Protestants, when did the Catholic Church go bad?

[LittleSoldier]

How Did the Catholic Church Get Her Name?
by Kenneth D. Whitehead

The Creed which we recite on Sundays and holy days speaks of one, holy, catholic and apostolic Church. As everybody knows, however, the Church referred to in this Creed is more commonly called just the Catholic Church. It is not, by the way, properly called the Roman Catholic Church, but simply the Catholic Church.

The term Roman Catholic is not used by the Church herself; it is a relatively modern term, and one, moreover, that is confined largely to the English language. The English-speaking bishops at the First Vatican Council in 1870, in fact, conducted a vigorous and successful campaign to insure that the term Roman Catholic was nowhere included in any of the Council’s official documents about the Church herself, and the term was not included.

Similarly, nowhere in the 16 documents of the Second Vatican Council will you find the term Roman Catholic. Pope Paul VI signed all the documents of the Second Vatican Council as “I, Paul. Bishop of the Catholic Church.” Simply that – Catholic Church. There are references to the Roman curia, the Roman missal, the Roman rite, etc., but when the adjective Roman is applied to the Church herself, it refers to the Diocese of Rome!

The term Roman Catholic has just kind of stuck to us because of the Roman Diocese where the pope is. Our “Roman” name has nothing to do with what has happened in the past.

Thank you for posting this! I’ve been looking for something to back me up; I know that “Roman Catholic Church” is a misnomer but I haven’t been able to explain why. You’ve helped me a lot here.

Here is a link for anyone who is interested:

ewtn.com/faith/teachings/churb3.htm

 

[LittleSoldier]

You may say that the longevity of your RC church proves it to be the "true church: I would say that ROME being a powerful empire politcally Had a lot more to do with it 's longevity than it being the “True Church”.

It’s rather strange how the poster showed the the term “Roman Catholic” (or “RC” in what you have written above) is incorrect and yet you seem to ignore everything that he posted.

“ROME” is a city in Italy. It is not the True Church - it’s a city. The Catholic Church is headquartered in Vatican City.

 

[LittleSoldier]

what about the eastern churches? There was no Pope or RC until it was legalized and then made state religion.

There was a Pope. He name was Peter.

 

[LittleSoldier]

Open communion is where any baptized Christian can take part in Eucharist… The Episcopal and Anglican Churches practice it (mostly) and many protestant sects as well…

Whereas in the Catholic Church only Catholics may partake in communion… Open communion is more in line with Jesus’ love.

Why is open communion more in line with Jesus’ love? Do you think that people who do not understand that they are partaking of the actual Body and Blood of the Christ but think they are receiving a wafer and a sip of wine which only represent the Body of Blood of the Christ are showing knowledge and respect for the Church which Jesus founded?

Of course only Catholics may partake in Communion. I don’t know of any Protestant denomination which teaches transubstantiation (I’m not saying there is not one; I’m saying I don’t know of one). Partaking of the actual Body and Blood of the Christ is a very holy and sacred action.

If non-Catholics wish to partake of the actual Body and Blood of the Christ they are free to become Catholics and they are welcomed.

 

[LittleSoldier]

actually, thats not what he claims, being calvinist he claims that God saved the elect in all ages of the church. It was not so currupt that people could not find Christ but was in need of reformation to reclaim its original focus…

It makes it sound like Jesus wasn’t powerful enough to establish a Church which would not become corrupted. And Jesus is God!

“And the gates of hell shall not prevail against it…” It appears that the gates of hell really *did *prevail against God’s Church, even though Jesus said it wouldn’t happen. And that does not say much in Jesus’ favor.

 

[Luvtosew]

Why is open communion more in line with Jesus’ love? Do you think that people who do not understand that they are partaking of the actual Body and Blood of the Christ but think they are receiving a wafer and a sip of wine which only represent the Body of Blood of the Christ are showing knowledge and respect for the Church which Jesus founded?

Of course only Catholics may partake in Communion.** I don’t know of any Protestant denomination which teaches transubstantiation (I’m not saying there is not one; I’m saying I don’t know of one). ** Partaking of the actual Body and Blood of the Christ is a very holy and sacred action.

If non-Catholics wish to partake of the actual Body and Blood of the Christ they are free to become Catholics and they are welcomed.

The bold part I did in your post is right, Protestants do not believe in transubstantiation, only Catholics do and that is why no one else should receive communion in a CC.

 

[Bballer32]

Thank you for posting this! I’ve been looking for something to back me up; I know that “Roman Catholic Church” is a misnomer but I haven’t been able to explain why. You’ve helped me a lot here.

