Protestants, when did the Catholic Church go bad?

[Graehame]

Incidentally, Radical, I omitted to mention the strongest argument that 1 Clement wasn’t a mere “exhortation of 1 co-equal church to another”, & that is the manner in which it was received by the Corinthians.
The automatic human reaction to being “exhorted” by someone with no authority to do so is to say, possibly just to oneself, "Who is this clown & why should he think I’m gonna answer to him?" But the Corinthians didn’t receive it that way.
Instead, they immediately obeyed. Eusebius records that they read 1 Clement from their pulpits for the next 200 years, & it was proposed & seriously considered for inclusion in the canon of the NT. Strong evidence that the Corinthians regarded the letter as possessing considerable authority.

 

[Gray_Clouds]

I have been struggling with questions as these my whole adult life.
For me the politics of church and state are interesting to ponder but they are not the central issues to my faith.
Love your neighbor as youself.

Find comfort and direction where you will but cause no discomfort doing it.
Unless directed by the Almighty God, our creator .
The Mysteries will be with us for now… on our earthly journey to heaven.
Find Peace within and it may grow outward.

 

[CopticChristian]

LS,
I pick up a widow and take her to church on Sunday morning and evening. She lives in the basement apartment at her son’s home … who lives with his girlfriend (that Marie loudly, strongly disapproves of) … but last week her son, for the first time ever, asked his mom to pray for him. (They will know we are Christians by our love). She spends lots of time at Pioneer Courthouse Square here in Portland OR, She calls it Portland’s living room because so many homeless people spend so much time there. Hundreds of people know Marie by her first name. And every time she goes downtown people approach her and ask her to pray for them … or some situation that they are going through. A few weeks ago she prayed for a tweaker (crack addict) that she sees on the square once in a while. Two days later she came up to Marie and said … Miss Marie Please pray for me again… I dont want that feeling to leave… It is awesome and it has been with me for three days. I dont even want to get high anymore… Now … people, Christians that I am good friends with… When they first meet Marie… they think that she is valueless. What I mean by that … She doesnt seem to be the kind of person that has much to offer. She is as plain as can be. She is very simple in the way she expresses herself. She has absolutely no sense of fashion… she looks like she shops at goodwill and she probably could do with a new set of teeth. But she has incredible love for Jesus. I mean … INCREDIBLE!! … And she has an innate wisdom that just makes me smile. She tells me stories about how Jesus leads her into conversations and confusing situations … and then he works through her simple faith and love to change peoples lives. Its amazing. She is an incessant chatterbox… spills her coffee in my truck. plays Christian music way too loud on her cheap cricket phone and she drives me nuts with her constant chatter when Im driving. It can wear a strong man out!! But she is a dynamo.
She literally gives anything and everything she has to the street people… and her simple, pure love and sincerity are infectious. She lives where the rubber meets the road.
All of the bickering around here is … Just that.
Marie wouldnt even understand … let alone care about all the stuff people argue about around here …
**… but she will walk the streets of gold one day and Jesus will hug her and smile with delight as he says … Well Done!!! **
Marie has a heart after God… and God has a heart after Marie.
Marie… IS Christianity… Walking, talking, breathing Christ.

All this other stuff … is just that…
. stuff.

I would frame this as

I hope that she will walk the streets of gold one day and I hope that Jesus will hug her and smile with delight as she works out her salvation with fear and trembling.

 

[johnjay01]

because we have 2000 years of tradition & the Apostolic Succession to rely upon. With all due respect,

*The first 600 years is common to all types of Christianity and is not “yours” exclusively.
The "Roman Church did not exist as an over all governing body till the time of Charlemagne. And then Control was more political than anything to do with Jesus Christ.
*

all you have is your own fallible human reasoning & that of your Reformation leaders.

*This is all any of us have. Asserting spirituality, or infallibility is just that an assertion. So kindness on your part unless you are going to prove it by force of arms.
*

… post-Apostolic Church, but you evade like the plague their most telling points & focus only on the arguments … .

There is validity to your claim but your attacks on the character and person of your opposition weaken your apologia. Infant Baptism is an easy questions to settle historically. Read Acts 10, 11, 15 and then read a good exegeses like say F. F. Bruce.

call itself Catholic,

*This is an ignorant argument as we all share in the early church and the church always referred to itself as catholic - that is as “universal”. There is a difference between the Church Universal and the Roman Catholic Church. The former is an institution and the latter is a gift. It could be that they are the same but the institution is a political entity.
*

that it repudiated the majority of beliefs that are peculiar to Protestantism, & that the Bishop of Rome even probably exercised supreme jurisdiction within the lifetime of the Apostles, would that not end the discussion?

