Protestants, when did the Catholic Church go bad?

[vera_dicere]

I only skimmed the topic, so apologies if anyone has stated this.

As a Catholic, I find questions to Protestants about when teh “Catholic” church went bad, or veered off to be rather assinine. I mean no insult, but what, do you want to follow the Church started by Jesus Christ - the Catholic Church, or do you want to follow a Church that was created by a fat british monarch who wanted a divorce? - as an example. Yeah, the Catholic Church has done some naughty things in the past, but that is part and parcle of being a Church full of humans.

Then you look at the various Protestant churches, they can’t even agree amongst themselves on certain doctrines that should be foundational. There’s even some Christians who dont’ even beleive Christ rose from the dead!

I find the whole us vs. them and reasons for/against to be quite amusing.

I guess what I’m saying, particuarly to Protestants, don’t throw rocks in glass houses.

 

[AnglicanForMary]

I only skimmed the topic, so apologies if anyone has stated this.

As a Catholic, I find questions to Protestants about when teh “Catholic” church went bad, or veered off to be rather assinine. I mean no insult, but what, do you want to follow the Church started by Jesus Christ - the Catholic Church, or do you want to follow a Church that was created by a fat british monarch who wanted a divorce? - as an example. Yeah, the Catholic Church has done some naughty things in the past, but that is part and parcle of being a Church full of humans.

Well, technically, I suppose what my former fat English monarch (Britain as a concept didn’t exist until the Act of Union of the Crowns of England and Scotland) wanted was not so much a divorce as a viable MALE heir (I thought his theological argument for the invalidity of the dispensation that allowed him to marry his brother’s widow was accurate and convincing myself), and we could note that the English ‘Reformation’ (or maybe ‘Reformulation’ is a better word? unlike the Lutheran, Calvinist/Reformed, or radical Anabaptist movements was (yeah we won’t go into the whole John Knox-Oliver Cromwell/Civil War thing here ) was primarily a statist reformation, not theology driven. The Dissolution of the Monasteries was a political and economic facade directed by Thomas Cromwell at Henry’s behest. Even the Elizabethan Settlement and Articles of Religion was designed not to set out any unique doctrines but existed primarily as a political statement designed to keep out the extremes of Dissent or Romanism. The fact that Harry was a fat, asinine, closet totalitarian who yet himself cleaved to all the pre-reformation dogmas of the church, and who was no slouch theologically speaking just says that the Church is ever composed of sinners while remaining the Bride of Christ .

This then, leads me to to note that in my opinion, part of why Protestants tend to greedily look for “The Point” where the (Roman) Catholic Church veered from the straight and narrow and to look askance at “grubby” reaching for temporal political power on the part of the hierachy, -and which was partly addressed by the saintly John Paul the Great and his apologies, was a seemingly consistent refusal on the part of higher clergy to admit of abuses by the clergy for large portions of the church’s history, the refusal to admit that Councils could err in matters of doctrine, an inability to separate the clerical office from the people in the office, and the occasional conflation and (mis)identification of the Church on Earth as the Kingdom of God (as though the Church Herself had no sinners inside Her divine society), along with a confusion of the roles of the civil power and the ecclesiastical power in Medieval Christendom. (So does this mean that I should aim for the Church History Concentration or the Dogmatic Theology concentration when I begin my M.A. in Theology at Holy Apostles College and Seminary Distance Learning program?)…

In short, the perception that the Church -as represented by clergy- was not willing to admit when it made mistakes is a prime motivator in Protestant ‘hatred’ of the “Whore of Babylon”. Its interesting that the vast majority of reformations in the the Church’s history prior to the Protestant Reformation were always a reformation of morals, and almost always directed at the clergy and religious

 

[AnglicanForMary]

So, to summarize the summary…it all comes down to personality and person in the Church giving the Church a bad name. Protestants then work backwards from the visible character of a person and church to asking how the teaching of the Church allows such persons to thrive in the Church, coming to the conclusions that the doctrines themselves are wrong, pig-headed, and nonScriptural…yadda yadda yadda.

 

[andrewstx]

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.

I remember a time not too long ago when the Episcopal church had close communion.

If you weren’t confirmed in the Episcopal church you were denied at the rail.

This was in nthe 70s when the ECUSA got very liberal, began ordaining women and people started leaving, for the Catholic, Orthodox and fundamental churches.

 

[andrewstx]

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.

Are you not aware that Lutherans exist in Scandanavia that do believe in Apostolic Succession and have bishops?

There are also non MS synods that teach AS and have bishops.

 

[stewstew03]

In short, the perception that the Church -as represented by clergy- was not willing to admit when it made mistakes is a prime motivator in Protestant ‘hatred’ of the “Whore of Babylon”. Its interesting that the vast majority of reformations in the the Church’s history prior to the Protestant Reformation were always a reformation of morals, and almost always directed at the clergy and religious

Not willing to admit “mistakes”? Are you familiar with the Council of Trent?