Here is a link for anyone who is interested:

ewtn.com/faith/teachings/churb3.htm

Hey, no problemo I’ve got ways of finding this stuff!

I’m open to helping anyone that needs it. I’ve learned a lot and I’m willing to share it

 

[JonNC]

=LittleSoldier;9024883] Why is open communion more in line with Jesus’ love? Do you think that people who do not understand that they are partaking of the actual Body and Blood of the Christ but think they are receiving a wafer and a sip of wine which only represent the Body of Blood of the Christ are showing knowledge and respect for the Church which Jesus founded?

It is not a matter of respect. While I firmly disagree with the symbolic belief, I do not think they are being disrespectful. Wrong, but not disrespectful.

Of course only Catholics may partake in Communion. I don’t know of any Protestant denomination which teaches transubstantiation (I’m not saying there is not one; I’m saying I don’t know of one). Partaking of the actual Body and Blood of the Christ is a very holy and sacred action.

Some Anglicans confess Transubstantiation, but even the Orthodox do not confess it. But they, and we, strongly hold to the historic teaching that it IS the body and blood of Christ.

If non-Catholics wish to partake of the actual Body and Blood of the Christ they are free to become Catholics and they are welcomed

And the same invitation is open regarding the LCMS.

Jon

 

[faithalone1]

This question is intended mainly for Protestants. When, exactly did the Catholic Church as we know it now cease to be the true Christian church? Back when I was Protestant, we always focused on the early Church (up to Augustine), and then skipped to Luther, Calvin, et al. When I started looking into it, I found that Augustine and a lot of the REALLY early Christians (Ireneus, Polycarp, Justin Martyr, Ignatius of Antioch) were very “Catholic,” especially compared to the reformers. Just out of curiosity, where do most Protestants draw the line (e.g. a certain council, pope, theologian, etc.) between the early Church and the “corrupt” Roman Catholic Church?

Going back to the original question. I would say that the CC went off track when they started seeing themselves as the “true” church. Apostolic Succession is a TRADITION and there is NO proof that the Apsotles passed on anything outside of teachings. The Apostles were a foundation built to fufill a prophecy. They didn’t have “sucessors” as Catholcis say. Jesus Christ in Mark 9-38-40 rebukes his own apostles for wanting to silence an “outsider” for driving out demons. looks like the outsider was equal in power and validity to the apostles, wasn’t “IN” their church and was approved By JESUS CHRIST himself. THERE is no physical/denominational “true” church. Its an invisible church of true believers being led by the “advocate” that Jesus said he would send in Acts. JC himself gave the outsider in mark 9-38-40 equal status. there is no “True church”.

 

[Holly3278]

I am a Catholic and I can say with 100% certainty that the Catholic Church never went bad. Why? Because Jesus promised that the gates of Hell would never prevail against His Church. His Church is the Catholic Church and if the Catholic Church “went bad” then that means the gates of Hell did prevail and that would make Jesus a liar which we know for sure He is not. He is the Son of God so He cannot lie.

 

[faithalone1]

It makes it sound like Jesus wasn’t powerful enough to establish a Church which would not become corrupted. And Jesus is God!

“And the gates of hell shall not prevail against it…” It appears that the gates of hell really *did *prevail against God’s Church, even though Jesus said it wouldn’t happen. And that does not say much in Jesus’ favor.

Jesus Christ establised his church when he sent the “advocate” (Holy Spirit) as described in ACTS. has nothing to do with Succession. The Apostles were the foundation. They were a fufillment of OT prophecy and there is NO evidence that they had Successors. The only thing passed down were teachings, not some special divine right establishing a “true” church.

 

[Cat_Herder]

That’s not what I see lol…

Jesus Christ establised his church when he sent the “advocate” (Holy Spirit) as described in ACTS. has nothing to do with Succession. The Apostles were the foundation. They were a fufillment of OT prophecy and there is NO evidence that they had Successors. The only thing passed down were teachings, not some special divine right establishing a “true” church.

And since everyone disagrees about what the teachings are there can only be two possibilities:

1. The Holy Spirit preserved one Church in the truth and empowreres Her clergy to teach it.
2. The Holy Spirit has abandoned humanity entirely and we are to fend for ourselves.

You go with (2) and I pity you for it.

 

[faithalone1]

And since everyone disagrees about what the teachings are there can only be two possibilities:

1. The Holy Spirit preserved one Church in the truth and empowreres Her clergy to teach it.
2. The Holy Spirit has abandoned humanity entirely and we are to fend for ourselves.