This shows your very selective and self serving reading. The Council of Chalcedon found that the see of Rome was a Patriarch no different from the other Patriarchs. That is the Bishop of Rome was the same as the other Bishops and held no Supreme jurisdiction.
If you find that the Holy Spirit found and settled the “Two Natures” (Monophysitism) controversy at Chalcedon acting infallibly then all the tenets (text/sections) must be accepted in the report. Eutychian affair were handled there as well in favor of Pope Leo. The patriarchs and bishops were quite clear in the matter.
One more thing… how can something be refuted when it did not exist (Protestantism) at the time you claim it was refuted?

No-- because you would reject the evidence.

So there is irrefutable evidence of the Early catholic Church through its Bishops refuting your claim. Will you reject it?

Note that I don’t even say that these things can be proven beyond any possibility of a doubt, because they cannot.

Well, some of them are black an white and they exist as expressed. You may argue they are invalid but you cannot do away with them.

David J. Webster, a former fundamentalist Baptist Pastor who converted, sums it up, "I (have) found over 40 clear references to distinctly Catholic tenets of faith in the 135 year period immediately following the New Testament era…(A.D.100-235).

this is so silly as to be laughable. Roman Catholicism did not exist during the time you sight!

Protestantism then is not only based on misunderstanding & misinterpretation of Scripture, but ignorance of the plain facts of history."

*Again you make such a broad, sweeping claim that is not supported anywhere where serious scholarship is being done. Based on my readings of the Pope’s monographs, I am not sure he would agree with you either.
where did you get this stuff? *

But returning to my key point, St. Ignatius of Antioch, … In his Letter to the … Clearly he expected his readers to understand exactly what he meant, as if the expression was already in common use.

*This is all very true, and it is true that protestants have an agenda and seek to weaken the argument on church polity by ignoring Ignatius most notably the Calvanist writers. Again your argument on the word “Catholic” is beyond silly, please stop using it.

You would do well to remember that “many” Church Fathers spoke on polity. Ignatius was the earliest but not the last nor the most influential. And they did not agree. Monarchism did not come about for almost two hundred years after Ignatius.
One must remember that Roman Catholic Apologists use Ignatius becasue it reinforces their argument while ignoring those of equal stature as Church Fathers that weaken the same argument.
*

Clearly Ignatious is speaking in his letters of Catholic bishops

.

of course they were catholic …part of the universal church but they were not ROMAN CATHOLIC as it did n ot exist as a sect.

Lastly, may I suggest that you let the Holy Spirit do some of the work. Present your case as a seed and allow God’s grace to water and grow it. Calling people names and attacking them will not stimulate dialogue.

Have a God filled day,

Jay

 

[CopticChristian]

*The first 600 years is common to all types of Christianity and is not “yours” exclusively.
The "Roman Church did not exist as an over all governing body till the time of Charlemagne. And then Control was more political than anything to do with Jesus Christ.
*

*This is all any of us have. Asserting spirituality, or infallibility is just that an assertion. So kindness on your part unless you are going to prove it by force of arms.
*

There is validity to your claim but your attacks on the character and person of your opposition weaken your apologia. Infant Baptism is an easy questions to settle historically. Read Acts 10, 11, 15 and then read a good exegeses like say F. F. Bruce.

*This is an ignorant argument as we all share in the early church and the church always referred to itself as catholic - that is as “universal”. There is a difference between the Church Universal and the Roman Catholic Church. The former is an institution and the latter is a gift. It could be that they are the same but the institution is a political entity.
*

This shows your very selective and self serving reading. The Council of Chalcedon found that the see of Rome was a Patriarch no different from the other Patriarchs. That is the Bishop of Rome was the same as the other Bishops and held no Supreme jurisdiction.
If you find that the Holy Spirit found and settled the “Two Natures” (Monophysitism) controversy at Chalcedon acting infallibly then all the tenets (text/sections) must be accepted in the report. Eutychian affair were handled there as well in favor of Pope Leo. The patriarchs and bishops were quite clear in the matter.
One more thing… how can something be refuted when it did not exist (Protestantism) at the time you claim it was refuted?

So there is irrefutable evidence of the Early catholic Church through its Bishops refuting your claim. Will you reject it?

Well, some of them are black an white and they exist as expressed. You may argue they are invalid but you cannot do away with them.

this is so silly as to be laughable. Roman Catholicism did not exist during the time you sight!

