Protestants - When did the Catholic Church Begin?

  • Thread starter Thread starter NotWorthy
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Click on “Ignatius” in the “Bookmarks” panel.

The problem with Catholics is that they choose to understand everything as they would like it to be rather than as it is. You have no corner on the church. The Archbishop of Canterbury is every bit as legitimate as the Bishop of Rome. In fact, he is perhaps more legitimate since he pretends to no authority over other members of the Anglican Communion.(Edited)

I did find this, which seems to prove that both of you are at least partially correct.
An accounting of what transpired between Pope St. Innocent I, Pope St. Zosimus, St. Augustine, Pelagius and Celestius.

By Scott Windsor
Roma Locuta Est, Causa Finita Est

First off, let me begin with the phrase, so often used by Catholics, “roma locuta est, causa finita est,” translated: “Rome has spoken, the case is closed.” One of the first things a sharp Protestant apologist may pick up on is St. Augustine didn’t use “those words.” That is how I began studying this topic, in fact. I had “quoted” that phrase in Latin, and a Protestant apologist challenged me, stating, “Augustine didn’t use those words.” I thought this strange, since I had heard and read that phrase many times before, so I started looking into it. I came to find out that St. Augustine didn’t use “those words,” at least not all of them.

The phrase comes from Sermon 131.10 of St. Augustine, the Latin is:

jam enim de hac causa duo concilia missa sunt ad sedem apostolicam; inde etiam rescripta venerunt; causa finita est [1]

Translated, it reads,

. . . for already on this matter two councils have sent to the Apostolic See, whence also rescripts (reports) have come. The cause is finished.

What DID St. Augustine say? Two councils (from the African bishops) had been sent to Rome (the Apostolic See) and Rome had replied by sending a reports (rescripts – in other words, “had spoken”), and upon that the cause is finished.However, I think that Augustine made his opinion all the more clear when he actually did say, “I would not believe in the Gospel myself if the authority of the Catholic Church did not influence me to do so.”
Against the letter of Mani, 5,6, 397 A.D.

So let’s not try to tell people that Augustine wasn’t down with being Catholic and the church’s authority.
 
So does your comment mean then that as long as we all share in the original beliefs of the universal Church, that Jesus started, we are part of the same Church?

If I understand your assertion correctly then how could you go on to claim the list of non-Catholic Church’s above? As not all Baptists believe in many early Church teachings as being “real” or “necessary”, but rather symbolic and without “real” value.

So by your very statement only those denominations that adhere to the early Church Traditions and teachings are part of this universal Church.

If that is your claim then I could go along with that, but then that would mean that these non-Catholic denominations are only non-Catholic in name.
Most Baptists, most Christians, I know believe all those things in Irenaeus’ list. Those who don’t, I would question whether they are in fact Christian. Though to be honest, I guess I don’t hold that whole list to be necessary for salvation, even if I believe it all to be true. (For instance I think one can be saved without having to believe that there were angels who transgressed as an essential.)

Indeed, one of the points, for those who are listening, that many of us “Protestants” have been trying to make is that all Christians are catholic because there is a universal Church to which we all belong. But we are not all members of the Catholic Church because we don’t all recognize the authority of the papal see.

As to your question/statement:
“So by your very statement only those denominations that adhere to the early Church Traditions and teachings are part of this universal Church.”

I would agree.
Groups like the Mormons, Jehovah’s Witnesses, and Christian Scientists are NOT part of the universal Church.

But we must also wrestle with another knotty disagreement. Namely, I also think that there are some things that the Catholic Church now teaches has having been part of the “original beliefs” of the universal Church that Jesus started, that I don’t accept has actually have been a part of the original faith. Most of those who find themselves under the teaching magesterium of the Catholic Church hold to as “original” some beliefs that I have a hard time reconciling with having been in existence from the time that Jesus founded the Church, even as not being found to be in existence at the end of the apostolic age. But if we could agree to call as “original beliefs” only that which is found in scripture (I’ll even give you all the books listed as canonical by the Catholic and Orthodox Churches), the Didache, and the baptismal creeds in use in the first generation of the Church (prior to 100 AD), I would ecstatic.
 
Most Baptists, most Christians, I know believe all those things in Irenaeus’ list. Those who don’t, I would question whether they are in fact Christian. Though to be honest, I guess I don’t hold that whole list to be necessary for salvation, even if I believe it all to be true. (For instance I think one can be saved without having to believe that there were angels who transgressed as an essential.)