 

[GaryTaylor]

So, to summarize the summary…it all comes down to personality and person in the Church giving the Church a bad name. Protestants then work backwards from the visible character of a person and church to asking how the teaching of the Church allows such persons to thrive in the Church, coming to the conclusions that the doctrines themselves are wrong, pig-headed, and nonScriptural…yadda yadda yadda.

Then the question is which Doctrine and how so? Perhaps the only wrong is the comprehension and understanding one has of a particular doctrine.

The there in nothing non-scriptural or not in line with oral tradition in any doctrine on Morals and Faith. This becomes the issue of those who choose not to undertake the task of the reading required to reach the truth, thus sola-scriptura reading on not only Bible but Doctrine.

Simply put one shouldn’t comdemn what they do not understand, perhaps it would be the better path to say I do not understand.

To say men make errors and have made errors over the centurys by straying from sacred teaching, is a known. And everyone could reach their hand in that pot and grab a handful of the blame.

Doesn’t mean Protestanism has found the objective truth, obvious fact as we look around the West, it just means here we stand today as usual in division.

Peace

 

[Luvtosew]

IN my humble opinion anyone receiving the Lords Supper should be taught what it is, why they are receiving and how they should receive it, with the upmost respect and not to receive if living in sin and not intending to repent and turn. All Churches should be teaching on this often in Mass or Church. This is an important sacrament and anyone receiving it needs to be fully aware of its significance.

It pretty much has to be up to the person, as many receive even in the Catholic Church, that shouldn’t. So I don’t now how the Priest or Pastor or anyone can say who can receive or not. That is why they need continual education on how and who should receive it. anyone going to a new church should visit that Church first and make sure that communion is not given in a manner not repectful of the Lord.

I dont know how any Church can fully monitor this, except in how they hold Holy Communion and to give frequent instruction about it.

If a Church has closed communion a person needs to honor that and not receive at that Church if they are not a member.

 

[Lochias]

IN my humble opinion anyone receiving the Lords Supper should be taught what it is, why they are receiving and how they should receive it, with the upmost respect and not to receive if living in sin and not intending to repent and turn. All Churches should be teaching on this often in Mass or Church. This is an important sacrament and anyone receiving it needs to be fully aware of its significance.

It pretty much has to be up to the person, as many receive even in the Catholic Church, that shouldn’t. So I don’t now how the Priest or Pastor or anyone can say who can receive or not. That is why they need continual education on how and who should receive it. anyone going to a new church should visit that Church first and make sure that communion is not given in a manner not repectful of the Lord.

I dont know how any Church can fully monitor this, except in how they hold Holy Communion and to give frequent instruction about it.

If a Church has closed communion a person needs to honor that and not receive at that Church if they are not a member.

…did you post in the wrong thread?

 

[Luvtosew]

…did you post in the wrong thread?

Maybe I did, ignore my post in that case, sorry.

 

[pablope]

for something as VITAL as the CC claim of apostolic succession as they see it, you would think that there was some evidence. crickets…

In defending Catholicism, and defeating Gnosticism, St. Ireneus appealed to apostolic tradition for his defense…

calledtocommunion.com/2009/07/ecclesial-deism/

The second century Church faced this very challenge from Gnostics who claimed to have the true knowledge of the gospel. But the Church responded to this challenge by appealing to apostolic succession. St. Irenaeus refers to the Apostolic Tradition which is preserved by apostolic succession.42 These heretics, says St. Irenaeus, consent neither to Scripture nor to tradition. St. Irenaeus explains how the Apostolic Tradition was to be found, to whom it was entrusted, and how it was preserve

The Gnostics of the second century justified being separated from the Catholic Church by claiming that even the Apostles had perverted Christ’s teachings. St. Irenaeus (d. AD 200) writes:

But, again, when we refer [the heretics] to that tradition which originates from the apostles, [and] which is preserved by means of the succession of presbyters in the Churches, they object to tradition, saying that they themselves are wiser not merely than the presbyters, but even than the apostles, because they have discovered the unadulterated truth. For [they maintain] that the apostles intermingled the things of the law with the words of the Saviour; . . . It comes to this, therefore, that these men do now consent neither to Scripture nor to tradition.10

So, faithalone1…do you see yourself here…* they object to tradition, saying that they themselves are wiser not merely than the presbyters, but even than the apostles, because they have discovered the unadulterated truth.*…Does this describe you fairly accurately with your claims, doesn’t it?

And from Clement of Rome, a disciple of Peter and ordained by Peter…this is what he writes…CHAPTER 42 – THE ORDER OF MINISTERS IN THE CHURCH.