*Again you make such a broad, sweeping claim that is not supported anywhere where serious scholarship is being done. Based on my readings of the Pope’s monographs, I am not sure he would agree with you either.
where did you get this stuff? *

*This is all very true, and it is true that protestants have an agenda and seek to weaken the argument on church polity by ignoring Ignatius most notably the Calvanist writers. Again your argument on the word “Catholic” is beyond silly, please stop using it.

You would do well to remember that “many” Church Fathers spoke on polity. Ignatius was the earliest but not the last nor the most influential. And they did not agree. Monarchism did not come about for almost two hundred years after Ignatius.
One must remember that Roman Catholic Apologists use Ignatius becasue it reinforces their argument while ignoring those of equal stature as Church Fathers that weaken the same argument.
*

.

of course they were catholic …part of the universal church but they were not ROMAN CATHOLIC as it did n ot exist as a sect.

Lastly, may I suggest that you let the Holy Spirit do some of the work. Present your case as a seed and allow God’s grace to water and grow it. Calling people names and attacking them will not stimulate dialogue.

Have a God filled day,

Jay

One question I would ask is this…if you believe that the Roman Catholic Church did not exist in the time frame you say…

Whatever existed, whatever it was called…when the name applied to it “Roman Catholic”…whatever it was that existed was the same and not changed by the name.

Naming something does not change the nature of that entity that is named. It exists apart from the name and when the name is applied it is then spoken of as understood by all to mean whatever it is named.

There is a virus that exists. It lived in Africa. It has caused illness and death. It became recognized and its route of transfer is more understood. It is called the Human Immune Virus. Naming it did not change the nature of the virus that caused the illness. It existed before its name. We now speak of it and know where it came from, how it was transmitted and how it has become a scourge.

When I say the word “AIDS” today while it may have meant nothing 200 years ago, it has meaning today describing what is commonly understood today. What is named has not changed. We just named it, that is all.

 

[Bernadette173]

Speaking For myself as a Protestant Christian i can offer a response. I personally don’t/can’t see the Catholic church as infallable nor as having any kind of supreme authority. The Catholic church had a monolpoly of power over Christianity for 1500 years for various reasons.The CC like any other church is fallible and makes mistakes. With the Reformation we also saw the printing press and spread of the bible to more people. once more people could actually read the word they saw the Christian Faith in a different light.Protestants just dont see the Pope or CC as having any special authority beyond any other church.

The CC teaching on Salvation was questioned and that helped spark the Reformation IMO.To me , the CC has always been wrong in regards to salvation and its view on itself as being infallible along with the bible.(sola scriptura is my belief). Yes the CC transcribed,cannonized the Word for all of us, thank you. But since that point we have seen a lot of man-made corruption, that to me,shows the CCs to be in error. The CC teachings(especially on salvation, and authority) were largely unchallenged because people had little access to scripture prior to the printing press. The CC monopoly on christianity was lost forever because of the printing press and the conviction of the great Reformer Martin Luther. The CC was as much of a poliitcal force as religious IMO and acted as such.This led to the Reformation. Power Corrupts, and absolute power corrupts absolutely. To me, that sums up a lot of CC history. I’ve always believed that the church of christ is a body of believers, not a group of churches overseen by a supreme bishop. I could never accept a church, tradition,teaching magesterium, or man here as infallible.

Catholics do a lot of good in the world and that doesn’t go unnoticed. and despite our differences on certain theological issues, a lot of good can be done.And i will say that a lot of confusion followed after Martin Luther. I see a LOT of negatives on the Protestant side, but it doesn’t change the truth of the Reformation IMO. So the CC has always been fallible and makes mistakes. But all faithful followers of Christ make up the “true” church IMO…

Faithalone1,
It is not the Bishops or Pope who are to blame. The Catholic Church was started by Christ, not the Popes or bishops. Misinterpretation is the err in decernment in Sola Scriptura. It is contradictory to accept the Bible, but reject the authority of the CC that gave it to the Protestant people, and preserved it word for word for them.** It goes against the Bible** Scripture tells us that Christ left a Church with divine authority
to govern in Hisname(Mt 16:13-20, 18:18;Lk 10:16), that the Church would last until the end of time(Jn 14:16), and that Sacred Tradition is to be followed alongside Sacred Scripture. (2 Thess 2:15, 3:6).
It is not the CC that is in error, but those who do not understand Her teachings. It goes against History The history of the Bible was given to the Catholic Church through its forefathers/prophets and Jesus Himself. The Bible atteests that it was the CC exercising its Apostolic authority that determined what is and is not Scripture. And that we need the CC to tell us what belongs in the Bible. (1 Tm. 3:15) And ** It goes against common sense.** Any written document that is meant to play a crucial role in how a group of people are to live, must have a living authority to guard, guarantee and officially interpret it. Otherwise chaos and confusion reign and everyone interprets for him/herself to their own personal whim what they want out of the documents given them. The Bible without the Pope, Cardinals and Catholic Council of Bishops is like the Constitution of the United States without the Supreme Court to govern and interpret, guarantee and guard the laws provided by our founding fathers of the USA.