You go with (2) and I pity you for it.

option 3: Jesus Sent the advocate as he promised, to write the law of God into the Hearts of all believers. has nothing to do with clergy or “succesion” 12 apostles fufilled a prophecy and served as a foundation. There were No “successors” as Catholics see it.

 

[Cat_Herder]

option 3: Jesus Sent the advocate as he promised, to write the law of God into the Hearts of all believers. has nothing to do with clergy or “succesion” 12 apostles fufilled a prophecy and served as a foundation. There were No “successors” as Catholics see it.

Explain then why no one agrees on what that heart written law is.

 

[JonNC]

And since everyone disagrees about what the teachings are there can only be two possibilities:

1. The Holy Spirit preserved one Church in the truth and empowreres Her clergy to teach it.
2. The Holy Spirit has abandoned humanity entirely and we are to fend for ourselves.

Third choice: The Spirit preserves the truth as one Church, unified only in the Church Triumphant, not because He has abandoned humanity, but sadly because humankind, blinded by sin, often does not hear His truth.

Jon

 

[faithalone1]

explain then why no one agrees on what that heart written law is.

pride.

 

[JonNC]

option 3: Jesus Sent the advocate as he promised, to write the law of God into the Hearts of all believers. has nothing to do with clergy or “succesion” 12 apostles fufilled a prophecy and served as a foundation. There were No “successors” as Catholics see it.

And yet, our confessions say this:

The Fourteenth Article, in which we say that in the Church the administration of the Sacraments and Word ought to be allowed no one unless he be rightly called, they receive, but with the proviso that we employ canonical ordination. Concerning this subject we have frequently testified in this assembly that it is our greatest wish to maintain church-polity and the grades in the Church [old church-regulations and the government of bishops], even though they have been made by human authority [provided the bishops allow our doctrine and receive our priests]. **For we know that church discipline was instituted by the Fathers, in the manner laid down in the ancient canons, with a good and useful intention. **

Jon

 

[JonNC]

Going back to the original question. I would say that the CC went off track when they started seeing themselves as the “true” church. Apostolic Succession is a TRADITION and there is NO proof that the Apsotles passed on anything outside of teachings. The Apostles were a foundation built to fufill a prophecy. They didn’t have “sucessors” as Catholcis say. Jesus Christ in Mark 9-38-40 rebukes his own apostles for wanting to silence an “outsider” for driving out demons. looks like the outsider was equal in power and validity to the apostles, wasn’t “IN” their church and was approved By JESUS CHRIST himself. THERE is no physical/denominational “true” church. Its an invisible church of true believers being led by the “advocate” that Jesus said he would send in Acts. JC himself gave the outsider in mark 9-38-40 equal status. there is no "True church".

And yet, our confessions say this:

Article VII: Of the Church.

1] Also they teach that one holy Church is to continue forever. The Church is the congregation of saints, in which the Gospel is rightly taught and the Sacraments are rightly administered.

2] And to the true unity of the Church it is enough to agree concerning the doctrine of the Gospel and 3] the administration of the Sacraments. Nor is it necessary that human traditions, that is, rites or ceremonies, instituted by men, should be everywhere alike. 4] As Paul says: One faith, one Baptism, one God and Father of all, etc. Eph. 4:5-6.

Surely, it is visable where the Gospel is rightly taught and the sacraments rightly administered.

If there is no true Church, what of the Church Triumphant?

Jon

 

[Cat_Herder]

pride.

Third choice: The Spirit preserves the truth as one Church, unified only in the Church Triumphant, not because He has abandoned humanity, but sadly because humankind, blinded by sin, often does not hear His truth.

Both of you are, unfortunately, asserting that God is incapable of accomplishing His Will of offering knowledge of the truth and salvation to everyone (1 Tim 2:3-4) because of human sin; since sin is the work of the devil, there is implicit in your position a theory that the devil is able to frustrate the will of God, a theory which I cannot and do not share.

 

[JonNC]

Both of you are, unfortunately, asserting that God is incapable of accomplishing His Will of offering knowledge of the truth and salvation to everyone (1 Tim 2:3-4) because of human sin; since sin is the work of the devil, there is implicit in your position a theory that the devil is able to frustrate the will of God, a theory which I cannot and do not share.

No, Cat, what I am asserting is that God does accomplish His will, but not at the expense of our free will. Knowledge of the truth is readily available, but himankind is not always capable of hearing it, or at least properly understanding it.
God’s will is not frustrated by the devil. The fact that the Spirit is* leading* is an important point. It is not a finite, already led statement. Leading is an active thing, ongoing,and continuing until the time of His return. We see this today, Christians of various communions working together, with the leading of the Holy Spirit, to bring His Church Militant back to unity.

Jon