Indeed, one of the points, for those who are listening, that many of us “Protestants” have been trying to make is that all Christians are catholic because there is a universal Church to which we all belong. But we are not all members of the Catholic Church because we don’t all recognize the authority of the papal see.
To say that all christians are “catholic” is right only on the meaning of the word “catholic” - which means universal, because undeniably they are also spreading worldwide growth. But the truth of the matter is that it is a fallacy of accommodation to make the unknowledgeables think that every christian church is the catholic church.
 
criollo;3339005:
.

As for your statement about catholic persecution, don’t forget " Bloody Mary" Catholic Queen that followed Henry the 8th.
Isn’t it typical of general prejudice against the Catholic faith that so-called “Bloody Mary”, killed a fraction of the numbers that so-called “Good Queen Bess” killed, and yet look at the monikers history gives them.
 
abcd;3339170:
As for your statement about catholic persecution, don’t forget " Bloody Mary" Catholic Queen that followed Henry the 8th.
Isn’t it typical of general prejudice against the Catholic faith that so-called “Bloody Mary”, killed a fraction of the numbers that so-called “Good Queen Bess” killed, and yet look at the monikers history gives them.
Both the original statement by abcd and your response are way off topic. It doesn’t matter one way or the other with regard to the issues of this thread.
To say that all christians are “catholic” is right only on the meaning of the word “catholic” - which means universal, because undeniably they are also spreading worldwide growth. But the truth of the matter is that it is a fallacy of accommodation to make the unknowledgeables think that every christian church is the catholic church.
I think that it is clear from the context and my use of capitalization and lack thereof so that the discerning reader is be able to discriminate between my references to the institution known as the Catholic Church and the universal (i.e. catholic) Church to which I assert all Christians belong. But it is another poster (a Catholic, btw) who suggested that perhaps if we are all indeed part of the universal Church that we must all then be not just catholic but in some sense those who are identified by the Catholic Church as being separated brethern are in truth, non-Catholic in name only.
 
Goodness, can we at least agree on this? If the Catholic Church is a man-made tradition, can someone at least tell me when the Catholic Church over-hauled the True Church?

And where was the True Church for the next X-hundred years until the Reformation could bring it back to light?

I read this on a post from yesterday:
Cruel Imbedded in Church History
Not only exceptioally brillant for his academic achievements as a studenr and for his lingiustic ability to speak fluently eight major languages of the world, John Paul II, the Past Pope of the Roman Catholic Church, was exceptionally courageous when he ask forgiveness for his Church’s centuries of mistakes. Speaking after the ceremony to the crowd in St. Peter Square on March 12, 2000, he acknowledged the past misdeeds commited in the name of Catholicism.
One of the errors of Roman Catholic Church that was established as a result of the apostaty of the first century Church of Christ is the creation of the inquisition through which men, women, and children who refused to accept the catholic Church doctrines were tortured to death. (How The Great Religions Began pp. 214)
Pope John Paul II knows that his Church is behind this cruel practice, Rev. Francis S. Betten and Rev Alfred Kaufmann explicitly stated such church involvement in the Modern World:
“ Church Created a Special tribunal, the Papal or Universal Inquisition. The essential features of its method were fixed by a set of laws passed jointly by Pope Lucius III and Emperor Barbarossa in 1184. The minor details had been added by 1230. Such spiritual courts of justice were stablished in localeities most infected by erroneous teachings…” The state, too, considered heresy as a crime, because it determined the foundations of public welfare. The penalty fixed by the secular laws for heresy was death by fire. This was never inflicted by the ecclesiastical judge” (p 344)
Knowledgeable about the persecutions and the sufferings of the first-century Christian and the History of his church, Pope John Paul II cannot separate the Roman Catholic Church from the responsibilities it should take in his church that created such as a special tribunal.
As to how cruel the men behind the inquisition and the responsibility they should answer for, JohnA. O’Brien straightforwardly wrote.
“The First law of history’, declared Pope Leo XIII, as we mentioned previously. ‘is to assert nothing false and to have no fear of telling the truth’. In conformity with that wise principle, we frankly acknowledge the responsibility of thr Popes in the use of torture and in the burning of thousand of Heretics at the stake. Their sanctioning of such cruel and brutal measures is unquestionably one of the blackest stains on the record of the Holy Office and will remain to end of time a cause of Obloguy and shame upon the Papacy. Even when it is frankly conceded as it must be, that their intentions were good and their soliciteude was for the welfare of the victim’s soul, let it stillbe affirmed that the cruel and inhuman methods are beyond all defense.,” (The Truth About the Inquisition, p.49)
O’Brien further wrote more revealing statements thus:

“CHURCH’S RESPONSIBILITY”
“The church cannot escape responsibility for the use of torture nor for the burning of victims at the stake. The Church in the person of her pontiffs was responsible for the use of torture; this cruel practice was introduced by innocent IV in 1252. … The pontiff tries to defend the use of torture by classifying heretics with thieves and murderers, a mere comparison is his only argument. This Law of Innocent Ivwas renewed and confirmed by Alexander IV on November 3, 1265. Neither the Church escape responsibility for sending heretics to be burnt to death at the stake. The mere subterfuge of having the victim turned over to the secular arm cannot hide the fact that the Popes repeatedly insisted under pain of excommunication and interdict upon rules enforcing the death penalty against heretics.” (Ibid p.47)
More than forced conversions, the extremely cruel inquisition and the other sins he mentioned during that Sunday’s special mass, there is something Pope John Paul II should have asked for forgiveness---- the apostasy of the First-century Church that was established by Christ and propagate by the Apostles.
All the event regarding the emergence of the Catholic Church in the second century and the torture and Killing of thousands of people are but fulfillment of one of the prophecies concerning the apostasy of the Church established by Christ in the First-Century. Paul the Apostle revealed this prophecy in one of his epistle, Stating: “ For I know this, that after my departing shall grievious wolves enter in among you, not sparing the flock.” (Acts 20:29, KJV)
Should John Paul II have the courage needed to admit and apologize for such gravest mistake of the Catholic Church, this would be one of his greatest achievements and make him the most exceptional Pope.
 
According to Barrett’s calculations, there are 8,196 denominations within Protestantism not 25,000 as Roman Catholic apologists so cavalierly and carelessly claim.
Assuming Barrett is right, I’m not sure what there being 8,196 (rather than 25,000) Protestant denominations does to counter the claim that Protestantism is an affront to the doctrinal unity which Christ’s Church is supposed to show.

– Mark L. Chance.
 
Assuming Barrett is right, I’m not sure what there being 8,196 (rather than 25,000) Protestant denominations does to counter the claim that Protestantism is an affront to the doctrinal unity which Christ’s Church is supposed to show.
– Mark L. Chance.
I’d bet the farm that number doesn’t include the scores of ‘independent’ and ‘non-denominational’ (an oxymoron) churches in the US. Something tells me the numbers would double quickly.
 
I’d bet the farm that number doesn’t include the scores of ‘independent’ and ‘non-denominational’ (an oxymoron) churches in the US. Something tells me the numbers would double quickly.
More like increase exponentially I think. 👍
 
I take offense when you addess us as Romanist. I would be more extremely offensive if you address me as Papist. The Forum Rules forbid NCC such as yourself to avoid using terms such as Romanist or Papist. Catholics in term cannot adressed Protestant Evangelist as Fundies. So please reframe from address us Catholics as Romanist. The term is not politically correct and it is offensive to us.

By the way, your link you provided requires a login and account to get in. An account that I don’t have.
You may take all the offense that you wish, but you are a Romanist just as I am an Anglican since the head of your church is the Bishop of Rome.

You may create an account without charge. I think you can even gain access to the files without an account.
 
You may take all the offense that you wish, but you are a Romanist…
No, he’s a Catholic, just like I am. If you can’t be bothered with the basic courtesy of referring to people by their own terms of self-identification, I predict your post count here won’t get much higher than what it is now.

– Mark L. Chance.
 
The Archbishop of Canterbury is every bit as legitimate as the Bishop of Rome. In fact, he is perhaps more legitimate since he pretends to no authority over other members of the Anglican Communion.
If he did, maybe Anglicanism wouldn’t be in the heretical mess it’s in today.
 
You may take
all the offense that you wish, but you are a Romanist just as I am an Anglican since the head of your church is the Bishop of Rome.

You may create an account without charge. I think you can even gain access to the files without an account.And you can deal with the moderators about it. You were asked not to use an offensive term that the Forum Rules prohibit. Now you get reported for it.

It’s a specious pejorative.
 
To say that all christians are “catholic” is right only on the meaning of the word “catholic” - which means universal, because undeniably they are also spreading worldwide growth. But the truth of the matter is that it is a fallacy of accommodation to make the unknowledgeables think that every christian church is the catholic church.
If someone were visiting a town, and inquired of a local person, “Can you give me directions to the nearest catholic church”, which Church do you think they’d point out? :hmmm:
 
abcd,

Missouri Synod
STEADFAST:

Are you aware of the “Joint Declaration on the Doctrine of Justification” agreed upon between the ELCA and the roman catholics?