The apostles have preached the Gospel to us from the Lord Jesus Christ; Jesus Christ [has done sol from God. Christ therefore was sent forth by God, and the apostles by Christ. Both these appointments, then, were made in an orderly way, according to the will of God. Having therefore received their orders, and being fully assured by the resurrection of our Lord Jesus Christ, and established in the word of God, with full assurance of the Holy Ghost, they went forth proclaiming that the kingdom of God was at hand.** And thus preaching through countries and cities, they appointed the first-fruits [of their labours], having first proved them by the Spirit, to be bishops and deacons of those who should afterwards believe. Nor was this any new thing, since indeed many ages before it was written concerning bishops and deacons. For thus says the Scripture a certain place, “I will appoint their bishops s in righteousness, and their deacons in faith.”

earlychristianwritings.com/text/1clement-roberts.html

Being instructed directly by Peter, do you think Clement made a mistake in writing the about apostolic succession?

 

[JustaServant]

for something as VITAL as the CC claim of apostolic succession as they see it, you would think that there was some evidence. crickets…

The only crickets I hear are around you as you have yet to provide forensic evidence of WHEN the Catholic Church went “bad”.

 

[Luvtosew]

I just don’t know how we can assume that Jesus would build his Church on A man, I think he was standing on a Rock(huge) and was talking to all his apostles. And even after Jesus was resurrected, what did Peter do , he went fishing. Now Paul after his conversion, he began preaching right away, and he never faltered in faith, even tho he was not an eye witness to the life of Jesus.

 

[Eric_Hilbert]

Stay on the topic of the OP please

 

[JonNC]

It’s good to have the Orthodox represented on this thread as well.

I would say that the great-apostasy theory is inherent in Protestantism because if the Catholic and Orthodox Churches were not allegedly apostate the reformers would have nothing to reform. As we know, there was no apostasy and thus nothing to reform.

Again, Cat, apostasy is a complete rejection of the faith. Lutherans do not believe this about Catholics or the Orthodox, or even most protestant groups. If you want to say that we Lutherans believe that Catholicism, for example has errors mixed with truth, I’d agree. But that isn’t apostasy.

That there was nothing to reform is obviously something we disagree on. That said, our efforts ought and must be on reconciling our differences, as Christ calls for unity. If we reduce our words to calling each other apostate, heretic, and anti-Christ, then dialogue is impossible.

Jon

 

[JonNC]

Are you not aware that Lutherans exist in Scandanavia that do believe in Apostolic Succession and have bishops?

There are also non MS synods that teach AS and have bishops.

Thank you, Andrew, for mentioning this.

The Lutheran reformers believed in AS, though they viewed it as a tradition of the Church and not divine. As recently as 12 years ago, the ELCA joined in “Call inCommon Mission”, altar and pulpit fellowship with the TEC. In order for it to happen, ELCA clergy are now ordained into AS through Anglican lines (“dutch touch”, etc).

The Lutheran synods of the Porvoo Agreement are in apostolic succession, as well.

Whether or not Catholics recognize the validity of these lines of succession is not the point (they don’t), but to say Lutherans (should) reject AS is incorrect.

Thanks, again,

Jon

 

[Lochias]

Whether or not Catholics recognize the validity of these lines of succession is not the point (they don’t), but to say Lutherans (should) reject AS is incorrect.

Jon

Well, from the Catholic POV, Lutherans do reject apostolic succession, based on what you (I’m sure, by now) already know of how Catholics view the way AS was mandated by Christ himself.

In that context, it’s not incorrect to say at all. It would be like one person saying “Tacos come from Mexico”, while another says “Yes, Tacos come from Italy.” There is typically no confusion or hesitation along these lines for Catholics (who are well-versed in the teachings of their faith, at any rate).

 

[JonNC]

Well, from the Catholic POV, Lutherans do reject apostolic succession, based on what you (I’m sure, by now) already know of how Catholics view the way AS was mandated by Christ himself.

In that context, it’s not incorrect to say at all. It would be like one person saying “Tacos come from Mexico”, while another says “Yes, Tacos come from Italy.” There is typically no confusion or hesitation along these lines for Catholics (who are well-versed in the teachings of their faith, at any rate).

Lochias,
I see an understand your point. It would be correct to say that the Lutheran view of AS is somewhat different than the Catholic view, as layed out in the confessions, as I posted to faithalone1 a while back. The Evangelical Churches wanted their pastors ordained by the bishops. This was denied them, for reasns that are clearly known.
I would contend, however, that were reconciliation at hand between us, the issue of AS would be resolved.

Jon

 

[Eric_Hilbert]

The OPs topic please

 

[SteveVH]

Again, Cat, apostasy is a complete rejection of the faith. Lutherans do not believe this about Catholics or the Orthodox, or even most protestant groups. If you want to say that we Lutherans believe that Catholicism, for example has errors mixed with truth, I’d agree. But that isn’t apostasy.

That there was nothing to reform is obviously something we disagree on. That said, our efforts ought and must be on reconciling our differences, as Christ calls for unity. If we reduce our words to calling each other apostate, heretic, and anti-Christ, then dialogue is impossible.

Jon

Would you not agree that the Catholic Church has done some repairs on its own house (the abuse by some of selling indulgences, etc.) What, in your opinion, is yet to be reconciled and do these things involve doctrinal issues?

Thanks,

Steve