Bishops united with him) - “He who hears you hears Me” (Luke 10:16, John 5:24)

Lutherans may believe one or two of these items, most Protestants do not believe any of this doctrines and the Church has always taught these truths. There has NEVER been a time when the Church taught: Baptism is optional, Eucharist is just a memorial, sins are taken directly to God, Peter was just an Apostle who was more vocal than the rest and Christ did not found the Catholic Church - He founded an invisible church with the seeds of Protestantism sewn in the very beginning! Many Protestants would quickly agree with most if not all of these statements.

What makes this of interest is that these truths of doctrine I have given you are taught today… just as they were taught to the Catholics in Nero’s arena and by the Early Church Fahers.

I have given some links that I think will be helpful in your discernment.

God bless you, too.

One can argue about whether the fall of the Soviet Union affected this or did that, but there will be differing opinions about the circumstances and why it happened.

Is it dogma that all (100%) of early Christians were Catholic (conformed to modern Catholic beliefs)?

 

[CMatt25]

Hi, CMatt25,

Proving the existence of God … sounds like a red herring to me. An effort to distract from the topic currently under discussion. Honest. I submit that such a new topic would best fit into a new thread much better than into this one. Protestants and Catholics do differ on a number of topics - but, I think all believe in the existence of God.

“Would there be an atheist on the planet?” I think so! And, probably a couple of them, too! Now, this may sound like an outrageous opinion … and it porbably is! But, the reason for this is man’s free will. It really does not make any difference how ‘clear’ or logical or obvious a fact may be - human nature being what it is, there will never be 100% agreement on anything this side of heaven.

God bless

Hi Tom, I honestly did not mean it as a red herring. I was merely responding to Guan’s post “God gave the power to legislate to the Magesterium”. As we know threads can sometimes sway a bit into territory perhaps not entirely related to the original topic. We’ve discussed confession here for example. Even my friend Guan said to me several pgs ago, he/she thought he/she had “already pulled your thread too far afield”. But I didn’t mind. I see your point though.

Nah your opinion was not that outrageous. I suspect there could be someone if they were to see Christ returning to earth in mid air descending from the clouds as described in IThess 4, when the Truth would be known, who still might not believe. God bless you and peace. Have a great weekend.

 

[guanophore]

Nothing else put forth in faith and belief would be accepted by one who puts their faith and belief in the Catholic Church’s interpretation of Scripture. In Her interpretation of Herself. And faith in the ECFs. So I expected you to disagree. God bless you on your faith journey and peace.

What you are saying, CMatt, is that there is no real objective Truth. History is not a valid representation of the Truth, and so someone can just come along and assert their opinon that the CC departed from the Apsotolic Teaching “at some point”, but that the actual historical record of what happened is irrelevant.

You are also saying that there is no objective Truth that God has revealed to mankind, so we can’t really know who God is, or what He expects of mankind.

And finally, since the CC is wrong in the way she understands herself and Scripture, “nothing else put forth” from her has any validity.

For those reading the thread, this is a consummate position of relativism. Such a position allows it’s adherant to decide whatever he wants for himself with regard to faith and morals.

 

[CMatt25]

What you are saying, CMatt, is that there is no real objective Truth. History is not a valid representation of the Truth, and so someone can just come along and assert their opinon that the CC departed from the Apsotolic Teaching “at some point”, but that the actual historical record of what happened is irrelevant.

You are also saying that there is no objective Truth that God has revealed to mankind, so we can’t really know who God is, or what He expects of mankind.

And finally, since the CC is wrong in the way she understands herself and Scripture, “nothing else put forth” from her has any validity.

For those reading the thread, this is a consummate position of relativism. Such a position allows it’s adherant to decide whatever he wants for himself with regard to faith and morals.

Guan what I am saying is we can believe and have faith we know.

Of course adherents of faith decide where they place their faith. That’s why it’s called faith. So you can call it whatever you want. And if it’s relativism for me to keep it real for me in what I see as a difference between actually infallibly knowing for certain vs believing and having the faith we know, then relativism is not a dirty word to me. But it’s merely reality to me. God bless you in your faith walk always my friend! Peace.