Your former President Dr, A.L. Barry said" It was a betrayal of the Gospel" Lutheran Church- Missouri Synod have rejected the declaration on justification. The Lutheran Church- Missouri Synod is the second largest Lutheran denomination in America, claiming 2.6-million members in 6,200 congregations. Dr. A.L. Barry, President of the Lutheran Church- Missouri Synod, observes:

“The document is a very carefully worded statement that makes it possible for the representatives of the Pope to sign it without changing, retracting or correcting anything that has been taught by the Roman Catholic Church since the time of the Council of Trent in the 16th century. At Trent, the Roman Catholic Church set forth a doctrinal position that specifically rejects and condemns to this day the position of the Lutheran Church on justification. We who are members of a confessional Lutheran church must say with all boldness and vigor that this so-called ‘breakthrough’ is nothing of the sort. The Lutheran Church - Missouri Synod and its many partner churches around the world, as well as any number of Lutheran churches not part of our confessional fellowship, have not accepted the Joint Declaration on the Doctrine of Justification. The Joint Declaration is woefully inadequate and misleading and most sadly of all, is a betrayal of the Gospel of Jesus Christ” (Christian News, Oct. 18, 1999, pp. 1,16).

Lutheran Church- Missouri Synod have rejected the declaration on justification. The Lutheran Church- Missouri Synod is the second largest Lutheran denomination in America, claiming 2.6-million members in 6,200 congregations. Dr. A.L. Barry, President of the Lutheran Church- Missouri Synod, observes: "The document is a very carefully worded statement that makes it possible for the representatives of the Pope to sign it without changing, retracting or correcting anything that has been taught by the Roman Catholic Church since the time of the Council of Trent in the 16th century. At Trent, the Roman Catholic Church set forth a doctrinal position that specifically rejects and condemns to this day the position of the Lutheran Church on justification.

We who are members of a confessional Lutheran church must say with all boldness and vigor that this so-called ‘breakthrough’ is nothing of the sort. The Lutheran Church - Missouri Synod and its many partner churches around the world, as well as any number of Lutheran churches not part of our confessional fellowship, have not accepted the Joint Declaration on the Doctrine of Justification. The Joint Declaration is woefully inadequate and misleading and most sadly of all, is** a betrayal of the Gospel of Jesus Christ" (Christian News, Oct. 18, 1999, pp. 1,16).**
 
That is far from the true. The Catholic Church was first recorded in St. Ignatius of Antioch letter to the Smyrnaeans. In that Apostolic Letter, he wrote;

Chapter 8:

**See that you all follow the bishop, even as Jesus Christ does the Father, and the presbytery as you would the apostles; and reverence the deacons, as being the institution of God. Let no man do anything connected with the Church without the bishop. Let that be deemed a proper Eucharist, which is [administered] either by the bishop, or by one to whom he has entrusted it. Wherever the bishop shall appear, there let the multitude [of the people] also be; even as, **wherever Jesus Christ ****is, there is the Catholic Church. It is not lawful without the bishop either to baptize or to celebrate a love-feast; but whatsoever he shall approve of, that is also pleasing to God, so that everything that is done may be secure and valid.

This is was written in 110 AD. I think Church Militant pointed out that in the Greek word, the word Catholic can also be found in Acts. I forgot which chapter or verse.

The Catholic Church also trace its history to St. Peter, who Jesus gave the keys of the kingdom too. Jesus founded the Catholic Church not mere human beings.
I would suggest reading, “The Faith of the Early Fathers,” by William A. Jurgens. It is a 3 volume set and worth every penny. I give it to newly ordained priests I know.
 
You may take all the offense that you wish, but you are a Romanist just as I am an Anglican since the head of your church is the Bishop of Rome.

You may create an account without charge. I think you can even gain access to the files without an account.
Sticks and stones might break my bones,
but words and faces can’t harm me.
Only shows your ignorance.
 
I’d bet the farm that number doesn’t include the scores of ‘independent’ and ‘non-denominational’ (an oxymoron) churches in the US. Something tells me the numbers would double quickly.
Last I heard it was up to 60,000 and climbing. Anyone can start a protestant denomination today. Just grab a Bible and act like you know what your talking about.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top