 

[Isaiah45_9]

Faithalone1,
It is not the Bishops or Pope who are to blame. The Catholic Church was started by Christ, not the Popes or bishops. Misinterpretation is the err in decernment in Sola Scriptura. It is contradictory to accept the Bible, but reject the authority of the CC that gave it to the Protestant people, and preserved it word for word for them.** It goes against the Bible** Scripture tells us that Christ left a Church with divine authority
to govern in Hisname(Mt 16:13-20, 18:18;Lk 10:16), that the Church would last until the end of time(Jn 14:16), and that Sacred Tradition is to be followed alongside Sacred Scripture. (2 Thess 2:15, 3:6).
It is not the CC that is in error, but those who do not understand Her teachings. It goes against History The history of the Bible was given to the Catholic Church through its forefathers/prophets and Jesus Himself. The Bible atteests that it was the CC exercising its Apostolic authority that determined what is and is not Scripture. And that we need the CC to tell us what belongs in the Bible. (1 Tm. 3:15) And ** It goes against common sense.** Any written document that is meant to play a crucial role in how a group of people are to live, must have a living authority to guard, guarantee and officially interpret it. Otherwise chaos and confusion reign and everyone interprets for him/herself to their own personal whim what they want out of the documents given them. The Bible without the Pope, Cardinals and Catholic Council of Bishops is like the Constitution of the United States without the Supreme Court to govern and interpret, guarantee and guard the laws provided by our founding fathers of the USA.

Sounds like wanting the government out of our business but sticking around for when we need help…
and our Constitution is being picked apart little by little… :hammering:

What seems to escape most anti-catholics is that the Church is not named the Petrine Church - after one man, or has the name of one of the Sacraments, or has the name of a doctrine.

It is universally Catholic.

In Him.

 

[johnjay01]

One question I would ask is this…if you believe that the Roman Catholic Church did not exist in the time frame you say…

Whatever existed, whatever it was called…when the name applied to it “Roman Catholic”…whatever it was that existed was the same and not changed by the name.

 

[Isaiah45_9]

This is the REAL problem with all this “my denomination” vanity: you are ALL CHRISTIANS! yes, I was yelling.
You are all supposedly followers of Christ. All supposedly living your life as a reflection of God’s Grace, the Holy Spirit’s leadership and the generosity of Jesus the Christ’s sacrifice.
Yet all I see in the face of the tremendous generosity of God Grace is “mine is bigger than yours” and “I am right and you are wrong” and “your stupid and I am not”.

 

[stewstew03]

johnjay01;9122643:

Dude,

:compcoff:

We are debating. That doesn’t mean we hate each other, well, I can only speak for myself really, but you get what I mean. I know it gets heated at times and there are better ways of typing a message, you know… like… NOT SCREAMING

We expose ideas and those ideas get challenged. You win some and you lose some.

In the end it all comes down to what the great circle glasses dudester said:

All you need is love! ta ta da da da

Peace man!

Right on…:hey_bud:

 

[Cat_Herder]

*This is an ignorant argument as we all share in the early church and the church always referred to itself as catholic - that is as “universal”. There is a difference between the Church Universal and the Roman Catholic Church. The former is an institution and the latter is a gift. It could be that they are the same but the institution is a political entity. *

So much for God willing all men to be saved and come to knowledge of the truth then.

 

[Bballer32]

From that group, came the Coptic, Byzantine Eastern Church, and the Western Church, the Ecumenicists, the Baptists, Evangelicals, Lutherans, Roman Catholics.

Before the Denominations… there was Evangelicals

Before the Evangelicals… there was Lutherans

Before the Lutherans… there was the Coptics and the Orthodox

Before the Coptics and the Orthodox… there was the (Roman) Catholic Church
Before the Catholic Church… there was the Apostles and Jesus Christ!!!

Idk about you but ALL yes ALL of you denominations had roots to an older faith which had roots to the Catholic Faith which came by Jesus Christ!! You can believe it or not, but the truth hurts sometimes.

(Click on Roman to get the background of the name)

 

[Cat_Herder]

Before the Denominations… there was Evangelicals

Before the Evangelicals… there was Lutherans

Before the Lutherans… there was the Coptics and the Orthodox

Before the Coptics and the Orthodox… there was the (Roman) Catholic Church
Before the Catholic Church… there was the Apostles and Jesus Christ!!!

Idk about you but ALL yes ALL of you denominations had roots to an older faith which had roots to the Catholic Faith which came by Jesus Christ!! You can believe it or not, but the truth hurts sometimes.

(Click on Roman to get the background of the name)

Indeed, and let’s prove it.

Why do all of your churches have church buildings, rock bands, etc. when Jesus said:

[BIBLEDRB]Matthew 6:6[/BIBLEDRB]

This is where the Apostles worshipped:
[BIBLEDRB]Acts 2:46[/BIBLEDRB]
In other words, they worshiped only at home and at the Jewish Temple which no longer exists.

Your church building is not in the Bible.

You got your church building from the Catholic Church. It is one of the many pieces of Sacred Tradition that made it through your sola-scriptura Beeldenstorm. By having a church building you are acknowledging the Catholic Church as authoritative.

If you really want to practice sola scriptura…
[BIBLEDRB]Acts 2:44[/BIBLEDRB]
… then you can start by selling that church building (and all of your personal possessions, like the computer you’re staring at right now) and giving the money to the poor.

 

[CopticChristian]

This is the REAL problem with all this “my denomination” vanity: you are ALL CHRISTIANS! yes, I was yelling.
You are all supposedly followers of Christ. All supposedly living your life as a reflection of God’s Grace, the Holy Spirit’s leadership and the generosity of Jesus the Christ’s sacrifice.
Yet all I see in the face of the tremendous generosity of God Grace is “mine is bigger than yours” and “I am right and you are wrong” and “your stupid and I am not”.

 

[Cat_Herder]

This is the REAL problem with all this “my denomination” vanity:

for those who cannot speak for themselves.authoritatively

 

[1voice]

Marie wouldnt even understand … let alone care about all the stuff people argue about around here …
… but she will walk the streets of gold one day and Jesus will hug her and smile with delight as he says … Well Done!!!
Marie has a heart after God… and God has a heart after Marie.
Marie… IS Christianity… Walking, talking, breathing Christ.

All this other stuff … is just that…

I would frame this as

I hope that she will walk the streets of gold one day and I hope that Jesus will hug her and smile with delight as she works out her salvation with fear and trembling.

LOL!! … Sister Mary Cancius used the same color ink when she corrected my paper.

 

[CopticChristian]

Marie wouldnt even understand … let alone care about all the stuff people argue about around here …
… but she will walk the streets of gold one day and Jesus will hug her and smile with delight as he says … Well Done!!!
Marie has a heart after God… and God has a heart after Marie.
Marie… IS Christianity… Walking, talking, breathing Christ.

All this other stuff … is just that…

LOL!! … Sister Mary Cancius used the same color ink when she corrected my paper.

Did you pass or fail?

 

[Cat_Herder]

… Miss Marie Please pray for me again…

Are you going to to tell her to stop asking Marie for her prayers when she has passed on to be with the Lord? If so, then give us book, chapter and verse where the Bible says you have to stop asking for her prayers. Oh, and you are not allowed to call her dead because Jesus took care of that thing called death.

 

[Cat_Herder]

so what is your point? Is it that since the good thief went to paradise, baptism can’t be essential…is it that since the kids had the kingdom w/o baptism, then baptism isn’t necessary for the kingdom…makes sense, doesn’t it?

We aren’t claiming that baptism is essential for everyone, only that it is essential for those who have recourse to it. Grace is absolutely essential and baptism is the ordinary (not the exclusive) means of initial grace.

Judas was a kid once, wasn’t he? Did he lose or retain the kingdom that he had as a kid? …you do the math.

Did that occur because of his actions (see Heb. 10:26-29) or because of him hitting a certain age?

The rest of your reply is unintelligible.

 

[Cat_Herder]

I believe that the lords supper is SYMBOLIC of our continual spiritual nourishment in Jesus Christ as our savior. Baptism is SYMBOLIC in our death and rebirth into the body of Jesus Christ. but these were instututed by Jesus Christ and we are responsible as Christians to follow them.

Do you think that a marriage ritual is symbolic? Or does it cause an actual change in the standing of the spouses before God by TAKING AWAY THEIR SIN of fornication?

What is mentioned more often by Jesus: marriage or baptism? Marriage or the Lord’s Supper?

Does Jesus say you have to be married to be saved, or does He say you have to be baptized to be saved?

Does Jesus say you have to be married to have life, or eat His Flesh and drink His Blood to have life?